3 ms·
"Notice how stable it hovers. This exploits the natural stability of maple seeds" (erm.. I tried to quote as good as possible). And it seems to reduce the comp
by darklajid 15y ago
"Notice how stable it hovers. This exploits the natural stability of maple seeds" (erm.. I tried to quote as good as possible).
And it seems to reduce the complexity of the device itself a lot. One motor. One wing. I looked at it and thought "Wow! What a great and 'simple' (as in reduced) idea".
- Synthetase 15y agoIt's basically the simplest version of a helicopter possible where the entire craft is the rotor. It's pretty much impossible fly fixed wing UAVs indoors. This concept is pretty amazing.
- mhb 15y agoI read that too. I just don't believe it. I think a two wing version with the same dihedral angle would be just as stable. Their design might eliminate the "complexity" of one motor though maybe they can do two wings and one motor. Unclear whether the difficulty in controlling it (which they also mention) is worth the tradeoff. There is the gee whiz factor though.
- darklajid 15y agoI think the complexity in controlling it is due to the fact that the whole craft is rotating (where's the front..?). If you want to remove that complexity, you need to add a lot more than just another wing and add a number of mechanical parts that can fail. As it is right now, the whole complexity is the software (which should be safely stored). In addition, this design lends itself to small sizes in a great way. Shrink the center parts/electronics/, shrink the single wing and you get a very, very compact tool. Another wing nearly doubles the length of the whole thing.
- mhb 15y agoThe other wing would fold next to the first wing. Since there would be more wing area, the first wing could be made smaller. Not necessarily any additional moving parts needed.