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
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 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.
@@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!
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!
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/lost-in-time-2 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 facebook.com/groups/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
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!
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? :)
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.
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 :)
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!
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.
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
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.
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! 🖖😊
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 👊🏻
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.
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.
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
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 don't think this one quite makes sense. I will be making one of these sorts of crafts available once I land on one that's worth the effort. The next one up is an all twin blade X8 using regular 5" motors and parts but different kv's
Y6 is my favourite build type. Currently flying my 7yr old builds.. they fly like a plane, can do rudder turns and swing that tail around, so much fun. I would never build x4 again.
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.
@@Kabab a question. Since there is losses in coaxial setup plus twin blade over 3 blade ... What's your opinion on a propeller which has 3.5 inch 3 blade and 2 inch 3 blade , total of 6 blade. Would it's increased disc-load perform anywhere near to 3-blade 4/5 inch props with responsiveness like those? And would the disc-load number match mathematically like u explained in disc-load number video 4 years ago? My idea was, using 6 blade would grip air but won't get much responsive. So what if 3 blade were longer and 3 blade were shorter, where shorter blade will provide thurst along center while longer blade will provide thrust and responsiveness. I'm not expert on it just a thought.
@@AfafPrinceOSH the issue with more blades is that there's a LOT more drag. A LOT! Having different sized blades does make sense on the same prop but ultimately it cost you so much in drag that the benefits won't be worth it. In general more blades slow down the prop but also process more air at lower rpms. They're quieter because they're just not spinning as fast and have more grip because they process air so much faster with less rpm change. But the trade off is reduced speed and less flight time.
The feelings you describe flying the Y6 remind me of flying a quad with heavy props like the 5050C. Easy to maintain speed, sucks at pretty much everything else. For the application of chasing cars light props like what you're used to are the wrong tool
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.
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.
I read that Gab707 runs his cinelifters with 8" bi-blades on top and 7" tri-blades on the bottom. Partly it may be something similar to the effect you are seeing where the lower props have to push on air that has already been accelerated by the upper ones... but in addition, a smaller lower prop that is entirely inside the moving column of air from the upper one should be more efficient, as you lose less from the turbulent boundary between "still" air and faster-moving air. (disclaimer: I am not a trained aeronautical engineer, although I was raised by one.)
Yeah one way or another, different props top and bottom can help the situation. I'm currently trying to figure a way for the lower props to process much more air than the top so it's really like a two stage thrust in system. Running larger blades on top might be the answer.....or it might help more in a lifter situation where you're usually in more of a static load situation rather than dast moving dynamic situation.
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"
Y6 flight looked like it was on rails, very controlled. I tend to the more "flingy" type of flight, but chasing is fun. I hope this platform goes on to be the go to choice that kind of high speed filming.
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....
i think the more blades a quad has, the more rigid it is due to the gyroscopic effect of the spinning props and also the fact that the props are essentially acting as a wall when they spin, so it makes sense it wouldn’t float and feel super locked in, it seems like it would make a better racer if you ask me, a racer or stable film quad, which makes sense a little, that’s just my take tho im less well versed than you in this lmao
Cleaner thrust and better wind performance from a typical hex though..people seem to have forgotten all about that extra grip and yawthority along w dive arrests in a hex.
Twin top tri bottom: the flight controller compensates. So i guess in the back the twin rotates faster. May be that you only see the limits at a full punch out where it could yaw to one direction a little.
It wouldn't yaw but it would compensate but in this case the overall angular momentum of the top and bottom is similarish so it seems to be working well.
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.
did you work with chris on the carbon or is it just coincidence that you both show up with improved carbon for quadcopter arms nearly at the same time? Anyways love the split-arm design and would love to try it out 👍
I've experimented with various layups for arms over the years and haven't found it to be beneficial. It costs more so I never bothered using it. With the A arm design, there are some improvements to be had because the spars are separate and skinny. Yes this overall design concept was inspired by Chris's work showing just how much the twisting motion plays into noise. The improvement in carbon layup however isn't showing much benefit. It's a tiny bit better but costs so much more it's hard to justify. Fortunately the A arm design with separate spars is really efficient to manufacture so you can fit tons on a single sheet. So the cost isn't increased by too much per arm. We'll still probably go for it in the final version because it's so cost effective to manufacture but it frame cost is still going to be a bit higher. I didn't work with Chris on any of this stuff but I have enjoyed discussing things with him in the past.
@@Kabab very cool stuff, i suggested the split-arm design to him as well and its very nice to see it come to live in both the aos 7 and independent of it in your design exactly as I imagined it originally even with the little "skid plate" to sandwitchen the arms between the plate and the motor mount. Only thing I still wonder: Does greasing the skid plate and the connection surface between the arms help with vibration dampening? Because after Chris' and your video on the dampening greas that was my initial inspiration for splitting the arms to get a dampening surface for the motor vibration, but I never got to try it out since I couldn't fabricate it at the time. Chris added a curved interlock to the connection surface and I am curious if a stronger connection or more wiggle room for potential dampening as in your design turns out to be better. Ironically the more ideal straight carbon layout in separate arms only occurred to me after Chris mentioned it to me 😅. But overall I am very pleased that this split-arm design is available for purchase since with your experience you implemented it in a far better overall concept than I every could. Looking forward to try it out with and without dampening greas on the motor mounting.
@@JulianBauknecht Chris did a split arm design? I suggested that to him long before the AOS came out because the AOS arms are an absolute nightmare for manufacturing.
@@Kabab yeah on the 7" "Mantis" variant because he oppinioned that it matters more on the bigger sizes. I have not tried it yet because I am mostly into the 3-4" size , 5" at max. You can look at it around 3:30 on his video on the AOS 7". Never thought about it from a manufacturing standpoint but makes sense. . I am also looking forward to test your design with the more narrow V arms, it's nice that all arms connect in a single bottom plate, doesn't rely on the stiffness of the Body as much and should work really well with the grease.
You mention the improvement in maintainable speed could come from the twin/tri combo acting like a two-stage thrust. This makes me wonder if NOT offsetting the top and bottom motors could enhance this effect further, and if so, if it would be worth the loss in disc area. Anyway, this is neat, I subscribed!
Could be the case but I don't actually think that matters too much because the forward movement at an angle is going to waft air in between the blades more than the offset. The offset is just a really elegant way to tie the arm ends together and add a second motor without much added weight. There are some in the cinelifter world that run 8" twin blade on top with an aggressive 7" triblade on bottom to try and midigate the stuck in 2nd gear effect. It's partially successful. I actually tested the Y6 with 5.5" triblades on the bottom and the same 5126 twins on top and found that the stuck in fear effect was almost entirely gone but the Y6 still is not good at soaring through the air. Maybe not a bad thing however. When you let off the throttle it slows down much faster. It's like air breaks.
That actually looks a better configuration for flow and mimicking aerofoil flight maybe, especially in pitch. Loads of thrust where the camera and weight is. Surely can experiment with prop sizes for yaw authority. Also triangles are just good. Bet Mr Rosser likes those vibration characteristics, 4 sided shapes twist and oscillate more than 3.
The resonance profile of this thing is excellent. Really near zero issues in black box. Not sure if that's the arm design, triangle or just this particular build.
@@Kabab I think kwads have trapped us since the days someone thought to put 4 props on a cruciform. They are a great stable jack of trades, but I feel we need new direction, but I like also fixed wing flight feel. I was toying with little servo flight controls but couldn't see how might benefit a kwad, but maybe that frame might allow a little rudder or ruddervons. Nice design shift anyway.
@@Kabab I saw how the primary arm triangles meet the frame behind the gyro maybe diverting resonance away, but now I think, I wonder if normally when you have a motor and vibration generator at each corner. In this case there's only 2 in corners and 1 aligned with the longitudinal, so it could be less vibration made total, less buffeting from the single at the rear and is less resistant to airflow as its going through the hole already made. But also a hunch and definitely Rossers territory. With 4 motors in 4 corners that's an equal force and source of resonance that will resolve at the mid point, give or take non symmetries and likely where the electronics are. Maybe the front 2 by the arm design and/or double the resonance force at the front may push the point of focus, the sweetspot of resonance (CofR?) in the frame to behind the electronics? Just guessing.
I wonder if more aerodynamic frame could help to push things even further. Vertical arms design (like on ARX-R frame) might be an option. It could possibly help counter the increased drag due to more prop blades. It's always interesting to see you experimenting with stuff. Cheers!
We've tested vertical arms as a community inside out. They're not useful for the most part and most of the time cause more drag. The box frames are the only way to do it and those have some unique flight characteristics but you need to be prepared for a more complex frame structure to maintain. For freestyle frames they're not useful. Above all, vertical arms result in so much noise in the frame it's not worth dealing with.
@@Kabab I see, I was not aware of these findings. I agree about the added complexity and it would be worth sacrificing only if you are optimizing for single purpose - speed. But if, as you've said, it does not reduce drag then it's definitely not worth it. Thanks for taking your time to reply and for everything that you bring to this community. It's highly appreciated.
Regardless of everything you said, you were fucking BLAZING fast through that park. At least it looked that way. So clean and badass looking. How in the hell do you find a park like that without 40 dumbass kids and dog walkers wandering around?
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
I think the reason why it works better with a tri blade on the lower motor is because it is getting cleaner and faster air, generated by the upper motor, and a propeller with an extra blade works better, also, a propeller with more pithc should work better on the lower moror
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.
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?
@@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.
this actually has very comparable yaw authority but also increased yaw lock. Yaw was a non-issue but yeah, usually more motors means worse yaw......but that kinda has as much to do with how far the motors are from the CG than specifically the number of motors....
