AutoQuad Forum

little fooling around, testing new PID´s

AutoQuad Quatos on X8 redudancy demo.

Using an AutoQuad 6, AutoQuad PDB 1.4 prototype and esc32v3 prototypes running the Quatos adaptive controller. This test was done to test the redundancy on an x8 coax multicopter and hopefully with more than one motor failure.
Some code changes for inflight shutting down motors on the can bus.
The quatos motor output table is increased to get a more crispy and powerful output. Because the frame was intended to use a m4 instead of an aq6 the magnetic calibration was not done (yet) and only a tare was done.

Anyway.. very pleased with the results. Every (pid) x8 can have a motor out, but the adaptive controller reacts and adapts so fast that even flying with 2 motors out was very easy. It even worked with 3 motors out but keeping altitude was difficult. Probably the motor output was capped due to the output table.

Menno

Wow Menno, very brave.
Thanks for testing this out.
Could you post some details on the craft.

Cheers
Christof

Great stuff again, Menno!

If there wasn´t a little twitching you wouldn´t even notice it - incredible stability with 2 motors off.

was watching this vid 3 times but could not find the invisible rope holding the ship in the air. Must be the famous secret rare Quatos brand rope

@Marcus: nah, just good in post video processing .
This was really great to do, it really increases the safety of the multirotor in this compact x8 configuration.

@Christof, I'm waiting on my replacement M4 that will be the intended FC and than I publish a build log. It's kinda great for the new product showcase because it has everything new what AQ can offer: PDB, esc32v3, m4 and everything by CAN. The only wires to the FC in this case are the power, the receiver and CAN.

@Norbert, I a couple of guys watching this on the field and when the second motor did shut down there was a lot of 'no way!!'

Congratullations!

safety for sure will make the difference between different multicopter systems and will drive the flight permissions in the future (same than aircrafts). This is a key step forward in the matter.

My X8 flew fine with any are all of the top motors removed, the X8 format stability impressed me but I still wish the efficiency issue could be improved. I would guess a well built machine would save enough weight with out having the other 4 booms to mitigate a good portion of the loss because of weight saved.

Does anyone have a X8 and Octo with the same motors and props to compare weight?

I wish someone would would build a 2 engine combination in a coaxial contra-rotating configuration to place the props close enough together so the loss we see now could actually be a gain. Somebody needs to figure out how to solve the probable loss of Yaw control.

It would also keep from having that set of propellers sitting so low which is really my only objection as reduced flight time
is something you just live with, appreciating the redundancy that you gain.

[youtube]watch?v=_l2JM0AJkw4&list=UUvyI6dkgSbra4VDVHOdIzgw[/youtube]

Great demos guys! With enough power, I don't see why a full-sized couldn't fly with one motor of each pair being out. Depending on how the yaw balances out I suppose. Can it fly with both motors on one arm out, though?

Steve, how are you driving the extra 4 motors? Parallel pairs from onboard motor drivers, or you have extra ESCs and all that?

Thanks,
-Max