Very good answer.No .. tacking won't help you make headway against a strong headwind.
It will make your drone travel twice as far and expose it to the wind for a lot longer.
Sailboats don't tack to deal with strong winds.
They tack because they cannot sail directly into even the lightest winds.
They also have no battery limitations.
If you put your drone into a situation where it cannot fight against a strong headwind to come home, your only option is to get the drone down low and out of that strong wind.
Too often the battle is already lost by the time flyers realise the problem.
The most effective solution is prevention.
Is Tacking A Viable Solution To An Overpowering Headwind?
- Thread starter raymacke
- Start date
- Status
I dont sail, so I'm not sure about the terminology behind "tacking", but by flying at an angle to the wind, absolutely probable.
By flying directly into the wind, the drone pitches forward and exposes the flat surface directly into the wind, creating a greater amount of resistance. The MM has a very slim side profile however, and by flying forward and at an angle would severely reduce the drag produced by headwinds. It is much easier to move forward at an angle on reduced wind resistance than it would be directly forward with increased resistance.
Check out this video on youtube of a guy who unintentionally found this out. Skip to about 5:40
By flying directly into the wind, the drone pitches forward and exposes the flat surface directly into the wind, creating a greater amount of resistance. The MM has a very slim side profile however, and by flying forward and at an angle would severely reduce the drag produced by headwinds. It is much easier to move forward at an angle on reduced wind resistance than it would be directly forward with increased resistance.
Check out this video on youtube of a guy who unintentionally found this out. Skip to about 5:40
Last edited:
Sometimes it's a good idea to read some of the posts in a thread before you respond to just the OP.
The thread is full of posts explaining why tacking will not help you if you are battling a strong headwind to get home.
I read some of the responses, but not all. I was simply adding my input based on my knowledge and experience. There is truly no need for a passive aggressive response
And when it's been conclusively proved multiple times in the same thread that tacking does not help, posting that it does, doesn't do much for your credibility.I read some of the responses, but not all. I was simply adding my input based on my knowledge and experience. There is truly no need for a passive aggressive response
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
I read some of the responses, but not all. I was simply adding my input based on my knowledge and experience. There is truly no need for a passive aggressive response
Not wishing to be accused of being passive-aggressive - unfortunately your input is incorrect. This is not a question of opinion or experience - the entire concept is physically nonsensical. It is trivial to prove that it cannot work, as has been done several times in this and other threads.
After reading through other comments, I'm not sure where this has been "conclusively proven". Another video suggests this with the MM to avoid wind take-away here:
(skip to 6:45)
I believe this is certainly a topic that deserves revisiting. The side profile of the MM is sufficiently minimized to decrease drag from high speed wind conditions. Obviously the ultimate solution will always be to decrease altitude. However if this is not the case, and landing is not a viable option, flying indirectly to the wind is certainly a plausible solution to gaining ground when needing a return home in headwinds. Of course battery life is a factor as the trade-off becomes distance vs. energy expended, which is the most basic principle of aeronautical physics
And so is whether the earth is flat or not.
The similarities are that in both cases you’re attempting to disprove physics and math.
No amount of supposed empirical data Which by the way the videos don’t even count as data since no measurements were made or recorded can disapprove it.
The similarities are that in both cases you’re attempting to disprove physics and math.
No amount of supposed empirical data Which by the way the videos don’t even count as data since no measurements were made or recorded can disapprove it.
Given your comment, I feel it is important to note my line of work. My wife and I both are aeronautical engineers for JPL in Northern VA. Given my profession I understand fairly well the impact surface area exposed has on drag of an object in motion. I have to say, I am quite confused by your comment. What does this have to do with "flat earth"? How exactly is my hypothesis disproven by physics and math?
I am not claiming to have calculated the efficacy of diagonal flight in headwinds nor have I so much as looked at the drag coefficient of the mini when exposing the flat surface of its upper body during pitch-forward flight. This would be impossible without some sort of spec from DJI or a wind tunnel. I personally am fairly new to drones as a whole. However, I do not see the calculable evidence here that shows it to be ineffective as you- and a few others- have claimed in their comments
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
Drag is irrelevant because airspeed depends only on tilt. And if presenting a different aspect of the airframe to the wind reduced drag and allowed higher airspeeds then the solution would be to fly sideways directly into the wind, not at an angle. This is a simple problem of relative frames of reference. If the wind speed were zero and the question were "how do you fly as fast as possible in a given direction?", then obviously the answer, trivially, is to fly that heading. The fact that the destination is receding, relative to the working fluid that comprises the atmosphere, doesn't change the calculation - flying a course directly towards the destination gets you there the fastest.
Attachments
Someone on a youtube video contradicted me?
I guess I'm wrong then ... unless the youtube guy has no idea himself and is just repeating common myths.
But that would be a first for Youtube?
I know you've said that you are an aeronautical engineer, but perhaps it would help to revise Chapter 2 here:
I am.. flabbergasted. Airspeed depends on tilt of the drone, the resistance is the force of wind creating drag on exposed surface area of said object, the force acting in opposition to airspeed. Drag is in no way "irrelevant". Drag is the reason we are even having this discussion in the first place ?
Your passive aggressiveness when faced with opposition to your argument is glimmering. I'll discontinue any convo with you until you learn how to debate civilly.
FYI your link is asking for my Google contacts to access, I won't oblige. I tried to view it. I'm sure it's nothing I haven't learned in my 7 years of education and counting
So you're basing your case on the words of a Youtube dill who frequently demonstrates a very poor understanding of how drones fly?
I have no idea his expertise in the world of drones. He may very well demonstrate a poor understanding as you say, that is the only video I have seen of him. What I do know is that doubling the surface area of an object in motion doubles the drag. This is one of the most basic principles of aeronautics. Just on visual observation of the surface area of the drone exposed during forward-pitch shows that it is greatly increased than when it is rolled and pitched forward at an angle. This indefinitely decreases the drag resistance of the craft, whether or not it is decreased significantly enough to gain ground remains to be known.
I am not claiming to be right, what I am saying is there is validity to the theory that this could reduce resistance on the drone and result in forward movement when dealing with strong head wind. What I am reading is a bunch of speculative conversation based on half-truths and incomplete analysis without proper implication of basic physics and empirical evidence being substantiated as fact. I do not claim to have better input than any of you. All I did originally was insert my opinion that this theory proposed by the OP should be considered and is entirely probable. I am being told that this has already been objectively proven false but its clear to me that it has not. I don't believe anyone here can objectively state it an impossibility without putting the MM in a wind tunnel and evaluating the aerodynamics of the craft in its various positions during flight
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
Perhaps you would like to explain where the mathematics is wrong, rather than just being flabbergasted. Surely you can do that - it's what an actual aeronautical engineer would try to do. Are you suggesting that the maximum airspeed depends on wind speed? Of course not. Or that the maximum airspeed depends on tilt direction, i.e. forwards, backwards, sideways, etc. It doesn't but, even if it did, as I showed quite clearly, the optimal solution is always a course directly towards the target at maximum airspeed.
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
If the maths in the last few posts is too complicated, post #27 has distilled it down to its simplest form.
Lol! How can I do the math when there aren’t any numbers? I am not going to pretend to know best- regardless of my career and education- like everyone else has. Propulsion by the props are held at a constant in either situation. Whether you are moving forwards, backward or sideways, the output by the props will be the same. The only variables in the hypothetical that can be altered is ground speed and resistance. That’s it! Reducing resistance by minimizing profile of the craft- is the only solution to increase ground speed (without flying with the wind). Whether or not exposed surface area is reduced enough to sufficiently reduce drag that overcomes max output of the motors is the question. No one here knows the answer to that because no one here has the data necessary, myself included
I’m flabbergasted by your comment that “this has nothing to do with drag”. Absolutely amazing. I didn’t say much more for a reason. If you can’t see the issue in that comment it’s not worth discussing
- Status
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
Forum statistics
