
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
I can't believe NASA isn't doing this
But planes are made of aluminium which is not ferromagnetic
Hey you stole the design I came up with when I was 7 years old. I'll see you in court
I was 6 and my mum said I was the bestest engineer ever. I asked ChatGPT now and it confirmed I am absolutely correct. ChatGPT is never wrong.
Rotor spin needs to even out or else it would spin all the time, that's why drones have an even amount of rotors AFAIK.
Rotor spin does need to have something providing a balancing force if you don't want to spin. That's why helicopters have tail rotors and quads have two CW props and two CCW props. That said, before quads became the standard design there was a lot of experimenting with tricopters, two motors that have opposing spin directions at the front and the third motor mounted on a "tail boom" that could be rotated by a servo to tilt the propeller to create the forces to not rotate and keep a heading or to turn the craft. So not all "drone" designs have an even number of props.
I see how what I said taken literally sounds like that's the only way to balance torque, didn't mean it, couldn't even remember the word torque before lmao.
VTOL is always ass, every aeroplane should be slung on a massive slingshot into the sky because its cool as shit. No propulsion, the slingshot has to throw you the whole way.
....go on
every aeroplane should be slung on a massive slingshot into the sky
Winch launching gliders is a thing.
But no digital slingshots, they break when they get wet, only steam slingshots
So 99% of the time this thing is in level flight using one motor to carry 3 paperweights.
And no cargo. There's not much room as drawn for anything else. The center of gravity with an engine up front would be fun. Maybe not impossible, the A310 couldn't fly empty and was a pain to get the CG back enough.
You could theoretically run the front engine to help offset the weight
isn't that what helicopters do?
edit: nevermind I see what you mean, 3 of the 4 rotors wouldn't be doing anything
I have wondered about the prospect of an aircraft carrier that uses rotary-wing drones to launch and recover the fixed-wing aircraft. That'd give you a lot more flexibility as to the form factor of the ship, since you don't need to do the deceleration or acceleration on the ship, let you launch and recover directly from stuff like submarines (and not like the I-400 class, which was really a seaplane carrier).
The US has been working on fixed-wing UAVs that are launched and recovered from a fixed-wing airborne aircraft carrier, Gremlins. If you can do that, I'd imagine that it'd also be possible to launch and recover them from a rotary-wing drone.
Without going into the aerodynamics, which plenty of others have gone into, the main problems I see are:
- The structural integrity of the wings is effectively kneecapped by those 2 rotors. There's almost no material remaining where the wings meet the body and there's a lot of force that needs to transfer through that area.
- Unless the center of gravity is within the triangle defined by the rotors, you're going to have a really bad time trying to control that thing during vertical flight.
- Where would all the fuel and drivetrain for 4 props (which all take up significant space) live? There is almost certainly minimal room for any sort of cargo or payload.
- Why would you want a "thick unitary" frame (I'm assuming you mean unibody here)? We put thin skin with a supporting skeleton on aircraft to reduce the weight of the craft itself without sacrificing too much rigidity, which makes more weight available for fuel and/or cargo.
Is this a generated image? In addition to the font being the one that generated images tend to use, there's some callouts here that also just don't make sense: the double "pure one-piece static frame" and "thick, unitary body frame" callouts are, I think, saying the same thing in two unintuitive ways, and along with the "long clean wings" callout, none of them really have anything to do with the design concept here. Additionally, you've repeated the "maximum efficiency winged vtol configuration" and "cheapest minimalist one-piece construction" notes on the side, neither of which are necessarily true or provable from first principles based on the design- quite the opposite, if anything.
I got this one, I think it may be a bit better.


You don’t really gain anything from putting the props in the wings, and you lose a lot of wing strength.
Take a look at https://elroyair.com/ for a real-world vtol drone with fixed wings.
No. The rotors are far too small. Simplify the problem down to a ratio of the weight of the craft to the surface area of the rotor blades. What kind of material would you use for them that could withstand that many pascals, and not fail catastrophically when spinning at the required RPM? Compare the surface area of helicopter rotors, or even rotors on FPV drones. They all have rotor diameters that exceed the dimensions of the aircraft body for a good reason.
ELI5: "It's a question of weight ratios. A 5oz bird can't carry a 1lb coconut!"
Did the ai that made this slop know it was supposed to fly?
I'm pretty sure I've seen small (i.e., handheld-sized) commercial UAVs that fly like this. But as others have pointed out, at any realistic size you start to run into a lot of problems:
- The VTOL rotors will create massive drag when they're not in use. There's a reason virtually every aircraft with embedded VTOL jets engineered ways to cover them up during level flight. This cascades into a whole bevy of complexity issues.
- When you're not using them, you're lugging around 3 out of your 4 rotors for no reason.
- You're also sacrificing a lot of internal volume for your lift fans. This isn't so much a problem in small UAVs, again, but it's not great if you were hoping to use that capacity for fuel or cargo.
So yeah, like others said as well - now that we have tailsitter drones of moderate size, there's not really a use for this layout.
There’s a reason virtually every aircraft with embedded VTOL jets engineered ways to cover them up during level flight.
Or ways to pivot them to horizontal and use them for forward thrust...
But, honestly, I think ones like OP's could work relatively well if you engineered the hell out of the aerodynamics and made sure that the openings would be inside slipstream 'shadows' and not exposed to much airflow while in forward motion. That could only be well-optimized for one airspeed, though, so it wouldn't be practical for an aircraft that wants to fly at different speeds a lot. But for one intended to always cruise at a set speed, I think it could work.
Other criticisms are still totally valid, though.
Maybe, but what's the advantage over tailsitters like this?

Or even the tilt-rotor quads/tris like the Flightory Stallion
The idea is for being able to hover while dropping cargo on a zip line, the design is inspired by the zipline uber eats.
Apparently the issue with this style is landing, for pilot ones anyway.
It would probably be possible to make functional (especially on a small scale), but wouldn't be very efficient. With four rotors to drive, you're going to have significant weight, and on top of that you have the flat profile that will make it difficult to fly vertically. At the same time, the large spaces for the propellers mean it won't be as sturdy or aerodynamic, and you've only got one propeller for forward thrust, so it won't be able to go very fast. Very optimisticly, I expect that you'd be left with a vehicle that can barely take off or land, although might perform a bit better than something like a helicopter once in the air, but not competiting with existing VOTL designs.
Maybe you could create a slight angled bump in front of the holes for the vertical rotors so air stream goes over without causing much drag?
No, that's basically how air brakes work by causing even more turbulence.
I was assuming something like that would be used, but even then, its still a bunch of additional drag for little or no gain relative to existing options. As another comment pointed out, tailsitters are pretty comparable in benefits, but they also lack the the drag issues and will likely be at least a little more stable in vertical flight.
Is this a post by an AI chat bot? The replies are odd.
Are you incapable of seeing my post history or just stupid?
Not my fault you sound like a bot. I don't think your link proves much either. It doesnt really matter though.
The major issues I could see with this design are:
- the pitch is going to be really hard to control with two aft rotors and a single forward rotor in vertical flight
- structural challenges with the wing since there's a big hole now where the spars go through
- depending on the type of fuel it uses, it has limited capacity in the wings for a wet wing and would take up a significant portion of the fuselage for a large capacity battery setup
Your wings would fall off. There is almost no material where they should be the strongest because there is a giant hole in it.
The center of gravity has to be forward of the side props or you'll have a hard time balancing it. This means the mass of fuel/battery, engine and payload have to be around there.
You've seen how big the props are on toy drones, helicopters, or the V-22 compared to the rest of the thing? They need to be that big to provide enough lift.
Doesn't a drone like this already actually exist? At least as like a remote control toy, surely.
yep, seen similar looking ones a decade before
don't know how good they are though, never really looked into it even back then
Maybe but prop planes have pretty short takeoffs and landings anyway, from the little I know.
The issue you have here is weight, how many engines do you need to power those 4 props.
It could be made to work, yes ... but it's not really optimal and I don't see any way it's better than other already-existing designs.
I know fuck-all about aerodynamics and that kind of design stuff, but if you have the resources for it, would you be able to 3D print and wire a small-scale version of this as an RC flier? You could then test how it handles first-hand, and perhaps put it in a small wind tunnel (iirc Mythbusters had an episode where they made a cheap DIY one with a shop fan and plastic straws)