|
My review of the Eagletree vector so far can be summarized in the word awesome. I am running it on my new qav250 without the power module to save weight by just using the backup power pin. The f16 HUD on a mini racing quad is so freaking awesome. I setup waypoints around my park to serve as checkpoints to do lap times.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
tehk posted:My review of the Eagletree vector so far can be summarized in the word awesome. Hah that sounds pretty cool. I don't have gps on my qav250. I've been thinking of wiring a ublox module into my naze to get groundspeed and a home arrow. I just have no idea where I can fit the antenna.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
I bought an FPV setup last night for a quad that I dont even have in my hands yet. This is my first FPV setup, so I'm still unclear on the details. Here is what I got: Quanum FPV Goggles (Super nerdy, but also super cheap): http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=53706 Boscam 5.8G 200mw TX: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=18972 Boscam 5.8G RX: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=18649 Gopro AV-Out cable (so I can record and do FPV with my OG Gopro): http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=46369 For a setup like that, running on a quad with a 2200mah 3S battery, should I be running a separate battery to power the TX? Is it safe to run it off the main battery?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
It's safe as long as you have a good low-voltage alarm and you actually abide by its warning. The GoPro and VTX will run on lower voltage than the copter will, so your biggest risk is draining the LiPo past its minimum charging voltage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
The gopro will also be running on its own internal battery, so it won't even factor into the drain on the main battery
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Got a Hubsan X4 from Amazon and the battery doesn't seem to charge. When I plug it into a USB port, the red light turns on for about 5 seconds and then turns off. Leaving it plugged in for a while doesn't charge it. Am I just going to have to ship it back to Amazon? You are supposed to plug in the battery first to the cable, which turns on the Red Light, then plug it into USB. The Red light should go off when the battery is charged. However I have had it blow the "fuse" so to speak on my USB port on my Keyboard and it appeared to never charge until I rebooted my PC and therefor, my USB port. I normally use my External 2.1A USB wall charger to charge the battery in about 15-20 Minutes. If you let the battery go dead enough to have the red light not appear when the battery is plugged in without plugging into an USB port you may have killed it. You could contact Amazon or shell out $20 for one of those 5 battery pack deals and just go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:The gopro will also be running on its own internal battery, so it won't even factor into the drain on the main battery I believe you can power the gopro off of the flight/vtx pack via the USB cable, but if you use the GoPro battery alone then you need to pay close attention to its battery life or else you'll get a nasty surprise when the GoPro battery dies and you have no more video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:I believe you can power the gopro off of the flight/vtx pack via the USB cable, but if you use the GoPro battery alone then you need to pay close attention to its battery life or else you'll get a nasty surprise when the GoPro battery dies and you have no more video. Yeah you can as long as you have the appropriate wiring harness for the hero 2 its separate for the hero3 its combined into the video out connector I think. Feed it 5v and away you go. It can actually draw a fair bit of current so you have to be careful that your bec can support it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
I have a gopro 1 (HD), so I dont even know if thats an option for me. In the beginning I'll be flying FPV really close range to get used to it, so if my FPV setup goes wonky I can fly it back line-of-sight. So by the time I'm ready to venture out further/higher, I should have a good idea of what the battery life looks like on the gopro
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:Yeah you can as long as you have the appropriate wiring harness for the hero 2 its separate for the hero3 its combined into the video out connector I think. Feed it 5v and away you go. It can actually draw a fair bit of current so you have to be careful that your bec can support it. Even the gopro3 black edition with its horrible battery efficiency gets like 2hrs battery on a full charge. I dont think you would have much to worry about unless you are chaining battery packs one after another for 10 flights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Even the gopro3 black edition with its horrible battery efficiency gets like 2hrs battery on a full charge. I dont think you would have much to worry about unless you are chaining battery packs one after another for 10 flights. True. But it is another point of failure in your setup that can be mitigated. If you are flying close in its not a big deal. But if you are relying on that camera completely I wouldn't want to risk it.Either from the battery failing or the camera locking up. Personally I always use a boardcam for my fpv camera anyway. They are so cheap and light with better exposure for flying and 0 latency. If framing your shot through the gopro is important then I use a video switch to swap between them in flight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Hmm I didn't think about latency, does the gopro introduce a lot of latency?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:Hmm I didn't think about latency, does the gopro introduce a lot of latency? If you're on a budget this works great for me http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__43057__FatShark_Teleporter_V3_RTF_FPV_Headset_System_w_Camera_and_5_8G_TX.html Absolutely no complaints. Not exactly go pro picture quality but I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Got my amazon box in for my ProtoX, only to find that instead of a ProtoX they sent me what looks like a cheap knock off. The CX Model CX033 (http://www.amazon.com/CX-Model-CX033-Nano-Heli/dp/B00KQX48NQ). I've already setup a return/replacement order with amazon but took it out of the box to test it out anyway. Found that the cover has a broken tab and the battery was popped off the control board and that one of the props was off the motor and seems to have a crack running down the length of the propeller body. Anyway, put the prop and body back on, started it up and took off. It's all over the place and as soon as I "landed" the prop came off again. Sucks, I was excited to open that box but ah well, 2 more days to wait. I've decided that waiting is actually what the hobby of RC is all about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Not sure if you guys saw this. I thought it'd be posted far more places like the AI Aeronautical thread but it seems like no one has noticed this massive change in FAA policy: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/model_aircraft_operators/ quote:Having fun means flying safely! Hobby or recreational flying doesn't require FAA approval but you must follow safety guidelines. Any other use requires FAA authorization. Essentially; FPV goggles are not allowed, autopilots are not allowed, flying for commercial purposes (including sponsored pilots) is not allowed. Happy FPVing!! Read the full notice here and submit a comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/25/2014-14948/interpretation-of-the-special-rule-for-model-aircraft This new position the FAA has taken is so extreme that even the AMA blasted them with a statement: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf quote:FAA Interpretive Rule addressing “Special Rule for Model Aircraft” ReadymadeRC's formal letter is also worth reading: http://www.readymaderc.com/FAA/RMRC_FAA.pdf Vitamin J fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:Hmm I didn't think about latency, does the gopro introduce a lot of latency? About 100ms I think it varies a bit depending on model and mode. The mobius is worse. Vitamin J posted:Not sure if you guys saw this. I really hope some sanity prevails down there for you guys. The FAA's regs seem to be a solution in search of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Headed out to try my Bixler 2 once again. It's been about a half-dozen outings, all ending in disaster and no real liftoff/airborne. The thing is deformed slightly in the crumple zones and has a wing glued back where it should belong. Light breeze today. COG is beautiful. Hand launching in the back yard more or less flies a little like a paper plane. I watched a few videos on youtube and so far as I can see, launching shouldn't be a real problem. I saw one guy just skim along the (short) grass for about 100 feet and it took off, so we tried that. No dice, never lifts off. Tried hand launching. First my wife threw it, no good - nose dived. I tried it, launching it upwards and out with a little oomph behind it. As usual, just made it hit harder. Broke out the tape - carbon fiber rod popped out the belly and speared into the dirt in the process. The other wing also broke off. I shoved the wing back in and figured oh well - I'll drive it along the grass INTO the breeze just to see and HOLY MOLEY it lifts off! OK don't panic just ease the Oh right, the wing isn't actually attached. It drops like a rock. Now I need to glue the other wing back in (already did the opposite one.) But it FLEW  Question time: the breeze was barely perceptible but apparently going into it made all the difference regardless. Would I be able to launch with a light breeze if I had a slightly more powerful motor/prop? Or is there something going on I'm ignorant of?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Headed out to try my Bixler 2 once again. It's been about a half-dozen outings, all ending in disaster and no real liftoff/airborne. The thing is deformed slightly in the crumple zones and has a wing glued back where it should belong. I'm still slightly puzzled by this. By all accounts the Bixler should be an easy flier. Did you post weight/motor/esc/ earlier?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Motor and ESC (label says 20A) are whatever came in the kit. Weight is 770g (1.7 lbs) Prop looks visually similar to a 5x7E which I purchased at the same time - I don't know anything really about them, it was cheap and I read a comment saying the name-brand prop was improved version of what the kit ships with so I figured hey, why not? I still installed the stock prop though to begin with. It can push itself along the grass with the throttle open full at what is at least a good jogging speed. I am confident about the COG, I made myself a little frame for it and measured carefully.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Are you sure your radio is moving the control surfaces in the correct directions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
And you're 150% sure the servos are all working the way they should? That thing should really have no problem getting airborne. You say it glides like a paper airplane, so is it when you give inputs that it goes down? edit: beaten by a few minutes... How did I miss your post?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
rotaryfun posted:edit: beaten by a few minutes... How did I miss your post?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
haha that's it, that's what did it. Can't... look... away
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Yeah, like people have said make sure your control surfaces are operating correctly. It's an easy mistake and it happens to people more than they would like to admit... myself included. If you're all good in that department, the last thing I can think of would be your thrust angle at the motor mount. Did your plane / kit come with the motor motor already installed or did you have to add it? Well, I guess it doesn't matter since QC might have missed it, anywhoo... You may need to add two small washers on the bottom two screws on your motor mount to increase the the angle between the thrust & datum. Here's an image I found that someone else drew on this subject and saved me from having to do it:  "if you think of the CG as a fixed pivot point (which it is in a sense), and imagine that you're pushing on the fuse on the thrust line shown on the picture, you can probably visualize it. The first picture will tuck its nose, the second one will be neutral (stay where it was previously pointing)." Oh yeah, your question: Mister Sinewave posted:Question time: the breeze was barely perceptible but apparently going into it made all the difference regardless. Would I be able to launch with a light breeze if I had a slightly more powerful motor/prop? Or is there something going on I'm ignorant of? I think you're talking about this; Launching into the wind: your toss speed + thrust + wind= faster airflow over the wing = more lift. Launching with the wind: your toss speed + thrust - wind= slower airflow over the wing = less lift. Launching into the wind is preferable since it give you extra lift for "free" and you're far less likely to stall. So yeah, you would technically be able to make up some of that loss with extra thrust when you're launching with the wind, but for your setup it's not required. Your motor/prop (thrust) is fine. If you insist on launching with the wind, just add more throttle. The Bixler's wings generate lots of lift all on their own and when it's flying properly you don't need much throttle to get it airborne. Widdershins fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Widdershins posted:Yeah, like people have said make sure your control surfaces are operating correctly. 100% - I am a brand noob to modern RC but I know what the controls and surfaces should be. I also function check before every launch (and after every crash) to make sure nothing got screwed up. Widdershins posted:If you're all good in that department, the last thing I can think of would be your thrust angle at the motor mount. Hmm, I haven't looked into this at all. Thanks for the tip. This might explain the tendency to nose down when launched despite the COG being nice and flying more or less like a paper airplane when hand-launched in the backyard. I'm going to look into this. quote:I think you're talking about this; I see what you're saying, but from the perspective of experienced RC people, does what I experienced sound about right or does it sound a bit funny? Recap: I attempted launching with this method twice (but without the little kick) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1m-y95jUiM&t=210s My observation was this:
Full throttle both times over nicely trimmed grass. It seems to me that I'm right at the borderline thrust-wise (can take off into a light breeze but can't take off along with the light breeze), which doesn't seem right to me. I feel as though the thing SHOULD be able to take off with a light breeze behind it, but maybe I have wrong expectations due to no real experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:
By taking off on the grass, you are just adding more variables. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VecIXvf5qv8 This guy gives it a fairly solid toss, but even then, there's no wobbling, etc, it just flies straight. I launched a friends Bixler when I was still recovering from a shoulder injury and I could barely put anything into it and it still flew off nicely. (And his was not exactly in pristine condition either, with semi-broken wings, etc) So....something sounds very wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I see what you're saying, but from the perspective of experienced RC people, does what I experienced sound about right or does it sound a bit funny? The part that sounds funny is that you're having to use full throttle to get it to lift off. A light breeze (for the sake of example we'll say less than 3mph) you should be able to take off no problem with about 50-60% throttle regardless of the wind direction. In addition to controls moving in the right direction and thrust line, make sure your prop is not on backwards. If you're holding the model and you've got 100% it should pull significantly... i.e. "man I've gotta hold onto this sucker!" Here's what it looks like on a full scale plane when the prop is on backwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jz0bJ3xWs4 There's still thrust, but it's not nearly what it should be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
I have never experienced anything remotely like what I see here in that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VecIXvf5qv8&t=471s I'll be checking into the thrust angle thing. If I don't get anywhere I'll video the next launch attempt. Widdershins posted:In addition to controls moving in the right direction and thrust line, make sure your prop is not on backwards. I wish it *was* on backwards. Because then my problem would be straightforward!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I have never experienced anything remotely like what I see here in that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VecIXvf5qv8&t=471s Are you sure they put the correct motor in your kit? Perhaps it is massively underpowered. That doesn't really align with it being able to drive along the grass though. Can you get someone to video your next attempt ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
I've never flown a Bixler, but I've flown planes very much like it, and it either sounds like your prop is on backwards (triple check this), or you have some fundamental airframe issue, like two left wings (one flipped over) or something goofy like that, OR a power issue, like you're running a 2S battery when you should be running 3S.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Without knowing anything about the Bixler, since it has a rearward-facing motor, I assume the propeller should be facing towards the motor, not away from the motor. i.e. the opposite direction from how people normally think about mounting propellers, right? Also, for general purposes, what's the normal way to tell if a prop is on backwards or forwards? Just flip it and see if it's got more power? Or should it be curving away from the direction of travel?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Propellers only push air one way, the front of the prop has to be facing the front of the airplane. Look at the arch of the prop, it should sweep backwards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Generally, the side of the prop with the size/brand/etc stamped on it is the "front". So on the bixler, the writing should be facing the motor. On a non-pusher plane, the writing would face away from the motor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Any recommendations on a good trainer plane I could get in the $200 range, as well as any possible recommendations on cheap FPV system (that doesn't need a smart phone, maybe use a laptop instead?). I'm in the UK but could smuggle something in from USA on one of my trips as long as it wasn't super huge. I was looking at flyzone dhc-2 beaver but some people seem to say it's poorly designed. So, any other suggestions? edit: needs to include transmitter, and ideally be electric. KiddieGrinder fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Are you really interested in the scale looks that the beaver has? If not there are many better beginner planes, but many aren't as scale as that. Don't go nitro/gas unless you specifically want to run a piston engine for some reason. They bring a whole other world of problems and oddities. Electric is 100x easier especially for a beginner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:Don't go nitro/gas unless you specifically want to run a piston engine for some reason. They bring a whole other world of problems and oddities. Electric is 100x easier especially for a beginner. Cheaper too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
KiddieGrinder posted:Any recommendations on a good trainer plane I could get in the $200 range, as well as any possible recommendations on cheap FPV system (that doesn't need a smart phone, maybe use a laptop instead?). My Apprentice 15e (the original without SAFE) has been pretty fantastic and I got it for $200. It came with a DX5e which is a fine controller to start out with (if it had model memory I wouldn't even be too worried about upgrading, but if you only have 1 or 2 planes rebinding isn't too bad). It flies great and parts are super easy to come by (most hobby shops have them). I'm also loving my couple of Micro flyers, the UMX ones from E-Flite. I wouldn't recommend any of the 3D or warbirds for a first plane, but a Champ RTF would be decent, especially if you don't have a bunch of room to fly. subx fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Widdershins posted:The part that sounds funny is that you're having to use full throttle to get it to lift off. I have never tried anything other than full throttle for launch. Also, looking at my plane it definitely resembles the top image in this: Perhaps next time out I should just try hand-launching with only partial throttle. Maybe that's my whole problem. Full throttle pushes the nose down (because my plane looks like the top image in that picture thrust vector vs. COG wise) and it's doing this before it even really has a chance to actually get properly airborne = noseplant every time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I have never tried anything other than full throttle for launch... Definitely try a hand launch with reduced power. I have a AXN Floater Jet, which is similar to the Bixler, and I was having trouble with the launches. I was always using full throttle with full up elevator during a hand launch, and the result was the same as you are describing. Immediately pitching nose down (control surfaces were correct!). Most of the time it skimmed the grass for a bit then got properly airborne. After looking at some videos on-line, I changed my style to engine on but barely ticking over, no elevator and a good chuck level to the ground. Once it is gliding, I gently power up and apply elevator. With this method I've had no troubles at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:Are you really interested in the scale looks that the beaver has? If not there are many better beginner planes, but many aren't as scale as that. Yeah it's mainly for realism/coolness. I love the idea of a big slow plane, so definitely not interested in any sporty zippy acrobatics at all. And yes electric all the way, my uncle had a bunch of nitro planes and it looks like a huge pain. subx posted:My Apprentice 15e (the original without SAFE) has been pretty fantastic and I got it for $200. That does look pretty good. Seems it's going for $300 now, including transmitter. KiddieGrinder fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:18
|
|