Tri prop on Mini?

[TOTALREASON]

Would it be beneficial to design a tri prop for the mavic mini? The design would limit its ability to fold or store away but could they be used some how after unfolded and installed for a sport mode speed boost?

Not sure if this is a hardware upgrade subject or just a silly general question.
Mods please forgive me if so. I mean no disrespect to you.

I'm accessory crazy. I cant afford a pro or Air 2 and I hate how the phantom 4pro looks like as well as cost. So I'm all about add ons and improvements to what I have. I'd love to try to hack and program a custom firmware version that unlocks active track and add waypoint autoflight to the mini. I hope when the next flagship comes out maybe they give the mini both those features once it wont canabalize the Air and Pro and Zoom.

 

[BigAl07]

TriProps aren't as efficient as 2 blades but other times when there is a clearance issue the loss in performance is acceptable.

Keep in mind that these UAS are controlled by a very strictly programmed Flight Controller. This Flight Controller will limit the aircraft's performance in order to keep the parameters within the hard coded limits set by the designers. It's not like our aircraft before Flight Controllers where we could change props and completely change the performance of the aircraft.

IMHO you're wasting time, wasting $$, and increasing risk of failure in trying to "Tweak" a system governed by such a strict Flight Controller.

 

[TOTALREASON]

I absolutely agree. I just think it would look bad a$$
How about the same dual props but with a more aggressive cut? Would the flight controllers still limit that? Perhaps it would make it quieter?

 

[Lurch003]

no idea about performance but no doubt it would take it over the weight

 

[Deleted member 103366]

Bearing in mind your gimbal cover thread one word comes to mind.....weight, (ducking now).
Dar_n it, Lurch beat me to it.

 

[BigAl07]

I absolutely agree. I just think it would look bad a$$
How about the same dual props but with a more aggressive cut? Would the flight controllers still limit that? Perhaps it would make it quieter?

The Flight Controller is tasked with maintaining all parameters within the programmed specs which include acceleration, speed, RPM etc. It's like putting a new High Performance motor in your car and setting cruise control to 55mph. The Cruise Control (aka Flight Controller) is still going to adjust the power to maintain 55mph.

 

[BigAl07]

I absolutely agree. I just think it would look bad a$$
How about the same dual props but with a more aggressive cut? Would the flight controllers still limit that? Perhaps it would make it quieter?

You might be more happy and better off going with a more "Open" platform so you can modify/tweak/add anything you like without the restrictions of a Drone for Dummies flight controller.

 

[TOTALREASON]

The Flight Controller is tasked with maintaining all parameters within the programmed specs which include acceleration, speed, RPM etc. It's like putting a new High Performance motor in your car and setting cruise control to 55mph. The Cruise Control (aka Flight Controller) is still going to adjust the power to maintain 55mph.

Ok but if the props are better at making lift and the system is controlling for the original hardware, could the more aggressive cut cause more lift when spun at the same rate as the original hardware? Cuz the cruise control is set at 55 but a ferrari gets to 55 and tops out faster than a Honda civic. Or would the controller power it back to adjust for the increase in lift potential? I dont mean to ask the same question over. So just clarifying. I appreciate you taking time to respond to me. Thank you again

I know the top speed woumd be the same but couldn't it accelerate faster than it is trying due to the parameters being set for original hardware instead of so.e new aggressive cut/angle/shape

 

[Lurch003]

Bearing in mind your gimbal cover thread one word comes to mind.....weight, (ducking now).
Dar_n it, Lurch beat me to it.

... again !!! Sorry buddy

 

[TOTALREASON]

... again !!! Sorry buddy

Ahahahahaahahhahahaha

 

[Deleted member 103366]

With regards to coloured sticks I don't see the point really, unless you need sticks and they are cheaper than genuine ones. (my customising something for customising's sake are long gone). Yes I have seen one thread about the genuine ones breaking but so far mine are fine and given the number of people loosing minis I'd think 2nd hand sticks (new or used) will be fairly cheap.
After market props I would be very careful of because of balance concerns and possibly "fit" concerns.
Re the storage covers, I bought some and have never used them, they are till in their original bag. I was concerned about how much it was necessary to depress the blades to get them to intermesh when they are across the body

 

[Deleted member 103366]

We need a raspberry thingy!

 

[Lurch003]

We need a raspberry thingy!

Is that a message to me... or your Mrs ?!! ? ? ?

 

[BigAl07]

Ok but if the props are better at making lift and the system is controlling for the original hardware, could the more aggressive cut cause more lift when spun at the same rate as the original hardware? Cuz the cruise control is set at 55 but a ferrari gets to 55 and tops out faster than a Honda civic. Or would the controller power it back to adjust for the increase in lift potential? I dont mean to ask the same question over. So just clarifying. I appreciate you taking time to respond to me. Thank you again

I know the top speed woumd be the same but couldn't it accelerate faster than it is trying due to the parameters being set for original hardware instead of so.e new aggressive cut/angle/shape

All aspects are "controlled" by the FC and Vertical speed (and Vert acceleration ) included. Keep in mind when you change components on a "system" you are possibly adding stress in areas not designed to handle them. One such case is with more robust props. I learned the hard way many moons ago that adding "stronger" props (ones that can withstand more impact energy without chipping /breaking) transfer that energy deeper into the airframe where things are more difficult to change and more expensive to replace.

 

[ATP]

I ordered a hard case designed to put the mini away unfolded and even with the prop guards still attached.
Bought flashlight landing light, nav lights, landing gear, motor covers, coloured props, always looking.

 

[bumper]

As BigAl07 said, it's about efficiency. The more blades, the less efficient a prop is - really! This is due to interference drag from the turbulence created by the previous blade. The most efficient prop is just one blade (obviously with a weight to balance it). One blade has been used on aircraft (though not many) as there are other reasons one blade isn't often practical.

Some other considerations are that longer blades are more efficient than shorter ones, but there's always a practical or physical limit to prop length due to clearance requirements. With more powerful engines, and considering clearance issues, multi-blade props become a practical necessity in order to harness more horsepower - which is why four and more blades used, even counter-rotating props in a few cases.

Generally, two blades are best unless harnessing lots of horsepower. On my Husky aircraft, two blades will be faster top speed and more fuel efficient than 3 blades, but 3 blades will accelerate a little quicker for slightly shorter take off distance and better climb performance. And of course 3 blades subjectively looks better. Still, most small aircraft have 2 blades for good reason.

 

[Lurch003]

I ordered a hard case designed to put the mini away unfolded and even with the prop guards still attached.
Bought flashlight landing light, nam lights, landing gear, motor covers, coloured props, always looking.

Have you got a link to/pics of the case?

 

[TOTALREASON]

I ordered a hard case designed to put the mini away unfolded and even with the prop guards still attached.
Bought flashlight landing light, nam lights, landing gear, motor covers, coloured props, always looking.

Tell me more about the lights and landing gear!!!

 

[TOTALREASON]

As BigAl07 said, it's about efficiency. The more blades, the less efficient a prop is - really! This is due to interference drag from the turbulence created by the previous blade. The most efficient prop is just one blade (obviously with a weight to balance it). One blade has been used on aircraft (though not many) as there are other reasons one blade isn't often practical.

Some other considerations are that longer blades are more efficient than shorter ones, but there's always a practical or physical limit to prop length due to clearance requirements. With more powerful engines, and considering clearance issues, multi-blade props become a practical necessity in order to harness more horsepower - which is why four and more blades used, even counter-rotating props in a few cases.

Generally, two blades are best unless harnessing lots of horsepower. On my Husky aircraft, two blades will be faster top speed and more fuel efficient than 3 blades, but 3 blades will accelerate a little quicker for slightly shorter take off distance and better climb performance. And of course 3 blades subjectively looks better. Still, most small aircraft have 2 blades for good reason.

Thank you for the info! Sweet

 

[TOTALREASON]

All aspects are "controlled" by the FC and Vertical speed (and Vert acceleration ) included. Keep in mind when you change components on a "system" you are possibly adding stress in areas not designed to handle them. One such case is with more robust props. I learned the hard way many moons ago that adding "stronger" props (ones that can withstand more impact energy without chipping /breaking) transfer that energy deeper into the airframe where things are more difficult to change and more expensive to replace.

I was thinking that was the case.. so more rigid carbon fiber is also stressful I assume. No good?