Hi, I am Mike from the bottom tip of Africa. I illustrate and explain complicated things in a simple manner with 3d animations for your enjoyment... OSINT open source intelligence. Friend of common sense. If you're looking for conspiracy theory you likely won't enjoy my content 😆
what 3d modelling software are you using for such precise parts? I doubt it's all made with blender, and if it is how do you achive such a degree of precision?
Its all Blender. I have been using Blender for long and I suppose I know tricks to do precise measurements without thinking about it. Its not hard. Blender is the bomb.
It has such a short flight itme it will be of very limited use in Ukraine. Besides our drone is a really friendly chap not meaning any harm on anyone. It just wants to go super fast.
@Mike-Bell that's because your project didn't considered military use. I'm sure this model can inspire military drone projects with the necessary modifications.
"we made the best drone out there with back of the enveloppe calculation and throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticked. Now we will be using software to help us design a better version" Is an incredibly badass statement.
I'll let you on in a little secret. Luke and I play up the haphazard by luck approach quite a bit. It is relatable, entertaining, inspiring, less intimidating and better for storytelling. Let's face it, high brow disclpined engineering is a little boring and dents creativity 😂
@@Mike-Bell i think a few of my possy do the same for computer graphics, like Sebastian Lague i also realized my comment was slightly dismissive of you guys' expertise, my apologies.
At this pont it would make more sense to have less propellers and a more streamlined design, IE to build an RC plane. What qualifies as a drone anyway?
Hello Mike I think the British m o d should be made aware of this. Sadly We live in darkening times. I would like to think this little beauty or a modified version of it, is on the side of the good guys.
i might be giving away a fortune here... consider what drag is... what the slipstream behind you is... its air that has had momentum imparted to it by colliding with you, the body and flight surfaces, and being accelerated. you get this gust of air that chases behind you at about half the speed. and as it impacts more air it all comes to a halt eventually, disposing of energy... none of that has any effect upon you, other than the air that HITS YOU and is deflected. it takes work to push it out of the way. ok, cool. the air that is deflected to produce lift will always have a certain amount of drag associated with it, and cant be avoided. erm... "induced drag"? your props, wings, controls... here, the props. so ignore the backwash of the props now, its dirty and turbulent but its the source of thrust and lift. its the necessary induced drag. whereas the air that is bashed out the way by struts and bumps and the like is parasitic, makes no contributions, and only saps power. the more air you bash out the way, the more slipstream you make. the slipstream isnt drag itself, its the result of having drag. a sign that energy was being dissipated... some as lift/thrust, the rest is just drag, or power taken to move air out of the way... so. coanda effect. rather than use it to produce lift, that idea doesnt work... use it to encapsulate the fuselage in a layer of high speed air to ISOLATE it. an EDF feeding into a cowl at the very nose... that air always takes a certain amount of work to accelerate. it will cling to the surface and isolate it from the stationary atmosphere. no thrust or extra force, other than that produced by the EDF, but "negating" parasitic drags... that is, you only work on accelerating that layer of air. what it does, after leaving the nozzle, has no effect on the vehicle... but it can impart its energy upon stationary air so that YOU dont have to... its the outer layer of air you accelerated that gets slowed down as it impacts the stationary atmosphere. it doesnt work on a plane as most of the drag is from the wing. induced. but here, where the fuselage is just holding props in a certain orientation? the less parasitic the better...
Well THERE goes a few BILLION dollars in money that Americans SLAVED FOR and paud in to our government just so they could make a faster airplane....when they already got plently of fast planes. What a waste of money, and life.
Been slightly obsessing about this cool thing so here's some calcs for interest's sake: If we look at the power consumption at 360km/h (100m/s) which is 5091We, assuming about 85% motor efficiency and 55% propeller efficiency we arrive at drag force of 23.8N. This can be reduced to a CdA figure of around 0.00396. Eyeballing the design section area of 150mm x 120mm gives us an A of 0.018m^2 yielding a drag coefficient (Cd) of about 0.22 or approximately that of a Tesla Model 3. This is kind of impressive except that it has no wheels, wheel arches or tyres which are one of the dominant forms of drag on a road vehicle so it suggests that there's at least some room and probably plenty for improvement. Also, at max speed of 510km/h we're starting to see compressibility effects being over Mach 0.4 in linear speed so there's no doubt that the propeller blades are well into the transonic flow regime so the 55% propeller efficiency above may be an overestimate. To make any appreciable gains in the record speed these problems will only be exacerbated. Time to get busy with area ruling and possibly ducted fans to improve the total aero efficiency. I also note there is appreciable voltage sag at the high speed run dropping down to 34V. This means that, for an assumed 12S system voltage of 44.4V nominal, there's about 2kW of power disappearing into the wiring as heat. (235A at 10V sag > 2kW). While motors are to some extent immune from increasing voltage from an efficiency perspective, the rest of the electrical system surely isn't, so bumping the voltage higher is only going to be a win, albeit with safety complications.
