this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
20 points (72.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

41182 readers
1348 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world


7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.


8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The idea is a static body VTOL design that can hover stable in the air, and also go at high speeds very efficiently with wings. Could modify dimensions as needed, but general idea, I'm unsure if there's a major design issue?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] possessedfaxmachine666@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey you stole the design I came up with when I was 7 years old. I'll see you in court

I was 6 and my mum said I was the bestest engineer ever. I asked ChatGPT now and it confirmed I am absolutely correct. ChatGPT is never wrong.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I can't believe NASA isn't doing this

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

But planes are made of aluminium which is not ferromagnetic

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

VTOL is always ass, every aeroplane should be slung on a massive slingshot into the sky because its cool as shit. No propulsion, the slingshot has to throw you the whole way.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

every aeroplane should be slung on a massive slingshot into the sky

Winch launching gliders is a thing.

But no digital slingshots, they break when they get wet, only steam slingshots

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

So 99% of the time this thing is in level flight using one motor to carry 3 paperweights.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And no cargo. There's not much room as drawn for anything else. The center of gravity with an engine up front would be fun. Maybe not impossible, the A310 couldn't fly empty and was a pain to get the CG back enough.

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You could theoretically run the front engine to help offset the weight

[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I have wondered about the prospect of an aircraft carrier that uses rotary-wing drones to launch and recover the fixed-wing aircraft. That'd give you a lot more flexibility as to the form factor of the ship, since you don't need to do the deceleration or acceleration on the ship, let you launch and recover directly from stuff like submarines (and not like the I-400 class, which was really a seaplane carrier).

The US has been working on fixed-wing UAVs that are launched and recovered from a fixed-wing airborne aircraft carrier, Gremlins. If you can do that, I'd imagine that it'd also be possible to launch and recover them from a rotary-wing drone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_X-61_Gremlins

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

isn't that what helicopters do?

edit: nevermind I see what you mean, 3 of the 4 rotors wouldn't be doing anything

[–] finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Without going into the aerodynamics, which plenty of others have gone into, the main problems I see are:

  • The structural integrity of the wings is effectively kneecapped by those 2 rotors. There's almost no material remaining where the wings meet the body and there's a lot of force that needs to transfer through that area.
  • Unless the center of gravity is within the triangle defined by the rotors, you're going to have a really bad time trying to control that thing during vertical flight.
  • Where would all the fuel and drivetrain for 4 props (which all take up significant space) live? There is almost certainly minimal room for any sort of cargo or payload.
  • Why would you want a "thick unitary" frame (I'm assuming you mean unibody here)? We put thin skin with a supporting skeleton on aircraft to reduce the weight of the craft itself without sacrificing too much rigidity, which makes more weight available for fuel and/or cargo.

Is this a generated image? In addition to the font being the one that generated images tend to use, there's some callouts here that also just don't make sense: the double "pure one-piece static frame" and "thick, unitary body frame" callouts are, I think, saying the same thing in two unintuitive ways, and along with the "long clean wings" callout, none of them really have anything to do with the design concept here. Additionally, you've repeated the "maximum efficiency winged vtol configuration" and "cheapest minimalist one-piece construction" notes on the side, neither of which are necessarily true or provable from first principles based on the design- quite the opposite, if anything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BartyDeCanter@piefed.social 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You don’t really gain anything from putting the props in the wings, and you lose a lot of wing strength.

Take a look at https://elroyair.com/ for a real-world vtol drone with fixed wings.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yea but don't the flat rotors cause drag? The point being, the rotor inside the wing is not causing drag.

[–] BartyDeCanter@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

oh they definitely cause some, but not nearly as much as the wing breaking because you’ve concentrated the stress into two small areas, or from having to add so many rotors inside the wings that they’re just one rotor next to another.

Take a look at a top down picture of one to get an idea of the swept rotor to wing area ratio. The swept rotor area is almost twice the wing area. If all those rotors were inside the wings, there wouldn’t be any wings left.

[–] lemmyng@piefed.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The point being, the rotor inside the wing is not causing drag.

It would absolutely cause drag, just not from the wing's leading edge but from wake turbulence added to the air flow that's still going over the wing.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably not as much as having an exposed rotor, also maybe you could angle the edge of the hole so the air flows over it like a ramp.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably, maybe, possibly, perhaps. All fun words. Having a hole in the wing is probably way worse than some windage. It cuts the balls out of the laminar flow and pressure differential. I'm no pilot, but as a sailor I can tell you that sails do not perform very well with holes in them.

Why not make the little ramp at the front of the wing so the air flows over it like a ramp and then you can do away with the entire rest of the wing?

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Indeed, you clearly know what you're talking about. A little ramp at the front of the wing would help, with a divet on the other side of the hole to smooth the air flowing down into the other side.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Now you've just made a shorter wing. With big turbulence pockets at the tips. You should look at the DARPA challenge, the VTOL drone that will have to do a long course and deliver things. It's on YouTube.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The DARPA challenge seems like it was just to see what could lift the most weight, which I'm not really interested in. I'm interested in the most efficient rapid VTOL UAV design that can pick up and drop off a payload the average size of a food delivery from Uber Eats.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Here's the v3 I realized four rotors is necessary for stability.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. The rotors are far too small. Simplify the problem down to a ratio of the weight of the craft to the surface area of the rotor blades. What kind of material would you use for them that could withstand that many pascals, and not fail catastrophically when spinning at the required RPM? Compare the surface area of helicopter rotors, or even rotors on FPV drones. They all have rotor diameters that exceed the dimensions of the aircraft body for a good reason.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago

ELI5: "It's a question of weight ratios. A 5oz bird can't carry a 1lb coconut!"

Did the ai that made this slop know it was supposed to fly?

[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure I've seen small (i.e., handheld-sized) commercial UAVs that fly like this. But as others have pointed out, at any realistic size you start to run into a lot of problems:

  • The VTOL rotors will create massive drag when they're not in use. There's a reason virtually every aircraft with embedded VTOL jets engineered ways to cover them up during level flight. This cascades into a whole bevy of complexity issues.
  • When you're not using them, you're lugging around 3 out of your 4 rotors for no reason.
  • You're also sacrificing a lot of internal volume for your lift fans. This isn't so much a problem in small UAVs, again, but it's not great if you were hoping to use that capacity for fuel or cargo.

So yeah, like others said as well - now that we have tailsitter drones of moderate size, there's not really a use for this layout.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago

There’s a reason virtually every aircraft with embedded VTOL jets engineered ways to cover them up during level flight.

Or ways to pivot them to horizontal and use them for forward thrust...

But, honestly, I think ones like OP's could work relatively well if you engineered the hell out of the aerodynamics and made sure that the openings would be inside slipstream 'shadows' and not exposed to much airflow while in forward motion. That could only be well-optimized for one airspeed, though, so it wouldn't be practical for an aircraft that wants to fly at different speeds a lot. But for one intended to always cruise at a set speed, I think it could work.


Other criticisms are still totally valid, though.

[–] aeiou@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Maybe, but what's the advantage over tailsitters like this?

n9J83Om9x1TXaWu.webp

Or even the tilt-rotor quads/tris like the Flightory Stallion

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The idea is for being able to hover while dropping cargo on a zip line, the design is inspired by the zipline uber eats.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Apparently the issue with this style is landing, for pilot ones anyway.

[–] PlzGibHugs@piefed.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It would probably be possible to make functional (especially on a small scale), but wouldn't be very efficient. With four rotors to drive, you're going to have significant weight, and on top of that you have the flat profile that will make it difficult to fly vertically. At the same time, the large spaces for the propellers mean it won't be as sturdy or aerodynamic, and you've only got one propeller for forward thrust, so it won't be able to go very fast. Very optimisticly, I expect that you'd be left with a vehicle that can barely take off or land, although might perform a bit better than something like a helicopter once in the air, but not competiting with existing VOTL designs.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Maybe you could create a slight angled bump in front of the holes for the vertical rotors so air stream goes over without causing much drag?

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 1 points 1 week ago

No, that's basically how air brakes work by causing even more turbulence.

[–] PlzGibHugs@piefed.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I was assuming something like that would be used, but even then, its still a bunch of additional drag for little or no gain relative to existing options. As another comment pointed out, tailsitters are pretty comparable in benefits, but they also lack the the drag issues and will likely be at least a little more stable in vertical flight.

[–] Fierro@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rotor spin needs to even out or else it would spin all the time, that's why drones have an even amount of rotors AFAIK.

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rotor spin does need to have something providing a balancing force if you don't want to spin. That's why helicopters have tail rotors and quads have two CW props and two CCW props. That said, before quads became the standard design there was a lot of experimenting with tricopters, two motors that have opposing spin directions at the front and the third motor mounted on a "tail boom" that could be rotated by a servo to tilt the propeller to create the forces to not rotate and keep a heading or to turn the craft. So not all "drone" designs have an even number of props.

[–] Fierro@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

I see how what I said taken literally sounds like that's the only way to balance torque, didn't mean it, couldn't even remember the word torque before lmao.

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Your wings would fall off. There is almost no material where they should be the strongest because there is a giant hole in it.

The center of gravity has to be forward of the side props or you'll have a hard time balancing it. This means the mass of fuel/battery, engine and payload have to be around there.

You've seen how big the props are on toy drones, helicopters, or the V-22 compared to the rest of the thing? They need to be that big to provide enough lift.

[–] lesserprophet@piefed.world 3 points 1 week ago

The major issues I could see with this design are:

  • the pitch is going to be really hard to control with two aft rotors and a single forward rotor in vertical flight
  • structural challenges with the wing since there's a big hole now where the spars go through
  • depending on the type of fuel it uses, it has limited capacity in the wings for a wet wing and would take up a significant portion of the fuselage for a large capacity battery setup
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Maybe but prop planes have pretty short takeoffs and landings anyway, from the little I know.

The issue you have here is weight, how many engines do you need to power those 4 props.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Doesn't a drone like this already actually exist? At least as like a remote control toy, surely.

[–] jaygray91@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago

yep, seen similar looking ones a decade before

don't know how good they are though, never really looked into it even back then

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 1 week ago

It could be made to work, yes ... but it's not really optimal and I don't see any way it's better than other already-existing designs.

[–] mr_account@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I know fuck-all about aerodynamics and that kind of design stuff, but if you have the resources for it, would you be able to 3D print and wire a small-scale version of this as an RC flier? You could then test how it handles first-hand, and perhaps put it in a small wind tunnel (iirc Mythbusters had an episode where they made a cheap DIY one with a shop fan and plastic straws)

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is this a post by an AI chat bot? The replies are odd.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are you incapable of seeing my post history or just stupid?

https://lemmy.world/post/50859304

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Not my fault you sound like a bot. I don't think your link proves much either. It doesnt really matter though.

load more comments
view more: next ›