Nano QX vs Tiny Whoop - possible hybrid design?


#21

I did actually squeeze in 0720 first when I took a heat gun to the nqx frame and stretched them out. It climbed at the lowest throttle position. Lol. But as long as you jumped into forward flight fast it was a TON of fun.

However, 0720’s carried too much wright for indoor agility. This is why I want to stay 6mm so I am basically no heavier than a standard whoop. Send me a link to that frame you’re talking about. I’m gonna jump on fusion 360 tonight if time permits.

Update: just flew the 716’s with a nickel taped to it. It was still ballistic. Powerloops, instant recovery from dives, and overall better punch than my 8mm builds and longer flight times by maybe a minute or two. I’m convinced that 716 will work on a 260, hopeful that 19.6kv 6mm will also be as impressive with a 150 mah. Oh Yea. …testing is all done for now


#22

haha yeah it does climb at min throttle, now that’s throttle management! Not so good for indoors indeed. :joy:
I’m talking about this one:


Then the version with the bumpers:

The motors are just a little bit too close to fit the bigger props though, so not only would the diameter of the bumpers need to be increased, the motors should also be a little bit further apart. I think a millimeter should do it but I’d have to measure.

Keep in mind though, motors get hot really fast with the bigger props! I used to run 14k motors on the Honeybee and they would be hot in one minute. Then I upgraded to 17k and they were hot in 30 seconds. I imagine 19k will probably be hot before you are in the air! My strategy to combat this was to fly fast and crash a lot to maximize motor cooling. :wink:


#23

I also like this idea:


#24

Lmfao! I can sign up for that! The 716’s did really well temp wise. Maybe they are the answer. I’ll try both those and the 6mm. I’ve also noticed that frame and enjoyed the video where he introduced it. I’m envisioning dropping the fc down a bit so it sits lower and allows the right spacing for a camera and canopy setup. I also need a different mount spacing for the e011 fc. That design will be my inspiration for starting from scratch. I’ll include a standard fc mount version also and share my designs here. I have a good feeling about this one guys! That last test flight hauling an extra 7g sold me. Imagine all the speed and power of an 8.5mm build at the exact same weight as a whoop, and only a slightly larger footprint!!!


#25

If we are going 0716, I might use the carbon frame stiffener frame with a separate bumper like the picture above. Or one per motor so it’s easy to replace. The modular design is so hot right now. :thinking:

*oh wait the carbon frame stiffener was just too small for the paper airplane props, by a hair.


#26

Well I hope we don’t have to go 716. It’s borderline on carrying too much momentum indoors. I do regularly fly my silverware flashed e011 inside on mmw motors … but 6mm is way more agile. I’ll probably build both. :wink:

If the idea is good enough … it should be a healthy improvement for both 6 and 7mm. What a novel idea - same tiny whoop… bigger props


#27

Also… even though it hurts performance … I do still want to do a full ducted traditional tiny whoop frame in addition to the ultralight designs. I just think it would be cool to have something that still looks like a whoop but sets a new standard for performance (even if it costs a little off the top).

This is where I tag @PJC and ask him to test the design with me once it’s born for an unbiased 3rd party opinion :smile:


#28

Well revision 1 is underway and so far I’m feeling disappointed. Total weight is estimated at 8g. It appears I’ve over engineered it. Keeping overall whoop proportions has also produced a frame that is almost 95mm. Too big and too fat - but it looks like a xxl whoop. Still may be worth printing and crashing since I busted the nqx frame today. But a full redesign is gonna be needed to get performance where I want it and keep a whoop look. I’m ok with up to 6g - but no more. Heck - ya gotta start somewhere.


#29

So one of the problems I’ve been facing in printing whoop designs in abs is layer adhesion strength in the ducts. The curved lip design when flexed in (during a crash for example) wants to bend the flared area of the duct down relative to the uncurved area. This creates a pulling force along the inner skin of the duct perpendicular to the layers which results in a delamination. This print was no exception. I even experimented with a constant radius curve for the entire duct height so that there was no transition between curved and vertical sections - it did not help.

Vapor smoothing does stop this but at the expense of changing the overall performance of the abs material to having the consistency of an unchewed gumball without the sugar coating.

Anyone have any design advice to address that?


#30

From what I’ve read and seen over the last 6 months it is very hard to print a good ducted frame. Perhaps with exotic filament but at the expense of weight. If you go with basic ring protection instead you’ll probably have more success in a print design.

This is the Swoop frame in carbon, not available anymore, I think this would be a good design to work from.

Paper airplane props in this pic.


#31

Agreed. I am curious to try PETG. Supposedly it has the same strength along layer bonds as it has in the other direction. But I have like 5 rolls of abs…LOL


#32

@NotFastEnuf: Not bad at all for a first try! :sunglasses:

I know it’s double the weight of a stock NQX frame. But you did add four full ducts, plus what looks like strong connections between frame and ducts. I’m sure you can save 2g just by applying various 3D design/printing tricks (not the I would know). And while 95mm may seem large compared to a Whoop, it’s still 10mm smaller than the original NQX (105mm). So, in my book, you’re ahead of the curve already.

I’d say: Print it, build it, fly it, crash it! Then refine, reprint, build, fly, and crash again. :smiley:


#33

OK, here is V2. Size is squished down to 76mm and I’ve got estimated frame weight down to 4 grams. Now we’re talking!!:laughing:
Next up - level the bed and print this sucker. I likely have a few areas to reinforce but I need to see what breaks and what doesn’t first.


#34

Some fence rails to test durability? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#35

Ha! I hope we get to that point :wink:


#36

Ok… I enthusiastically report fail #2. This time too small. The ducts will not fit nqx props. Although thats not a bad thing since I think they will fit the smaller props that @chime13 reccomends as better than nqx props. The second fail in this design is the interior space is too small to fit the e011 fc and my canopy. I did manage to bolt an e010s fc on top… but its not going down below the lip of the duct. So I at least got to do some line of sight to crash test it a bit.

Which brings me to the successes:
Frame does weigh 4g
I’ve got some ducts that just flex and dont delaminate on layers.

So the project will press on


#37

@NotFastEnuf The 46mm props are going to look and work real nice. Great job on keeping the weight down!


#38

I love this project of yours @NotFastEnuf. Here’s my Ian444 6mm motor frame with Bayang X9 propellers which I believe are clones of the nQX propellers. I’ve always liked how it flies with stock motors from the H101. I’ve definitely thought about how well a Whoop frame that fits these propellers would perform.
Looking forward to your updates.


#39

Thanks man… the bayang x9 props are the same as an old discontinued eachine model cg023. I have a set of those and they are actually a bit bigger than the nqx prop and they rip much harder…much! I’m glad you mentioned that cause I couldn’t remember what eachine “cloned” (rebranded) to find more of those props.

That brings me to an interesting decision:
I have not tried the paper airplane props and they are smaller which gets the “whoop” footprint smaller
Vs
I have tried the x9/cg023 props and I know they perform about 20% better than stock nqx (if not more).

So what to do… back to bigger ducts to swing the bigger blades??? I guess so. The goal here is ultimate performance so I will let that dictate the necessary dimensions. Maybe I can convince @chime13 to jump on a set of those for 1$ and compare them to the props he runs for an additional data point :smile:


#40

Here’s what I’m working on. Basically stretching out the Ultralight frame and adding bigger bumpers to it. I plan to mount the motors with props facing down so I might need to add landing feet tabs.