Talon GT Nose shape efficiency test

[@bomberaustychunksbruv4119]

Very good vid, 15-20% is more than I expected. My FPV planes which are similar size cruise at roughly 45-49kmh due they are light. I found you got to go all-in ( flush antennas, all streamlined to the max ) to get a difference at that speed. The most efficient commercial plane I have is the Wing Wing z84.

[@EnglishTurbines]

Great test Andrew. I suspect that if you flew a much longer course out to sea directly into wind for say 3 Kms in cruze Mode, the difference would be even more dramatic...🤔😳.. IMO....🇬🇧

[@grim-upnorth]

I don't think anyone would have disagreed that a pointy nose is more efficient than a flat nose, but would be interested to see the difference between pointy nose plus roof mounted FPV gear (the backpack), versus stock nose with FPV gear inside, as the design intends.

[@AndrewNewton]

Slow vs fast would also be worth testing

[@daxdadog]

It's what you would assume, but it's nice to see it confirmed.

[@Videolinquency]

Very satisfying demo, that blunt nose has been offending my understanding of physics for years. And theoretically the difference in efficiency should be a square function of airspeed, so it can be expected to increase exponentially if we're in a hurry!

[@AndrewNewton]

Worth testing speed effects

[@Videolinquency]

Absolutely. But the increase in top speed could be less than the increase in efficiency, as the relationship between power and top speed is an exponential function in our disfavour. Even a cube one, if memory serves me right. Still, it's bound to help!

[@toolbaggers]

How about a flat style nose shaped to make the fuselage more of a lifting body?

[@smooth_ops2942]

I like the way you think 👍🏻👌🏻

[@AndrewNewton]

Worth testing

[@AerialWaviator]

Great data Andrew. 15% is significant! When battery capacity offers 30-45 minutes of flight time, this would translate into an extra 5-7 minutes of more flying. Or, a the option to use a ~15% lighter battery to achieve similar flight times. Difference might be even greater at airspeeds above 60 km/h in a higher speed cruise.

[@AndrewNewton]

Yes, I wondered if it would be a measurable difference

[@Poundy]

fascinating. but not unexpected :) I was surprised by the scale of the improvement, but that may not hold up across more tests in a more generalised and wider ranging test...but still, that'd be an upgrade I'd do no matter what if I had one of them !

[@FPVREVIEWS]

Good job on the test! Nice to see such clear results. Wondering why the large difference between upwind and downwind in power consumption. One factor would be the circular path over the ground that the FC is asking the plane to fly. it would have to bank going downwind more, because it needs to increase the rate of turn, because it's going faster and trying to stay on the same circular track. another factor would be how the autopilot measures speed. if it is not equipped with an airspeed sensor, it can derive a synthetic airspeed from knowing the bank angle required to make a turn on one side of the circle vs the other. but it may not be doing that. in which case it would just be using GPS groundspeed as a proxy for airspeed, which would be very inaccurate, and result in it flying much slower on downwind legs, as well as much faster (and using more power than necessary) on upwind legs. either way, wind speed will partially determine efficiency. I've found that efficiency is best measured while flying straight and level in an autonomous mode, (for instance between two waypoints of identical altitude) at high altitude in clean air, and using a real digital airspeed sensor. But not always an option. In this case, the results are very clear and don't require such precision.

[@AndrewNewton]

Bank angle is limited so it can't maintain a true circle in 15kph wind. No true airspeed compensation unlike Ardupilot I suspect. Anyway, fun to test physics practically.

[@FPVREVIEWS]

yes, it's still a good test if the conditions remain roughly the same for both tests. good job!@@AndrewNewton

[@DJI_Silesia]

Have you got any pictures of how did you cut and mount the pointy nose?

[@AndrewNewton]

No but here is a mockup www.youtube.com/@AndrewNewton/community

[@leechild4655]

You may even try for higher efficiency with a smooth and rounded nosecone like a rocket tip sort of? Dig the Talon tests.

[@AndrewNewton]

Yes, I might keep reshaping the whole front section

[@rjung_ch]

Sure makes a difference. The original one has slots at the top, is that mostly for cooling maybe, what do you think? But close to 20% more efficient is huge. Thanks for the test, very nice! 👍💪✌

[@AndrewNewton]

Slots are at the bottom for cooling, but they scoop up dirt very effectively

[@JohnLindholm1]

Make a talon pro fuselage?

[@AndrewNewton]

I can easily slim down the front fuselage. Only needs to fit a battery inside now if we forget about a GoPro in the nose.

[@jamesceastep8874]

Andrew: Off topic question: Have you checked what the bottom is like diving off that little island below your flight pattern? Just curious. - Jim

[@AndrewNewton]

Yes I'm curious too. It's a restricted access marine and wildlife reserve with resident seals and a large population of terns and gulls. Would need a private boat to dive there.

[@craigmcdonald-rcgliding]

Excellent test Andrew... aerodynamics wins... !!😊

[@AndrewNewton]

Thanks Craig. You would probably know more about this than most with your bike racing

[@craigmcdonald-rcgliding]

@@AndrewNewton absolutely... and you can physically feel the drag !!😊

[@ianhanrahan7985]

Hi Andrew I don't have a 3d printer are you printing and selling this, I'd really like to buy one . Thanks Ian

[@AndrewNewton]

No, sorry

[@faryadanjum1111]

nice

[@AndrewNewton]

Thanks

[@burkeomatic7859]

I just went ahead and quad coptered mine. I figured no one would get mad at me for further ruining the efficiency of a flying brick.

[@AndrewNewton]

Haha, free to experiment with the brick

[@AkoyTamad]

Would still prefer the pointed nose either way just because I crash more often than I like. The pointy nose may offer some cushion before flying into terrain.

[@AndrewNewton]

Yes, a foam nose might be the best idea

[@grumpyoldnerd8727]

The fact that people are beginnig to care about aerodynamic efficiency is quite refreshing. ;) But: If you actually had placed the FPV equipment INTO the nose and not ONTO the nose like a Christmas tree , you might have achieved 30 to 50%. No offense ;)

[@AndrewNewton]

Nose V2 might allow that

[@Xailow]

Round should be even better then the pointed.

[@mikenowland2739]

That’s science 👍 Are you allowed to mow the grass ? Looks like a lot of introduced weeds there anyway.

[@AndrewNewton]

Would need a tractor and slasher but there is no easy access.

[@theoztreecrasher2647]

@@AndrewNewton A Burt Munro lawn trim? Flying heavy electrics near long brown grass in summer has always slightly worried me. 🤔😊

[@AndrewNewton]

That and the snakes make me very careful

[@Swaggerlot]

Anyone driving a truck or Landcruiser could have confirmed that.

[@theoztreecrasher2647]

Yep. That's why I have a pointed bullbar on my Tojo! 😱😉😊

[@nonoyorbusness]

Pays to be snooty!

[@AndrewNewton]

Haha, well said