I'm curious, what do you want to achieve with this?

Rotor Riot just released a video where the geometry of frames was discussed and the pros and cons of them. I prefer stretched X but there's a reason for all.

(29-Aug-2018, 09:00 AM)E.L.K. Wrote: I'm curious, what do you want to achieve with this?

I was thinking about a frame that would allow for reconfiguration between normal-x, and other lay outs.  This would be possible by adjusting the arm angle with two screws on each.   It also gave me a good concept to learn more about fusion 360 .

(29-Aug-2018, 06:56 PM)theBillBruce Wrote: I was thinking about a frame that would allow for reconfiguration between normal-x, and other lay outs.  This would be possible by adjusting the arm angle with two screws on each.   It also gave me a good concept to learn more about fusion 360 .

Pirat Frames from France do a less flexible version of this where you can convert the frame from true-X to squashed-X by flipping the arms over.

https://www.piratframes.com/sloop#comp-j19guqjk

(29-Aug-2018, 06:56 PM)theBillBruce Wrote: I was thinking about a frame that would allow for reconfiguration between normal-x, and other lay outs.  This would be possible by adjusting the arm angle with two screws on each.   It also gave me a good concept to learn more about fusion 360 .

I'm just not sure what do you want to achieve with having such frame?

I'm asking that because you initially asking "if it worth to continue" so I'm trying to understand what "end value" from your point of view this will have to pilots.

I mean will not most pilots prefer to have two quads with different arm layout than having one switchable?

I guess that was the question I was asking, but in a different way. Curious if anybody would see value in being able to adjust the geometry for specific flying needs. It's cool with me if the answer is "no, dude that's bananas..."

When I designed my frame a few years ago I made it so it could be set as a stretched X an H and the dead cat setup. It was nice to figure out witch I liked better, I believe it is mostly a personal preference. At that time there was not as much info out there. It helped the wallet allot not having to buy multiple frames. But once I figured what suited me or I liked better I guess, I have never changed it. So if you look at it from that stand point it my be worth doing. It may save someone some money because they all do fly a bit different and you could find out for yourself what you prefer.
Don't know if this helps, just my experience.

Well, I do not feel your idea is bananas, but it is something I would build a particular way, tune and then fly. That one frame could be configured a few ways means that I can have two or three of them with common parts but different geometries. Cool design actually. Again, it comes down to each config would have to be tuned specifically. With BetaFlight profiles, it seems it would be easy to save and switch, but in the field it would be way easier to have two separate craft.

I like it! Gives you the option of trying all three layouts with the 3 price tags of separate frames. I have come across a couple frames that could do this by flipping the replaceable arms. One was a Pirate frame I do not remember the others. Sorry.

But yes, I like it!

I think something to consider about an adjustable design is that other then for figuring out what flight characteristics you like, if you arms are even slightly uneven, you may get over-worked motors and oscillations.

I'm also curious as to what would happen to the arms during a crash with non-fixed arms.