4 ms·
Yeah, trading stackup for footprint. A smaller footprint is better for storage, but this is worse for flying by adding another point of failure to each arm.
by baseballmerpeak 11y ago
Yeah, trading stackup for footprint. A smaller footprint is better for storage, but this is worse for flying by adding another point of failure to each arm.
- x0054 11y agoOP here. I actually updated the blog to add another picture of the Foldy Quad vs. H Quad at 45 degree angle[1]. At 45 degree+ it does have a nice aerodynamic advantage. Of course, even cooler would be to encase the entire midsection into a ball, it could be like a tiny Death Star quad :) As for the additional point of failure, I do agree, in a crash, the plastic bolts holding on the arms snap, but I think that adds a little more protection to the motors, the arms, and the ESCs. I never had the screws come off mid flight. It does take longer to recover from a crash though, but plastic screws are cheep. [1] http://sdbr.net/img/foldy-2/fodly-v-hquad.jpg http://sdbr.net/img/foldy-2/fodly-v-hquad.jpg