Lost a blade at 100 feet up...

[black_magic100]

Give it a try and get back to us.

Just making an a comment; I never said it WAS possible. Not sure why you guys are acting like it is some voodoo magic. Billion dollar airplanes that weigh 750,000 tons are designed to run off single engines. There are many quads that can also safely land with 3 props. I was merely stating that I have heard of times where the mavic was able to safely land after losing a prop. Similarly, Ed Ricker did a video where he stopped the rotors mid air and re-initiated them and the mavic was able to keep flying. While it is not recommend to fly with 3 props for obvious reasons, I do believe it may be possible to safely land with 3 props, but of course I have no idea how true that is and what the success rate is.

 

[MiniPalourde]

If you are dumb enough to fly with a broken prop you 150% deserve to lose your drone and hopefully you don't have enough money to buy a new one. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should... I can't help stupidity

You deserve to lose your drone but does the person just below you deserve to be hit? No.

 

[black_magic100]

You deserve to lose your drone but does the person just below you deserve to be hit? No.

I am so beyond confused what your point here is. Why must you argue with everything I say? This all originated from a statement I made about how I have heard/seen rumors that the mavic can safely land with 3 propellers. I NEVER once said that this was fact so why are you so convinced that I said it was? I seriously do not understand your point here and I'd rather not keep arguing about something so pointless. Losing a prop is not something your average person tries to do intentionally, but knowing whether or not the mavic can land with 3 props along w/ proper movement of the sticks is something worth knowing in the eye of safety. THAT is what I am trying to get across.

 

[MiniPalourde]

I am so beyond confused what your point here is. Why must you argue with everything I say? This all originated from a statement I made about how I have heard/seen rumors that the mavic can safely land with 3 propellers. I NEVER once said that this was fact so why are you so convinced that I said it was? I seriously do not understand your point here and I'd rather not keep arguing about something so pointless. Losing a prop is not something your average person tries to do intentionally, but knowing whether or not the mavic can land with 3 props along w/ proper movement of the sticks is something worth knowing in the eye of safety. THAT is what I am trying to get across.

Oh no.

I didn't argue with you.

Just said that your information was wrong and could lead to incidents if a noob happened to read them.

Then you tried to defend your original comment for some reason, saying that it doesn't matter anyways because anyone flying with a broken propeller deserves to lose their drone.

I say it does matter, because it can hurt someone.

Then you went berserk.

 

[black_magic100]

Oh no.

I didn't argue with you.

Just said that your information was wrong and could lead to incidents if a noob happened to read them.

Then you tried to defend your original comment for some reason, saying that it doesn't matter anyways because anyone flying with a broken propeller deserves to lose their drone.

I say it does matter, because it can hurt someone.

Then you went berserk.

I see how you could take it that way...

On the flip side, you are assuming A) somebody is dumb enough to fly with a broken blade & B) somebody is dumb enough to fly over people.

 

[Chirp]

There's another side to this...
You have a MP 100' above your head and for whatever reason it is spiraling down towards you.
That was the reason for the CSC in the 2 seconds I had to think...

 

[black_magic100]

There's another side to this...
You have a MP 100' above your head and for whatever reason it is spiraling down towards you.
That was the reason for the CSC in the 2 seconds I had to think...

Keep in mind that I'm not saying you did the wrong thing in this situation; I wasn't there so I have no idea of knowing.

 

[AnzacJack]

Billion dollar airplanes that weigh 750,000 tons are designed to run off single engines. There are many quads that can also safely land with 3 props.

Firstly I’d like you to name one aircraft that weighs 750,000 tons and can fly on one engine.
Then I’d also like you to give some examples of quads that can safely land on 3 props.

Just because you think it, doesn’t make it true

 

[Almanzor]

Hi. Here is a test with the propellers, in minute 2, without a propeller.

 

[Tinmania]

Hi. Here is a test with the propellers, in minute 2, without a propeller.

Wow, great video! Hadn’t seen it.

That Mavic sure took a beating. Surviving those deliberate tree attacks was hard to watch but amazing.

 

[joejaxvic123]

I wish mine had a parachute on it....

 

[Tinmania]

I wish mine had a parachute on it....

Go get one! https://www.marsparachutes.com/product/productmars-mini/



Mike

 

[joejaxvic123]

Thanks, Mike!

 

[Chirp]

Keep in mind that I'm not saying you did the wrong thing in this situation; I wasn't there so I have no idea of knowing.

It sounds like you were anticipating a prop problem.
You changed the props the night before, did you have an impact/incursion requiring you to do this?
One replacement prop "didnt feel right" so why did you put it on the night before?
The prop you replaced it with the next day, was it one of the ones you removed, for some reason unexplained, the previous night?
If that prop needed replacing the previous night then why was it OK the next day?
you did not say if all or any of these props were genuine DJI.
No disrespect but I feel there may more to this account than I haAve read.

None taken. All was original DJI equipment. I changed blades because I clipped a bush last flight and there was a nick in one blade. I had lots of spares so I changed them all. To be safe. Unfortunately it didn't work that way.

 

[Chirp]

Go get one! https://www.marsparachutes.com/product/productmars-mini/

Mike

That's great! Would have been worth the investment for my crash which cost around $400 to repair.

 

[black_magic100]

Firstly I’d like you to name one aircraft that weighs 750,000 tons and can fly on one engine.
Then I’d also like you to give some examples of quads that can safely land on 3 props.

Just because you think it, doesn’t make it true

I'm not saying it's 100% true! I honestly have no idea if it's possible. However, somebody else in the thread linked a video and it appears to not work so looks like you are indeed correct!

As far as 750,000 lb planes go... https://www.google.com/search?q=are...rome..69i57.6583j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Their is a quick google search and the first result. Most modern airplanes today are designed to run on a single engine. Obviously some planes/small jets only have one engine, in which case you are most likely going to die .

edit: should also mention that I have ZERO piloting experience. I think I saw a post on Reddit/online a few months ago and thought it was very interesting to see that most planes are engineered in a way that 1 engine is all you really need. Although I would think that it would be a very uncomfortable landing, but it's better than dying I guess...

 

[black_magic100]

That's great! Would have been worth the investment for my crash which cost around $400 to repair.

Not sure if you mentioned this at all or not, but you should definitely get State Farm Insurance. Can't beat $60 no deductible for $1000+ of coverage!

 

[Divebomber]

If I'm not mistaken, the "fly on one engine" regulation applies to trans-oceanic airframes only. The regulation used to be that trans oceanic aircraft had to have at least three engines, which resulted in the L-1011 and the DC10. Many aircraft, especially the smaller, privately-owned models, won't fly on one engine. They'll reduce the descent rate, but not be able to fly indefinitely. There was one model of Cessna, a few years back that pilots used to joke about. Twin engine Cessna 210 definitely wouldn't fly very far on one engine. The joke was that if you only had one engine running on a 210, it would take you as far as the scene of the crash.

 

[Tinmania]

Twin engine Cessna 210 definitely wouldn't fly very far on one engine. The joke was that if you only had one engine running on a 210, it would take you as far as the scene of the crash.

The 210 is single engine. Think you meant 310.



Mike

 

[sar104]

I'm not saying it's 100% true! I honestly have no idea if it's possible. However, somebody else in the thread linked a video and it appears to not work so looks like you are indeed correct!

As far as 750,000 lb planes go... https://www.google.com/search?q=are...rome..69i57.6583j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Their is a quick google search and the first result. Most modern airplanes today are designed to run on a single engine. Obviously some planes/small jets only have one engine, in which case you are most likely going to die .

edit: should also mention that I have ZERO piloting experience. I think I saw a post on Reddit/online a few months ago and thought it was very interesting to see that most planes are engineered in a way that 1 engine is all you really need. Although I would think that it would be a very uncomfortable landing, but it's better than dying I guess...

Fixed wing aircraft can fly with fewer than all engines because the engines only provide thrust, not lift or aerodynamic stability. With multicopters the propellers are the wings, and while it's not completely analogous to expecting a fixed-wing aircraft to fly with only one wing, the problem is similar. In principle a quad can fly with just three rotors, with primary lift being provided by the two remaining diagonally opposed and counter-spinning rotors, and rotation around the axis connecting them being controlled by the third motor. That's unbalanced in terms of angular momentum around the vertical axis, leading to a lack of yaw control (you can live with that), but it also likely requires the third motor to be reversible in order to be able to provide up or down thrust.