This study aims to improve the accuracy of cruise-phase power consumption prediction for multirotor unmanned aerial vehicles operating under varying wind conditions. Existing parametric energy models typically retain the wind velocity vector in the ground or inertial reference frame, and this representation does not distinguish between axial drag contributions along the fuselage and lateral attitude-correction contributions perpendicular to it. The proposed framework addresses this limitation through a physics-informed coordinate transformation that projects the measured wind vector into the body frame of the aircraft using quaternion-derived heading angles, yielding separate axial and lateral wind components. These components enter the power model as two additional predictors that augment the induced-power baseline, with the axial term following a cubic airspeed–power relationship consistent with parasitic drag formulations and the lateral term following a quadratic relationship consistent with attitude-correction mechanics. The framework is validated on a publicly available flight dataset, which comprises 188 flights of a DJI Matrice 100 quadcopter across payloads of 0 to 0.75 kg, ground speeds of 4 to 12 m/s, and altitudes of 25 to 100 m. Compared with the induced-power baseline, the proposed model reduces the root mean square error by 15.9% and the mean squared error by 29.7% during the cruise phase. The improvement is larger when wind speeds exceed 6 m/s, a regime in which the baseline residuals increase while the proposed model retains a comparatively stable error profile. Residual analysis indicates that baseline errors follow an approximately quadratic trend relative to the axial and lateral wind components, consistent with established parasitic-power and attitude-correction formulations. The closed-form structure of the proposed model is compatible with onboard execution on flight controllers, which suggests a feasible pathway toward its use as the power-prediction module within downstream range-estimation and energy-reserve sizing routines.
Pang et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: