Home Forums Everything about the Tricopter V4 New Rcexplorer FC

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
  • #40010

    Hi all,

    Happy user of David TRI V4 here.

    I was wondering what is your opinion (vision) on future development of TRI hardware – by hardware I mean FC. What would you like to see implemented (funnctions)? Just copy this list and add your idea. You can also add other improvements even if not related to FC.

    I would like to see:
    1. OSD
    2. Camera control (possibility of setting camera via TX)
    3. more UARTS
    4. …


    Any news about new hardware development?


    I agree with the features above.

    I would also like to see:
    1. F4 FC not because it’s needed but just because that’s the way things have gone (greater support going forward)
    2. Integrated FC frame but with a soft-mounted gyro. Maybe something like this:

    3. Possibly a move back to separate PDB and FC. I love the sleekness and looks of the current integrated frame but sometimes I think it would be cool to be able to more easily swap flight controllers. I’m kind of torn on this one…


    My wish list…
    1) F4 flight controller or option to use third party FC.
    2) Dual BEC’s @ 5 & 9vdc with LC filtering.
    3) LiPo support up to 6S
    4) Options that allow for the inverted mounting of the tail motor. (Would need to be mounted from the top panel) Reason i suggest this is that it can allow for better efficiency, control and stability. (Requires # 5)
    5) Carbon landing skids… Can be done as i have a pair on my Tri-Mini.
    6) Shielded servo cable.
    7) Nylon canopy as its lighter and more resistant to impact.
    8) Better battery placement that offers it some protection during hard landings.
    9) Set Triflighht defaults to a servo PWM of 250hz vs 300hz and Gyro soft LPF to 80hz


    Kevin, I note that you think that prop below the frame is more efficient. It would be good to have scientific measurements that support this assumption. A prop above the frame loses efficiency due to the blockage effect of the structure below it. A prop below the frame looses efficiency due to “dirty” air flowing into the prop.

    The latter is evident in wings where the pusher is noisy (and less efficient) due to the fuselage boundary layer flowing into the prop. This will be less pronounced on a multirotors prop but same principle holds.

    Distance between prop and frame is a parameter that may affect efficiency differently in both cases?

    The need for clean air entering the proppelor plane is also evident in ducted prop designs, where the design of the lip of the duct needs to minimise stall (and therefore dirty/turbulent air entering the prop plane). But you know all about this :-). Nice work on your ducted props!


    My gut tells me that the exit flow from a Propeller is more important than the incomming air. While the Props do generate Lift its just as important (if not more) that the cushion of air under the copter remain clean to allow for smooth flight and handling characteristics. This aspect can easily be seen as a Copter decends through its own Prop-wash or makes a tight turn.

    The incomming air flow has more of an impact on overall efficiency. Besides, the inbound flow is always going to have some form of disruption due to the aerodynamics (or lack of) inherent to all multirotors. At least with the motors inverted, the outwards flow will “Always” (Trademark) be clean. IMO its the arm size that makes the biggest difference with regard to overall flow. Too wide or too short and the flow will suffer regardless of motor orientation. Its one of the reasons that the larger copters fly better as they’re less likely to disrupt the cushion of air they ride upon. (Longer arms)

    The Ideal set up would be to have the motor arms raised above the location of the FC so that the Mass of the motors / props hangs / lays near the sams axis as the Gyro. (edit: slight dihedral of 2-5%) The arms would need to be as narrow as possible with regard to the restriction of airflow. This is why the Tri-Mini uses those carbon arms, they’re light, strong and most importantly don’t restrict the airflow much. If such a setup were adapted for the Tri-baby, you’d see a nice boost in flight times, max thrust and overall system stability (lower prop induced noise).

    Part of why I’m interested with “Inverted” motors, is the possibility to invert the Servo. This would allow the Servo to hang vs having the weight of the Motor / Prop sitting on it. Furthermore it would be possile to have the rotational axis closer to the Gyro’s Yaw-axis. This should result in better overall stability and a more responsive yaw.

    Now as for the Ducts, I’d like to continue developement but don’t think the Baby-Tri will work as the motor seperation is far to short (170 mm) to allow the 5″ Duct (127 mm + lip) to fit die to the placement of the Canopy. Furthermore, I’ve seen little in the way of detailed feedback so I’ve been largely reliant on my own means to produce and test Duct variants.

    Maybe i should just design a frame of my own? Your thoughts?


    I really hope that David will introduce new FC. I enjoy my tricopter so so much and would like to see future development of hardware. At the moment I am in the process of the rebuild and to try inav and if something is in David’s oven would like to have info to wait with rebuild. Maybe lauka can merge tri features with Inav to have more superb flight characteristics.


    I really like the FC/PDB hardware @david designs, but it would also be nice to have a bare plates with standard 30.5×30.5 mount holes to build with. I built a Mini-Tricopter with bare plates and drilled the mount holes myself. That opens up more options for features and firmware choices.
    DriveTrain done



    Nice concept but not too fond of the yellow tape.


    That’s for when the pilot needs to do the walk of shame and find the aircraft out in the fields…. I’ll let you pick your own colors though… 🙂


    I use the telemetry for the walk of shame… Can hardly see the Copter in the air much less in the grass.


    I think moving towards a design that can take a standard stack will future proof it. Perhaps even integrating the base plate with the tail as per the baby-tri.

    I’m probably going to replace the f3fc with a drilled/cut base plate and stack myself as the FC is getting a bit cranky and I want to replace it with something new and reliable anyway.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • The forum ‘Everything about the Tricopter V4’ is closed to new topics and replies.