/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>2664719
so 5.8 mm shafts aren't the standard? I just want to put a prop on there and tighten it with a screw

Another question, can I put these props on this motor?

props: https://www.ebay.com/itm/202405980247?hash=item2f20562857
motor: https://www.ebay.com/itm/154644660023?hash=item24018a3f37

>>2664725
No, 5mm is the standard for small motors.

>>2664728
Every link you've posted so far is for obsolete crap. Buying this sort of thing on eBay is usually a bad move, as it's full of unscrupulous sellers trying to shift old stock to people who don't know any better.

>>2664750
where should I be buying then? Banggood?

>>2664752
Unironically yes, as long as you buy the right brand, I even think certain retailers just resold from chinese companies on banggood. For example, I stupidly bought a chinesium Dollatek motor with german branding for 27 bucks, while you can get the same on amazon for 19 bucks. Amazon is a good place to start in general, not cheap, but not expensive aswell, check this website to get ideas: https://www.electronicshub.org/best-brushless-motors/

Is 20 minutes flight time achievable with a 5 inch quad or no?
Should I use Li-ion?

>>2664752
I say you should look for online vendors in or near your nation. Banggood has been getting a reputation for fucking people.

>>2664854
You could do it with Li-ion, but they're a pain in the ass to diy. If you want long flight times build yourself a plane with a single big prop

>>2664866
How is banggood fucking with people

>>2664854
Totally doable with Li-ion 6S with 21700 cells or maybe even 18650 cells. 5.5" props will help (if your frame will fit them), and you will have to take it a little easier with your flying in any case.
LR is a lot better with a 7" though, that platform just has the legs to cruise at 50-60 mph, whereas you'll be fast cruising at 30-40 mph with a 5". It's very noticable when you take a 5" somewhere really big and open, it's like taking a motocross in the freeway where what felt insanely fast in fight quarters starts to feel out of breath in the open.

>>2664916
Wut? Are you kidding me? They're piss easy to do.

>>2665001
They're easy to diy badly (eg soldering). They're far harder/more expensive to diy properly (eg with a proper spot welder, not the $50 banggood specials).

>>2665016
There's nothing wrong with using a cheap spot welder, and the soldering method is just fine if you do it the right way. I've soldered several 21700 packs with no performance loss. Just gotta go extra hot, be fast, and cool it down immediately after. Planning on getting a spot welder later as it's easier.

>>2665019
The cheap welders simply don't have the power to produce good welds in 0.2mm or thicker nickel. You need the malectrics/kweld/secure at a minimum if you want to do it properly.

Soldering is sketch even if you really know what you're doing & considering the number of inexperienced solderers in threads like this I think it's an option best left unmentioned.

>>2665034
That's odd. For not having enough power, I've seen plenty enough of them able to blow holes right through the nickel if cranked too high.

How bad of an idea is wiring batteries in parallel for higher mAh? I know in theory it's fine but heard about difficulties with needing to match voltage exactly

>>2665039
not bad as long as they are healty (no damaged cells)
and they are at the same voltage or you get huge current spikes when they are wide apart

>>2665034
i'm welding my packs with level ~18 of 99 on my spot welder or i risk pitting the bands
just look around of what types are out there

Li-Ion packs are great and cheap

>>2665037
Any welder can blow through nickel strip when there isn't a good path for the current to go elsewhere. But if you're blowing holes in 0.2mm nickel strip with a $50 welder it's because your technique is poor, not because the welder is powerful.

>>2665039
It's not a bad idea at all. You probably encounter parallel wired cells on a daily basis without realizing (power tools, EVs, etc.). All large LiPo packs are internally paralleled.

>>2665039
it's how you add capacity. completely normal.

>>2664994
Thank you anona.

FPV on nreal air ar glasses

echaine pro58 > composite to HDMI adapter > nreal HDMI adapter (hdmi to USB-C alt mode?) > glasses

>>2665034
>>2665037
Why not use some of these?

>>2665207
those don't really have good enough connection for anything other than slow cruising drone with a low power draw. such as a small, single 18650/21700 toothpick.

>>2665207
They're good if you're powering a low amp device, but the moment I want 60 amps, those little terminals are gonna glow like a space heater coil.

>"Lets race these cars on my way back"
>prop snaps
>almost binned it into oncoming traffic.
what retarded things have you done lately /rcg/?

>>2665229
Not recent, but...

>>2665222
If you suddenly need 60 amps it means you either fly a racing drone or designed it poorly. As you can imagine not everyone races, so it might be totally viable option for anon, you just hate it because your favorite youtuber said so.

>>2665194
>composite to HDMI adapter
>nreal HDMI adapter

Sounds like a lot of added latency.

>>2665229
That the A9?

>>2665250
I take it you've never punched out with a 5 or 7 inch freestyler. The big one can easily pull 95 amps on 6S.

>>2665251
yeah, just before the dalwhinnie turn off.

>>2665229
One of my dumbest moments was seeing how far HDZero would go on 200mW, breaking line of sight with the metal shed, and not having a GPS to bail me out. Thankfully I like to do long range, so I stuck to the WDID plan and put it in angle mode, moved throttle to 50%, and pitched back. Got me altitude and reduced my distance.

>>2665251
idk i dont see much latency in the video feed doing my 100% definitive hand clap test but i havent flown with this thing yet.

i did play fps games with the nreal adapter and it was fine

>>2665258
Any recs for spots up that way? I've always thought the scenery would be perfect for flying, but it's not like I can just pull over onto the hard shoulder to fly.

>>2665230
What happened?

>>2665275
I was an idiot and crashed into the upright

>>2665230
Goal. i bent my bellhousing smacking off some goal pasts the other week. tried to split S and powerloop under it and failed.
>>2665270
There's loads of lay-bys all the way up the A9 once you get past tay forest, all the hillwalkers/bikers dump their cars there and go up the hills. can look on google maps and see them all.

>>2665229
Damn. That could have been some serious shit. I'll never fly near roads or buildings again.

Opinion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNEiwq_ZOr0
thought's on FT's Flugtag glider? i read the comments and apparently in the new editions all forms of extra boosting the launch like you see in previous record flights have been banned, so that kinetic slingshot that set a record isn't going to happen anymore.
i suppose they had the right idea to try to maximise the lift as much as possible since the launching speed is going to be low and in previous editions they just fell out of the air

but i really have my doubts with their biplane configuration. adding an extra wing on top really doesn't double the lift you're getting, it's more in the 20%-ish extra range while the drag increases significantly so it's really not the way to go for a gliding competition where range is king
they already went with a big fat wing in earlier attempts so they probably wanted to do something differently. i guess this is the part where CFD could come in handy
Ansys' student version is free btw and this is not meant for commercial purposes so i guess they could get away with openly using this software

>>2665385
Love the little SS lightning bolt reference in the logo. Now, the new edgeTX logo... I am not a fan.

>>2665250
Your amp-shaming bigotry is not welcome, Mr. Rosser. We respect plus sized amp ratings here.

>>2665229
How does a propeller just snap? Should I expect this to randomly happen someday?

>>2665229
why were you flying near traffic anyway, are you really that keen on causing car accidents with your dumb shit? i hope you learnt from this experience

>>2665385
It's the king of racing, but kinda falls short everywhere else. I'll even take analog over it if I'm not flying tinywhoops or race quads. Couldn't even penetrate a single big tree I tried to power loop.

>>2665417
Most of the time, it happens when you push serious RPMs. Shouldn't be a problem most of the time unless the prop has seen past trauma or a factory defect. The one in the video appears to be moving at around 90mph, and I'd guess only one blade came off leaving some control intact.

>>2665389
Bro these are mostly a bunch of hillbillies what so you expect

>>2665463
>mostly a bunch of hillbillies
yes but i expected more from people who sell airplane designs for a living. i was wondering if i missed something and wrongly assumed biplane le bad that's why i raised the question
some insights from other people can't hurt

>>2665470
I think they might have gotten away with a joined wing or tandem wing Style construction If they wanted to squeeze lift out of a given wingspan, but oh well. Gotta be honest though, I didn't know Biplane configuration sucked this hard, thats news to me

>>2665490
oh they certainly have their strenghts, literally. it's a boxed 3D shape so if done right they're vastly more rigid than a classical mono wing, or inversly you can make the wings a lot lighter and get away with it because of its boxed structure
things that at first glans weren't exploited at all at FT. so they don't suck at everything but if you want efficient aerodynamic performances they should be avoided like the plague

>I didn't know Biplane configuration sucked this hard
the lower wing surely sucks at the upper wing :^). maybe this could be partially negated by using some airliner type of airfoil in the lower wing that is relatively flat at the top but has a lot of camber to compensate and the opposite for the upper one, but this is getting into CFD territory
also i looked it up and i was probably a bit too quick to slap the 20% eftra lift number on it, it depends apparently. however it's certainly not even close to 100%

>>2665229
>on vacation with gf in a coastal town
>can't wait to show her my new drone I built
>take off too fast, go over water to avoid people
>Los blocked by gigantic ship, or elevation. Not sure which, but image freezes
>try to turn around with muscle memory
>video returns for 1 second, freezes on image of drone blasting towards the gigantic ship
>"telemetry lost"
>panic whole night about accidentally murdering a random dockworker
>next morning read story about a fire that broke out in the night
>Oh God oh fuck
>turns out it was just a school arsonized my school kids
>no dead sailors found
I was sad I lost my very first drone on the third flight, but i think of it as karma for eating a whale the day before, not as just being flat out retarded

>>2665593
If you fail to recognize your mistakes, you'll make them again. Nothing wrong with eating.

No video transmitters in OP?

>>2664972
Bump

Whats a good motor size for a sub 250g flying wing? 2206?

>>2665649
i'd go a little smaller. 6s or 4s?, frame size?

>>2665649
>>2665653
chris rossers got a graph for motor and prop sizing, at work, but google it, pretty usefull

>>2665511
>First glans
Now I feel dirty just by reading that

>>2665641
What all are you after?

>>2665649
Way smaller than that. Something like the Zohd Drift uses a 1406 motor.

>>2665641
There are far too many options for individual components for the OP to make recommendations.

>>2665655
All I can find is stuff for multirotors.

>>2665718
A motor is a motor.

You can always use eCalc if you want to go in really hard for the theorycrafting.

>>2665723
That really doesn't seem like a sound response to such a thing. Different vehicles have different demands. We're not determining what a plane needs by what will allow it to to fly straight up like a rocket, and we're using different numbers of motors as well.

>>2665724
A motor produces thrust. It doesn’t care if you point that thrust downwards or point it horizontally.

Research how much thrust your application will need, then look for some motor/prop combinations that will provide it.

Fundamentally there isn’t really such a thing as a ‘multirotor motor’ and a ‘fixed wing motor’.

How does DJI video have better penetration than analog despite running at 5.8GHz whereas analog can use much lower frequencies?

>Bandwidth for one
A Signal running at lets pretend 40 mhz with 1mhz of bandwidth would use inproportionate amounts of the spectrum and be subjected to interference from neighbouring frequencys
A Signal at 2.4ghz can easily use 100mhz bandwidth without creating real interference
>Some Digital Algorythms have evolved to a point where communication below the noise floor is feasible
>Digital Signals can embed checksums and have internal logic which allows them to fallback
>Analog transmitters ive seen are of cheap quality made in china components with little to none r&d
>Raw TX Power comparison is usually in favour of digital transmitters too
>Antennas at low frequencys like 40 mhz should be multiple meters in length
>Antennas at Frequencys like 2.4ghz only need to be a few centimeters for ideal conditions (Omnidirectional)
>Amplitude Modulation wastes much power and needs to overcome background noise floor first

But I have been wishing for an osciloscope and some equipment to learn with for years, never got anything
So all this is just random introductionary material and my own intuition, never built or tested a transmitter/receiver etc. Theres probably another answer

Antenna

>>2665727
antenna design has a significant factor
Also your statement is unqualified

>>2665755
>A Signal at 2.4ghz can easily use 100mhz bandwidth without creating real interference
that would cover the whole ISM band. of course that will cause interference

>>2665727
the penetration isn't any different. but the image quality might be. because the DJI system is bidirectional where the goggles will request the retransmission of missing/corrupted parts of the image

>>2665818
Does it actually do any retransmission though? I assumed it would be like UDP, where retransmissions aren't used because the application is too time critical - by the time a retransmission has arrived, it's already useless.

>>2665727
Digital compression and RF trickery is pretty powerful at squeezing more out of a weak signal.

>>2665824
If there wasn't any retransmission, the latency would be fixed (kinda like hdzero).

>>2665841
Ah, I didn't even know it had variable latency. Guess that shows how much attention I've given to HD FPV I suppose.

Just transmit the md5 and like 12 pixels man

Just bought a DJI Mini 3 Pro, what am I in for?

>>2665389
why did they even choose >a fucking white male when they have access to a slim girl to pilot the thing instead? could easily shave off another 20 maybe even 30kg without doing anything
i was thinking about using midgets as pilots to further reduce the weight but apparently they're surprisingly heavy and not much lighter than a teenage girl
an 8 year old girl would be ideal. lightweight, can be reasoned with to some degree and it's pitch control only so training kids shouldn't be too difficult
at that age they're allowed in scuba diving programs so i'm not being unreasonable

>>2666019
a flying camera

>>2666049
>Josh's son vs camera girl who's been there for 2 months.
hard choice

>>2666056
bruh give her a glider crash course for an hour, it's only up and down it's not like they're participating in a red bull air race WC
and that plane is what, less than 50kg? and the son around 80, the girl maybe around 45, 130kg vs less than 100 that is highly significant
if incel nerds can put a pro cyclist in their record attempt for a human powered helicopter then why wouldn't you want to make some pilot choices here to further reduce the weight? to me it seems like the most obvious weight reduction
last year they put that bearded retard in it lmao, fatass crashed it immediately but it seems like he survived. what is that clown even actually doing there is what i'm always wondering. feels like they lost all sovl when peter left

>>2665389
>>2666070
oh it already took place
https://youtu.be/kkO2RxfATFY?t=922
seems like they nosedived, AGAIN

>>2666070
do you think she'd volunteer to be thrown off a platform in a foam glider?

>>2666095
>volunteer
lol. lmao even.
but looking at their "flight" 30kg less in the front would have been a big help. you can even see that the elevator is in max pitch up position and it doesn't seem like the plane stalled so it must have been nose heavy as fuck
lmaoing @ that glide angle. flight duration: 2 seconds
baka my head

>>2665653
3s, been thinking about a 1m flying wing, or smaller if it has to be to keep it under 250g

Is there any ESC reliability rating? There have been quite a few reports of speedybee f405 failures recently, so I have to reconsider my choice as I don't wanna cause a fire by accident.

>>2666314
I would put money on >95% of such failures being user error or abuse.

>>2666330
Well, there's a hardware limitation that doesn't allow using OSD and the blackbox together under newer versions of BF, so even if it's reliable, I'd prefer something else.

What do you think about using matek fc (like h743 slim) for a quad? People seem to be using those mainly for planes, I wonder if there's any caveat when it comes to quads.

>>2666314
no, just experience among users. If there was such a rating, the manufacturers would abuse the shit out of it like the battery C-Ratings.

>>2666456
there's a wiring diagram on their site showing it connected to a 4-in-1 ESC so it would be fine. They make some that are specifically for planes so they've become associated with that niche.

>>2666484
Thanks. They're probably a bit too expensive for the first build, but I'll keep matek in mind anyway.

>>2666486
Matek is good, but it's not exactly an expensive brand. T-Motor is closer to being premium stuff.

>>2666456
The H743-slim is more oriented toward multirotors than fixed wing. In fact I just finished up a quad build using one, but I haven’t been able to fly it yet thanks to the weather.

Their fixed-wing specific flight controllers generally have a different physical format with a daughterboard with high power regulators/BECs for servos.

I’m a big fan of Matek because they’ve been going hard into official Ardupilot support over the last few years.

>>2666525
Matek have much more history/experience making flight controllers. T-Motor have been making motors for a long time, but when it comes to electronics they don’t really have much history - except with commercial grade ESCs.

>>2666666
fucking wasted

are there any none chinese diy drones?
most of the companies seem to be frome china.

>>2666668
Huh?

>>2664866
Can someone recommend a vendor based in Germany or Austria or Italy?

>>2666668
That's actually a sign Matek's blessed, go buy Matek (just like I will now).
>>2666666
Does it work well with the latest betaflight? I've read that some users ran into issues with installing the firmware on those because some DFU USB drivers are needed, and all the recommended software for that runs only on Windows.

>>2666706
>Does it work well with the latest betaflight?

Couldn’t tell you I’m afraid, I’m using Arducopter.

>>2666706
Why use it for Betaflight? Get a cheaper SoC if that's all you're doing. You get an H7 when you need more serious processing power. It would be like getting a business level server to host Mumble for the bros when a Raspberry Pi would handle it just fine.

>>2666757
Unfortunately, everything that is available here in Europe is either some chinese dogshit like skystars, or limited in functionality (mamba with 3 uarts/speedybee with broken osd/blackbox), or is built on the fucking 722 chip, or has a shitty gyro, or simply too expensive. So there's not much too choose from, really.

>>2666759
F7 is an alright choice. Good for high load Betaflight without being total overkill.

>>2666766
Maybe for now that's the case, however, everyone says it's just not future-proof due to its limited flash memory. Plus you can't install ardupilot on it already today, and I would like to have that option just in case I want to play with ardupilot.

>>2666769
Eh, how futureproof does a flight controller need to be? Most aren't even $100. Just pull the old one, repin the ESC harness, and be on your way. Not like you're building a computer for over a grand. It's a hobby copter that will probably eat dirt multiple times in its life.

>>2666786
>how futureproof does a flight controller need to be?
Yes.

Diatone Mamba MK4 H743 V2 or Foxeer F722 V4 MPU6000 8S? Price is the same, I don't see what's the catch with that mamba.

Would you be comfortable flying over people?

Thoughts on ordering on Aliexpress? Is it better than Ebay?

>>2666833
In what way?
Flying a DJI in a big loop over a local park? Flying above your neighborhood in a self-made quadcopter to look at traffic conditions across town? Flying a 7" FPV alongside a freeway? Flying a cinewhoop through a college dorm?

>>2666805
Helps to know what you're actually planning. It's like asking if a big pickup truck or a streamlined supercar is better, but you never told anyone you're trying to tow a camper or enter a race.

>>2666805
Another good thing to check is what gyros are on what flight controller. Fair warning, I have no familiarity with either of those specific boards, but Diatone Mamba and Foxeer are both solid choices. The newer Speedybee flight controllers are nice too.
Hint: don't be scared off by 3.2k gyro update frequency...

>>2666833
With my Mobula7, I'm comfortable with intentionally ramming them in the back of the head.

>>2666894
Hm, I thought fc's are not that specialized. I'm building the first quad, freestyle/long-range flying, betaflight for now, analog and eventually hdzero, potentially adding various periphery apart from basic gps.
>>2666895
Dual icm-42688-p on the mamba, but afaik the performance depends on specific circuitry design decisions, so it's hard to tell if it's good or not.

>>2666910
If you're doing long range and might move to something that can do things like position hold, waypoints, and other semi-advanced features, take the H7 without question. Otherwise just get a cheap F4 or F7 with enough UARTs to support your devices.

>>2666932
Yep, that's what I was thinking, thanks. But the question was more about why this particular mamba with an H7 is so cheap compared to that F7 foxeer and other H7 boards. There must be something wrong with it I suppose.

>>2666668
satan was being helpful

>>2666942
Diatone just tends to be inexpensive in my experience. Not sure why that is though. I'm sure somebody else can answer that.

>>2666100
That plane is stalled the whole time. It never achieved the speed to get 1g of lift from the wings. It was on a ballistic trajectory, that's why it went horizontally briefly.
Looks like it was mostly just for fun, or to look like a vintage aircraft. but you're right that the design was way too heavy. If they're span-limited (some rule saying max. wingspan) then they're fucked, there's no way to get a long flight. If there is no max. wingspan then they would need a lot more wing area to be able to efficiently convert that 20 ft. of height. The problem is then, transporting the aircraft to that platform without breaking it(it'd probably break slightly anyway) and if there's any wind gusts then it'll break no matter what.
No kinetic rule is stupid.

>>2667006
i've looked at the footage and it appears to go down in a straight line instead of falling from the sky. at the fraction of a second after launch it's also relatively horizontal but then immediately pitches down and the AoA doesn't seem too problematic. i honestly think it was way too noseheavy and they really should have put the girl in there instead. or even better, did some calculations instead of winging it with some scale models
>Looks like it was mostly just for fun
they made earlier videos, possibly clickbait, but titled "the flugtag record will be BROKEN" and "our WINNING flugtag design" so i think they genuinely were trying to cover some distance instead of going down immediately
>If they're span-limited (some rule saying max. wingspan) then they're fucked, there's no way to get a long flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUlZQ3JyrBM
this is the record (very impressive actually) that is still standing to this day. i suppose they "cheated" by the current rules by compounding speed but if you look carefully the pilot was basically already getting off the ground before reaching the end and relative to the trolley barely moved
they were pretty clever into combining winglets with a low aspect ratio wing and making heavy use of the ground effect
makes me wonder why this design hasn't been copied to shit. there should be at least some room for improvement no? bully the pilot into anorexia or something
kind of funny if you'd add up the distances and flight durations of all flitetest's attempts they still wouldn't come near the current record
but yeah i suppose endurance should be its own category

>>2667044
>>2666100
>i've looked at the footage and it appears to go down in a straight line instead of falling from the sky.
to illustrate: it went down roughly at the white buoy which is also where the straight green line i drew ends

>>2667044
No way. The descent rate is approx. 30 degrees. Even based on your own picture. The airfoil produces peak C_L at about 13-16 degrees. After stall it mushes, which is what happened in that video.
The chicken whisperers design is based on the Icarus V. It's a hang glider designed for 18 mph stall speeds, which makes it suitable for those takeoff conditions. I think I remembered seeing another team with a catapult powered with elastics?

>>2667074
so I am conflating descent rate with AoA which is incorrect, but my point is that it doesn't have sufficient flying speed, it goes into a ballistic trajectory and after it suddenly drops, the speed builds up enough for it to sort of regain normal flight, but it hits the water before it can regain normal pitch attitude.
there is no way it was flying at the speed they launched it at. It was 100% stalled. After it falls it was going fast, but like I said it hit the ground, and at that point they needed more than 1g of lift to unfuck it.

>>2667076
i'm drunk now but that is not a ballistic trajectory, i've played the short flight frame by frame, made some edits in paint and am fairly confident it is going down in a somewhat straight line from start to finish and not a parabole
i've seen stall more than once and what they all have in common is the flight characteristics go to absolute shit and so is your flight. you can clearly see from the elevator that i highlighted the pilot was trying to pull up the whole time but couldn't because of the questionable weight distribution yet the plane itself didn't start to do backflips or death spirals or some shit
gonna refresh tomorrow how the cog location innfluences the moment coefficient which might explain the descent angle but not now
also stall usually means a shitload of drag yet it speeds up? don't expect a reply in the next 16 hours but always nice when someone disagrees with me, unironically. have a nice evening

>>2667074
cool glider

>>2667128
>the flight characteristics go to absolute shit and so is your flight
There are ultralight aircraft that remain controllable and supposedly able to land in a full stall. At low Re and low wing loadings, it just mushes. The airfoil is less efficient. That's what's happening in the video. Except for the very first few frames, which is ballistic.
>>2667128
>you can clearly see from the elevator that i highlighted the pilot was trying to pull up the whole time but couldn't because of the questionable weight distribution
It's positively stable in pitch. That's how all airplanes are. It doesn't matter what happened in the video because it was never in 1g flight because the energy was too low because they suck.
>>2667128
>also stall usually means a shitload of drag yet it speeds up?
It means that the wing is less efficient than when the flow is attached. It still generates lift. Obviously you can still accelerate. Imagine if you had tiny Buzz Lightyear wings and jumped off a building, would you stop accelerating just because the wings stalled? No, you'd keep accelerating and go splat, because otherwise it'd be a parachute.
>>2667128
>don't expect a reply in the next 16 hours
This is ridiculous. If you continue to question me I will backtrace your IP and unveil Kurald Galain. Recant your idiotic viewpoints posthaste.

>>2667128
>i've played the short flight frame by frame, made some edits in paint
I don't really give a fuck, I took one look at the airplane and the video, and it's obvious that it never reached flying speed. And unless there was a strong headwind it never would have.
>>2667128
>how the cog location innfluences the moment coefficient
What the fuck is a moment coefficient, you ignoramus? Do you even know what a moment is?

>>2667128
>i've played the short flight frame by frame, made some edits in paint

Fuck me, I know this is 4chan but come on mang. Find something better to do.

printed a tpu case for my video receiver with HDMI output. ill probably put it on an old tripod i have and test flying with it over the weekend.


later i might make a mount for the receiver for the nreals themselves and carry a battery+2 adapters in a pocket

>>2667344

>>2667346
This is glorious!

Thoughts on putting swastikas on rc planes?

>>2667418
If Karens will see it, do you care to invoke their rage for the lolz?

>>2667222
>There are ultralight aircraft that remain controllable and supposedly able to land in a full stall
exception, not the rule, and maybe you're confusing stall here with delta vortex lift

>It's positively stable in pitch. That's how all airplanes are. It doesn't matter what happened in the video because it was never in 1g flight because the energy was too low because they suck.
i had a think about it, and it's easy to answer when reducing everything to a flying wing around the aerodynamic center, which is valid as long as the lift is linear. if the cg goes forwards the lift coefficient goes down for the pitching moment to be zero, and presumably you're then no longer in the area around optimal LOD and you need a lot more speed to generate enough lift. you can compensate with the elevator to increase the moment which is clearly what happened here, i even highlighted it.

>It means that the wing is less efficient than when the flow is attached. It still generates lift. Obviously you can still accelerate...
you can but for something that supposedly stalls the velocity and glide angle seem surprisingly constant. i've already given my reasoning for why i think there was no stall involved so i'm not going to repeat myself. you don't pull up when you're in a stall, simple as

>>2667223
What the fuck is a moment coefficient, you ignoramus? Do you even know what a moment is?
Dunning-Kruger effect in full action

>>2667429
forgot a meme arrow

Can anyone recommend quadcopter frames that are unibody carbon fiber? Looking for something 3 inches, but also larger. Also looking for as light as possible.

>>2667464
The BabyTooth is a great 3" frame, but keep in mind that you will have to add your own canopy. I'd go with at least the 2mm version if you are doing 2S or above.

>>2667490
awesome, it looks perfect for me, thanks. want to transfer the parts from my old frame to this. its for a sub-250g build.

any recommendation for a unibody frame that fits 4" and bigger props?

>>2667429
>if the cg goes forwards the lift coefficient goes down for the pitching moment to be zero
correcting myself here, i think this specific part is wrong. i was too lazy to do any refreshing on how the cg and glide angle correlate

>>2667429
>delta vortex lift
I'm not confusing anything with anything. There are spanwise effects which are the result of fluid flow, and then there are stupid computer programs, 2D panel simulations, XFLR, etc. etc. which you can use to poison your brain, secondhand in this case, since you clearly lack the wherewithal to get the misinformation from the computer's mouth.
>>2667429
>it's easy to answer when reducing everything to a flying wing
You posted a reflexed airfoil which is already incorporating the elevator.
>which is valid as long as the lift is linear.
You realize this doesn't even make grammatical sense, right? It's like saying, "I've reduced my dietary intake to only account for calories, which is valid as long as the serving sizes are $3.40."
I think what you're saying is that the convention of 0.25c is valid as long as the lift is... well, actually fuck it, I have no idea what you're saying. Lift is linear? Technically it's a vector. Why have I made such poor life choices, arguing with morons? woe to me.
>>2667429
>you can but for something that supposedly stalls the velocity and glide angle seem surprisingly constant.
You can stall and have a constant "glide angle." You can stall and have a constant velocity. Unfortunately you can't have neither of that shit in the video under discussion, because it was four seconds of some dumbass driving off a barge in an ill-conceived theater performance.
holy shit I think I'm killing my neuroplasticity just by thinking about you
Captcha: HM0S3X

Anyway, it is true that a positively stable aircraft is theoretically less efficient because the tail generates lift the wrong way. That's why high performance aircraft like the Glasair have less stability and smaller horizontal stabilizers. On high performance aircraft, or on gliders rear ballasted for competitions, the elevator trim doesn't work or else it isn't even included, because the stick forces are so light.
There are downsides to rear cg / neutral stability (e.g. less vertical tail efficacy, which may reduce effective roll rate due to the necessity to compensate for adverse yaw, which actually reduces performance because then you can't center thermals... blah blah blah)
but to summarize, it doesn't matter, because that contraption would have crashed either way, because it was stalled from the get go.

>>2667579
you should use PNG instead of JPG for images with less than 256 colors

>>2667574
>i was too lazy to do any refreshing on how the cg and glide angle correlate
Start with high school physics, because you clearly don't know nothing about nothing. Also, ethanol was a bad choice.
>>2667586
I copied by URL from the Google. It only exists in cache; I have no control over which format those idiots originally uploaded it in. You think I browsed a Korean cartoon forum nine hours a day for fourteen years and somehow don't know how to save line art? I'll fuck you up, you fucking new-wave punk.

>>2667574
did some refreshing and this is actually correct. pic related, the lines through A shif to the right where they intersect the axis where the moment is zero (no pitching force) as the CG moves to the back, here expressed as l_a/c increasing (wordt groter). not the best quality but i didn't make the course
you can compensate obviously with the elevator but like i said earlier it was clearly maxed out
so by making it noseheavy the lift coefficient at M=0 would have been a lot lower than it should be, meaning they needed even more speed, and most likely also meant a significantly lower lift/drag ratio and glide angle
get your CG right, kids

>>2667575
linear function of the angle of attack you pedantic twat. and if you genuinely believe a stalled wing is no biggie and you can just fly like nothing happened i don't know what to tell you

>>2667596
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2wUv8fJBEU
here, an actual stall. do these two look similar in any way?

>>2667589
>jpg

>>2667597
>an actual stall
>i don't know what to tell you
I'm not watching that. Is that the APS upset recovery video?
I 'flew' the 330SC (from the front seat). It's close to neutrally stable, the controls are light and the ergonomics are excellent. I also flew Citabrias, Decathlons etc., and competed in them. They don't stall the same as the Extra. On top of the effects of airfoil and wing planform, there are also inertial forces, gyroscopic forces, and one thing that everybody overlooks, which is physiological factors.
Coincidentally, it is a very common thing among GA pilots to mis-characterize the stall, to make it sound like something immediately dangerous and deadly. Flight instructors will do this. I think it's a combination of fear mongering and erring on the side of safety, because most flight instructors don't compete, they don't know, and they don't really give a shit about the stall dynamics, so as long as they make it sound really dangerous then they're doing their job and keeping their students safe.
>>2667594
>you can compensate obviously with the elevator but like i said earlier it was clearly maxed out
>>2667594
>so by making it noseheavy the lift coefficient at M=0 would have been a lot lower than it should be,
If you want to argue about this bullshit with others you need to get your terminology correct.
>a lot lower
>they needed even more speed
>most likely also meant a significantly lower lift/drag ratio and glide angle
Ok, I claim that, based on how much the airplane weighs, its approx. wing area, and its initial velocity, there was 0 probability that it could have supported its own weight, even if we assume that it was perfectly balanced, it kept level via magic, and the horizontal stabilizer didn't exist.

>>2667615
>330SC
I meant 330LX
sage
>>2667600
you're mother is an whore, etc.

>>2667512
Unibody is a little more rare above 3", I think at that point most people would rather take the weight penalty of a few screws holding individual arms on than have to replace the whole bottom plate if one arm breaks. Plus, you can get some weight savings by going thimmer on the replaceable arms instead of using massively thick unibody arms as insurance.

i live in a coastal city and dont want to drown another quad. would i fixed wing have a good chance to survive an ocean landing / crash? in fact, since it would float could I optimize it to land on water? i dont think sealing the fuselage would be hard, but most models i see have an exposed motor, and even if they make oil seals small enough for RC, i seriously doubt it would let the rotor move freely enough to get decent RPMs

>>2667398
its jank af but works
i printed it in pla and put it on a cheap tripod

where do i even start with diy fpv?
i looked a the links in the OP, do i really need to spend 1000+ dollars just to get started?

>>2667579
>it is true that a positively stable aircraft is theoretically less efficient because the tail generates lift the wrong way.

relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCgpRQXFEaU

>>2667724
>do i really need to spend 1000+ dollars just to get started?
Yep, welcome. Probably even more if you don't have all the tools at hand. This hobby is a fucking money blackhole.

>>2667724
$1000 is an exaggeration, but realistically you do need $500 assuming you're starting with absolutely nothing (not even basic tools).

>>2667737
aside from analog or digital, can i fuckup and mismatch parts so i have to spend even more money getting the correct parts?

>>2667740
What? 500$ is the price of any decent analog goggles alone. Even if you buy used ones, the price won't go below about 300$. And it's impossible to build a drone and buy tools for 200$ left.

>>2667743
Yes, you can buy a frame that won't fit your camera/FC stack/VTx. Other than that, probably not, but don't expect that it will be a buy once cry once build. You're likely to break something in the process.

>>2667762
>>2667737
thanks for the help, but i'm not ready to spend a lot of money right now, so i'll be waiting a will longer before considering getting into the hobby.

Why can't I buy 422C-55ML as an individual in Europe? What a stupid law regulating such a simple thing as a conformal coating. "Hazardous" my ass.

>>2667775
That's not a hobby for someone not willing to shell out a couple hundred dollars every now and then, unfortunately.

Radio 55$
brushless motor 15$
ESC 15$
3s 1500 mAh Battery 15$
Charger 30$
total 130$

>>2667696
BLDC motors are waterproof, at least in theory. Not sure if the saltwater would cause corrosion however.

>>2667696
the saltwater will come in contact with the receiver, ESC, and destroy them, it will also come in contact with the battery leads and short them out. The motor should survive

>>2667696
sealing the fuselage is a bad idea as the electronics need cooling
but you can conformal coat everything and it will be fine
just rinse everything with fresh/distilled water before storing

>>2667846
>but you can conformal coat everything and it will be fine
What about the connections between cables and the servos? How water resistant are normal servos?

>>2667854
where the cables enter the servo housing? either they already are or you can seal them with some silicone
basically all connections can be soldered except for the battery and the antenna connector
but those aren't much of an issue i guess. have a look at water resistant quadcopters

>>2667780
>bruhless motor 15$
Times 4 = 60$.
>ESC 15$
Blows up right after being installed on a copter and powered up, burning the house down.

Also forgot to mention a PSU for the charger, an FC, a bunch of antennas, a receiver and lots of other stuff. So that's probably just trolling.

>>2667872
>where the cables enter the servo housing?
No, where the axle of the servo exits the housing.
>have a look at water resistant quadcopters
>>2667696 was asking about fixed wings. Quadcopters don't have servos, so that's a different problem.
Though he was asking about quads versus fixed wing, so I guess the answer is that quads would be easier to waterproof. It would just need to be buoyant enough to be recoverable.

>>2667953
oh, there. slap on some grease. as long as it only gets submerged slightly, the water won't be able to push into it

>>2667615
for a minute i thought i was talking to an engineer but it appears you're a pilot and don't really know anything about wing design or flow separation, thanks for clearing that up. i'm not going to waste my and your time anymore

Is there a small 4-pin bullet connector? Looking for something like an XT30 or MR30, could be even smaller. Looking for like 5-10A

>>2668000
What a waste of digits.
>wing area
>weight
>launch speed based on video
Come back with some numbers for those. I'll show you a cool pilot trick that every pilot knows how to do: Plugging numbers into a computer.

>>2667762
>>2667775
>500$ is the price of any decent analog goggles alone

It's elitist gatekeeping shit like this which scares people away from the hobby.

I've been doing this 7-8 years, I've owned expensive FatSharks & I've used the Orqas. Yet the goggles I've actually settled on & have been using for over 3 years now are the EV800DM - which currently sell brand new for $94.

>>2668293
Ok, we get it, you have an abnormal head and fucked up eyes. Most people will probably be happier with the high end goggles though.

>>2669101
>you have an abnormal head and fucked up eyes

Where are you getting that from?

I'll happily admit that I like the compact nature of FatSharks when it comes to packing/carrying them, but when it comes to actual visual experience then the larger FOV of box goggles is just nicer.

The point I was making though, is that telling people they have no choice but to spend $500 on high end goggles in order to get started in this hobby is complete bullshit.

>>2669118
It's obviously better to start with good stuff to not ruin the first impression of the hobby.

>>2669159
Except starting out with a set of half decent box goggles instead of FatSharks isn’t the same as starting out with a FS-i6 instead of a Boxer.

Box goggles aren’t a bad experience, in fact there are plenty of people who prefer them over FatShark style goggles. Like I said before, I actually went from FatSharks to the EV800DM.

well, fatsharks != fatsharks
the EV800D has 42º but i can't find anything about EV800DM
while all digital and the HDO2 have more than that
but at that price you might as well go digital. hard to beat a fullHD oled screen

>>2669251
It looks like the ev800d and 800dm might have different screen sizes and resolutions and probably different FOVs as a byproduct

>>2669118
Should've gotten the Skyzone 04X if you wanted a good FOV. It's so damn wide that I often have trouble seeing the corner elements of my OSD. Better DVR too. Blows my mind that the Fatshark HDO2 became the defacto premium analog goggles.

>>2669251
>the EV800D has 42º but i can't find anything about EV800DM
>while all digital and the HDO2 have more than that

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from, but they're completely wrong. Most box goggles have 80° or more.

In fact one of the reasons I like the DM over the D is that the DM has a smaller screen & smaller FOV - the D actually has too much FOV (a bit like sitting too close to a cinema screen).

>>2669479
>Most box goggles have 80° or more.
lol, you're obviously a retard
there's this thing called internet with search engines on top of it. they give answers to questions you put in

>>2669689
Google says the EV800 is anything from 82 to 120+ degrees, depending who you want to believe.

The fact that box goggles have substantially greater fov than FatShark style goggles isn't a debate. Everybody knows this, except you apparently.

>>2667706
here's what i based it on btw

https://qiita.com/kobatan/items/a3a80f45e9566bb284eb

i flew with it putting the tripod on the roof of my car and it worked pretty well, didnt notice any latency compared to an fpv screen but i dont own any high end goggles so there could be some latency.


my double battery shield is kinda big im thinking if i get a shield with a single 18650 i can mount a receiver+converter+battery on the left side of the glasses.

>>2669700
>120+ degrees
now it's getting delusional
don't you ever take a step back and consider what a NTSC on a >120º FOV screen would entail? on a display that's most likely 800 x 480, lol

for anyone else wondering:
https://oscarliang.com/js/fpvgogglefov.html (where i got the initial 42º from)
as well as https://oscarliang.com/fpv-goggles/#Box-Goggles

Do I need a magnetometer for way-point missions if the FC doesn't have one? Or would a GPS plus the gyro and accelerometer on the FC be enough.

What are drones used for commercially apart from doing aerial video shots?

>>2669882
Inspection of hard to reach structures

>>2669882
There was a segment involving flame throwing drones on an episode of The Grand Tour. Apparently, in China, they use the drones to burn crap out of overhead power lines.
https://youtu.be/8bbKoTzvsFQ
It probably wouldn't be legal anywhere in the western world

>>2669882
Some people are using them to spray pesticides on crops.

I just made a dumb mistake and fried my UBEC on the bench. It's supposed to output 5v, so is there any reason why I can't just use a coin battery for the moment while i wait for a new UBEC to arrive?

>>2669882
Winning games of capture the flag

>>2669830
Have you ever actually used box goggles yourself? I’m going to guess you haven’t.

Literally everybody knows that box goggles have far wider fov than FatShark style goggles. That’s kinda their thing.

I usually trust Oscar, but he’s obviously made a mistake there - as I’ve literally owned several of the goggles he has in that comparison & it’s completely wrong,

>>2669882
Inspection (industrial, renewables, transport networks, etc.), crop/vegetation health, crop spraying, archaeological survey (photogrammetry, LiDAR, etc.), military (intelligence/surveillance, front line supply, munitions strikes, etc.).

Consumer drones are all about aerial video, but the commercial world is far larger & more exciting.

>>2669996
>Have you ever actually used box goggles yourself? I’m going to guess you haven’t.
my first two goggles were box goggles. the second one i've used for 6 years

>>2669996
>I usually trust Oscar, but he’s obviously made a mistake there - as I’ve literally owned several of the goggles he has in that comparison & it’s completely wrong,
better tell him that he's a retard and that he should review those >120º FOV goggles

>>2669882
the search part of search and rescue

how much is 'reasonable' to spend on parts for a fun ~5" quad with good FPV video, ground up?

best I can tell my shopping list currently stands at $1300 for everything, including DJI o3 air+goggles 2

I want to start by saying I have some experience flying and had a part 107 for work but it has since expired.

I currently have no equipment at all but want to get a quad with a thermal sensor for hog hunting.
Is the autel Evo 2 with thermal my best option for a full package?
The reason I ask is because there is a lifetime for a consumer drone and I figured that I could replace parts as needed on a custom one.

Is there a good thermal fpv camera available to drop in? Or am I better off buying a commercial system and having to buy a new one after support ends?

I own a gopro Hero 6 but from my limited knowledge of building fpv quads they are on the heavy end of what I would want to mount.

>>2669841
Depends on what you're flying.

>>2670297
even 1.3k might be a little low if you insist on o3
just a o3 kit and the goggles 2 are like 1k
the quad itself should be 250-300, controller, charger, batteries, .....

>>2670307
It'd be a fixed wing drone.

>>2670311
right now I'm looking at right around 500 for decent frame/FC/ESC/motors/controller/batteries+charger based somewhat on oscarliang rec's
the o3 air kit is 230 on amazon right now and getfpv has goggles2 for 650 and for me the price difference between fatshark and obvious quality difference with analog just doesn't do it for me
so I guess I feel like staying under 1.5k seems reasonable

>>2670330
just had a look at banggood for prebuilt digital quads. they are 500-600 although with a non-o3 unit
so you might compromise a little if you go for not totally high end equipment
on the other hand there's not much difference from 1.3 to 1.5k so just go for it

Testing atm my new dick-shaped submarine drone, that will go for around 1000 km and carry 800 kg of exprosives all while streaming HD footage.

>>2670380
Hohol, keep calm.

>>2670380
Seems pretty fat for a torpedo.
>>2670389
Shut the fuck up retard.

>>2670391
>REEEEE
It takes two hohols to fill the thread up with unrelated shit, I guess. Anyways, satisfied with a flamed-up ass of yours.

>>2670393
The only thing that's unrelated to the thread is you crying about the Ukrainians who live rent free in your head. He just made a joke about the phallic shape of the thing and now you're freaking out and accusing everyone of being your enemy or something.

>>2670401
That's bullshit. He clearly posted that just to brag about yet another weapon that no one cares about. This is a hobbyist thread, just so you know. Politics is not welcome here.

>>2670409
Yeah he clearly was very serious and obviously bragging when he said that he was testing his very own "dick-shaped submarine drone".

>>2670411
I have a dick myself, and that submarine is not that akin to a real one, so don't play it out like an innocent joke, doesn't work.

>>2670414
And I thought I was autistic.

>>2670416
I consider this title an honor, you normie.

>>2670417
Being autistic isn't so great when people are joking around.

>>2670418
I missed the part where it's my problem.

>>2670420
It starts becoming your problem when you take a joke too seriously.

>>2670422
What joke?

>>2670423
You're just being deliberately obtuse at this point. Go be a belligerent retard elsewhere.

>>2670324
Fixed wings tend to be able to get away with skipping the mag since they're almost always going to be going forwards. It'll simply compare some points to determine heading and use the accelerometer to know the changes happening in real time.

>>2670232
>my first two goggles were box goggles. the second one i've used for 6 years

So you know full well that box goggles generally have much wider FOV than FatShark style goggles.

I honestly can’t comprehend why you’re even trying to debate this.

>>2670430
No u.

>>2670606
that 120 figure is viewing angle i.e. how far off to the side you can see the screen by itself before it turns black(likely included in the specs because the screen is detachable and can be used as a monitor). Its different from FOV. only a few high end VR headsets have 120 degree or more FOV. even the oculus only has 90

>>2670606
this is that they're talking about. Its scummy and boderline false advertising considering most shops dont actually advertise the ev800d FOV and only include the viewing angle to trick people into think theyre getting some magical FOV out of goggles.

>>2670530
That makes sense, thanks.

>>2670774
I did forget to mention one exception. If you're flying in wind, you may find that your heading reads inaccurately. This is the time a mag will help.

>>2670779
It's probably a good idea to get one anyways in that case since they're not very expensive at all. I'll just have to try it with and without one.

>>2670806
I'd suggest a GPS with a mag built in. Just be sure to separate it from as much as you can. High current lines and motors especially will induce magnetic fields and overpower the natural one it's attempting to read. A fucked up sensor can be the difference between RTH working and not working. Test well before trusting it!

>>2670837
>GPS with a mag built in
Any recommendations? I mean they all use basically the same chip for the compass but I don't know much about GPS.

>>2670844
Any with an M10 chip, there are not so many of them available anyway.

>>2670844
I tend to favor Matek's units as they tend to be pretty consistent with their quality. Some brands occasionally get counterfeit parts, but I'm not sure of which ones. Nobody is perfect, so I'm not laying any blame. Just saying who I tend to go with. The M10Q-5883 would be my recommendation.

>>2671071
>Some brands occasionally get counterfeit parts
I know that the QMC5883L magnetometer is occasionally sold as a HMC5883L but I don't think it's really a counterfeit, as I understand it it's more or less the same product but manufacturing moved to China so they dropped the H, I guess. It works slightly differently but that's not really a problem so long as they're honest about the fact that it's a QMC and not a HMC.

>>2670691
>>2670698
Regardless of scummy advertising, box goggles still have substantially greater FOV than FatShark style goggles. This is basic fact that anybody who has used both can tell you. I seriously don’t understand why anybody is even trying to argue this.

>he flies in angle mode

>>2671162
Based sigma-male choice.

>>2671162
I still gotta use it indoors. It's just so damn easy to build speed.

>>2671113
so what's the source of that image?

>>2671253
Why are you so hung up on trying to disprove something that’s so fucking obvious?

>>2671253

>>2671266
just answer the question

>>2671268
>>2671271
I’m going to do my sanity a favour & just try to ignore you for the rest of the thread. You’re clearly a complete fucking moron.

>>2671273
See you in the next one then ;)

>>2671291
Maybe we can debate something equally moronic, like Spektrum being a better protocol than ELRS.

>>2671162
>he uses a gyro

i'm looking forward to the box goggle FOV guy claiming Spektrum to be way better, that everyone knows it has way better penetration, range, etc., ignoring multiple people trying to show him how he's wrong (including Oscar) and then trying to make his claim seem legitimate by posting self made images and not providing any sources

>>2671307
Oscar literally says box goggles have more FOV. Everybody does. It’s just this one brain damaged anon who seems to think they don’t.

>>2671307
>ignoring multiple people trying to show him how he's wrong (including Oscar)

Fucking lel

https://oscarliang.com/fpv-goggles/

>>2671314
so where exactly did i claim that box goggles in general have smaller FOVs?
we're still waiting on a source for your claim that box goggles usually have a FOV of either >120º, 82º, 80º or 77º like it says on the image you posted (that fails on google reverse search. did you really make that yourself?)

>>2671329
neither Oscars comparison table nor his goggle comperator reinforce your claim

>>2671341
>so where exactly did i claim that box goggles in general have smaller FOVs?

Right here;

>>2669251
>the EV800D has 42º
>while all digital and the HDO2 have more than that

You literally claimed that all digital goggles & the HDO2 have more FOV than the EV800D, a box goggle that is renowned for being one of the widest FOV sets of goggles available. So wide in fact that Oscar himself even admits that it is *too* wide for some people.

>neither Oscars comparison table nor his goggle comperator reinforce your claim

Oscar (& literally everybody else who has ever used FPV goggles) reinforce that box goggles have wider FOV than FatShark style goggles. This is like saying that the sky is blue. If you want wide FOV, you buy box goggles. It's really that fucking simple.

What this really all comes down to though is that you don't need to spend $500 on a set of goggles if you're just starting out & dipping your toes into the hobby. Box goggles for under $100 are fine - they're actually superior than more expensive FatShark style goggles if you want a more immersive experience from wider FOV.

reminder to sell your drone for an RC plane

>>2671359
again, where did i claim that box goggles in general have smaller FOVs?

notice my very specific claim about modern goggles having more than 42º. which, as i've pointed out, i got straight from Oscar.

now lets get back to your claim that all box goggles have absurdly high FOVs. even >120º
can we finally get a source on that? especially on that image you posted

>>2671199
You'll get over that. Try taking your tiny whoop out and just hovering/orbiting a tree for several packs. Fly in and around the big branches as close as you can while going slow, maybe drop your camera angle a bit too.

>>2671379
Why, so I can have to land out of boredom before the first pack is done? Why fly a plane when 7" LR quads exist? If I can't pull a Rubik's BVLOS at 60 mph, then I'm just not interested.

>>2671399
I don't know man, I've been flying acro for over a year now and it just seems like suicide in my house. Maybe I need a bigger place.

>>2671401
I can't tell if you're serious or not.

>>2671389
>again, where did i claim that box goggles in general have smaller FOVs?

Again, you claimed that a box goggle that is renowned for being one of the absolute widest FOV sets of goggles ever available... has smaller FOV than literally all digital goggles & the HDO2.

>now lets get back to your claim that all box goggles have absurdly high FOVs. even >120º

No, let's please just stop the sad nitpicking over numbers & get back to the original statement that anybody thinking about starting in the hobby needs to spend $500 just on a pair of goggles. That's what this whole pathetic debate started with & it's complete bullshit.

A $500 *total* budget buys you a Boxer, a pair of box goggles like the EV800DM, a Crux35 (ELRS), a safe AC/DC charger (ISDT/Toolkit) & a couple batteries. So take your gatekeeping bullshit elsewhere.

>>2671401
>stop enjoying things I don't enjoy

Can someone identify this connector? It's from a really cheap RC car, connected to a single 3.7V cell.

>>2671633

>>2671401
wow rc planes are so boring
https://youtu.be/LuDZF4IGUaw?si=4Y0HT_LmHmTKkprp&t=29

>>2671675
>stop enjoying things I don’t enjoy

Might actually get to fly tomorrow, for the first time in 6 weeks.

inb4 sudden unexpected rain storm

>>2671736
>sudden unexpected rain storm
Only sissies get scared off by such a trifle. Real chads conformal coat their drones and fly underwater.

>>2671746
It's not even about the drone, it's about how miserable it is to stand out in the wind & rain.

>just fly from your car

Not all spots come with parking.

>>2671760
Small dick energy.

>>2671765
Insecure energy.

>>2671675
Where are the goggles?

>>2671633
If you want an easy solution, chop it off and attach one that you're more familiar with. Just be sure to cut the wires one at a time. Don't be like this dumbfuck who tried to snip an entire 4S balance connector in one shot.

>>2671778
Goggles don't always make sense.

>>2671633
JST SM. They're dirt cheap on eBay and Aliexpress.

>>2671675
they are, if you fly it like that

>>2671778
those guys don't believe in goggles. they just fly in circles above their heads

>>2672125
Let's see your FPV aerobatics. You must be pretty good if you can talk big like that.

>>2672162
there's more to flying than stupid aerobatics that only autists care about
noone cares about cuck clubs/fields anymore

>>2672196
there's more to flying than stupid fpv that only youtubers care about

Pretty impressed with 2.4GHz ELRS on my first outing, went ~2200m & it didn’t even bump up from the lowest 25mW setting. Lowest RSSI I saw was around -89dBm.

>>2672196
So you can't fly well enough to impress us, but you can talk shit for days. Got it.

For the record, I don't give a shit about clubs, but I know impressive shit when I see it. LoS and FPV are both excellent disciplines.

>>2672282
Yeah man, if they didn't force him to take it down, I'd link the 100km video Wezley Varty did. 2W output and even still got the 100mW telemetry back at the end! ELRS kicks ass!

>>2672282
Nice, what update frequency where you running?

Aw, man....

>>2672449
Stick it on the charger in a safe place. If it doesn't have odd resistance values or get oddly warm, send that fucker!

>>2672455
Got home and smashed it sorta flat in my vise. Is this an FAA approved repair? Should I mention this on my pre-flight checklist? You DO have a pre-flight checklist that you use on EVERY flight, right anon? After all these are real aircraft that fly in real airspa-hahahahaha, oh fuck, I can't do it!

What's a better choice for a first FPV, fun-wise, a tinywhoop like the BetaFPV I see on every "best first FPV drone list" or a 5" DIY build?
I wanna zoom around old buildings and be a nuisance in public like my favorite instagram hypebeast influencers.

>>2672533
I'm proud of you anon!
>>2672591
Secret option number 3! Get a 3-4 inch quad! Small enough to rip around at a park, while big enough to be loud and powerful. 5 can be awesome, but I always felt like I might turn a surprise kid into a vegetable with my Nazgul V2.

>>2672432
This was 100Hz full with 1:4 telemetry (it’s Arduplane).

>>2672449
Yikes
>>2672533
You know, less you move the battery, less chance it would short itself and cause issues.
That said, shits prob gonna be fine.

>>2671806
Thanks!

Hello guys

What is a decent aliexpres quadcopter now a days? They all appear to be brandless


I used to have one like 8 years ago, but I noticed they aren ow 10x as cheap with same or better functionality so the 4K video ones with 500m control distance start already at 30 bucks.

The reviews are good but yeah what should I look for anyone got tips or like a website that updates frequently or should I go a little more expensive idk im just looking for a toy nothing too serious or professional but also not absolute shit so help me out please

thanks

>>2672676
>$30
>4K
That's called lying, anon. It's rare to find a good 4K camera for $30, and you think you're gonna get one that flies for that?

>>2672695
oh idk i thought 4k is the standard by now

>>2672699
Sure, you can set an encoder to record at 4K resolution, but that doesn't mean the sensor is capturing an image worthy of putting more pixels into the image. It's like taking a 720p image, stretching it to 4K, and thinking it's better because the number got bigger. It's straight bullshit.

>>2672704
ok so how about the flying quality

im just looking for a nice model if anyone can hook me up recommand something there

>>2672706
I don't personally know where the shitty phone controlled ones start being okay. I build all of mine.

>>2672707
not phone controlled the phone is only for live video there is still a controller with joysticks

>>2672709
Even so, if it doesn't rip, I don't want or care about it.

>>2672712
give me some aliexpres drone suggestions you fucking nerd

>>2672714
If you're not a nerd, what the hell are you doing here? We're not your personal buying guide for retards/normies.

>We're building a thermal imaging drone for ork hunting
Scraping our IFVs and putting them on an extractable pole would work too.

>>2672831
Neat, drop some footage on /k/ when it's done.

Got lucky today. Went out 2.6km over the forest on my first battery, then had a desync less than a minute into my second battery when I was only 100m away. If it had gone down over the forest it probably would've been a complete loss.

Anon, you registered all your drones above 250g with the FAA like a good boy... right?

>>2673084
Almost any country tries to regulate drone piloting, yet the US basedjaks cry like it's some big brother antiutopian cyberpunk move.

>>2673107
>that autoreplacement of soi to based
Kek.

>>2673107
a lot of other countries wouldn't have placed those restrictions on drone pilots THOUGH if not for the FAA doing so first

>>2673268
Yup, everyone thinks they gotta copy the dumbass bureaucrats who live in this country. Don't worry, we hate them too.

iM A GOod boy
*hugs plutonium pwoered oppressor drone*.m4a

>>2673333
>power supply lifespan: longer than the bearings
>three letter agencies that hate you for having it: it would be easier to list the ones that don't have an issue

>>2673268
Why do you think FAA was the first one to do that? All that remote ID whining has started not so long ago, while EASA has been developing a framework for regulation since around 2019. Yes, currently there's no analog for remote ID, but the usual registration stuff is already there.

>>2673420
A comfortable world creates soft people who worry about stupid shit, so now we've got excessive rules and regulations on something perfectly safe. It's like trying to make a regulation that every basketball court needs to have an expensive, government approved net around it because the ball could go flying and hit somebody.

>>2673632
Well, if that's the price to pay for living in a comfortable world, then I'm ready to pay. Agree with the excessiveness of those rules though.

any good sales coming up for labor day?
I may in the market for an o3+ air and goggles

https://www.maxfordusa.com/product-page/curtiss-pusher-ep-50-arf

Should I get this? I have about 8 years fixed wing flying experience and previously had been flying helis (2006-2014). I have rigged some biplanes before, but my balsa experience is limited, since I never owned a balsa aircraft, but have repaired the covering on a few of my flying buddy's aircraft.

>>2666314
Most ESCs are from the same factory (Any Hobbyking, ZTW, FMS and Top RC are all the same). These are alright, but need good ventilation for optimal performance.

Hobbywing, Horizon and Tomcat have their own plants. Hobbywing can kiss my ass (high resistance and prone to shitting the bed), but the others are fine.

any recommended drones/kits for lawn mowing? just to get into some deep ditches

>>2673636
Whoa there, contain your desire to ensnare basketball Americans!

>>2673821
You're the one who has been doing it for years. It's your call if $300 is a good price for that brand of fun.

Looks like this motor took more of a bump than I’d realised.

>>2673852
that's a stupid idea but here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCNFHu76H0U

>>2673861
Alright. I am partially using it as a tool to show that balsa is no harder than foam when it comes to assembly, as well as to help out club members in determining motor size, servo requirements and where to buy servos from. For some reason, most of them order from Horizon Hobby or Motion RC and wind up fleecing themselves with the price.

does it make sense for a wing to have a small, efficient secondary motor for cruising?

>>2674055
not really, its just adding more weight to your craft.

In your opinion what would make a brushless motor work harder? A normal propeller or a flat disk with the same diameter mounted where the prop usually is?

>>2674072
Depends on weight and drag. Obviously the flat disc will weigh more, but will have less drag when up to speed. The propeller will weigh less, but can create drag forever.

>>2674093
I worded that a little poorly, but the point should get across.

>>2669758
my version
the analog to hdmi converter is under the battery shield, i also ordered a cheap patch antenna so i can do some longer range directional flying

>>2673420
>there's no analog for remote ID
It's Liek a LiCen5e PlAt3 4 ur Dr0nEs!!
- the FAA, probably

don't comply.

thoughts on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_41Dko-Iok

>>2674195
As if I'd comply. It's like an announcement that they're so incapable of catching us that they need us to install a tattle module to let them retroactively catch us. If they'd given us reasonable rules, I might respect them enough to follow em, but they didn't.

Fuck them.

>>2674312
i tried to flash the camera he recommends but didnt get the cable for it, tried to improvise and fucked it up ruining the connector.

i ordered another one, waiting for it rn

meanwhile the wifi adapter he recommends is pretty damn good i tested it on a raspberry and a linux virutal machine and it can go into monitor mode and inject packets pretty well and its high power.

ill either try this again or try openhd/wfb-ng depending on if my second raspberry or the camera arrives first.

>>2674419
hydrazine is bad shit , had some at my workplace at one point and they just told everyone to get the fuck out of the building just in case

>>2674389
how are you going to do control transmit?
i kind of want to do this for my first plane but not sure what controls to do

>>2674429
honestly i didnt think that far ahead i just wanted digital video on my quad which i control with a cheap elrs radio.

i think wfb-ng supports telecommand over this connection but you'd need a raspberry onboard for that.

>>2674435
>but you'd need a raspberry onboard for that.
kind of defeats the point of using it then
i've heard elrs can go 100km so maybe that's the way to go for long range shit anyways

Where can I find the build instructions for this?

>>2674442
how the fuck does this thing actually get the range its claimed to have

>>2674442
>>2674444
People have been building planes out of foamboard, balsa wood, etc. for longer than anybody posting in this thread has been alive. A cardboard plane isn’t news.

>>2674437
idk maybe you could somehow make the camera OS send commands to the flight controller in the video he solders the wifi usb to 4 usb pins on the camera board, maybe it has other serial ports you could connect to the flight controller.

>elrs can go 100km
yes the guy got fined because its illegal in australia or something and he took down the video. i think he used a motorized parabolic antenna.
how far are you trying to go? i think if you put something like pic on a standard radio you can easily go 10-20km

>>2674449
>yes the guy got fined because its illegal in australia or something and he took down the video. i think he used a motorized parabolic antenna.
>literally no one saved the videos
ffs

>>2674457
yea shit sucks, im also sure no one from the australian government regulation body would have found out about it if someone watching the video didnt snitch to them directly

here's a guy doing 14km on openipc , it says hes using yagi antennas with amplifiers im not sure if its for the wifi video or for the commmand

>>2674460
>>2674457
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcggAN_esbo

>>2674444
>>2674446
>>2674442
That’s a Sypaq Corvo which is foam core board. They call it ‘cardboard’ because it makes for better propaganda.

>>2674460
It's linearly polarized, so it's for the control, apparently. Doesn't make sense though, 14km is not that much.

>>2674500
arent the wifi adapters all linear? so the video should be linear too

>>2674502
Adapters don’t have polarisation. Antennas have polarisation.

>>2674475
> better propaganda
Nigger it's literally a flat cardboard packed like a cardboard.

>>2674564
i mean he's saying in the description that he wants to do the FPV with circular polarization so im assuming that the yagi is receiving the video in that one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7XtKujrzSg
in this video he's using a helical for the video and it seems like he's just using a jumper t lite radio with an external module for the control but i could be wrong

>>2674589
That photo unambiguously showsit’s foamboard, not cardboard.

The point is that foamboard planes aren’t new or novel. People have almost certainly used foamboard planes in the war before this.

>>2674589
foamboard is much lighter than corrugated cardboard.

is spot-welded 0.1mm nickel enough for connections 21700 batteries for a 6s pack? or do i need something thicker?

>>2674745

I am not an electrical engineer but I am certain that your post does not contain enough information to give an affirmative answer, so the answer is no by default.

>>2674462
Fuck, you got my hopes up for it being a copy of Wezley's 100km flight. Kicking myself for not saving that shit.

>>2674449
He got fined because some douchebag actually reported his video instead of saying congrats. The feds would've never even known had nobody squealed. If you're in the countryside where a cop can't just roll up, don't post it all over the net and nothing will ever happen. Birds of prey are a bigger threat than Karen's personal army at that point.

>>2674502
All you gotta do is curl some wire the right way and stick it to a copper disc. Now you have a helical. Can practically build them for free.

>>2674745
Depends on amp draw. Take a thin wire and run some current over it to see what happens. You might just invent the lightbulb.

>>2674745
0.2mm should really be the thinnest for a flight pack.

>>2674896
thats what i thought, i ordered a shitty chinese spot welder and it came with 0.1mm, did a couple of test welds of the welder and 0.1 seemed kinda thin. im expecting 15-20A most of the time on the pack with occasional higher bursts. i ordered 1cm wide 0.3mm strips which i think should do

can someone please take a look at the list and tell me if there's anything i should change?
this is my first drone and i want it to be a long range build.

https://files.catbox.moe/ugimtq.png
https://files.catbox.moe/wallje.png
https://files.catbox.moe/ipewpl.png

>>2674969
i think the charger you got has xt60 for both input and output, you still need an adapter to connect it to a wall plug. i made the same mistake at first.

you're getting a 7" frame but mounting 6" props on it? i think you should probably put the biggest props your frame supports

the battery buzzer thing is a good idea i lost a drone because i relied on the FC onboard buzzer once, couldnt find it after battery ran out. however vifly also makes a buzzer that powers your GPS (vifly gpsmate) so you can get quick GPS locks, save power and time in the beginning of a flight.

you can probably save some money on the radio+module, and even if you want the tx16s it has internal ELRS you dont need an external module.

consider a jumper t pro it has an internal 500mw elrs module and its very compact, if range becomes a problem (and you're likely to have video problems before you get ELRS problems) reducing packet rates and using directional antennas on the radio gets you more gains than doing a bit more transmit power.

upgrading the flight controller to an F7/H7 one might be a good idea for futureproofing

>>2674946
You need a pretty serious welder to handle 0.3mm. My $200 Sequre does 0.2mm just fine but I doubt it would make good welds in 0.3mm.

>>2675011
idk i used a 30$ aliexpress welder, i just tested it at full power on welding together 4 0.1mm strips in one go and i feel like it kinda holds

ill test it when i get the 21700s in the mail ill discharge em with my charger and see how hot the nickel gets

i just came across a tx12 controller and a eachine headset unit thing.
whats a good little drone that is compatible with those that i can fly around my house

>>2674969
You're looking at an HDZero camera, with HDZero goggles, but have an analog VTX on the list. Your charger needs a DC input. Your props are too small, the blade pitch is steep, and fuck Gemfan for any big props. (Shitty balance because cheap fucks.) Your flight pack is too heavy and has an XT150 on it.

>>2675042
Oh yeah, and you might lower your motor kv for better efficiency.

>>2675033
Which TX12 model is it? There's the CC2500 that uses 4 shitty old protocols, and there's the ELRS version that's futureproof as fuck. If it's the ELRS version, get a Mobula6 or Mobula7 1S. I prefer the 7 for the flight time, but the 6 is better for ultra small spaces. Just keep in mind that the 6 will have like 2-3 minute flights whereas the 7 will do 3-5. If you crash and fuck up the frame, new frames are like $3-5. I've been flying my Mobula7 at the park and it rams metal polls without any damage. It's a great budget starter, and can teach you a lot without risking much budget or property damage.

>>2675042
And finally, get goggles that have swappable antennas for high gain or you're not going very far. Gain will increase the reception or transmission by focusing on a specific direction. Without it, you'll need to be blasting like 10 watts to get good video range. With it, you can go for miles on half a watt.

>>2675013
I had one of those $30 welders, it was absolute trash for anything more than 0.1mm. Also note that welding strips together isn't the same as welding a strip to a cell.

To test your welds, try to pull the strip off the cell with a pair of pliers. If the strip comes off without tearing & leaving some behind on the cell, you've got a bad weld.

>>2674969
>first drone
>long range build

This is a guaranteed path to disaster. Doing long range without losing your drone requires skill and experience, not just the right equipment.

>>2674969
1) Do you really need a TX16S? Boxer can do all the same stuff with 1W power built-in instead of only 250mW and a smaller form-factor but without the fancy display.
2) With speedybee you're gonna be stuck with a certain betaflight version, otherwise, you'll have to choose between OSD and the blackbox: https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight/issues/12583..
3) Deadcat frame is gonna fly slightly worse than a normal one. If you understand this, go for it.

>>2675045
im not sure of the model. here is a pic

>>2675103
look at the back side

>>2675118
it just has a door and says radio master. there are a few pins under the door

>>2675103
That's the one I have. It says Multi on the front so it's got the CC2500 in it. Grab a cheap ELRS module and pop it in there. The upgrade is worth it's weight in gold.

>>2674989
>>2675042
>>2675066

thanks for the advice.

im having a bit of trouble picking the right components, it feels like building my first pc again but 2x more complicated.

the reason i wanted a long range drone is so after i learnd to properly fly i could use it for long range in the open desert.

also i originally had the Boxer on the list but a lot of reviewers recommend the TX16S and i figured i would buy one good controller instead of something that i would need to replace.

>>2675166
thanks for the advice anon.

>>2675173
Literally no reason to buy TX16S if you're not after the display it has and more switches which you won't need anyway unless you're flying wings.

>>2675173
there's not as much difference these days in controllers, you can definitely go for a cheaper lighter one you can put in your pocket

as for building the drone id say follow some build guide of some youtuber or something where he does all the steps, even if your components arent 100% the same most stuff will be the same. after you build and bind your first drone it will feel the same as building a pc

since you picked a 7 inch frame and you want range best practice is toy get bigger motors than the ones you picked (and 7 inch props) get some 2506-2807 motor instead of the one you picked (the number means a stator (the part with the coils inside) that is 25mm in diameter and 06mm high , 2506)

>>2675173
based on the frame you've chosen, take some inspiration from those builds:
https://rotorbuilds.com/part/42844

but make sure your frame has enough room in the back to fit digital and big analog VTXes. that's why there are those "HD" frames you see

>>2675173
If you're hitting the desert, do your best to avoid getting sand in your motors. That shit will jam between the stator and magnets, and it will invade your bearings. I learned that after one day at the beach. Also you might be conservative with D gain since that's a fast way to get motor heat, and having super tight control isn't a big deal on a cruiser. But yeah, try to grab a fat Li-ion pack and it'll get you capacity at the price of burst performance. I run Molicel 42a cells, but there are nice Samsung cells that hold even more. Just never push em hard or they'll fry. Just remember that weight and poor throttle management will fuck your efficiency the hardest, and always remember to plan recovery before you lose it, rather than after. Long range is a much different animal than freestyle or racing, so I'm throwing a lot of good to know stuff from personal experience. Cheaper to learn that way.

>>2675176
No prob. Saves a lot of headache not buying a bunch of FrSky D8 gear only to learn that it blows. That shit couldn't even fly behind my little house without an rx loss failsafe.

>>2675179
While that chart definitely has a couple of errors, I use it all the time. It's absolutely glorious!

>>2675197
hey just to double check. is this the elrs module you were talking about? https://www.amazon.com/Radiomaster-Ranger-2-4GHZ-ExpressLRS-Control/dp/B0BNHLFCPC

>>2675208
That's one of the ones I'd recommend. Radiomaster makes trustworthy hardware most of the time, and I'll probably replace my BetaFPV ELRS module on account of the Backpack function being DOA. It was just the cheapest 1W module at the time.

i redited the list, hopefully it's less mismatched.
https://files.catbox.moe/wgi532.png
https://files.catbox.moe/985fqo.png
https://files.catbox.moe/ygselc.png
https://files.catbox.moe/2u0kk2.png
https://files.catbox.moe/uvb1i6.png

>>2675252
2 sets of hdzero goggles?
also you dont need the radiomaster ranger micro, the boxer radio has an internal 1W transmitter just like the ranger module. theyre probably the exact same chip

also consider getting an H7 flight controller+ESC stack instead of F4. they are better supported by inav firmware and you might want that option for long range flying.
this kinda explains it
https://oscarliang.com/f1-f3-f4-flight-controller/

>>2675252
>>2675276
betaflight is the default your FC will come with which runs fine on an F4 but i think ardupilot is missing some features if you put it on an F4

>>2675276
Thanks anon, I'll take a look at it in the morning.
also most of the build tutorials I found feature the dji air unit and I'm specifically trying to avoid doing parts.

>>2675252
Only things I can see that are particularly off at this point are the redundant goggles and ELRS TX module. Also be sure of your MIPI cable length or you may be waiting for just that which can be pretty frustrating.

>>2675276
I second the H7 if you want iNav or Audupilot. The advanced functions on them beat the hell out of Betaflight's GPS rescue mode. My iNav copter happily puts back down within 2 feet of the takeoff point, and it's still on an M8 GPS.

>>2675197
FrSky completely retired D8 the best part of a decade ago. It's not FrSky's fault that shitty Chinese companies continue shipping new products in 2023 with unlicensed reverse-engineered SPI D8 receivers.

>>2675376
Their fault or not, it helps to direct people away from it so they stop getting made and installed on stuff. No reason to keep using the bad cheap stuff when we have good cheap stuff.

New bread:
>>2675454
>>2675454
>>2675454