Thanks for sharing - a really good video and story! The vertical take off and landing requires 8 times more power than normal forward flight so it stresses everything: ESC, motor, battery and wiring. I think that the Opener Blackfly approach is lighter and STOL or autogyro use way less power. That was a very heavy set of batteries indeed !
Well yes, it uses more power, but I have taken that into consideration when building and wiring it, plus all of this is for very short time too, literally it is 10-15 seconds for take off and 15-20 seconds for landing, so it doesn't spend a lot of time in this state, at least that's the plan.
Amazing that the craft survived the "transition" from VTOL plane to VTOL glider! I can only laugh-cry at the instantaneously too-late realization of why the throttle was limited to 60% though. Glad you're back - Happy New Year!
Hahahahaha, yeah, I expected it to crash... that is how little faith I had these motors have enough thrust to hold it during the transition... but it made it! Happy New Year to you too! :)
Have missed your flying content. Always educational and thought provoking. This one did not disappoint. The problem with H-structure VTOLs is they place motor weight and thrust away from the C/G. Once the ill-fated VTOL lost thrust on a motor and started tumbling it had angular momentum that determined the outcome. Ouch, that was hard to watch! Such designs need a V-kill switch to return to fixed-wing glider mode for any luck of saving/lessening damage. Too bad flight controller can't detect if a motor has lost RPM and reduce the opposite motor, or all V-motor thrust. It won't avoid falling, but will help avoid tumbling, so have better than zero chance of recovery. Low-mid level saves will always be higher risk. I would think doubling 4 motors to 8 and having a slider, or 3-position switch to alternate, or share lift would offer good redundancy? It avoids going to smaller propellers and taking an efficiency hit. Not to mention all that added height in copper for powering the ESC/motors. If there is ground clearance, could even stack motors/thrust above/below the arms so motor weight and thrust are closer to the C/G, while using longer, more efficient propellers. It would be nice feature if could limit the rate of RPM change (above a certain throttle percent) to reduce maximum instantaneous torque, and how quickly thrust is ramped up. Kind of like for flaps to ease abrupt movement. At least you managed to have a good safe landing. Wish manufactures would be more upfront sharing/posting when they're aware of, or implement changes for known design defects. I do not expect replacement components as shipping can be costly; but just making info available builds community trust. This is not the only design that has had motor mounting issues. I can think of at least 4 other models.
Thanks mate! :) Actually any solution that would require some intricate programming, etc., really won't do for me! I need to figure out something simple! Right now I am thinking of getting a few more of the high C batteries and running only with those! Would lessen the voltage sag considerably, would be lighter, and will definitely have a lot more thrust for hover which is needed for like 10-15 seconds for take off and same for landing, at least the way I plan to use it! MFE did send me the 3D drawings of the Fighter, will see if I can use them to figure out some sort of fix for the nose! But yeah... it took me quite a while to get this one flying, would have been nice to hear from MFE at some point with they saying "Hey... so there are issues, here are possible fixes, just so you know in advance"! Would have made a world of difference now!
Well... all that wiring will be there regardless of the number of motors, it will just be running to the end of the tubes without having splits to power more motors, plus all of these motors and ESCs are lighter than 4x big motors and ESCs of the size suitable for something this heavy.
@@pascalfust1035 I know I am, I have done the calculations, like mentioned in the video! None of this was "spur of the moment"! :) 4x big motors and ESCs were heavier than these 12x, and were more expensive!
Thanks! Well... using these motors for forward flight will not result in an efficient one for sure! Plus I have no idea how I would go about doing that!
nice efforts to make this plane fly in VTOL configuration. I am also planning to build a 4+1 configuration VTOL but a bit nervous about shaking of the plane when giving throttle to lift up the plane. Like in this video at 5:25. How can this vibration be reduced?
Well it pretty much went away as soon as the plane takes off the ground, these oscillations are present only at some lower throttle level and before take off! Once in the air it did not exhibit this behaviour!
Thanks. At this point other things are much higher on the spending priority list than buying the stock VTOL gear, plus I would like to try and see if I can get this VTOL setup working properly. :)
Well... could be... but in theory it should work, plus the voltage sag is the bigger problem for the lack of thrust, and I think if I address that the results would be much better.
Sorry for the Fighter ! :( .... this issue reminded me of me destroying my T2 electronics because of pluging 2x6s in sereies instead of paralel :D ... It's all part of the game! :) . PS: lovely doggy ! :)
I've done a similar setup with an Octocopter and found that making sure that I'm maxing out the wire gauge between the battery and the power distribution was critical to avoid sag. Not sure how you're measuring voltage, but you could need to do a bypass.
I am measuring voltage via the Mauch 200A HV voltage sensor, from it I have 10AWG cables running all the way to the middle of the wings, where they split into 12AWG wires for front and back motors.
@@StewardsNotes OK... but try without the sensor why?! Surely the sensor is not the choke point! I will try with a few batteries in parallel for more amp draw capability and see if that helps with the voltage sag.
Only 4 motors does not provide any redundancy in case of a motor/ESC failure, which was the idea behind all of this, as I explained in the video! Could be the motor had some defect in it, it wasn't hot when I touched it after it smoked.
For 5 kilos of battery you could actually have 6s12p battery on 21700-elements - which can yield 120 Amps even on low-current version. As for high-current version (e.g. Molicel INR-21700-P42A) you could get 200 Amps with like 6s6p, which weight much less. So using single battery would be much great in all aspects - except for the current. Constructing something for 200+ Amps (for puller engine and VTOL-engines in transition mode) would be a challenge, even if you limit puller engine. So the solution would be using 2 puller motors, and splitting all batteries between two sets (puller plus left side, puller plus right side). But that would require either rework on wings, or on fuselage (pusher+puller configuration), so yeah...
But that is the issue, including the voltage sag, the current draw for this to hover is more than 120A, so 21700 will not do, be it low current or high current versions. It will not work aslo because of the lower battery voltage when the battery is empty, that is why LiPos are a better option for larger and heaveir VTOLs. Alternative would be to build a 7S LiIon pack, problem is you would need to get HV ESCs for the VTOL motors... and 12x of those cost an arm and a leg, and are heavy!!!! Also, I did not limit the puller motor because of current considerations, since it is running on a separate battery, I limited it becuase it is too strong and I was afraid it will tear the nose out, which is what happened in the end, having forgotten that in the spur of the moment...
@@ArxangelRCI agree that Li-Ion are hardly the best choice for such a high-current application. If I understand correctly, the VTOL motors used are the 1300kV Versions, which (according the sellers specs) suck around 10-12A at 1kg thrust, which might be enough for hovering the 12kg plane at wind still. For gaining height, however, they might need to provide 1.5kg each, which would mean 20A each, i.e. 240A in total, or even more. Using one T-Motor MN505KV320 with 22 inch prop could bring 3kg thrust on 6S at 15A, as a comparison in terms of efficiency. No redundancy at all, of course... How about using two separate Lipos, one for left and one for right? I am guessing that the distances of the front motors from the CG is shorter than of the back motors - just a guess though. If so, the back motors would have to provide more than the 1000g of thrust, so non-linearly drawing more than 10A in hover.
@@pascalfust1035 Yes, specs-wise these should hover at 120A... but check the specs and see at what voltage do they give 1kg thrust... certainly not at 18-19v... or 21v even... these manufacturer specs are at 24v... which is not something I have right now with so much voltage sag! Also, that T-motor is drawing only 15A, but there is no way a 22" prop would fit on the Fighter. May get away with 17" props on it, but 22" just won't do, so not really an apt comparison! The idea here was redundancy, efficiency in the VTOL stage is not really a topic of any concern. :)
@@ArxangelRC we are currently building a gas engine tailsitter (VTOL) plane that has just one engine, we are testing gas engine still hoping in the nearest weeks to finish
Take a look at vbat 128, quite interesting thing. I will try to show something similar with an engine in the front suitable for hobby though @@ArxangelRC
@@ArxangelRC The time spent in hover is small. If you're having motor failures, then you have selected the wrong motor/ prop combination...More motors, more chances of failure....This works fine on three pivot motor setups with smaller, lighter models. It should work at larger scales, but I suspect motor choice is more critical...🤔😳😳🇬🇧
@@EnglishTurbines Yes, the time is small, but critical, as you saw in that clip with the large VTOL coming crashing down. Whether it would be the power system not being able to handle the swinging of the plane, or losing a motor... the result would be the same! I have seen this happen in person as well, on a large VTOL where the ESC failed right after the transition back to VTOL, just before landing! Not a pretty picture. Also, I am NOT a fan of those pivot systems, I feel like they are a lot less dependable. YES, they work fine for small and lighter planes due to weight considerations/limitations, but for larger craft I would prefer not to use them unless we are talking about some really serious, industrial grade solution, which would be way outside the scrope, and budget, of a hobby project! Also, there are plenty of examples I have heard from people flying VTOLs for work, where the issue was not specifically a motor or ESC failure, but some issue with the wing connectors and the signals getting cut to a motor or ESC. Even a 1/100th of a second power cut from the main connector and that ESC would be reset and the VTOL would be hurdling towards the ground! In a situation where most of these come with the connectors from China and we need to depend on them being thought out right, etc., not to cause issues... this seems like a worthy project to pursue in the name of redundancy and dependability! :) And exactly because it doesn't spend much time in the VTOL stage is why I can afford to have it running inefficient, but on a separate battery! :)
@@ArxangelRC It's more a case of compromise, like most engineered designs. The classical two pivoting wing mounted motors with just one on the tail makes a lot of sense to me. Let's start with the Aircrafts C of G, also bearing in mind the placement of the heaviest component, the flight battery. You can see straight away weight distribution and motor placement makes more sense. Less motors, less wiring, less weight. As long as the three lift motors can provide enough thrust to overcome weight. The Nacelle pivots and movement of same might need something other than a plain servo at this huge size. Although if overhang is kept short from the pivot point, maybe not. Those wing connectors are a point of failure for sure, not in favour of those, you're right. 🤔😳😳🇬🇧
@@EnglishTurbines But then again, without those you lose the convenience of easy modularity and quick assembly and disassembly! :) As for the wiring, to be honest there isn't much more of it here, because you would need cables running to the ends of the carbon tubes, at least compared to a standard 4x motor VTOL, I just have more motors connected along the way of the same cable that would be running there anyway, and it may be a tad thicker, but not by much!
I find using balsa wood with hot glue and but balsa wood plates inside the front nose ,I always do this and can take a small crash well, or carbon fibre the front nose doesn't weigh much maybe 250 grams more, good luck
Hot glue is very heavy, I have not used that on anything flying in over 10 years, definitely won't start using it now, but I will try to figure out something using carbon tubes and 3D printing perhaps, certainly hope it will not be 250g.
It's a pity the crashed aircraft, so much work lost in a moment :( But what an amazing crash it turned out to be, for a second it seemed to me that this was a special effect :)
I miss all you longrange flights and this videos about the mapping of a city. Great content.
Thanks! Will get back to some long range flights when I get the MFE Hero flying. :)
This evening I was also testing a tailsitter VTOL I designed.
It's good to have you back.
Love from Manipur, India. 😄
Would you mind sharing how you did that!
Awesome! Good luck! :)
@@farkhodkhikmatov4738 how can I share it with you
Perhaps share a link to some photos, or a blog spot... or somewhere with information on your project.
Good to have you back! Great video
Thank you! :)
Excellent to see another video, even if it had such an unfortunate outcome.
Yeah, but it might get a second chance... who knows! :P
Happy holidays Arx! Thanks for the great video. Love your vids on MFE stuff.
Thank you! Happy Holidays! :)
Great innovative video and good to see you back doing what you do best...happy holidays
Thanks mate, happy holidays to you too!
Glad your your back ! Get you the T2 cruza its awesome
I have the T1, its awesome too! :P
Thanks for sharing - a really good video and story! The vertical take off and landing requires 8 times more power than normal forward flight so it stresses everything: ESC, motor, battery and wiring. I think that the Opener Blackfly approach is lighter and STOL or autogyro use way less power. That was a very heavy set of batteries indeed !
Well yes, it uses more power, but I have taken that into consideration when building and wiring it, plus all of this is for very short time too, literally it is 10-15 seconds for take off and 15-20 seconds for landing, so it doesn't spend a lot of time in this state, at least that's the plan.
Amazing that the craft survived the "transition" from VTOL plane to VTOL glider! I can only laugh-cry at the instantaneously too-late realization of why the throttle was limited to 60% though. Glad you're back - Happy New Year!
Hahahahaha, yeah, I expected it to crash... that is how little faith I had these motors have enough thrust to hold it during the transition... but it made it! Happy New Year to you too! :)
Have missed your flying content. Always educational and thought provoking. This one did not disappoint.
The problem with H-structure VTOLs is they place motor weight and thrust away from the C/G. Once the ill-fated VTOL lost thrust on a motor and started tumbling it had angular momentum that determined the outcome. Ouch, that was hard to watch! Such designs need a V-kill switch to return to fixed-wing glider mode for any luck of saving/lessening damage. Too bad flight controller can't detect if a motor has lost RPM and reduce the opposite motor, or all V-motor thrust. It won't avoid falling, but will help avoid tumbling, so have better than zero chance of recovery. Low-mid level saves will always be higher risk.
I would think doubling 4 motors to 8 and having a slider, or 3-position switch to alternate, or share lift would offer good redundancy? It avoids going to smaller propellers and taking an efficiency hit. Not to mention all that added height in copper for powering the ESC/motors. If there is ground clearance, could even stack motors/thrust above/below the arms so motor weight and thrust are closer to the C/G, while using longer, more efficient propellers.
It would be nice feature if could limit the rate of RPM change (above a certain throttle percent) to reduce maximum instantaneous torque, and how quickly thrust is ramped up. Kind of like for flaps to ease abrupt movement. At least you managed to have a good safe landing.
Wish manufactures would be more upfront sharing/posting when they're aware of, or implement changes for known design defects. I do not expect replacement components as shipping can be costly; but just making info available builds community trust. This is not the only design that has had motor mounting issues. I can think of at least 4 other models.
Thanks mate! :) Actually any solution that would require some intricate programming, etc., really won't do for me! I need to figure out something simple! Right now I am thinking of getting a few more of the high C batteries and running only with those! Would lessen the voltage sag considerably, would be lighter, and will definitely have a lot more thrust for hover which is needed for like 10-15 seconds for take off and same for landing, at least the way I plan to use it! MFE did send me the 3D drawings of the Fighter, will see if I can use them to figure out some sort of fix for the nose! But yeah... it took me quite a while to get this one flying, would have been nice to hear from MFE at some point with they saying "Hey... so there are issues, here are possible fixes, just so you know in advance"! Would have made a world of difference now!
This is some good inspiration! Oh...and you need MORE motors! 😁
Hahahahaha... more? Where to put them? :P
The video being 12:12 minutes long makes it even better! ;)
Seriously?! I haven't even noticed that! 🤣🤣
Nice to have an update from you. An interesting idea, but I assume, that all that wiring is adding up much weight....
Well... all that wiring will be there regardless of the number of motors, it will just be running to the end of the tubes without having splits to power more motors, plus all of these motors and ESCs are lighter than 4x big motors and ESCs of the size suitable for something this heavy.
@@ArxangelRC I have to admit that you might be right with that point 🙂 .
@@pascalfust1035 I know I am, I have done the calculations, like mentioned in the video! None of this was "spur of the moment"! :) 4x big motors and ESCs were heavier than these 12x, and were more expensive!
awesome test! time to use the vtol arms and make a tilt function so you dont need a nose motor
Thanks! Well... using these motors for forward flight will not result in an efficient one for sure! Plus I have no idea how I would go about doing that!
nice efforts to make this plane fly in VTOL configuration. I am also planning to build a 4+1 configuration VTOL but a bit nervous about shaking of the plane when giving throttle to lift up the plane. Like in this video at 5:25. How can this vibration be reduced?
Well it pretty much went away as soon as the plane takes off the ground, these oscillations are present only at some lower throttle level and before take off! Once in the air it did not exhibit this behaviour!
Another great video! Please try to use the vtol package that mfe provide
Thanks. At this point other things are much higher on the spending priority list than buying the stock VTOL gear, plus I would like to try and see if I can get this VTOL setup working properly. :)
Hi, For the VTOL MFE Hero, where can we find a case for it in Europe?
I don't think you have enough disk area for the weight of the thing
Well... could be... but in theory it should work, plus the voltage sag is the bigger problem for the lack of thrust, and I think if I address that the results would be much better.
Sorry for the Fighter ! :( .... this issue reminded me of me destroying my T2 electronics because of pluging 2x6s in sereies instead of paralel :D ... It's all part of the game! :) . PS: lovely doggy ! :)
Well... it is what it is... I hope I will find the will to fix it and try to get it flying again! :)
I've done a similar setup with an Octocopter and found that making sure that I'm maxing out the wire gauge between the battery and the power distribution was critical to avoid sag. Not sure how you're measuring voltage, but you could need to do a bypass.
I am measuring voltage via the Mauch 200A HV voltage sensor, from it I have 10AWG cables running all the way to the middle of the wings, where they split into 12AWG wires for front and back motors.
@@ArxangelRC cool beans. I have no idea then. Maybe try without a voltage sensor just to double check? Love your videos, keep it up.
@@StewardsNotes OK... but try without the sensor why?! Surely the sensor is not the choke point! I will try with a few batteries in parallel for more amp draw capability and see if that helps with the voltage sag.
Why did the motor fail with first set up, Ur overloading the motor ,any heat anywhere is bad efficiency, use larger motor and only 4 motors
Only 4 motors does not provide any redundancy in case of a motor/ESC failure, which was the idea behind all of this, as I explained in the video! Could be the motor had some defect in it, it wasn't hot when I touched it after it smoked.
For 5 kilos of battery you could actually have 6s12p battery on 21700-elements - which can yield 120 Amps even on low-current version.
As for high-current version (e.g. Molicel INR-21700-P42A) you could get 200 Amps with like 6s6p, which weight much less.
So using single battery would be much great in all aspects - except for the current. Constructing something for 200+ Amps (for puller engine and VTOL-engines in transition mode) would be a challenge, even if you limit puller engine.
So the solution would be using 2 puller motors, and splitting all batteries between two sets (puller plus left side, puller plus right side).
But that would require either rework on wings, or on fuselage (pusher+puller configuration), so yeah...
But that is the issue, including the voltage sag, the current draw for this to hover is more than 120A, so 21700 will not do, be it low current or high current versions. It will not work aslo because of the lower battery voltage when the battery is empty, that is why LiPos are a better option for larger and heaveir VTOLs. Alternative would be to build a 7S LiIon pack, problem is you would need to get HV ESCs for the VTOL motors... and 12x of those cost an arm and a leg, and are heavy!!!! Also, I did not limit the puller motor because of current considerations, since it is running on a separate battery, I limited it becuase it is too strong and I was afraid it will tear the nose out, which is what happened in the end, having forgotten that in the spur of the moment...
@@ArxangelRCI agree that Li-Ion are hardly the best choice for such a high-current application. If I understand correctly, the VTOL motors used are the 1300kV Versions, which (according the sellers specs) suck around 10-12A at 1kg thrust, which might be enough for hovering the 12kg plane at wind still. For gaining height, however, they might need to provide 1.5kg each, which would mean 20A each, i.e. 240A in total, or even more.
Using one T-Motor MN505KV320 with 22 inch prop could bring 3kg thrust on 6S at 15A, as a comparison in terms of efficiency. No redundancy at all, of course...
How about using two separate Lipos, one for left and one for right?
I am guessing that the distances of the front motors from the CG is shorter than of the back motors - just a guess though. If so, the back motors would have to provide more than the 1000g of thrust, so non-linearly drawing more than 10A in hover.
@@pascalfust1035 Yes, specs-wise these should hover at 120A... but check the specs and see at what voltage do they give 1kg thrust... certainly not at 18-19v... or 21v even... these manufacturer specs are at 24v... which is not something I have right now with so much voltage sag! Also, that T-motor is drawing only 15A, but there is no way a 22" prop would fit on the Fighter. May get away with 17" props on it, but 22" just won't do, so not really an apt comparison! The idea here was redundancy, efficiency in the VTOL stage is not really a topic of any concern. :)
try tailsitter with gas:
This, it's the best idea
I've already tried a tailsitter, the Arkbird plane... you mean with a gas engine? A tailsitter?
@@ArxangelRC we are currently building a gas engine tailsitter (VTOL) plane that has just one engine, we are testing gas engine still hoping in the nearest weeks to finish
@@airdroperua Interesting... so how is this engine going to work vertical and then horizontal... and the fuel tanks?
Take a look at vbat 128, quite interesting thing. I will try to show something similar with an engine in the front suitable for hobby though @@ArxangelRC
Has to be the worst idea I've ever seen....🤔😳😳😮🇬🇧
Hahahahahahaha, ever the optimist I see! :D From the standpoint of redundancy, to me it seems like a much better idea than having only 4 motors! :P
@@ArxangelRC The time spent in hover is small. If you're having motor failures, then you have selected the wrong motor/ prop combination...More motors, more chances of failure....This works fine on three pivot motor setups with smaller, lighter models. It should work at larger scales, but I suspect motor choice is more critical...🤔😳😳🇬🇧
@@EnglishTurbines Yes, the time is small, but critical, as you saw in that clip with the large VTOL coming crashing down. Whether it would be the power system not being able to handle the swinging of the plane, or losing a motor... the result would be the same! I have seen this happen in person as well, on a large VTOL where the ESC failed right after the transition back to VTOL, just before landing! Not a pretty picture. Also, I am NOT a fan of those pivot systems, I feel like they are a lot less dependable. YES, they work fine for small and lighter planes due to weight considerations/limitations, but for larger craft I would prefer not to use them unless we are talking about some really serious, industrial grade solution, which would be way outside the scrope, and budget, of a hobby project! Also, there are plenty of examples I have heard from people flying VTOLs for work, where the issue was not specifically a motor or ESC failure, but some issue with the wing connectors and the signals getting cut to a motor or ESC. Even a 1/100th of a second power cut from the main connector and that ESC would be reset and the VTOL would be hurdling towards the ground! In a situation where most of these come with the connectors from China and we need to depend on them being thought out right, etc., not to cause issues... this seems like a worthy project to pursue in the name of redundancy and dependability! :) And exactly because it doesn't spend much time in the VTOL stage is why I can afford to have it running inefficient, but on a separate battery! :)
@@ArxangelRC It's more a case of compromise, like most engineered designs. The classical two pivoting wing mounted motors with just one on the tail makes a lot of sense to me. Let's start with the Aircrafts C of G, also bearing in mind the placement of the heaviest component, the flight battery. You can see straight away weight distribution and motor placement makes more sense. Less motors, less wiring, less weight. As long as the three lift motors can provide enough thrust to overcome weight. The Nacelle pivots and movement of same might need something other than a plain servo at this huge size. Although if overhang is kept short from the pivot point, maybe not. Those wing connectors are a point of failure for sure, not in favour of those, you're right. 🤔😳😳🇬🇧
@@EnglishTurbines But then again, without those you lose the convenience of easy modularity and quick assembly and disassembly! :) As for the wiring, to be honest there isn't much more of it here, because you would need cables running to the ends of the carbon tubes, at least compared to a standard 4x motor VTOL, I just have more motors connected along the way of the same cable that would be running there anyway, and it may be a tad thicker, but not by much!
Thank you so much for sharing flying experiences and challenges!
You are welcome! :)
Project Wing runs a similar setup and I don't know why. All those small motors and small props can NOT be efficient.
They are not meant to be efficient, they are menat to provide redundancy and improve the likelihood of the plane surviving a VTOL motor/ESC failure.
I find using balsa wood with hot glue and but balsa wood plates inside the front nose ,I always do this and can take a small crash well, or carbon fibre the front nose doesn't weigh much maybe 250 grams more, good luck
Hot glue is very heavy, I have not used that on anything flying in over 10 years, definitely won't start using it now, but I will try to figure out something using carbon tubes and 3D printing perhaps, certainly hope it will not be 250g.
Great video! But putting out content understandably should take a back seat to life and family. Hope all is well with you and yours!
Thank you! Yes, all is good here! :)
Epic!
Thanks Garry! :P
É show Amigo
Passando pra prestigiar aquele super Like Tmj
Thanks!
The legend returns. Awesome video!! I love the Fighter
Hehe, thanks mate! :)
yay, he's back :) 🎉
Yeah, hope so! :P
I have a picture for you 0:27
Yeah, I know, I was there! 😝🤣
Finally! 🎉
:)
It's a pity the crashed aircraft, so much work lost in a moment :( But what an amazing crash it turned out to be, for a second it seemed to me that this was a special effect :)
Yeah, I don't know who's plane it was, but it was nasty... so much work and money exploded in pieces as it slammed the ground... sucks!