|
Odette posted:Yeah, I've had a few power supplies fail on me. Much easier to replace the power supply as an entire unit. Yeah, that will work.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:I think the current thread favorites are the Blade Nano QX and Hubsan X4. The X4 has a camera but I have no idea how the quality is, the Nano's pretty excellent and a little more nimble than the X4. To be clear, while the X4 can be purchased with a camera, the standard one does not have a camera. The camera equipped model adds weight and impacts flying performance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Does this kit look reasonable for a starter build? http://www.amazon.com/Hobbypower-QA...words=CF+QAV250
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Any reason to not get a FrSky Tanaris? Seems like it may be a bit more complicated to set up, but you get a lot more radio for your money. I like the fact you can swap out modules. Can control my Nano QX with a DSM2 module, or upgrade to a UHF later down the road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Nerobro posted: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.. I've killed six props, two motors, and two arms on my first quad, just for the sake of comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Redeyes, click the little question mark below my name for my post history in the thread. It's not a forums upgrade you need. And yeah, that kit looks fine. I don't know much about the CC3D board, but it's probably workable. As people have said, you'll want to buy a receiver, transmitter, batteries (probably 1200-1500 3S batteries), and a battery charger as well. Plus a bajillion spare rotors, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Redeyes, click the little question mark below my name for my post history in the thread. It's not a forums upgrade you need. 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. My bad about post history, I see your post history and will check it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I take it this is a knock off of the QAV250? http://www.amazon.ca/Patec%C2%AE-QAV250-Carbon-Fiber-Quadcopter/dp/B00PJV2QBQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1417928954&sr=8-2&keywords=qav250 It looks like it uses a thinner material for the body, and a bit different design. But they don't seem to have the Lumenier branded one on Amazon.ca. Though Rotorgeeks do have the Minion frame mentioned earlier, and I'm inclined to order the motors/esc/props from them. Assuming a 250 size quad, with a 1500mAH 3s, would the Cobra 1960Kv motors still be a good choice? Or are those more meant for running 4s? I feel I'd rather build towards efficiency than performance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Yes it's a knockoff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
CC3D has its following but I would say the naze performs just as well if not better and is way easier to tune.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I went Naze32 after watching the french guys doing their racing in the woods. That sold me on that board. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
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. Cant you put cleanflight on cc3d boards now
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
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. ? 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). What worries you about the Nano and/or Hubsan? Is it their size? Their durability? Their complexity? Do they seem too much like a toy and not enough like a hobby thing? If you want something bigger than the nano/hubsan, then you are looking for something on a 250 frame and I think most of those are going to be kits you have to put together (like the kit you linked) or are a bit pricier like the DJI Phantoms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Easy way to tell is that brushed motors have two wires, brushless ones have three.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Well that was nerve wracking. With the fading light, and a bit of wind, I'd had enough messing around with my FPV Bix3. Gave it lots of throttle and took off. Avoided some trees as it seemed to be rolling a bit wildly, then got it up higher and clear of things. Quickly realizing that yes, trying to orient yourself `250 in the air, on a 480 line security camera, can be difficult. Thankfully there was a baseball diamond in the field I was at which works great as a landmark. I did at one point lose video for about a second, but held my turn and it came back. Took two approach attempts, and a rough landing, but got it down only snapping the little plastic pin on the rudder horn. Really wish I had a dvr for it. I only briefly looked at my altitude/speed/and direction to home during the flight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:
Whoops, my bad!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
I know im being a pain in the rear end, does this thing look like a reasonable starter model which might be modified a bit? http://www.amazon.com/Skyartec-Butterfly-Quadcopter-without-Battery/dp/B00KGVL7UA/ref=pd_sbs_t_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1CMAHXD23XQTCPKD16YE How long does Hobbyking take to ship roughly? redeyes fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Just pre-ordered a Estes Proto-X FPV. Little RCs are so much more fun than big-RCs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
redeyes posted:I know im being a pain in the rear end, does this thing look like a reasonable starter model which might be modified a bit? It's not a terrible price, but the receiver, transmitter, and probably flight computer are going to be trash, and that's a major chunk of change right there. Miniquadbros have something similar right now for $169: http://www.miniquadbros.com/collections/frontpage/products/miniquadkit You have to get your own radio and batteries, but all the components are good quality and reusable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not a terrible price, but the receiver, transmitter, and probably flight computer are going to be trash, and that's a major chunk of change right there. Miniquadbros have something similar right now for $169: http://www.miniquadbros.com/collections/frontpage/products/miniquadkit That one does look nice. But sadly it is sold out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
redeyes posted:I know im being a pain in the rear end, does this thing look like a reasonable starter model which might be modified a bit? Maybe I should have started with this: A 250 class quad-copter has at minimum half a horsepower. The amount of energy there, is nothing to laugh at. It's genuinely dangerous. That's also why they hurt themselves so severely. I will say I like that model, at least from an engineering perspective. It's just one big piece of fiberglass. It's going to be hard to damage that airframe. The concerns I have with that model are: Where can you get replacement speed controls, motors, flight controller? The nice thing about building your own, or buying from a known source, means you can get replacement parts. It doesn't come with batteries or charger, so you need to budget another $50-80 for those, and buy props. You want at least 4 complete sets of props on hand. Since you seem dead set on the 250 class quads.... HobbyKing has several 250 class quads that come "fairly complete". http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__52863__HobbyKing_Spec_FPV250_V2_Quad_Copter_ARF_Combo_Kit_Mini_Sized_FPV_Multi_Rotor_ARF_.html For $103, you get everything excepting a radio, flight controller, and charger. http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__26587__X230_Mini_Quadcopter_Combo_w_Motors_ESCs_Propellers_.html This one needs a battery in addition to the rest. But it's only $80. Hobbyking usually ships within a day. But you're then looking at a week or two for delivery. On a personal note, I spent some time teaching a 9 year old how to fly a quadcopter. She'd never flown anything before. She was starting to get the hang of it by the time we ran out of batteries. I was also reminded how much I hate getting the "x" series helicopters off the deck. *sits here itching for more quadcopter bits to show up..* OH YES, I spent several hours last night reading about slow flyers. This video is of a 1:1 scale model Cri-Cri, flying indoors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWI9PhuIRFY&t=54s Nerobro fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Are there any Euro goons in here? I ordered a bunch of stuff from HK but a some of it was on backorder and it's starting to look that I won't get poo poo until next year at this rate. Are there any other EU stores with comparable prices? I don't want to order from HK... HK warehouse as it'll take forever and I'll get raped on shipping, VAT and duty. As mentioned their local warehouses are out of stock on a lot of the items or outright don't carry certain things... like the Taranis or a receiver to a transmitter that they do have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
joe944 posted:Good timing too. Just broke the frame on one of the motor joints on my nano qx. Turned out one of the props was just bent, and a little zip tie is holding the motor mount together since superglue was a failure. Straightened it out and I'm back in the air, although with some minor quirky behavior. Getting better at agility mode at least... I was thinking about my QAV250 build, with the frame being the carbon fiber version and weighing much less in addition to running the Cobra 1960kv motors on 4s 1300mah batteries without FPV gear, this is going to have an insane power to weight ratio. I will be running the prop guards for a little extra weight but I'm concerned that this setup will be too much and perhaps not stable. I grabbed some 3s batteries as well to learn on before I go 4s. Am I over-thinking this? 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. I would honestly pick up a nano qx regardless of what other plans you have for building your own quadcopters. It's a very effective learning tool that can be used indoors, unlike the bigger quads which would likely do serious damage inside. There's no need to rush straight into anything too fast, the nano qx will be far more than you can handle initially, and replacement parts are cheap. Also, you can ease into the modifications by upgrading the nano qx like I'm planning to do. Just picked up some of these fast rated 6mm motors to replace the stock ones for more power and better handling in the wind, since it's impossible to avoid here in the bay area. http://micro-motor-warehouse.com/products/cl-0615-14 The frame on the nano qx is excellent for indoors where you can slam it around and it won't hurt much at low speeds. Once you start to get it moving those prop guards seem to do more harm than good, perhaps saving a propeller, but at the cost of breaking the frame where the guard meets the motor mount. Since I have extra nano frames for now I'm not in a rush but sometime soon I'd like to find something like this that I can use to replace the stock frame but keep all the other existing nano qx parts. If you want to go further you can replace the flight controller with something even more capable and solder in some LED's for fun. http://picnicquads.com/product/integrated-micro-series/ joe944 fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Some fuckwit @ TGI Fridays thought it would be a good idea to fly a Phantom inside the restaurant as a stunt, a built in kiss cam carrying mistletoe. http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/12/08/tgi-fridays-mistletoe-drone-meant-to-get-couples-kissing-crashes-into-womans-face/ quote:What could possibly go wrong? Well, when the restaurant chain TGI Friday's had the bright idea of flying quad-copter drones indoors to spur romance -- it turns out a heck of a lot
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
I decided to take some time tonight to build my micro video camera, mic, and tx No real reason yet, just cause I had the parts 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Some fuckwit @ TGI Fridays thought it would be a good idea to fly a Phantom inside the restaurant as a stunt, a built in kiss cam carrying mistletoe. I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually a phantom that hit her http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2014/50/bn-drone-disaster-at-tgifridays-2014-12-12-bk_2014_50.html This Quiones guy is a real piece of work though
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
With all the bad PR that "drones" are getting, it's only a matter of time before the "authorities" crack down hard. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
I'm amazed tgi Friday's insurance ever signed off on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I'm amazed tgi Friday's insurance ever signed off on that. I'm certain they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I'm certain they didn't. Then I'm amazed it happened. But honestly I'd rather have ten of these than ten "near misses"with aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Then I'm amazed it happened. But honestly I'd rather have ten of these than ten "near misses"with aircraft. I'd rather have the airspace incursions than something like this. "Remember that time when Carol got hit in the face by THAT DRONE! And how loud it was, blowing napkins everywhere. They should't let people use those." Public opinion for crashing things in restaurants has a much worse backlash industry-wide. At least with airspace incursions there are people with some kind of technical background of airspace systems and air vehicle operations in general that propose fact- and usage-based rules -- hopefully. Especially since something used indoors is much more of the kind of thing that hobbyists are likely to want to use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Then I'm amazed it happened. But honestly I'd rather have ten of these than ten "near misses"with aircraft. What is the actual likelihood that a plane would crash when hitting a hobby quad? Are Cessna's vulnerable to them? How do planes deal with ducks, aren't they bigger in mass than a typical camera rig quad? Honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
deong posted:What is the actual likelihood that a plane would crash when hitting a hobby quad? Are Cessna's vulnerable to them? How do planes deal with ducks, aren't they bigger in mass than a typical camera rig quad? Honestly curious. My non scientific opinion is that most planes would eat a Phantom but get into trouble chewing through something bigger. I'd rather not find out though. On the subject, I can more easily explain to a client why flying inside is unsafe and we follow protocols to stay safe. Plus indoor accidents won't push the FAAs head further up it's own rear end like "near misses" will. Even with the recent massive jurisdictional overreach, they haven't claimed indoor air yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Aircraft suffer birdstrikes all the time and very few bring down an aircraft, let alone a commercial airliner. Granted many of these birds aren't that big, but a Canada Goose is a hell of a lot bigger than a Phantom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:My non scientific opinion is that most planes would eat a Phantom but get into trouble chewing through something bigger. I'd rather not find out though. Doubtful, it would have to be pretty big and solid to take even a small aircraft down. http://youtu.be/hoZD9pczEVs
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
subx posted:Doubtful, it would have to be pretty big and solid to take even a small aircraft down. And the biplane pilot got very very lucky. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100819X52836&ntsbno=CEN10LA487&akey=1 quote:The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who examined the bi-plane reported that lower left wing was crushed aft to the main spar. A six to eight inch tear was noted in the upper left wing fabric, and damage was noted on the leading edge of the left aileron. Had he hit the motor area of the RC plane, the outcome would have been very different. As it was, he just chopped up some balsa. The danger of bird strikes is very real and these attempts here to marginalize the risk of a 'drone' bringing down a plane is irresponsible and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:46
|
|
