I was flying sideways along a quay, taking video. And it got me thinking: Being that this drone is actually a quadcopter with all rotors at the same size and all motors at the same characteristics, is there really a notion of aeronautically sideways?

Or should I ask: Other than where the camera and OA sensors are pointing, is there a "forward" side of the drone? Does it drain more/less battery power when flying forward/backward or sideways?

Possibly more as the gimbal may have to work harder.

That's an interesting point DAFlys, .
If I remember correctly I think it relates to "second moment of inertia" of the rotated assembly. That might mean that its easier for the Mini 3 to roll the camera, whilst the Mini 1 & 2 might find it easier to pitch the camera.
Then again. there are pitch vs roll limits to consider.
Makes one think, the engineers that design these thing must have a lot of things to bear in mind when actually designing them. Clever folks !

There's appreciably more drag moving sideways so would should more battery usage, especially into wind.
The body itself does produce some (but not a lot) of lift in a forward direction.

The gimbal itself is also designed to stabilise mainly in a forward axis - would need to work much harder doing it 90 degrees offset from the structure.

gnirtS Posted at 12-24 03:05
The gimbal itself is also designed to stabilise mainly in a forward axis - would need to work much harder doing it 90 degrees offset from the structure.

Is it? / Does it?
I am only going from what I have seen on video and in photos but it is my understanding that to compensate for variations in drone roll the gimbal of the Mini 3 has to roll ONLY the camera assembly. It does not have to roll the camera AND a gimbal arm. If my understanding is correct then all the mass of the camera assembly is quite close the axis of roll rotation and therefore its "second moment of inertia" is low.
However to compensate for drone-pitch the gimbal pitch-motor has to swing the pitch arm and the camera, though, if DJI's engineers got the design right, then, with respect to the gimbal's axis of pitch rotation, the "second moment of inertia" of the camera and arm could be low. But I don't think an outside observer could say which compensation has to deal with the lower "second moment of inertia" until they 'crunch the numbers'.

Think of a bicycle wheel with an off centre mass attached to it, if that mass is near the wheel's axle it is easier to change the speed of the wheel's rotation than it is if the mass is at the wheel's rim.