TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why haven't quadcopters been scaled up yet?

111 点作者 vitoc超过 10 年前

19 条评论

Htsthbjig超过 10 年前
Because quadcopters are naturally unstable, so you need complex electronics(and sensors and electric motors) to control it.<p>You can make helicopters very stable just with weights in the rotor, like any RC fan knows.<p>Until very recently the inertial motion control complex elements were very expensive.<p>Accelerometers in cars and gyros in smartphones later had made those sensors inexpensive. The iPhone was released in 2007, that was 7 years ago.<p>Every air device carries gyros inside, but for controlling the plane they had to give you a digital signal, it is not enough with the artificial horizon sphere.<p>The simple helicopter design has been mass produced for decades(and wars like Vietnam subsidized them more), and it is well tested and reliable. Any new design has to compete in price and will have to iron lots of bugs at first.<p>The second most important reason is that you need to use electric motors as normal heat engines could not respond as fast as needed.<p>So in order to make a quadcopter you need to generate electricity onboard, which means a big hybrid engine.<p>I see quadcopters as the future, but in order to compete in price, they will have to evolve from small UAVs.
评论 #8412072 未加载
评论 #8412193 未加载
WalterBright超过 10 年前
An airplane is a vehicle that wants to fly, a helicopter wants to crash. A helicopter is inherently unstable and requires constant adjustment. It has multiple single points of failure, any one of which will result inevitably in a crash. This is dealt with by insanely expensive quality control, constant inspections, and constant maintenance.<p>The quadcopter doesn&#x27;t improve on this, it makes it worse. It has 4 engines - if one engine fails, it crashes. It has inherently 1&#x2F;4 of the reliability of a single engine helicopter. Losing one rotor blade will also cause a crash, so its 1&#x2F;4 of the reliability there as well. QA, maintenance, and overhauls will cost 4x as much.
评论 #8411926 未加载
评论 #8411872 未加载
评论 #8413263 未加载
milankragujevic超过 10 年前
A quadcopter changes direction by spinning up or down the appropriate set of propellers. The smaller the propellers, the less energy (time) it takes to slow them down. Meaning a huge quadcopter is increadibly unstable and can&#x27;t change direction fast enough for anything. They&#x27;re uselessly inefficient other than the smallest ones (flying circuit board, ~4cm long) and the bigger ones just use bigger batteries and have the same flight time (mainly for lifting cameras, but they too are slower or use much more energy to go the same speed as the small ones).
评论 #8411788 未加载
评论 #8412493 未加载
jamesaguilar超过 10 年前
Distilled:<p>- Large rotors are more efficient than small rotors.<p>- Because of the square-cube law, bigger, heavier aircraft require higher fuel energy densities than can be delivered by batteries. Therefore you need a relatively complex engine rather than simple motors, and you can&#x27;t afford to replicate it four times.<p>- A variety of handling and safety benefits of helicopters compared to quad rotors.
评论 #8412867 未加载
评论 #8411717 未加载
评论 #8411494 未加载
Crito超过 10 年前
&gt; <i>&quot;The only effect that can make quadcopter stable is having centre of gravity below centre of lift just like normal helicopter.&quot;</i><p>This strikes me as incorrect (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pendulum_rocket_fallacy</a>), though I am not totally confident of that.
评论 #8411703 未加载
moepstar超过 10 年前
While it is a multi-copter instead of a quad, this thing looks promising:<p><a href="http://www.e-volo.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.e-volo.com&#x2F;</a><p>Video of first flight is on this page: <a href="http://www.e-volo.com/ongoing-developement/vc-200" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.e-volo.com&#x2F;ongoing-developement&#x2F;vc-200</a>
Sami_Lehtinen超过 10 年前
Here&#x27;s one quadcopter design which is more efficient that most of older designs: <a href="http://www.geek.com/science/weve-been-designing-quadcopters-incorrectly-since-day-one-1577256/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.geek.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;weve-been-designing-quadcopters-...</a>
utopkara超过 10 年前
It must be the costs... Multirotors have enjoyed open source development by enthusiasts so far, and they built heavily on the experience of the RC enthusiasts, and they repurposed tons of hardware that is suitable for small applications. A few thousand dollars is within the budget of many developers, so the small UAV improvements could proceed very much like software-based innovation curve does. But, any size&#x2F;budget&#x2F;project bigger than that is bound by a different progress curve. I bet it can be done, and if it is practical, it will be done too. Aerospace engineers were always a very innovative bunch; check out autogyro (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Autogyro</a>).
评论 #8411693 未加载
Arcanum-XIII超过 10 年前
There&#x27;s alternative to the common arrangement of a motor per blade, like the <a href="http://curtisyoungblood.com/V2/products/quadcopters/stingray-500" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;curtisyoungblood.com&#x2F;V2&#x2F;products&#x2F;quadcopters&#x2F;stingray...</a> - one motor, variable pitch. It&#x27;s clearly more complex, but you gain agility, motor efficiency and it seem to give a better running time.
lotsofcows超过 10 年前
One major reason for multi rotor machines is to avoid the classic helicopter problem of the rotor blade&#x27;s leading edge approaching the speed of sound while the trailing blade is simultaneously stalling.<p>Unfortunately, this would require such a scaling up of existing quadcopter designs that it&#x27;s unlikely to ever happen for all the reasons already listed.
tim333超过 10 年前
The Lady Gaga copter is quite funky <a href="http://www.10news.com/news/lady-gaga-takes-flight-in-hovering-dress-designed-in-part-by-carlsbad-pilot-11242013" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.10news.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;lady-gaga-takes-flight-in-hoverin...</a>
jonah超过 10 年前
What I&#x27;d like to see are more small &quot;drones&quot; with alternate arrangements. Counterrotating Coaxial for example.[1]<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUGEjQdoylY" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=DUGEjQdoylY</a>
评论 #8411670 未加载
SoftwareMaven超过 10 年前
This is the interesting answer there, IMO. An interesting take on a real multi-prop vehicle: <a href="https://www.advancedtacticsinc.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.advancedtacticsinc.com</a><p>The video linked at the bottom is worth a watch.
kashkhan超过 10 年前
They are coming...<p><a href="http://zee.aero/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;zee.aero&#x2F;</a><p><a href="http://www.jobyaviation.com/S2/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jobyaviation.com&#x2F;S2&#x2F;</a><p>For practical reasons and redundancy more than four rotors is better.
评论 #8411869 未加载
ghostdiver超过 10 年前
Does it necessarily has to be a *copter?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier</a>
评论 #8412171 未加载
ck2超过 10 年前
Can quadcopters safely land on three motors? How about less?
评论 #8413273 未加载
Terr_超过 10 年前
The same reason the birds and the bees have radically different wings.<p>Scaling up insect flight to bird size does not go well, because physical properties do not scale evenly.
评论 #8412019 未加载
dharma1超过 10 年前
Also wondering if VTOL multi rotor&#x2F;fixed wing hybrids could be scaled up
评论 #8413385 未加载
jokoon超过 10 年前
Also electrical rotors have much finer control than a piston engine.
评论 #8411968 未加载