Putting Wings or Winglets on a Mavic?

[Wombat55]

As many of you may know, according to the official specs the Maximum Flight Time of a Mavic (=27 minutes) is actually longer than the Maximum Hovering Time of a Mavic (=24 minutes) by about 3 minutes or 12.5 %. That's a pretty significant amount. Apparently, the Mavic uses less energy when moving because the airflow around its body results in a bit of "body lift". So an obvious idea is whether it is possible to further enhance this lift by adding wings or winglets to a Mavic? The forward speed of a Mavic in non-sport mode is about 20 mph, which seems to be fast enough for wings or winglets to supply some significant amount of additional lift to a Mavic, thereby extending its flight time.

If just the Mavic's natural, un-optimized body shape can provide enough lift to extend the flight time by over 12 %, think about what carefully designed wings or winglets might be able to achieve. 20% or 30% or 50% or more extended flight time? Perhaps something we might see in a next-generation "Mavic 2"?

 

[TSargeant]

Mmmm, interesting idea. Though I figure you're probably going to need a decent wind tunnel to measure it properly, sadly not something I can see a hobbyist creating. Although I would love to be proved wrong!


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[rydfree]

The reason for differences in flight time between hovering and forward flight are two fold , neither of which has much to do with the body of the Multi-rotor providing lift . When in a hover a heli ,or in this case a multi-rotor , is constantly moving air downward at high velocity . If you think about this , the rotors are actually moving the air that it needs to push against away from itself providing less lift . This is the reason full scale helis don't usually descend straight down when landing as they can fly into the air that is being pushed out of the way and fall too fast as a result . That is called Ring Vortex . Second is when in forward flight the prop blades act as a wing just like a airplane and the prop disk themselves provides a lot of extra lift as they move through the air .

 

[Wombat55]

The reason for differences in flight time between hovering and forward flight are two fold , neither of which has much to do with the body of the Multi-rotor providing lift . When in a hover a heli ,or in this case a multi-rotor , is constantly moving air downward at high velocity . If you think about this , the rotors are actually moving the air that it needs to push against away from itself providing less lift ....

Yes, and so if the aircraft is to maintain the same altitude then the rotors actually have to turn a bit faster because not all of the thrust is directed downward but some component of the thrust is directed rearward. So to compensate for the slightly reduced amount of downward thrust, the motors have to work a bit harder and faster. But slightly faster moving rotors mean slightly more electrical power and faster - not slower - battery drain. So I don't see how you can use this to explain the longer flight time of a moving Mavic.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

As many of you may know, according to the official specs the Maximum Flight Time of a Mavic (=27 minutes) is actually longer than the Maximum Hovering Time of a Mavic (=24 minutes) by about 3 minutes or 12.5 %. That's a pretty significant amount. Apparently, the Mavic uses less energy when moving because the airflow around its body results in a bit of "body lift". So an obvious idea is whether it is possible to further enhance this lift by adding wings or winglets to a Mavic? The forward speed of a Mavic in non-sport mode is about 20 mph, which seems to be fast enough for wings or winglets to supply some significant amount of additional lift to a Mavic, thereby extending its flight time.

If just the Mavic's natural, un-optimized body shape can provide enough lift to extend the flight time by over 12 %, think about what carefully designed wings or winglets might be able to achieve. 20% or 30% or 50% or more extended flight time? Perhaps something we might see in a next-generation "Mavic 2"?

The reason it flies longer out of hover is that it is not in its own downrushing column of air but always heading into a mass of (relatively) still air. (Same applies to helicopters).

It is not "body lift" (or not enough to matter). Wings can indeed improve fuel economy (see Parrot Bebop v Parrot Disco - the later has much higher endurance). But to get that fuel economy you need a pusher prop. Here's a drone that does both!

 

[rydfree]

Yes, and so if the aircraft is to maintain the same altitude then the rotors actually have to turn a bit faster because not all of the thrust is directed downward but some component of the thrust is directed rearward. So to compensate for the slightly reduced amount of downward thrust, the motors have to work a bit harder and faster. But slightly faster moving rotors mean slightly more electrical power and faster - not slower - battery drain. So I don't see how you can use this to explain the longer flight time of a moving Mavic.

The reason for longer flight time of a forward moving Mavic is because of the second example . The spinning disk is actually a solid surface area to the air and acts as a traditional wing providing added lift . The fact that each blade is a airfoil just like a airplane wing adds to this . The rotors spin less and motors work less in forward flight . Look up rotorwing aerodynamics .

 

[stratos]

I dont think the Mavics body produce any significant lift wings might help but as other explained there are other physics which are affecting the craft


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[AlanTheBeast]

The reason for longer flight time of a forward moving Mavic is because of the second example . The spinning disk is actually a solid surface area to the air and acts as a traditional wing providing added lift . The fact that each blade is a airfoil just like a airplane wing . Look up rotorwing aerodynamics .

Hate to dispute you but the reason is that in hover (out of ground effect) the rotors produce a downrushing column of air and it has to fight that as well as gravity. Move forward at some clip and it is into still air and there is much less work to do.

(Out of ground effect is anything about 1/2 the wingspan above the ground - wing span being the external diameter of the two front or rear rotors (left to right)).

 

[rydfree]

Hate to dispute you but the reason is that in hover (out of ground effect) the rotors produce a downrushing column of air and it has to fight that as well as gravity. Move forward at some clip and it is into still air and there is much less work to do.

(Out of ground effect is anything about 1/2 the wingspan above the ground - wing span being the external diameter of the two front or rear rotors (left to right)).

I'm sorry I'm only responsible for what I type not what you understand .

 

[rydfree]

I will try to make it a bit more simple . They may not teach physics in high school like they did way back , lol ..

Take a small solid disk like a plate and attach to the end of a shaft . This will simulate the fast turning prop at zero pitch . It can't produce any lifting effect no matter how much you spin it . Now take that same setup and hold it flat outside a moving cars window . The solid surface will provide varying degrees of lift according to the angle of attack that you hold it at . Now to go further , shape the disk like a airfoil as a rotor blade is and you will see even more lift . add some pitch to the edge and experience even more . A spinning rotor is basically a wing when moving forward . That's where the added lift comes from , not the body .There are lifting bodies out there but not the Mavics fat Arse ,lol

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I'm sorry I'm only responsible for what I type not what you understand .

I understand helicopters. They pull much more torque in out-of-ground effect hover because they are creating their own down rushing column of air. In forward flight, despite terms like "diskloading" (which is a comparative term, not a physical disk) the rotors act no different than wings on an airplane - except the rear going blade needs to increase its AOA and the forward needs to decrease its AOA for what should be obvious reasons.

For quads, it is no different. Hover out of ground effect is in a downrushing column of air. (Put your hand under the MP when it's hovering and you will see it is substantial). So it has to fight that as well as G.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I will try to make it a bit more simple . They may not teach physics in high school like they did way back , lol ..

Take a small solid disk like a plate and attach to the end of a shaft . This will simulate the fast turning prop at zero pitch . It can't produce any lifting effect no matter how much you spin it . Now take that same setup and hold it flat outside a moving cars window . The solid surface will provide varying degrees of lift according to the angle of attack that you hold it at . Now to go further , shape the disk like a airfoil as a rotor blade is and you will see even more lift .

Which is about the most misleading description I've ever encountered. See my other post. A helicopter blade, spinning is manifestly not a disk. It is a wing. And it behaves like a wing. Because it is a wing. They are not disks.

And in hover, especially out of ground effect, they move massive volumes of air downward and thus need more torque to maintain altitude against that downrushing column of air.

And in forward flight the disk is tilted forward to produce thrust, thus needing a little more torque for the lift vector - but _far less torque_ than in hover because it is still air that is not downrushing.

 

[rydfree]

the rotors act no different than wings on an airplane
.

You're getting the idea

 

[rydfree]

I guess you missed the part of " A spinning rotor is basically a wing when moving forward ."

you're getting it ,just slow down ,lol
I've got to actually go to work now

 

[AyeYo]

You guys are arguing the same thing.

 

[rydfree]

You guys are arguing the same thing.

Yep ,lol

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I will try to make it a bit more simple . They may not teach physics in high school like they did way back , lol ..

Take a small solid disk like a plate and attach to the end of a shaft . This will simulate the fast turning prop at zero pitch . It can't produce any lifting effect no matter how much you spin it . Now take that same setup and hold it flat outside a moving cars window . The solid surface will provide varying degrees of lift according to the angle of attack that you hold it at . Now to go further , shape the disk like a airfoil as a rotor blade is and you will see even more lift . add some pitch to the edge and experience even more . A spinning rotor is basically a wing when moving forward . That's where the added lift comes from , not the body .There are lifting bodies out there but not the Mavics fat Arse ,lol

The only way your description actually works is for gyrocopters. They don't hover well. Or at least not for very long. They actually do tilt the disk back so that the on rushing air causes it to spin and generate lift as an airfoil. But that does not apply at all to helicopters or quads. You'll note your quad is pitched down in forward flight. Hard for your "lifting disk" analogy to work when it's angled the wrong way!

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I guess you missed the part of " A spinning rotor is basically a wing when moving forward ."

you're getting it ,just slow down ,lol
I've got to actually go to work now

You're quoting me with excessive snipping to attempt (badly) to make your point. Since your "intellectual" creds have been thus shred, I bid you goodbye.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

You guys are arguing the same thing.

No. Not at all.

 

[AyeYo]

Hard for your "lifting disk" analogy to work when it's angled the wrong way!

I think that's the one part he's missing. It's not a lifting "disc" so much as it is the forward sweeping blade acting as a wing.