|
Yes, that takes some heavy duty software. Tracking targets with a cameara is still pretty cutting edge stuff. Not bleeding edge anymore.. but it's close. I think that your idea also starts to cross into some very hazy legal grounds. If you have a something that can fly a preplanned flight path, and track a target on the ground, you have 100% of a modern cruise missile.
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
So I've been flying the Eflite Ultra-Micro and Blade aircraft for a while. I've got eighteen batteries or so. Three or four have blown up, either due to charging issues, or post crash problems. I've noticed my flight times are WAY down. The heli's sink soon. The planes don't climb well. So I broke out my Supermate DC6 to do real testing of these batteries. I'm about halfway through, and it seems most of my batteries are at 60%, if not 50% capacity. Right now, I'm just tracking how much power is put in to charge the cells. And there's certain losses to charging, so i'm getting inflated numbers. So far, my worst cell is a 150ma cell, that took 83ma to charge. Talk about toasty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Bummer. How many cycles did you put through them, and how low did you typically go? Lots. I didn't keep good track. At minimum a few dozen. And usually till a flashing light. Which isn't good, but it's hard to track time while you're enjoying yourself.. At least they're cheap, i'm not disappointed in their lifetimes. And happily the worst ones, are the ones that I know are oldest. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
it's not like they die in ten cycles. And most of these cells are rated at 15c. First off, I'm doing this wrong. To test each cell properly means I need to charge completely, then discharge the cells. But because I don't have my whole life to spend checking $3 batteries... Here's what I did instead. I discharged all my cells on my 6x charging tail. This brought every cell down to the 3v minimum. I've been charging each cell individually at 200ma. There are some real losses when charging cells, so the number I get here is going to be .. uh.. generous. To give an example, I did fully cycle one cell. It took 154ma to charge, and gave back 135ma with a 2c discharge. My worst cell so far, is a 150ma cell, that only took 83ma to charge. That cell probally only really has 70ma capacity left. And it's label discharge rate is a mere 12c. So... I suppose the real conclusion here, is it's time to buy some new batteries. I know it means nothing to anyone else, but here's the sorry state of my batteries: code:I had forgotten why I had stopped flying my SU-26. I pulled it out of the box tonight and found I had cracked the lower fuse. It's almost done gluing. After sunrise I might go flying this morning. I've finally retired my T-28, and I'm about to pick up a DLG airframe to put my ar6400 block on. Edit: Hmm. Took 4 cells with me to the field this morning. I found batteries 1 and 4 couldn't sustain full throttle for more than 5 seconds before things started flashing. Those are getting retired. 13 and 16 were just fine, and could go minutes. I wonder if I'll have more than 5 good batteries at the end of my testing. :-) At least I'll have cells where I can be confident in flight time. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
don't bother. Lots of effort for little reward. Buy a T-28 and hoon around. :-)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I really need to get back on building planes.... http://www.skyhighhobby.com/micro-d-worlds-smallest-dlg-glider.html Any opinions on that DLG? I have an AR6400 that I could put in it. My t-28 finally has enough cracked parts it's not worth fixing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:Are the control signals for brushless ESCs different from servo PWM signals?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
My only problem with the mQX is that it's ugly as hell. The NanoQX... well I was flying it out side in 6-8mph winds. It was fun. Amusingly, annoyingly, I can't find my CX2. The MSRx... the AS3X means you can't do "realistic" takeoffs. You need to launch it off the ground. And I do most of my flying in a 8x10' room. It makes takeoffs harrowing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:My MQX body is beyond trashed, so I run a solo cup body. Problem either solved or made worse depending on your opinion. I think a solo cup is a lot better looking than that stock.. 1970's sci-fi looking body.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:The successor to the mqx was released. Blade 180qx. Comes with a camera and the SAFE technology, but otherwise is an mqx No, It's much better, it comes with a good looking body. :-) The whole reason I wouldn't buy a mqx is that ugly freaking body. ugh, here goes another $150
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I'll throw in a vote for the Nano qx. Its more expensive than the rest of the pack but it can hold its own on high rates and slow rates as well. I was just flying mine around my bed room and now I'm about to fly it around my court yard from my balcony. I'm still loving my Nano QX. I've had it for a few months now. And it's put up with all of my abuse. Including several ill fated flip attempts. It even puts up with some real wind pretty well. I ordered a Fire Fox EP200 a couple days ago. So.. I'm moving up to larger helis. And it's a kit. So I ordered the proper motor, speed control, a heading gyro, some batteries.. and I'll get to use my stock of servos and recievers to finish it out. I'm excited.... I've never built a heli before.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
I have 25, maybe 30 servos hanging around. And four receivers. These, need to get used. So.. I ordered a Fire Fox EP200. http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__8938__Fire_Fox_EP200_Micro_3D_Helicopter_KIT_ONLY_.html I'm excited to actually "build a kit." Most of what I've been flying recently is RTF or built from sticks. I'm also excited to be building a helicopter, and something with size. I haven't flown something bigger than a Nano CPX in two years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
So how cheaply can I get into FPV. I already have aircraft... So, we're talking monitor, transmitter, reciever, and camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
ease posted:Pretty cheaply, especially if you are just going to use a monitor and skip on goggles for now. Do you have any models, or sites in specific for me to dig through? Or are those prices I can expect form readymaderc.com? I need to figure out what I'm doing with my nano CPX. I am not sold on how it integrates throttle and pitch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
I'm not bothered by soldering, or even having to pick out pieces. I think I've got enough links from you guys to spec out a system. I think this will be fun... I wonder how much my EP200 will be able to lift. .... annoyingly, I placed the order the 12th, and it still hasn't shipped yet... Barnsy posted:Huh? Throttle and pitch are completely separate on the nano. I run a DX6i. The recommended setup mixes throttle and pitch on the "throttle" stick. I think if I hit the 3d switch it just cranks the rotor speed to full and then I only have control of collective. I think. The instructions didn't go very in depth on how all of that works. And I haven't been able to find a good tutorial for how it should work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:That is normal. Unlike a real helicopter, you don't bother with the throttle. Well... there's my problem. :-) I need to use that 3d switch more often. Idle-up ends up providing a whole lot of negative pitch too. It feels like I could do 3d in that mode too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
My helicopter is in New York today.... I might get it saturday. Then comes a build video.. So you can tell me how I did it wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
DontBeThatGuy posted:3d printing rc parts? Hey guys I was wondering if anyone knew if there would be a market for custom 3d printed parts, from propellers to chassis. Any and all feedback would be great. Thanks. No. Filament deposit nylon, pla, and PVC isn't very strong. The bond between layers is nothing like you'll find from a solid molded part. The surface finishes are ~not~ good, which is critical for propellers. Chassis are more about light weight, than strength, for aircraft at least. So 3d printing can be acceptable. But you're still taking a hit on strength versus weight. Any parts you make, are going to be for making molds.. or fringe parts, like prototype quadcopter bits.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
DontBeThatGuy posted:Thanks for the input,if you could finish them via sanding and possibly plating would this make more aero items feasible to be 3d printed? No, DontBeThatGuy, don't be that guy. Acetone vapor bath can smooth them, but it does nothing for the internal structure, and removes all the sharp edges. 3d printing's resolution is also not exactly great for aerodynamic surfaces. it's good enough for "holes" but can't print threads on a r/c scale. 3d printing is awesome. This is NOT one of it's good applications.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I like it. But those speed cotrols look like they're going to get cooked.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Novo posted:I am easing myself into flying helicopters using one of these but I'm having trouble figuring out what to do about batteries. I've tried buying similar batteries online and they work well, but the charger that came with the heli seems to damage anything but the included battery (they puff up but do not get warm, the included battery has not puffed at all). What are my options here? Do I have to buy the exact replacement batteries and chargers in order to have extras? I would be happy to pay for a more advanced lipo charger but I'm unclear on whether they can even charge batteries this small, let alone more than one at a time. You need similar batteries. 120-200mah is ok. they need to have compatiable connectors. Advanced chargers usually let you get down to .1amp, or at worst, .5 amp. A .1amp charge is only a .75c charge, so it's a healthy charge rate. You've set yourself up for a very difficult time learning helicopters. :-) I'm half proud of you, half hoping you don't give up before you really learn. The smaller the helicopter, the harder it is to fly. Even doubling the weight to 60 grams, makes a huge difference in stability. (I found the Blade mCP X is much more stable than the Nano CPx) Also, the coaxial helis are a lot easier to fly. And they don't end up with the wacky "flying sideways" thing that the small conventional helis get. I'm big on having people start with the Syma S107 as their first helicopter. What you're flying now is the "cheap" version of the Blade MSR. I can't say I'm hugely fond of the MSR. The MSRX is a flybarless heli, and does a whole lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I usually use the Eflite 4 battery charger. I keep it on my computer desk at home, so I can charge batteries anytime. The 4 battery charger came with the Blade MSR. I also have an adapter that allows me to charge on my big LiPo charger too. I set it's charge rate down to .1 amp.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Yeah I stopped flying RC aircraft. I decided to fly RC ultralights instead, way fewer legal hurdles. I wish this were ironic...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Speaking of quadcopters. I'm building a 250 class FPV racer. I picked up a naze32. But in the process, I have a spare set of motors, and feel like building a second quadcopter. What's on the menu, is the HK i86 controller, the MultiWii NanoWii, and the Hobby King KK clone board. What do you recomend?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Wojcigitty posted:How about another Naze with Cleanflight on it? I wanted to go "somewhere else" with my choice. I ended up picking up a kk clone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Hard lessons learned: Make sure your flight control board knows which way is forward, and right side up. Buying extra props, is never enough. 250 class quads are REALLY SCARY. Angle, and Horizon modes, are the "safe" modes. Not chosing those puts you in acro mode. Though..they feel the need not to label acro mode.  I have my FPV equipment in the mail. Everything except the FPV camera.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:Is that a kit or a scratch build? Kit. The X-Factor Super Frame from Hobbyking. But as per usual, there's no directions on how to assemble it. And no real recommended parts list. So, the component loadout is all me. I went Naze32 for flight controller.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ryde posted:I ordered a Nano QX but screwed up and got the BNF version. My options are to send it back and get the RTF version or get a transmitter and receiver cheap enough to pass the Wife Acceptance Factor. Are there some cheap transmitter+receiver pairs recommended for someone just starting out in the hobby that would work with a Nano? You can find the proper transmitters for $20 on ebay.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
I know this was addressed earlier, but let me take a swing too.redeyes posted:Not sure if this is a good thread for this but I need help: To cut to the chase, for a first quad, you don't want FPV, you don't want a camera. You want something small, and one you can buy replacement parts for cheaply. At the micro end of things, you can more or less drive them like a bumper car, and they don't really get damaged. As they get bigger, they fall faster, and have more energy, so running into things ALWAYS means breaking a prop, and may mean breaking the frame. The Nano QX is 18 grams. It just doesn't have enough energy to hurt itself. Or you. Or you cat. Or your tv. Or your furniture. Admittedly I'm a Horizon Hobby whore, so I can't really recommend much else. I heard some of the husban stuff is good, but it's not compatible with my DSM based radio gear, so I stay away from them. The Nano QX is $90 for the ready to fly version. That includes a battery, a radio (with batteries) a charger, the Quadcopter, a spare canopy, and a spare set of blades. quote:Fly time: seems to be in the 10-15 minute range at best, can this be increased with a better battery? For example, 5 150mah 25c batteries for the Nano QX is $20 on ebay. Six batteries is more than I can fly for without wanting to sit and ponder what I've done. quote:Motors: Brushed motors seem to be the norm in the $50-200 range, from reading these can die after as little as 1-5 flights (10 minutes average), and this seems like its a deal-breaker. Are there models with brush-less motors in my price range? Should I be worrying? Are there good quality brushed motors that can be recommended? quote:Range: seems to be around 100-200 feet, and this seems ok but I don't know for sure quote:SAFE: seems to be software stabilization, and necessary to not destroy your quadcopter immediately, allows for learning for a beginner. is this the case? quote:Video recording: I am not married to video recording but it seems like it would be a nice feature. You tube videos tell me that I need to spend at least $500-1000 to get a reasonable HD video model.. but maybe there are mods, etc that can be done. Edit: Wow, three people, essentially the same answer three times. Hah. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Does this kit look reasonable for a starter build? Yes. For someone who's deep into R/C. Not for your situation. To make that thing fly, you're going to spend $10-20 per battery, and you'll want three. You'll need to buy a charger, and that will be another $30-40. You'll also need a receiver, transmitter, transmitter batteries.. That $162 kit, is really a $500 kit. And you've got a quadcopter that will EAT propellors. And likely arms. Consider where you get props for that thing. It's not a good idea. Not for a first quad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I've killed six props, two motors, and two arms on my first quad, just for the sake of comparison. And after a year of ownership, I've only broken two props on my Nano QX, and cracked the yellow canopy. And those were the result of gross stupidity, not "whoops". I define define "gross stupidity" as flying in 15mph winds requiring full throttle to keep the quad from drifting with the wind. ... I did fail eventually. The props were due to chair legs. (I am NOT gentle with my R/C stuff. I broke the wing off my T-28, cracked the fuselage in several places on my SU-26..)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:CC3D has its following but I would say the naze performs just as well if not better and is way easier to tune. I went Naze32 after watching the french guys doing their racing in the woods. That sold me on that board. redeyes posted:OK I get it, that one is only the first step. Part of my motivation for getting a kit is because I want my kid to learn electronics, soldering, etc. I figured that might be a good way but yeah, if that needs another 300 bux of crap to get working that isn't as cool. Getting FPV quadcopters going is either a matter of hooking up black boxes, and praying it works, or getting really really deep into the nitty gritty of things. Learning to fly is hard enough as it stands. Throwing in the "did I do it right?" is a really difficult pill to swallow. You might not even know you didn't do it right until you've learned how to make it work "around" the stuff you screwed up. (I'm writing from experience here...) If you want him to learn how to solder (it's a him?) I highly recomend something that will find daily use. At PS:1 for our soldering classes we did these: http://www.adafruit.com/product/14 And don't cheap out on the soldering iron! Though i'd prefer you buy it at the local hobby shop: Nano QX http://www.amazon.com/Nano-QX-RTF-with-SAFE/dp/B00CYHZN8G Hubsan X4 http://www.amazon.com/Hubsan-H107L-...words=hubsan+x4 To feed your addiction.. the radio that comes with the Nano QX also is useful for flying a whole bunch of other stuff. All of these can be flown by that transmitter:  And this:  And this:  And.. this:  Though you'll probably want something fancier to fly your next quadcopter... :-) Nerobro fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
redeyes posted:Yes its a 15 year old boy. One question, is there a decent RTF model in the $100-200 range? Maybe a tad larger than those 2 models? I wanted to try and get a model with brushless motors if possible. Between the 350 size and 125 RTF models there's not much. 350 size models will have brushless motors. Brushless motors also quadruple the price. Size means weight. Weight means energy. Energy means model death. I realize what you want. Go there if you'd like. Just recognize it's going to cost you a lot more than the purchase price. Something that'll carry a camera (in any serious fashion) are $300-350 used. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Blade-350-QX2-with-Dx5e-transmitter-Quadcopter-/301429739913?pt=Radio_Control_Vehicles&hash=item462e9cd189 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Blade-350-q...=item4d291ad0e7 Props are $1 a set. Speed controllers are $10 each. If you break any airframe part, it's $22 for a new airframe. Lets say you want a camera, and are "ok" with brushed motors (lots of people here fly brushed small quads) The 180 QX will carry a camera. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Blade-180-Q...=item5410c9f167 Now, there are some micro size brushless birds. But they're "advanced" projects. All of the options require buying a battery charger and radio. 125mm brushless. It's $120 http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__58128__Super_X_Brushless_125mm_Micro_Quad_Copter_With_MWC_Flight_Controller_BNF_KIT_.html To show the difference, here's it brushed cousin. That's $54 http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__50460__Turnigy_Micro_X_Quad_Copter_DSM2_Compatible_with_FTDI_Tool_MWC_Multi_WII_BNF_.html 125 class and even 180 class quads bounce instead of break. Brushed motors were the thing for decades. They're still ok. Arcturas posted:? The Nano QX has brushless motors. It's a tiny little thing, but that means it's really good for indoor flying. If you want your son to get into electronics and soldering and such, getting him hooked on flying the quads first will mean he's excited enough to put up with the endless bullshit of actually getting the quad kit put together (they're not actually that bad, they're just overwhelming when you don't know what you're doing. Once you have a basic idea of how they're wired it gets pretty simple). The Nano QX has brushed motors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 20:51
|
|