|
Wojcigitty posted:Manual generally means flying in rate mode, IE no auto level, similar to how a helicopter flies. It's more challenging but you have way more control and capabilities, and gives a smoother ride in fpv. In all modes the FC is controlling the aircraft, multirotors can't really fly without some kind of stabilization. It's just that it does not return to level. Ah, I see. So it just keeps the last orientation you put the craft in. I can definitely see crashing a few times learning to fly like that. The V911 helicopter and proto x nano quad I've flown wouldn't qualify as manual then. They both level out when you center the sticks.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Do yourself a favour and learn to fly in rate mode. Miniquads fly so much smoother in rate mode once you get the hang of it. Otherwise you are always fighting the autolevel as you manuver. Rate mode really isn't that hard especially with fpv.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
It's that time. My DX6i is full. And I'm left wanting more chanels for flying the quadcopters. So I'm not going to abandon my DSM2 stuff. So what radios are my options? Obviously the Spektrum radios. But what else? JR? Futaba? Do those require new modules? Turnigy? Does that need a module? What would you get if you wanted more than say, 7 channels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Turnigy 9XR/9XRPro or Taranis. All need modules ($30), but those modules work with both DSM2 & DSMX.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
I'm in the same boat and just bought a Taranis. I will probably leave most of my DSM2 stuff on the DX6i but I can always buy a module when I want to move it over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Kit. The X-Factor Super Frame from Hobbyking. Just FYI, if that's the receiver I think it is, you can get CPPM out on the Batt/Bind channel, and that will simplify wiring to your Naze greatly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
on the left posted:Just FYI, if that's the receiver I think it is, you can get CPPM out on the Batt/Bind channel, and that will simplify wiring to your Naze greatly. I think that means I really need to read the documentation. that's pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
My local RC park has a strange rule on the sign that I'm not sure what to make of. "No electric rear thrust motors allowed." Considering it's a city park, it has to be about reducing their liability. Is it referring to ducted fan stuff maybe? I can't think of any reason they specifically would be banned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
PirateDentist posted:My local RC park has a strange rule on the sign that I'm not sure what to make of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
PirateDentist posted:My local RC park has a strange rule on the sign that I'm not sure what to make of. Do they allow gas? As Vitamin J said, I can only think it is for sound related reasons, and if they allow gas I'm not sure what to think. Even then it seems dubious, they are still relatively quiet (you couldn't hear them more than 50-100 yards away). If they just mean EDF (which they should say if that's what they mean) then it still seems questionable, they aren't that loud unless you are getting into the super high speed stuff. I can't imagine it has anything to do with liability, a puller is way more dangerous than a pusher. You have a lot more air plane to go through before you get hit by the prop. subx fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
subx posted:Do they allow gas? As Vitamin J said, I can only think it is for sound related reasons, and if they allow gas I'm not sure what to think. Electric only, it's probably sound related. It's surrounded on three sides by houses, so that makes the most sense. They also put a catch all "no loud planes" on the rule list: http://imgur.com/55NB5aW
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
how far into a motor (specifically, a cobra 2204 motor for my mini quad) should the mounting screw go in so that I don't hit anything inside? I have to get a new set of screws, because the m3x6mm ones that come with it dont appear to even make it through the thick arms of this china cf frame. http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-Axis-Multicopter-Carbon-Fiber-250mm-Mini-FPV-Quadcopter-Frame-Kit-QAV250-H-/171392946335?hash=item27e7d0d09f
moron izzard fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
A Yolo Wizard posted:how far into a motor (specifically, a cobra 2204 motor for my mini quad) should the mounting screw go in so that I don't hit anything inside? I have to get a new set of screws, because the m3x6mm ones that come with it dont appear to even make it through the thick arms of this china cf frame. http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-Axis-Multicopter-Carbon-Fiber-250mm-Mini-FPV-Quadcopter-Frame-Kit-QAV250-H-/171392946335?hash=item27e7d0d09f They should just make it all the way through the bottom plate. If you look through the holes in the base of the motor you can probably see. If they are too long they will hit the motor windings which is really bad on a cf frame as it can short the esc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:They should just make it all the way through the bottom plate. If you look through the holes in the base of the motor you can probably see. If they are too long they will hit the motor windings which is really bad on a cf frame as it can short the esc. i got some 10mm at fastenal, but I guess I'm hosed anyway because not a single one of these slats on this motor mount is there one positioned for this 2204
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
A Yolo Wizard posted:i got some 10mm at fastenal, but I guess I'm hosed anyway because not a single one of these slats on this motor mount is there one positioned for this 2204 That sucks. I bought m2 x 8 for my qav and ended up dremelling 1mm off of them for mine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
is there a way to modify this frame so that it accepts this mounting pattern (16x19) I guess I could grind outward from those corner slats, but I don't want to destroy the arm edit: I grinded out two of the corner holes far enough (16mm) to mount it in what appears to be a fairly centered manner. wrong set though (wiring comes out of side) and I'm not sure two is secure enough for this moron izzard fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
So I went to the park today, had some problems last time with my Nano QX, but I figured it was because I was still using the wonky transmitter. Bound the new transmitter I got from Horizon, installed the new motor and props for the ones I damaged. Hovers pretty smooth now. And loses communication with the transmitter at 12 paces. Every. loving. Time. Either I'm cursed, or the Nano is ALSO broken, or the transmitter is a piece of poo poo. I haven't had a single problem free day with this thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
PirateDentist posted:So I went to the park today, had some problems last time with my Nano QX, but I figured it was because I was still using the wonky transmitter. Bound the new transmitter I got from Horizon, installed the new motor and props for the ones I damaged. It could be, but I would probably look at the receiver at this point. Should be fairly easy to test, you can bind it to a Spektrum receiver, which I assume someone would have where you fly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Banggood don't have the Hubsan x4 in stock anymore. What are some other international websites that sell this quad? Or should I just swap to a Blade Nano QX?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Somehow I managed to avoid getting into multirotors until about a week ago when I was drinking with a buddy and he mentioned that I should get one of the new crazy drones that everyone is talking about. While the impulse to go out and buy something overkill for a beginner like a phantom was pretty strong, I'm glad I checked my self and ordered a nano qx instead. It's only been a week but I'm still having quite a difficult time with agility mode, although seeing the practice pay off is pretty rewarding. Managed to wreck all my first props because my house is small and I didn't have it trimmed properly initially so I was crashing non-stop. Also managed to break a motor by ripping the wires out of it when attempting to pull a prop off. Good thing I ordered replacement parts. As some of you mentioned, I've had really poor performance with the RTF Tx that came with the nano qx when I take it outside. Even at fairly close ranges I'll intermittently lose control. I just ordered a Taranis with the Orange DSMX/DSM2 Tx module so I'll see if that helps. If not, at least I'll be prepared for when I go to build my own quad, which I'm getting pretty anxious to do. Odette posted:Banggood don't have the Hubsan x4 in stock anymore. What are some other international websites that sell this quad? From my research the nano qx is more of a hobby grade quad since it has both 6 axis and 3 axis (stability and agility mode), so it will take your abilities further than the X4 would. The Nano is the only one I've flown so far so I can't offer much other than mine is a blast to fly and I've had zero issues indoors with it, and had a decent experience outside with no/little wind. joe944 fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
joe944 posted:
Build your self a 250 size racing quad. So much fun and so crash tolerant compared to bigger quads. You will learn way faster and also 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:Build your self a 250 size racing quad. So much fun and so crash tolerant compared to bigger quads. You will learn way faster and also This is probably what I'm going to do. I don't want to build a massive one with an expensive camera until I'm *really* good at flying manually. Any suggestions on 250 class kits or frames? Starting to research my parts list now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
the mini quad bros kit seems like an awesome deal right now http://www.miniquadbros.com/collections/frontpage/products/miniquadkit I've also seen some rtf options as well, including a cheapo transmitter and fpv screen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H19z1X3V4UQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
I'll be flying at an airpark (homes who back up to an airport, think garage-hangars) this weekend, it's also got, apparently, a lovely HOA so I'm going to remain ready for anything. Honestly more concerned about some fixed wing pilot looking out his window as I 'steal his job'. Than I am having a midair with an idiot in a Cessna.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
joe944 posted:This is probably what I'm going to do. I don't want to build a massive one with an expensive camera until I'm *really* good at flying manually. I have a qav250 and like it a lot. The blackout is also really nice. Armattan makes some nice minis that are a bit cheaper seeing they get cnc'd in china. The minion is a solid frame. There are also cheaper knockoffs you can get. The carbon they use tends to be lower quality though and replacement parts can be hard to come by. The real $$$ is in the electronics anyway so I would get a good frame that will last well. There is a movement towards 6" props for more power. Not all frames can fit them or need longer arms. Tilted motors may be a thing but also could be more of a gimmick as tilting your camera gives most of the same effect other than supposedly reducing drag. Not that quads are very aerodynamic in the first place. I certainly wouldn't worry about it for a first build. Power wise I'm a fan of cobra 2204 1960kv motors running on 4s packs with 5x3 gemfan props. They are about $20 a motor which isn't bad given the power they put out without melting. FC wise go with a naze 32. Cheap and easy to tune and configure. Get 12A escs that are 4s rated, simonk firmware is good. Camera get this http://www.surveilzone.com/fpv/fpv-camera/sony-super-had-ccd-600tvl-fpv-ir-block-camera-2.8mm-lens You can't go wrong with this one for the price. Make sure to turn on WDR in the camera settings. RX and VTX are up to you. I use openlrs UHF for radio and 2.4 for video. But you could use 2.4 RX and 5.8VTX if you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:There are also cheaper knockoffs you can get. The carbon they use tends to be lower quality though and replacement parts can be hard to come by. The real $$$ is in the electronics anyway so I would get a good frame that will last well. My airframe is $20 for a complete replacement. I can crash a lot for that amount of money. :-) We'll see how long that logic holds out. As for props, power, that sort of thing. 6" props provide more swept area, so your'e going to get a hell of a lot more lift. I've been looking at them.. my frame would handle it... but only just barely. It turns out the X-Factor frame is really rather small as quadcopters go. I was reading on a german website about tipped rotors. The new blackout hex copter has a fuselage cover and tipped rotors, and it looks like it's scary fast. If you really want to go racing, I think tipped motors is not going to go away. I also think that aerodynamic aids are going to come into play. think about how much thrust you're just throwing to the dogs by blowing on your own quads arms. And the big nasty, literally couldn't be worse for drag fuselages. when racing gets serious, we're going to see fuselages that act as keels, and are aerodynamic along at least one axis. Arms that have shapes to reduce their drag, and tipped forward motors. I've been watching race videos, and people seem to be stalling their props in corners... I wonder how long until people realise that's not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
As far as cheap frames being cheaper to replace the whole thing. Thats cool I guess but how durable is it in the first place? Taking all your crap out and moving it to the new frame can be a pain in the butt to do. I have smashed my qav250 into a lot of hard things going fast and it was only a free fall from 40m up onto hard packed dirt that finally cracked it. I just replaced the bottom plate with the cf version that is supposed to be even stronger. Some of the the cheapo frames have pretty questionable designs as far as durability goes. A potential issue with tipped props is it takes your props out of plane with each other which I think can induce roll when yawing. One thing with mini quad racing is it is such a new thing that the types of courses haven't really been figured out. If courses end up more about snaking around obstacles etc then raw speed may well end up being less important. Nothing is really set in stone yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:
How did you get this set up with a transmitter? I can bag a monitor for 30 bucks, but the rest of this confuses me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:A potential issue with tipped props is it takes your props out of plane with each other which I think can induce roll when yawing. If you're flying forward, any yaw input will include some roll component in comparison to the horizon. If the airframe is closer to level, yaw input will be closer to "just yaw". I don't really think it matters though. You can fly around any coupling like that. Sure, a beatle like shell will help top speed, but the aero arms will help in all aspects of flight, including turns, you'll just have more thrust, period. Also, a fuselage that can generate lift in useful directions will help as well. Think "sailboat keel".
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Cannon_Fodder posted:How did you get this set up with a transmitter? I can bag a monitor for 30 bucks, but the rest of this confuses me. The electronics side of fpv isn't that hard but especially in mini sizes it isn't plug'n'play. Your battery is the sole powersource for your system and is either going to be nominally 12v or nominally 16v depending on whether it is 3s or 4s. Now different things in your quad run at different voltages. Things like your flight controller run at 5v. Things like cameras often run at 12v though there are 5v ones now that are nice. Video transmitters run at different voltages but again 5v and pack voltage are pretty common for ones that have built in regulators. Your ESCs always hook directly into the battery pack for their supply. So you are going to need some sort of power regulation to get the voltages you need for different components. You can have step down or step up regulators. Your escs also have 5v becs built into them. On my qav250 my 4s pack feeds directly into the 4 escs. It also has a feeds into an lc filter to clean the power then a 5v regulator for the lawmate vtx and a 12v regulator for the camera and the leds. So in my setup the camera's + wire connects to the 12v regulator the - to the OSD - and the signal to the OSD signal. I'll make a diagram when I'm at home and or try and find a good example. http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?116-FPV-PILOT-TRAINING-CENTER-YOUR-ROAD-TO-FPV-SUCCESS This is a good thread if you are getting started with fpv. It has lots of wiring and poo poo explained in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Sure, a beatle like shell will help top speed, but the aero arms will help in all aspects of flight, including turns, you'll just have more thrust, period. Also, a fuselage that can generate lift in useful directions will help as well. Think "sailboat keel". That could be useful for more efficient turns. Quads do like to do an aerial powerslide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:That could be useful for more efficient turns. Quads do like to do an aerial powerslide. It would be going from hovercraft turns to airplane turns. It would be a game changer. A fuselage that's aerodynamic "up" and "forward" isn't that hard, they do that with helicopters all the time. If you make it an airfoil, make sure that the CoP is about the same as the CoG. We dont' need to worry about stability because we have a active flight controller to handle that. And by keeping the CoP and CoG about concurrent aerodynamic effects won't murder the manuverability that quads are known for. The arms are a big issue too. So they need to be streamlined. If you keep the airfoil thickness large on the arms, you can have less drag, and a surface that won't stall at any AOA. (something more than a 30% thickness and the airfoil more or less won't stall..) There's a good chance, that the few grams of weight you'd add from the wing fairings will be more than countered by the gain in lift from not having airbrakes behind your props. Uh.. I've thought this out a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:If you keep the airfoil thickness large on the arms, you can have less drag, and a surface that won't stall at any AOA. Uhmm, normally thicker airfoils == more drag?. You can get more lift with smaller increase in drag with some of the thicker airfoils, but you are still getting an increase in drag and since the majority of the lift is generated by the props, I would think that you're better off going with a thinner airfoil. You'll also have major issues with the propwash disrupting the airflow over the arms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Uhmm, normally thicker airfoils == more drag?. You can get more lift with smaller increase in drag with some of the thicker airfoils, but you are still getting an increase in drag and since the majority of the lift is generated by the props, I would think that you're better off going with a thinner airfoil. You're right, fat airfoils tend to be more draggy than thin ones. Fat airfoils also don't stall as sharply (or ever, if fat enough) You're going to get much, much less drag than the flat plate. The airfoil would be oriented with the propwash. The reason for the fat airfoil, is that as the quadcopter goes forward, the propwash is going to switch from straight down to somewhat rearward, and you don't want the airfoil to stall, and go draggy like the flat plate does. A fat teardrop has something like 1/3 the drag of a flat plate with the same frontal area. I need to look that up again, but it's a frightening difference. Edit: I can test that, in the next month or so. Check out the relative drag of the square versus the streamline shape: http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/aerodynamics.html Nerobro fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Yes and since I postulate that the relative wind direction will be coming mostly from the props (at least on a 250 sized), adding a fat airfoil will just increase weight and drag. Instead I think you need to look at a lattice system with winglets/tuning vanes angling back and down if you really want any significant reduction in drag. Also aerodynamics don't scale that well. On most small model planes you gain very little from using 'proper' airfoils.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Yes and since I postulate that the relative wind direction will be coming mostly from the props (at least on a 250 sized), adding a fat airfoil will just increase weight and drag. I think you're missing what I mean by the airfoil. I'm going to change words to help you imagine it. "Streamline" The air coming off the props is going mostly down. Which is then going and hitting this huge flat plate. You can't get more draggy than a flat plate. lets say you're throwing away 10% of your thrust trying to blow around that quadcopter arm. Making that arm a streamlined shape, vertically, towards the flow of air, could get you another 10-20 grams of thrust from each motor. That's nothing to laugh at. I'm not suggesting we try to make lift. Just to stop blowing across a surface that can not be any worse for making drag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/12/03/senator-feinstein-now-using-safety-concerns-to-target-the-drone-industry/ Biggest argument for term limits right here, loving Feinstein is a horrible little human being. Particularly worrisome is the massive overblown "near misses", many of which are with military drones or rc jet aircraft with 5' wing spans several thousand feet up..but this is the scary part quote:It is my intent to introduce legislation to codify and expand the moratorium on private drone use without specific authority from the FAA that is already in place. This expanded moratorium would cover any such use that could threaten the airspace, it would require a safety certification for expansions of private drone use, and it would be backed up by substantial criminal penalties if manned aircraft or people are put at risk. I would very much appreciate your comments and technical assistance on such legislation. Almost glad the democrats got swept this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:The electronics side of fpv isn't that hard but especially in mini sizes it isn't plug'n'play. Thank you! I'm going to educate m'self.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/12/03/senator-feinstein-now-using-safety-concerns-to-target-the-drone-industry/ quote:But the FAA is responsible for the safety of the airspace, and it must aggressively confront this challenge now, before an airliner is brought down Wow, so many amazing overstatements in that thing. She thinks civilians are flying the same sort of drones that are used in the military, wow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:50 |
|