Flying with a disabled prop or motor (P4P)

[AyeYo]

i might be you haven’t caught up with what is being discussed here. We aren’t suggesting a quad that has lost a prop/motor might, through implementation of a software solution, continue to maintain normal flight characteristics. It is possible for it to maintain a hover and return to land in a controlled manner however.

I find that nearly impossible to believe if the quad is a square configuration with the center of gravity and short arms of a Phantom.

 

[With The Birds]

I find that nearly impossible to believe if the quad is a square configuration with the center of gravity and short arms of a Phantom.

If you get a moment have a look at the video I posted earlier in this thread- it is possible.

 

[AyeYo]

If you get a moment have a look at the video I posted earlier in this thread- it is possible.

That was hardly controlled and would result in just as much camera/gimbal destruction on a Phantom as an actual crash. It was also a light, flat quad with likely a much better power:weight than a Phantom. The chances of a Phantom reversing a motor quickly enough to prevent tumble with as little leverage as those rotors have is very slim. Once the tumble starts and the bottom heavy body gets rolling, I seriously doubt that would ever be caught. Make it a six rotor would be far more realistic and practical than trying to make a 3 rotor fail-safe work.

 

[With The Birds]

That was hardly controlled and would result in just as much camera/gimbal destruction on a Phantom as an actual crash. It was also a light, flat quad with likely a much better power:weight than a Phantom. The chances of a Phantom reversing a motor quickly enough to prevent tumble with as little leverage as those rotors have is very slim. Once the tumble starts and the bottom heavy body gets rolling, I seriously doubt that would ever be caught. Make it a six rotor would be far more realistic and practical than trying to make a 3 rotor fail-safe work.

Your missing the OP’s question it seems. The redundancy, or in this case ability to hold station and perform a relatively controlled decent (vertical velocity is the most imporlrtant consideration here) is what is being discussed. Camera or other damage to the AC that might be sustained would be attributed to the AC yawing on impact and is a secondary consideration- the intent is to allow for the AC to land in a semi controlled manner and hopefully reducing damage/harm to life and property. The proposed solution seemingly meets this performance criteria.

 

[AyeYo]

Your missing the OP’s question it seems. The redundancy, or in this case ability to hold station and perform a relatively controlled decent (vertical velocity is the most imporlrtant consideration here) is what is being discussed. Camera or other damage to the AC that might be sustained would be attributed to the AC yawing on impact and is a secondary consideration- the intent is to allow for the AC to land in a semi controlled manner and hopefully reducing damage/harm to life and property. The proposed solution seemingly meets this performance criteria.

How does a full power, lawn mower spin descent into a crowd do less damage than a power off fall? The thing can't fly around and return to home or land in a safe spot. That's the real problem with power loss of any kind.

 

[With The Birds]

How does a full power, lawn mower spin descent into a crowd do less damage than a power off fall? The thing can't fly around and return to home or land in a safe spot. That's the real problem with power loss of any kind.

If you have control connection you can perform a CSC if needed but that probably isn’t necessary when the AC can sustain a hover anyone below it would have plenty of opportunity to get out of the way and allow the operator to land. This is a highly preferable scenario to an uncontrolled free fall.

 

[Dagon]

Maybe it's a P3 vs. P4 difference, but when I lost a prop from my P4 in mid-flight (failed to secure it properly before launch). It descended very quickly and was gyrating but remained upright until it hit the treetops. No damage done.

 

[sar104]

Maybe it's a P3 vs. P4 difference, but when I lost a prop from my P4 in mid-flight (failed to secure it properly before launch). It descended very quickly and was gyrating but remained upright until it hit the treetops. No damage done.

That's interesting. Mostly they tumble and spin, but if it was just spinning then the FC was doing a reasonable job of stabilization. The problem, after losing one prop, is that the two remaining diagonally opposed props, which are balanced with respect to the center of mass, are spinning in the same direction.

 

[Texas Gonzo]

That was my first though, the solution may be limited by hardware/computing power however the developer claims the algorithm can be implemented with any quadcooter- New algorithm makes quadrocopters safer

That article is from wayyyy back in 2013, an eternity in tech terms. Seems it must not be "all that" or it'd be commonplace today. Just sayin'

 

[With The Birds]

That article is from wayyyy back in 2013, an eternity in tech terms. Seems it must not be "all that" or it'd be commonplace today. Just sayin'

Perhaps but not necessarily- we might make the same observation with respect to drone makers other than DJI not implementing a lightbridge like FPV transmission and telemetry downlink. There is no reason why they couldn’t have, the wifibroadcast protocol has been part of the wifi standards for many years.