ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- www.FPVCycle.com
Table of Contents:
00:00 - Intro
00:52 - Why consider anything but an X4?
01:37 - Justin Skinner's awesome videos
03:23 - Basic numbers breakdown
06:44 - Coaxial and thrust imbalance review
09:23 - Expected performance increase
10:52 - LOS flight
14:21 - Y6 FPV Flight
17:12 - X4 FPV Flight
20:32 - Final remarks
21:37 - More about the Y6 build
23:19 - More about the X4 frame
Motors: fpvcycle.com/collections/motors
23mm Tall in 1860kv were used on the Y6, not available (yet maybe)
Frames: bit.ly/3FgiIeN
The flight controller: bit.ly/3HjXmPu
That X4 frame at the end: bit.ly/3ncWjZC
MUSIC
The music came from one of our own in the industry and he's really good too:
udachi.bandcamp.com/album/los...
One of the more useful research papers I used on coaxial setup inefficiencies:
bit.ly/3FkZRiV
Summary:
The Y6 platform, when built to be as apples to apples as possible with an X4, will have a more solid 'footing' in the air, be able to maintain speed more efficiently and will have better control at speed. It's ability to maintain speed comes from it's ability to manage more load in general; it doesn't matter if that load comes from weight or moving quickly, load is load and it's got more props and motors.
Conclusion:
The Y6 and really anything with more motors/rotors will not have as high of a top speed and have worse 'throwability'/no throttle aero properties. All in all, the platform is useful for filming at speeds and very fun to fly but a bit more complicated than necessary to regularly fly for fun.
Stay tuned to www.FPVCycle.com. We've been working extremely hard on a bunch of new things.
▼Join the FB group for more discussion: FPVCycle - Kabab FPV
/ 379155946182689
▼ Tips?
Patreon: bit.ly/2oGLP9b
$1/mo from 1/4 of my subscribers will make me quit my job. Thank you
-PayPal: www.paypal.me/kababfpv
-Bitcoin: 1E4XZXoD4rS6MYWVWuenY7Kw2M1YgyNpoQ
-Nano: xrb_1188ek5bd7tb9kw67asnp9o65byuoaxbtpxuznx1ribf75x78awywmakj55f
-ETH: 0xD067F93811f2eC31CB1928901002dfdf9A492EF5
-LTC: La2KWYAjp4VT2Lq2M76pbjzXWvRyjpfCtG - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I remember when you taped up a quad to prove that the airflow in between the stack has an effect on performance. Now you're on a whole new level of innovation. It's insane that a passionate Dentist can do so much in his spare time. You and Chris Rosser working together is gonna shoot the hobby into the future
Some builds don't necessarily make sense, they're just too cool to pass up.
Took the words I came with to share. On point!
@@fourlovefpv9095 I've been thinking about a 3in Y6 ever since I watched this clip, Something fast with 1407s.
Your flight comparison between quad and Y6 was super insightful and I'm so glad you took the time and effort to do this testing!
This was super interesting. I appreciate all the hard work and effort you give to the hobby.
Great to see you back !!
Nice to see an upload from ya Bob 💯🙏🏼👌
This was very interesting, as your videos usually are! Thanks for putting the time and effort in, Bob!
I would recommend you try, if you haven’t already, all twin blades again but with a higher pitch prop on the bottom.
I believe that running the same pitch on the top and bottom of a coaxial setup could be the culprit of that “stuck in second gear” feeling you mentioned.
The relative airspeed seen by the bottom props is higher than the top prop, and with the RPM of the stack locked, the bottom prop is not working as intended.
Good luck with the development.
I always enjoy see your experiments.
You have more engineering sense than plenty of my actual engineer colleagues lol
Right. Engineering in the real world is different than on paper. I deal with this every day. The science helps but at the end of the day we're dealing with the world we live in. Not spreadsheets
I would recommend trying Geep's idea with higher pitch props on the bottom also, I know things are different in the real world but theoretically it does make sense, airplanes used much higher pitch props than quads because of the higher air speeds they tend to encounter constantly during flight. Just saying it's definitely worth trying.
@@jhughes2286 that is what I'm already doing in this video. The lower blades are higher pitch and triblade. If I had steeper twin blades I would put them on the bottom.
@@Kabab It's always hard to predict what's going to work best on a Y6 because the bottom blades see the motherload of randomly turbulent air. On a 5" Y6 I built a while back, I found that the then new "DAL Cyclone" something or others worked brilliantly, but my usual 2 blade bullnose blades made it almost unflyable....... It sounded interesting on these though. Quite an "Angry" sound. :D
@@Reman1975 this was likely a combination of vibrations along with the varied air pressure exasperating those vibrations. The noise however was probably just wicked 😅
Great to see you putting out innovative content again!
Great to see another vid from you, I love your insights into aerodynamics and just everything about drones 🙌
Thanks to your videos I passed my exam on aerodynamics: I used theories about prop size and pitch that I got from your videos and they got me through!
I am happy to hear that you are ok and I love the flight footage. I am so spoiled now.
Glad to see you back, Bob. There are so many dynamic components to the Y-6. Motor stagger, prop blade counts, oh my. But it seems that it fills a need...which is good!
Cutting edge, Wow so glad to see people in the hobby are pushing new ideas foward, Great vid Thanks!!!!
Can I just say that quad frame looks so good. Here comes the Y6 craze haha, please post more Bob I love your videos.
Been playing with this idea for high-wind setups, since i fly alot over the sea and done some kite/wind surfing chases in high wind. Nice to see some in-depth info!
That sounds like so much fun. Would it be inappropriate for me to ask you if you'd care to drop a link to one or two of those chases?
@@Nigfis th-cam.com/video/ezuOWJxL78I/w-d-xo.html that's one of em
Fantastic comeback, this a pretty thought provoking.
Yes! Love it. Glad your back.
Very interessting topic. Thanks for all the work you put in.
This is awesome brother. Great info 👍
BOB IS BACK !!! I haven't flossed in months Bob...Hope to start again..
Great to see you back! That Y6 looks like something that would work well for my remote control plane chasing. I have a hard time keeping up with the faster planes.
Yeah that's the whole point. It's not as fast but can move at speed more consistently for longer with better control.
Or go 7inch
@@jhughes2286 the next one is going to be a 7.5 in size frame
@@jhughes2286 Yup! Likely going 7 one of these days :)
@@Kabab That will be the new "it" class, I've always tried to squeeze 8inch props on 7inch frames and always felt like a little bigger than 7inch would be perfect for these heavier GoPro 10, 8000mah+ batteries we use on long range quads. This 7.5inch concept is gonna take off!
nice work dude I actually browsed your channel after also taking some time away from the hobby. so it was nice to stumble upon a new video from you in which you did not disappoint. I really like how you're always looking to improve things in the hobby and bring a lot of real world testing into the mix. cheers bud. also I only floss a couple of times a week but luckily im blessed in that I've never had a cavity in my 30 years of being alive and my gf is a hygienist so I hear it enough from her :)
😂 hopefully she instills the habit well.
Wait. What? A new video? Man you make that spot look awesome unlike me when I fly at the same spot. The Apollo field looks different too. Gonna have to go and check it out 👊🏻
omg,,,finally new video,,,i've been waiting news video on this good channel,,,tq sir
Welcome back, that new drone goes like crazy
Love what yah do Bobby!
I've been building (larger) Y6 on custom frames for a few years now, for no other reason than that they're neat looking & people always want to chat about what it is! :3
I don't know how I came across this video, but I'm glad I did! You did a great job explaining all your experimentation, and I love your approach to trying something "not normal" in the FPV realm because of the possible potential benefits. I'm not surprised you wound up with twins on top and tris on the bottom, as others have pointed out the incoming-airflow difference from top to bottom. I believe others have also suggested twins everywhere and higher pitch on the bottom. Definitely worth looking at for comparison to what you have.
Another suggestion if possible: Reverse the stagger you have now. Put the top motors BEHIND the bottom motors, so that when at-speed (craft tilted forward) the bottom blades have a 'better' chance at seeing more 'clean' air. Might improve efficiency, thrust, etc, might not. Just thought it's a possible variable to try.
You have the beginnings of a new configuration, and I think you're only at the tip of the iceberg. I think you've got a lot more optimizing to squeeze out of this platform, but I also think it could surprise you even more.
Great work!
I've got some guys in Sweden working on a thrust as tand to test coaxial setups. Also, the stagger is to keep the props out of view of the GoPro. Otherwise I would have done the stagger the other way for sure.
Man i kant wait to fly like that...badass bro keep up the kool videos
Pretty impressive... flying machine, Bob! 😃
Fantastic work! And fantastic flying!!!
Yeah, the prices are terrible right now... I really hope they come back to a more reasonable level...
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Glad your getting to fly again
I love the Y6 i like how it turns!! 💜
Now I'm very curious about Y6 7" (or 7.5" as you said) for long range flights. Because if this Y6 efficiency gain carries over to normal speeds, then we could get some impressive new LiIon multirotor LR distances. Still not like a wing, but more than we have now and maintain the tricks a multirotor can do.
It's not efficient in general. It's efficient specifically at higher load tasks.
@@Kabab so smaller motors more weight in Li-ion . Cruising 35mph or faster to mountain.. 7.5" be great
Keep Pushing!!!
Best day ever in the midwest is when it snows and Kabab posts a new vid
the sound is much cooler ;) nice to see a video again
if anything, i might have expected tri blade on top with twin blade higher pitch same load on the bottom
same load balances yaw and higher pitch on bottom helps with generating thrust in already sped up air
The ability to hold a high rate of speed that you seek in a quad form factor… 7” and up feels that way for me. I just love the way they cover ground. The 7” Y6 will be a sight to see. I’d build one of those just to haul ass from time to time.
That intro was 🔥
Looks pretty cool and fun 😎
WELCOME BACK!!! been busy! first video in nearly 6 month!
Nice setup. Always a pleasure to hear your opinion. Your rants are meaningful, particularly motor design and concept.. I’m on the hunt to learn more about motors and how to create a low torque low rpm motor. Tmotor -sells 1 for $2k it can lift 100kg. In time. I await your videos to come.
Really enjoy the experimenting you do. These kinds of videos always get me thinking, so here are some of my thoughts:
I think efficiency is very important for speed because higher efficiency means more power is turned into thrust (increasing speed) instead of being wasted, thus lowering the demands on the battery (which tends to be the performance bottleneck). I've found triblades to generally have worse top speed (especially with larger prop sizes like 6 inch), which makes sense because fewer blades is generally more efficient. However, it helps to go up in prop size when moving from triblades to twin blades to make up for the loss of blade area. Lack of blade area is probably why the Y6 flew poorly on 5 inch twin blades. I think twin blades with larger diameter and/or higher pitch would fix that and improve speed compared to the hybrid setup you arrived at in the video.
It is surprising to me that you got better flight times with the Y6. I would have thought that the inefficiencies of the coaxial motors would have caused worse flight times. My hypotheses on how the coaxial motor inefficiencies were offset:
- Lower drag due to fewer arms
- Higher efficiency of the one set of twin blades
- Props didn't have to spin as fast since there was lower blade loading compared to the X4. Props produce thrust more efficiently at lower rpm.
As you said, more motors/rotors will generally have worse top speed. I think a traditional tricopter with twin blades would be faster than the Y6 or X4. Less drag due to fewer arms, no coaxial motor efficiency loss, and the improved efficiency of twin blades. But then you are dealing with the added complexity of a tilting motor.
Tilting motors have never been useful on multirotors unless it's a cinema craft and you're giving it dihedral for stability. I didn't want to use triblades on this because of the reduced efficiency. I'm going with an X8 next and not planning on triblades. Planning on 7.5" on the bottom and 7" on top. The issue with going to larger blade sizes is that they are actually more draggy than a smaller size triblade because the diameter of the blade tends to have a lot of effect on drag. So the overall flight feel is dulled with the bigger blade. Having more blades on the craft however adds that control back in so you can get away with it. The fact that I was able to acheive better efficiency with the Y6 running triblades on the bottom is pretty shocking to me and I think the X8 with all twins and different kv motors will hopefully perform as planned with more efficient crushing at speed and better control vs a traditional 7" quad.
Years ago I built a 10" folding Y6 as a camera platform, I loved how that flew, but couldn't really go crazy when flying it, so I built a similar style folding 5" Y6 as a toy to chuck about when I had time, but would still pack away into a tiny space (Car glove box) when not in use. It was a simple design I thought up that just had a pair of triangular (Well..... More like "Elongated hexagons" TBH) carbon plates to sandwich the stubby 10mm alloy box section arms, with an oblong top plate mounted on rubber standoff to hold the flight/FPV electronics and an action cam. It was pretty robust, not excessively heavy, and it was easy to build without having to go to the expense of getting the plates CNCed or laser cut.
It wasn't particularly powerful by todays standards (only 6X 2204's on a 3S), but it flew really beautifully, and had the most predictable flight characteristics of anything I'd built before or since. It was outstanding for those days where the weather was great, and you just got the urge to take a detour on your way home from work and find somewhere to run a couple packs through it.
Unfortunately, I managed to crash it hard one day (Didn't QUITE clear the top bar of a chain link fence while going flat out. :( ), destroying the frame and one of the motors. This was after the UK had just started getting REALLY "Anti drone", and I'd already had a few heated encounters with over opinionated "Karens", so I put off rebuilding it. Then drone/pilot registration came in, and I just decided to ground my RC toys until I could see where all this new legislation was heading........ I haven't seen any improvements in the public/government attitude towards us yet, so I'm still not (Officially) back in the air. :(
Once the government prompts the mindless public to become outraged by some other harmless hobby, and this takes the heat off RC pilots, I'll have to see if there's a route to "Grandfather" all my old kit back into legal use, and THEN will be the time to "Rebuild" my old freestyle Y6....... Maybe as pocket sized 3" this time? :)
It looks sooo freking cool
welcome back :)
Very interesting!
muy pero que muy bueno tio !!!! ole ole y ole!!!
Y4: someone wrote about a Y4 - seems an interesting approach dealing with your weight imbalance. Why not have 2 strong single motors in front and a weaker coaxial pair in the back. And that combined with higher pitch on the back bottom prop because it gets already accelerated air. What impact could a shorter or longer back leg have?
That's a reasonable way to go too but since you already have the annoyance of a coaxial in the back I would just go with a hex because it's not such a big deal at that point. It is a reasonable option to test however.
I made one my of source ones into a y4 thru the week I posted it up on the TBS lounge I had 2507 1200kv motors 7inch props it was ok lacked thrust I got over it and turned it back into a quad again but I've mounted the motors underneath the arms and made it a pusher quad
Hell yeah brother!
Long time no see. Glad to see you are still playing around with weirdness
good job 🎥🔥🕹
Man that Y flies nice!...Thanks Bob for the 411...
What I was wondering, they look cool
Yaaaay Bob's back
so curious now as I just finished an event where I tried (and failed horribly) to chase stock cars on a nascar track. Ive got multiple more of these races coming up next year to film so this y6 is intetesting. What would you reccomend for maintaining the highest possible speed for the longest amount of time? especially in very dirty air from the wake of these cars
Having more blades to control will always help with dealing with dirty air. 5" will always handle dirty air better than any bigger blade too. But 5" just doesn't move fast enough at a steady pace.
The next thing I'm gonna try is actually building an X8 7" to test the two stage thrust theory. Considering this Y6 is shockingly more efficient than a quad when moving at a pace, I'm gonna see if I can get away with just typical 5" motors on a 7" X8 to acheive higher consistent speeds and improved control from a 7" craft using the same battery I would on a 7" quad. I'm moving to an X8 because I need the top blades as bottom blades to spin independent of one another. That way I can use different motors, props and/or kv on the bottom and it'll actually work properly instead of the FC compensating.
2:21 how does a tpu mount with that small of a connection to the frame not create bobbles in the footage
It looks small but it's pretty wide. It doesn't wobble at all.
Просто шикарное видео!
Автор ролика очень хорошо всё объяснил и показал. Отличная работа! Я как раз собираю 2 Y6 (980 и 680),уже пробую, но ты летаешь как Бог! А я так,учусь.
Спасибо большое и всего хорошего бро!
0:55 What is this capacitor board? It's really cool, does it replace a bigger capacitor like a 1000mF 35V? If it does it could enable some frames to fit the capacitor inside the frame instead of in the battery lead, like in the Fouride.
It's a TVS diode board with some caps on the sides. We have a custom TVS board with cap in production right now too. Much smaller than this one
HI MATE, im from the uk and have burnt out 2 escs on 2 crux 3 2s quads in wet grass can you recommend an aio board with motor plugs please?
😑 sorry to hear. Very annoying. I don't actually recommend any aio board. They're all too risky. We have a 25x25 mount FC and separate ESC at FPVcycle.com. It's just a little less risk of burning the whole thing together
This was great video, love the concept and innovation. It seems intuitively that the two extra motors are adding to the firm feel in the air by adding physical gyroscopic forces into the frame? (As in how a gyro can balance at any angle on the end of a string) Just my observation as I listened to how you described the flight feel.
It's easy to mistake the gyroscopic effect for what's actually happening with these crafts. In reality there's no gyroscopic effect going on. It's just maintenance of attitude by managing air. Having more controllable things with more controllable surface will always have more stability but at a cost.
I looked yesterday on the website, but couldnt find the frame. I would love to try this frame with the set of 2506 motors I got. Was going to put them on a glide, but since it's gonna be a dji quad, I was super interested in this frame. Are they still somewhere on the site?
The y6 isn't available and won't be available any time soon. The X4 with the new arms is available through a link in the video description.
whaaaaa that thing is cooool man!
Hi! I apologize for my English earlier, as I communicate with you through a translator. I hope you will understand me. :D I noticed that in your quadrocopter assembly, you take out a capacitor on wires at a distance from the speed controller. In this assembly, I noticed that you also carried the PBF Rush FPV on wires at a distance from the motor controller. Tell me is it possible to do this? Is the efficiency decreasing? I ask because it is not always possible to solder the capacitor and PFB Rush FPV directly to the speed controller, and many of my friends say that it is absolutely impossible to do this since the effectiveness of such a solution is significantly reduced.
Yes putting a capacitor on a wire is less effective but as long as you keep the length short and the wire is thick or has low enough resistance, it's okay.
Loved it and we all need breaks. Enjoy yours.. 💙🤟🤟👊👊🕺🏼🕺🏼
Mikey
you should try it with separated rear motors. Meaning, two coaxial pairs in front and two separate motors in the back (I like to call it XY6). I tried this when I was messing around with hexacopters a couple of years back. It made a massive improvement to the flight characteristics and control authority as well as increased efficiency.
So good to see you put out another vid Bob, please do a vid on this guys (EXCELLENT) suggestion!
Yeah like an X6. I opted against that because you have more frame weight and end up with a heavier quad overall
Bob, have you ever looked into brushless geared quads? I've been doing some testing lately and I'm having some pretty incredible results in both flight time and lack of noise.
The problem with any gearing is that it has overall worse response. Control feel suffers greatly. Otherwise, it's pretty easy to get MUCH better flight time. I half feel like all these human scale racing quads need to consider a gear system because they need to generate more torque, more efficiently and less overall prop RPM. With motors so big, they could up the kv....
Hope to see another upload soon.Miss your videos
Soon
I’m upgrading my micro apex 4 to a 5 inch, I only fly 3s and 4s so my question is what motor do you think I should get the 23mm short motors are lighter at 3450kv while the 23mm talls are heavier at 2330kv I’m lookin to get good freestyle response and more flight time I’m currently using 4 inch props with rcinpower 1506 4300kv with a 1100mah 3s and a AUW of around 350g
23mm tall is the motor for you for sure but I don't think it'll fit the frame because the mounting platform is the smaller variety.
This is also 3mo old. Sorry for the delay.
@@Kabab it’s completely fine and I’m glad I went with the 23mm talls definitely were a good choice I love them on 4s, super fast and on 3s still great performance and long flights best motors I’ve ever brought for any quad yet! Also they did fit fine with the micro apex 5” arms!
Haven't finished the video but already want this Y frame. You planning on selling the frame or possibly sell or a Kit like Ummagawd has for the 3Fiddy?
I'll probably make it available in the next batch of frames
Thoughts on a Y6 Cinewhoop? could save some weight by only needing 3 ducts + possibly greater efficiency?
Coaxial ducts are really not good on multirotors. They're not really a true duct system so it's extra bad. This is at least as far as we know. I personally think that we need more work to figure out how to optimize the setup to accelerate the air through the two sets of blades. For now, it's not really worth the hassle imo.
Hey, Mate!
I have built a TP3 and am very happy with it.
Having fallen in love with FPV, i now am looking for a fullsized Freestyle Build for Bando Freestyling as well as some mountain diving with a Hero 7 and bigger. (Very broad usecase)
After having taken a look at the top of the line frames, i am split between the
Prototype 5 and the AOS 5.5 by Chris Rosser.
What is your take on Durability on both of those Frames?
The Devil Horn Motor Protectors are a must have for me and the 5.5" Props on the AOS seem like a great way to maximize Flight time, without losing the 5" Power, and the cross-strut Arm Design, seems as if it does handle crashes well.
On both of these Frames i have not been able to find info on how they crash.
Do you have experience with both of those frames, and can compare them, since you and Chris are working together?
Keep the great work up, the TP3 was a great entry to the hobby!
Greetings from Germany
First off sorry for the delay. The AOS 5.5 is fine but any prop size larger than 5.1" will not feel as sharp and in control as a typical 5". 5.5" is great if you need the disk loading properties but it's more like flying a 6" than a 5". To me, if I'm going bigger than 5", I'll go straight to 7". 6" doesn't really have much benefit over 5"
I would love to see how much difference perfect CF aerodyamic covers over everything make on speed and efficiency. Especially teardrop profile arms.. lots of work but, no one seems to be trying this.
I couldn't quite follow, but at 10:53 you started mentioning the props you're running. From what I could understand, your final setup is 5226-2 on top and 5226-3 on bottom?
I'm recording an update on this video right now actually. Hoping to get it up tomorrow. In general I don't recommend this frame or setup.
@@Kabab Aww. I'm running an EagleWings 5" Frelon with 5145-2 on top and 51477-3 on bottom. It feels like it flies very well, compared to running all bi-blades or all tri-blades.
also wonder if it feels more fixes in the air patialy because the tail rotors can stay in the middle of the arc.. dunno how to say this but kinda like how when you turn a car the outside wheel needs to turn less than the inside wheel. I assume you get a similar thing when squnging the back end of a quad. whereas the y6 motors arent competing
There's more control of what's happening with the air around the craft. More surface area to manage the whole craft. Plus the weight distribution is more focused. This results in improved overall craft attitude control which is what feels really good to any pilot
My favorite kawd of all time... the Flynoceros Ratkawd! By far not my lightest 5"err but coolest nodoubt
+KababFPV what are your thoughts on the "Axial flux motors - The new hope" used in this hobby?
We need them to make 7" and up feel better to fly. The issue is the cost of development and difficulty manufacturing. We're working on it but not sure when or if it'll be usable.
One thing is for sure, we cannot make a small axial flux motor that's better than what we have already. That means 6" and under is pretty much out of the question. We're aiming for 7" but maybe that's even not reasonable. Most likely axial flux will start at 8" or 9"
HYPE!
Have you noticed any unexpected YAW movements? I tried Y6 setup some 7-8 years ago (carrying GH2), tried running both Arducopter and DJI Wookong - accelerating/braking was *always* causing a bit of YAW movement (upper/lower motors on a rear arm do have slightly different efficiency).
I just wonder if new and better flight controllers are better at managing this thing or you just hit the jackpot and twin vs triblade props eliminate that efficiency difference?
7-8yrs ago is essentially the beginning of time. That was almost multiwii days. Things have changed 😅
I used to have the same problem and solved it by separating the rear motors.
@@tibostruyve6753 You need 4 independent rpms, otherwhise yaw, pitch, roll or throtle will mix. (3 inputs 4 dof)
Great to have you back! What's your thoughts on a traditional layout 5" hex?
I wouldn't recommend it over a quad. If you have a specific use case where you need excellent fine control and lifting power, that's the only time it will help. Otherwise, you'll get more of everything by just moving to a 6" quad but you will give up a little bit of fine control.
Didn’t even start the video and like immediately!
Is this y6 frame available? I can’t see it on your store. I’m looking for my next build, and this looks interesting. Cheers again.
Was never made available because it's really not a great setup. It takes a lot of work to provide a frame product. This one unfortunately didn't make the cut
Cool project, could you help me with building such a Y6? Did you use Betaflight or what did you use?
All the flight firmwares out there will do this configuration
Other quad, but I feel as if asking under the most recent video is best:
I think of getting myself a light 5“ quad, probably the TOOTHFAIRY2, eventually the FOURIDE. But I am not sure on the motor-choise. In the past you used often your (now outdated) 2203 Motors. Now there are the the 21mm and the 23mm-shorts on the market and I am not sure which to choose. In the Toothfairy article you write: as light as possible, that steers me towards the 21mm ones. But on the other hand, the 23mm-shorts are the successor of your old 2203, so thats the original motor you opted for. Any recomendation? Kv is fairly similar at 2300kv, weight seems to me arround 5g per motor, makes 20g in total.
As a sidenote: I have 2X4s 850mAh, 2x4s 1000mAh and a loot of 4s 1500mAh. Do you think the 21mm could rarely also handle the 165g 1500mAh lipos (not ideal, but as a „if nothing else is availible“)? Or would you go for the 23mm when I think about sth like that?
I dont want the quad to be super punchy, for that I have my races. Rather I want it to be a SILENT and smooth park cruiser.
Weight without battery should be arround 180g-220g, with a battery between 85g and 120g (850-4s & 1000-4s), with eventually some rare times the 170g(4s-1500).
Thx ;^D
Silence and of course as mutch performance as possible for a silent quad is the goal for me for this one, no action cam on here planned
Consider what battery voltage you want to run and then choose the most appropriate KV across the three motors. 21, 23 short and 23 tall. I personally would strongly recommend the 23 tall with the 5 mm arm Tooth Fairy 2. It could be built lighter but this will perform exceptionally well. Otherwise, the 21 mm motor is designed for the lightest builds and the 23 mm motors are designed for improved performance
ok now watching you land on the log...
I gotta try this..
2 of the split arm quad and 2 Y's please :)
When you goto the 7+ inch range... Maybe make use of the 4:1 that are rated for 8s now? Having the option to run to 8s may help those top speeds substantially if the 7inch props can hang together. Still hoping to take my 10inch on 640kv 3115 build to 8s eventually but I am focusing on a car project right now rather than FPV.
He's currently running just 5S and chasing these cars. The 7" craft he's using right now is sluggish by current metrics. Since the Y6 will use smaller motors and the overall load will still just be a GoPro, I'm expecting 6S to be enough. I am planning on using 2x 3S 2600mah batteries however so you could just use 2x 4S batteries if the ESC could do it so yeah not a bad idea. I like running basic equipment however so I'd just run regular esc's and my 2506.2 motor in a different kv
I love your videos but if it means you have been taking that time to develop products even better!
I wonder if you need 2 motors on the back or if you you'd just use the 4 on the front for yaw and same some beans with one on the back with a bigger motor/prop. might be a control nightmare but could save weight
Unfortunately a y6 will not fly with only 5 motors. Almost no matter what you do
@@Kabab I was thinking if on the front, the top props spun counter to the bottom props, you could change the ratio of power between the top and bottom props to create a yaw force that counters the yaw that would be caused by the single rear prop? I might be missing something totally here. Would probs waste eficiency in the front motors even if it was possible..
@@thelethalmoo that is correct but the differential won't be enough to counter the one offset prop AND still have enough rpm headroom to actually control the craft. Unless servos are involved, we need an even number of motors/props or more than 6 motors/props.
I want to build a 7in Y6 now for racetrack footy. Who knows how I can get this designed and cut?
I really discourage a y6 in any form.
İf one motor stop working mid flight is it still going to fly ?
It will fly but it will yaw somewhat uncontrollably. You will have enough control to land safely-ish
I had similar thoughts when I saw rotor riots Y4 setup and immediately thought of a Y6. I challenge you to fly the exact same components as a flat6 or even trade the gained efficiency from losing coaxial into lighter lower pitch props or going back down a stator size. I feel like the speed improvement was really from the added disk area. My other thought was more along the lines of comparing 4x5.1" vs 6x4.2" props or similar. Keeping relatively the same disk area but reducing the amount of prop weight to stator volume giving a more responsive feel.
On another note, your bi-blades are in cleaner air then the tri-blades. I wonder if making the leading props bi-blade helped with stalling on the lower tri-blades by providing cleaner air. Also making me again think towards a flat set up being better.
Flat hex is gonna weigh more, have more overall frame parts and the whole thing will be much bigger. It'll be a little more efficient but that's about it. The goal here was specifically not to increase weight from the quad.
The speed helps get clean air to the bottom props helping with efficiency.
I would love to see biblades on top and higher pitch biblades on the bottom that can squeeze out some thrust from the turbulent air. Steep biblades should theoretically help with speed and efficiency but your Y6 setup is already surprisingly good in this regard.
Yes I think that would be ideal but after a lot more testing today I expect the lower blades need to be quite a bit more aggressive.
That's freaking awesome. Could you recommend an idle speed. My quad seems to RACE to earth when inverted. Your quad seems to float inverted. Thanks!
I just use default idle. It's not making much thrust when the throttle is all the way down.
People ask me this all the time.
1) You need to get upside down when you are still "on the way up"
2) flying a lightweight quad helps with 1 because a light throttle blip gets you moving upwards quickly.
Why was the GoPro mount zip tied to the battery strap ?
Just to get more angle on it. I ordered the mounts too low angle.
During momentum the top of the Y is trying to move from back to front maybe?
Yep
What I learned from this video - how to do two stack build in MacGyver-ish way :D Cool moves AF.
This must be one of the first FPV related videos I have seen that has some good music :) could you tell me the name of the track at 19.38?
Link to tht tracks is in the description. Lots more good music for things like this
i have a fealing that because of how the upper motors have more yaw authority due to distance from cg but less due to lower enertia of having less prop mass must even itself out somehow (or this is the intention)
Sort of. The top and bottom props are not independent of each other. So the rpm is always consistent