Mavic water recovery system

[noka]

Hmmmm - could be. The noodle did go just under the front leg (ca 1 cm), and I had a cut-out for it, but it did not go further in front. Still I would doubt, that the wind could press it up from under the leg, since the foam is really not very flexibe and quite stiff... Also the rear much deeper cutout should have prevented that it's pushed back... so somehow I find it more likely, that the strap broke - but how?? ... I guess the mystery remains... also it's strange, that only the rear left propeller did all the damage - nothing on the front propeller...

in the end I might try new pair and have it longer in the front...

 

[dmyers7]

Hmmmm - could be. The noodle did go just under the front leg (ca 1 cm), and I had a cut-out for it, but it did not go further in front. Still I would doubt, that the wind could press it up from under the leg, since the foam is really not very flexibe and quite stiff... Also the rear much deeper cutout should have prevented that it's pushed back... so somehow I find it more likely, that the strap broke - but how?? ... I guess the mystery remains... also it's strange, that only the rear left propeller did all the damage - nothing on the front propeller...

in the end I might try new pair and have it longer in the front...

1. The rear rotor disk is lower. 2. The rotor disks (spinning props) will absolutely flex in flight as you put it through its paces in sport mode and wind gusts. The forces of trying to move the mass and stop the mass of the mavic will induce flexing in the spinning blades. Look how easy it is to bend them in your hands. It's not inconceivable that they bent down and the foam moved up enough to touch which then drew in the foam as it was being chopped causing the strap to enter the blade and get cut. Your lucky what was left of the prop still allowed you to safely land.

 

[noka]

All good arguments! Slowly I realize how lucky I have been today! I wish there would be a professional solution to the "sinkability" of the Mavic to take the extra suspense out of flying over water... also there is no source where I could get at least a Getterback in Germany...

 

[Robbyg]

This design is always going to be problematic. The closest analogy I could use is that this is why a returning space capsule or fighter jet first opens a Drogue Parachute before opening the main. If a Mavic hits the water at terminal velocity the force is so high on impact that the Noodle will either detach or get ripped to shreds or worst it will shred up and at the same time break your mavic to bits.

I am not trying to be negative but the engineering side of me feels a need to point this out. If you going to build one please attach it to something the weight and size of the Mavic and throw it high up into the air over a pool and watch what happens when it hits the water.

 

[Matt]

This design is always going to be problematic. The closest analogy I could use is that this is why a returning space capsule or fighter jet first opens a Drogue Parachute before opening the main. If a Mavic hits the water at terminal velocity the force is so high on impact that the Noodle will either detach or get ripped to shreds or worst it will shred up and at the same time break your mavic to bits.

I am not trying to be negative but the engineering side of me feels a need to point this out. If you going to build one please attach it to something the weight and size of the Mavic and throw it high up into the air over a pool and watch what happens when it hits the water.

Most of your posts are negative from what I noticed. Where did you get your engineering degree? Oh a crackerjack box doesn't count. At what height do you need to reach temerminal velocity with a mavic? oh please enlighten us from you work shop in mom and dads basement .

Issue is that of a clearance issue and tight tolerances. Any shift or sloppiness then they will hit the blades which it appears to be the case.

I relize now why so many people are reluctant and in the case of Nola simple have left this form from ingnote comments that hold very merit nor give any constructive criticism. BTW it would take over 2,000 ft to reach terminal velocity. Please enlighten us with your design!!!!

 

[Robbyg]

Most of your posts are negative from what I noticed. Where did you get your engineering degree? Oh a crackerjack box doesn't count. At what height do you need to reach temerminal velocity with a mavic? oh please enlighten us from you work shop in mom and dads basement .

Issue is that of a clearance issue and tight tolerances. Any shift or sloppiness then they will hit the blades which it appears to be the case.

I relize now why so many people are reluctant and in the case of Nola simple have left this form from ingnote comments that hold very merit nor give any constructive criticism. BTW it would take over 2,000 ft to reach terminal velocity. Please enlighten us with your design!!!!

Most of my posts have been spent trying to help people.
I can see that you are one of those guys that would spend their time creating free energy devices and believes that warp drives are just around the corner.

The fact that you even said it would take 2000ft to reach terminal velocity illustrates that you have no clue about the subject and that you simply tried to look up on Google what distance was needed for a human free falling to reach terminal velocity. Do you think its the same number for a shoe or an Egg or a coin?

You cannot easily calculate the height needed to reach terminal velocity for the mavic because you would need to know a lot of info, like the orientation it would take when it's falling, The drag, The mass of the Mavic, the air density at the location. One thing for certain it wont be anything near 2000ft it will be a much shorter distance. A Coin will reach terminal velocity in 60-50ft depending on the coin.

Assuming the Mavic falls with its narrowest profile it will only have to be a few hundred feet up to reach terminal
velocity. Well within flying Altitude.

I suggested he attach the floats to a mavic sized object and throwing them up in the air not because it would reach terminal velocity but to demonstrate that even at a much slower speed than a mavic would normally fall it would hit the water and his flotation device would disintegrate.

Sorry your Butt Hurt over my post. I did say in an earlier post that it could work as a landing and takeoff device but the chances of it working for a Mavic that has lost a prop or has run out of power and hits the water is slim to none.

 

[Matt]

A shoe and a egg fall the same unless you are saying Newtonian laws are incorrect. Of course not a feather with wind resistance. Mybusters did a bit on your coin. You can look that one up.

Not quite Warp drive but ion propulsion is what got us to Pluto. Amazing technology by that all is fake news. They filmed that in the same studio as the moon landings in the 70's. Right?

you never answered my question a while back with your first post in regards to shear force. Let's see your calc's. Since you are a engineer you will take pleasure in showing us your calc's

I have read your posts like the mavic replacement parts. Thk's for that link what a scam!

 

[Robbyg]

I suggest you read up on Drag and how it relates.
In a vacuum all the objects even the feather will hit the ground at the same time. And no wind resistance is not the big problem, it's the atmospheric density that is acting on the falling object.


Ion propulsion has been around probably from before you were likely born. You do know that it is a very very slow means of propulsion that takes months or years to build up enough velocity to get to any useful speed. And what does that have to do with Warp Drives?

As for the calculations, it cannot be easily calculated.
If you know all the variables I can stick them in an equation and give you a number but you are going to be hard pressed to find those out. Even NASA uses actual physical testing to determine what it happening with an irregular shaped object.
That is why once again I suggested testing the flotation system before someone flies around with it thinking that it will survive a crash into the water

Lastly your reference to me recommending replacement parts once again demonstrates your inability to read and comprehend. I pointed out that a seller on eBay claimed he had NIB parts for the Mavic Pro. I never told anybody to buy them I even clarified that I the was just pointing out that DJI was evidently releasing parts for the Mavic.

 

[Matt]

I suggest you read up on Drag and how it relates.
In a vacuum all the objects even the feather will hit the ground at the same time. And no wind resistance is not the big problem, it's the atmospheric density that is acting on the falling object.


Ion propulsion has been around probably from before you were likely born. You do know that it is a very very slow means of propulsion that takes months or years to build up enough velocity to get to any useful speed. And what does that have to do with Warp Drives?

As for the calculations, it cannot be easily calculated.
If you know all the variables I can stick them in an equation and give you a number but you are going to be hard pressed to find those out. Even NASA uses actual physical testing to determine what it happening with an irregular shaped object.
That is why once again I suggested testing the flotation system before someone flies around with it thinking that it will survive a crash into the water

Lastly your reference to me recommending replacement parts once again demonstrates your inability to read and comprehend. I pointed out that a seller on eBay claimed he had NIB parts for the Mavic Pro. I never told anybody to buy them I even clarified that I the was just pointing out that DJI was evidently releasing parts for the Mavic.

Ha! I knew you would not do the cac's and skirt the issue. every mechanical engineer I have worked with would stick three pages of figures in my face.

Well I didn't think my Sunday would consist of throwing bricks around. So a lose fitting brick strapped in and no failur. Of course I hope you can tell me what I am doing wrong. You seem to like to tell people that around here.

Yes the Ebay example was exactly that. Seems like everyone saw right through that scam but someone had to carry on about it.

Think I am done. Just like others with your negativity and constantly talking down to people. You are not as great as you think you are

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Robbyg]

LOL once again demonstrating that you do not understand.
The Brick and the Plastic noodles are not going to pass through the ground. The brick is absorbing all the impact and the noodles are just acting like padding! That's why I said test it in water. Why don't you throw that brick into the water and see what happens. Also note that the brick does not have 4 delicate arms like the Mavic. those arms are most likely going to snap at the joints if the mavic comes down hard and is being used as a support for the noodles

Anyway I think it's obvious that your just Butt Hurt because Noka tested these and it failed. Unfortunately I just came around and you found someone to vent your anger on.

Have fun, I am sure the rest of the forum is tired of this back and forth. Do me one favor, please ask your engineer friends to calculate out the distance a Mavic has to fall to reach terminal velocity. I would love to see a real engineers numbers

 

[Matt]

LOL once again demonstrating that you do not understand.
The Brick and the Plastic noodles are not going to pass through the ground. The brick is absorbing all the impact and the noodles are just acting like padding! That's why I said test it in water. Why don't you throw that brick into the water and see what happens. Also note that the brick does not have 4 delicate arms like the Mavic. those arms are most likely going to snap at the joints if the mavic comes down hard and is being used as a support for the noodles

Anyway I think it's obvious that your just Butt Hurt because Noka tested these and it failed. Unfortunately I just came around and you found someone to vent your anger on.

Have fun, I am sure the rest of the forum is tired of this back and forth. Do me one favor, please ask your engineer friends to calculate out the distance a Mavic has to fall to reach terminal velocity. I would love to see a real engineers numbers

Noka blades cut his strap because they came in contact with them. Again my caution with a lose fit.

Yes they are and we lost some great members with your constant I know it all attitude. So a brick throwing it at the ground shows noting. Ha you ignorance is bliss. Yep the brick has no arms so why is it not getting dislodged? Kind of refutes your stament that the arms are going to fall and cause dislodgement. Or do you have a accuse for that. If as you say the mavic reach 9.8m/s then hitting water is like hitting concrete right? Or is that a myth?

You what to put some real cash on this? More than willing to put these through any test you can come up with and take your cash.

Throwing it in the water is not going to distroy them if tieing a brick on them and smashing them on concrete will not. Bricks don't bounce so ya this took the full force with a freaking brick tied to it.

 

[Robbyg]

This could go on forever.
9.8m/s is the acceleration rate due to gravity. meaning every second that the object is falling its speed increases approx by that amount until the resistance of the air completely negates it going any faster and that is Terminal Velocity. Water becoming like concrete is not achieved at 9.8m/s velocity, if that was the case a diver would be killed from a 1s drop. Water become like concrete at a much higher speed.

You clearly miss the point that the brick is being stopped by the ground. It will not be stopped by the water it will continue to go down into the water exerting a lot of force on the straps and the noodles that are trying to stay at the surface.

Sure I will put $200 on this. Go out over the open water and CSC from 400ft up and if your so confident it will survive intact I will paypal you the money when I see video proof of your system working.

 

[Matt]

Sure could. I will fabricate a 1.5# dummy block (weight of the maverick) put the floats on it. Fly it up 400ft and drop it off a hook over water. Do you want the arms on it or off like they broke lose?

 

[Robbyg]

Don't you know that a Mavic cannot lift the weight of another Mavic. So your test would be a lie. The only way your going to do this is to CSC your own Mavic.

 

[Matt]

Don't you know that a Mavic cannot lift the weight of another Mavic. So your test would be a lie. The only way your going to do this is to CSC your own Mavic.

Ha!! your back peldaling again just like the calc's. When they test the catapult system on a aircraft carrier they use a skid not a real plane.

What is the difference if the dummy block is the same size and weight of a mavic? I even offered to not put arms on it because you said they would break off which I am in agrement with.

I enjoy tinkering with things and up till your negativity enjoyed sharing thoughts and ideas with others.

Now I am disappointed because you are making excuses and who in the hell is going to drop there Mavic 400ft. To the ground?

Ball is in your court!

 

[capt._dan]

Has anyone solid modeled the mavic in CAD software? I have a couple thoughts bouncing around in my head and that would help me out. I am using Autodesk Inventor.

 

[Robbyg]

What is the difference if the dummy block is the same size and weight of a mavic? I even offered to not put arms on it because you said they would break off which I am in agrement with.

I enjoy tinkering with things and up till your negativity enjoyed sharing thoughts and ideas with others.

Now I am disappointed because you are making excuses and who in the **** is going to drop there Mavic 400ft. To the ground?

Ball is in your court!

The Mavic Weighs 1.62 pounds. How are you going to use a Mavic to lift 1.62lbs off wood plus the weight of your float system to 400ft? I have seen video attempts at Jerking the Mavic on a fish scale and the most it can do is jerk the scale to 2lbs at ground level. Jerking a scale is not the same thing as actually flying with the weight.

I am certainly not back peddling. I stated go over open water and CSC from 400ft up. I am still willing to take that on. A piece of woods weight can be easily faked in editing, I want to see a Mavic going up and doing it. It's your design have some faith in it

 

[Robbyg]

Has anyone solid modeled the mavic in CAD software? I have a couple thoughts bouncing around in my head and that would help me out. I am using Autodesk Inventor.

Yes a few people but I don't think he did anything in Autocad.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Robbyg]

Wow my email is lighting up on this argument from guys I know on the forum. A few would love to see Matt CSC his Mavic and others are asking me to stop and let him enjoy what he is doing.

 

[Matt]

The Mavic Weighs 1.62 pounds. How are you going to use a Mavic to lift 1.62lbs off wood plus the weight of your float system to 400ft? I have seen video attempts at Jerking the Mavic on a fish scale and the most it can do is jerk the scale to 2lbs at ground level. Jerking a scale is not the same thing as actually flying with the weight.

I am certainly not back peddling. I stated go over open water and CSC from 400ft up. I am still willing to take that on. A piece of woods weight can be easily faked in editing, I want to see a Mavic going up and doing it. It's your design have some faith in it

you will need to pony up or $1,000 dollars for that because as originally posted it is for recovery only. You can come up this spring and we can head out on the big boat and drop it 400ft watch it crash and if it floats you will need to replace it. If There is just a marker as you say you got a free boat ride and watched some poor sap crash his mavic

You up for the challenge??