Designed FAST. Protective screws at the top edge of the wing reduce wear. A wide front bumper adds heavy-duty protection to the front of the vehicle when thrills become spills. A red anodized aluminum center brace adds longitudinal support to the chassis for maximum durability.
This is attached to specifically designed mounts at the front and rear of the vehicle. The center support brace features a rubber damper to provide just the right amount of support to the composite molded chassis.
High-sides on the molded composite bathtub chassis ensure the amount of dirt and debris entering the chassis is kept to a minimum. A protective roll hoop is fitted to the body to reduce wear of the body when the action gets upside-down. This is fitted with screws that can be easily replaced when they get worn. A wide rear bumper adds protection to the vehicle on heavy rearwards landings.
Hard-wearing dBoots Backflip LP all-terrain tires are mounted on strong black 5-spoke stunt truck wheels, giving you the ground-ripping traction you need to put the BLX brushless power straight onto your chosen surface.
Long, tough molded composite suspension arms front and rear give the vehicle an extra-wide stance. The wide-track suspension features highly durable hubs and steering blocks. The wheels mount to heavy-duty 17mm aluminum wheel hexes. ARRMA tough shock design. Tried and tested coil-over oil shocks feature a big-bore body for extra plush suspension. The innovative design shock rod end includes a molded-in spring perch and dirt shield.
Easy-access Electronics Module assembly can be extracted from the vehicle with the removal of only five screws. The module offers quick and easy access to the servo, electronic speed controller and receiver. The two-piece molding comprises a lower box and upper lid that are sealed with high-quality rubber seals.
The ESC and steering servo are attached to this molding, whilst the receiver sits inside the waterproof box.
Easy-access Power Module includes the motor, heat sink and fan, motor mount and slipper clutch. This assembly can be removed from the vehicle in seconds, with the removal of just one single screw. With the Power Module removed from the vehicle the slipper clutch can be accessed with the removal of three screws. The triple plate slipper clutch in the 4S models features a steel spur gear making it ultra-durable in the most extreme conditions.
Easy-access differentials. Both the front and rear diff modules are easy to access ensuring that you spend more time bashing and less time in the workshop. This is not necessarily true since we try to select 6S batteries of the same weight, or Watt hours Wh as 4S batteries for a racing drone. To achieve similar speed on a 6S, the motors have to be spinning at similar RPM and therefore it will require a similar amount of power.
So in theory, flight time should be similar to a 4S as well if we aim to fly at the same speed. You can have longer flight time on a 6S by either reducing the power of your motors e. But either way will inevitably impact the performance of your aircraft. I think the benefit with flight time can only relate to an AP platform aerial photography where motor speed is more consistent and you are not spinning motors up and down so rapidly like a racing drone.
But in my opinion, 6S is not necessarily faster if you intend to build it having the same or better efficiency than your 4S quad, where the props are spinning at the same RPM. When it comes to drone racing, race tracks are often setup with lots of turns and gates which require just as much pilot skills as raw speed, if not more.
But lower current draw and voltage drop give the racer more headroom to experiment with motor and prop combinations. This flexibility allows more strategies by finding the best balance between efficiency and performance based on the specific race track.
Not only our options for 6S compatible components are currently limited, they are also priced higher than parts designed only for 4S. In this review I tested different 6S batteries.
For example a 6S mAh should give you similar flight time to a 4S mAh. Of course the weight should also be considered when choosing a battery. There are two sides of the argument when it comes to selecting motors for a 6S racing drone. Others suggest we can use motors of similar KV to what we use on 4S and take full advantage the extra power from 6S batteries.
For a safer and more efficient setup, you can find a very low KV motor that gives you a theoretical max RPM in the same range as an equivalent 4S setup using a common KV rated motor e. Because you are using more volts in the system, you do have the ability to execute the KV more effectively.
So in fact you actually need even slightly lower KV than you would calculate to achieve the same RPM in flight. With the 6S setup I am also noticing the ability to swing a heavier prop e. The downsides are obvious: terrible voltage sag and you lose any of the efficiency gain from running lower KV motors. In order to avoid drawing too much current and maintain better efficiency, you can try to limit your throttle, for example using throttle curve in your radio, or set maximum throttle in Betaflight.
Well the cell count and voltage of 5S are in between 4S and 6S, so you can expect the performance is also in between the two. Some people try to save money and run 6S LiPo on their 4S builds, simply by setting a throttle cap.
Some reported it worked just fine! But so far I really like the performance of 6S! I really think it has the potential to replace 4S if there are more component options, and prices drop to the same level as 4S.
Sign me up for the newsletter! As usual, you make some great points. But there is one thing that really confuses me about motor selection. FYI, I am in the process of building a S size camera drone. I really want to use 6s. But my question is. Why do the motor test data sheets always seem to point to 4s being more efficient than 6s? Even though we know that 6s should be more efficient, theoretically. The 6S versus 4S debate is correct in thought but uses the wrong words. Actually I am not convinced that 6S is more efficient than 4S.
Same Frame, etc. While I think the added Material such as more balancer cables, separating material and so on are negligible there is another effect. Second: For a lower kv Motors you need more windings. More windings result in thinner copper wires and thus in an increased internal resistance. A higher internal resistance then again results in more losses to heat. I have made the reverse test. I built a 3S quad with handwound kv Motors and while Amp draw really skyrockets, the results in flight performance are almost equal to the kv 4S variant I built before that.
As current draw is lower when running at higher voltage, less heat should be produced due to resistance in the battery? That should be easier to verify I hope. The quality of the cells are a lot lower on 6s and when voltage drops to low, puff damage happens. I believe the only difference in efficiency would be less heat generated in the wires and ESC both depend on current only , but motors and battery efficient would be the same. They would be true only if the both batteries would have same capacity, that is the 6S would be much heavier than 4S.
In real world, you should compare batteries with the same weight, lets say mAh 6S vs. Both have cca 25kJ of stored energy and for 65C cells, produce about W. In fact, its almost irrelevant for the battery if you have 1S mAh or 6S mAh, they will have the same output power at the same load C-rating.
Check my spreadsheet to check output power for 3S and 4S: docs. The system run cooler at the same amount of power. For the increase responsinevess it is due to the fact that you reduce your Kv, so you moteur have more torq.
Hi Oscar, thanks for this very interesting article. I just noticed on my latest built that all my electronics can handle 6s. So it is tiggling me a bit to try it. I have T-motors kv there.
So I was wandering if they would handle the load. Oscar, great article. If you do keep the weight the same, and go from 4s to 6s pack, and you draw the same power out of the battery, you are using the same percentage of the C rating of the battery.
This is exactly what I was thinking. You are effectively plugging different values into an equation to reach the same figure. There has to be a reason why it is more efficient… if it actually is. I believe the only difference in efficiency would be less heat generated in the wires and ESC, but motors and battery efficient would be the same. Published: 22nd February Last Updated on 2nd June Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Sign me up for the newsletter!
By using this form, you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. Note that all comments are held for moderation before appearing.
0コメント