/rcg/ - drone & remote control general

[Anonymous No.1523847]

Let's all try to be nice to each other edition.

---------------------

In /rcg/ we discuss anything & everything remote controlled - multirotors, fixed wing, cars, rovers, helis, boats, submarines, battlebots, lawnmowers, etc.

>How do I get started with racing drones?

https://oscarliang.com/mini-quad-racing-guide/

https://www.fpvknowitall.com/ultimate-fpv-shopping-list/

> How to build a racing drone (16 part video series from Joshua Bardwell)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwoDb7WF6c8mWARrcxtX_G6yytK7QFHID

>What about planes?

https://www.flitetest.com/

>What about aerial photography, is DIY viable?

DJI is the only sensible option.

>I want a dirt cheap drone to fly around my yard/garden

Syma X5C

>I want a dirt cheap drone to fly inside my house

Eachine E010/Hubsan X4

>What are some good YouTube channels for learning or fun?

Joshua Bardwell - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX3eufnI7A2I7IkKHZn8KSQ
Painless360 - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp1vASX-fg959vRc1xowqpw
Flite Test - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9zTuyWffK9ckEz1216noAw
Peter Sripol - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7yF9tV4xWEMZkel7q8La_w
7demo7 - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTa02ZJeR5PwNZK5Ls3EQGQ
ArxangelRC - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG_c0DGOOGHrEu3TO1Hl3AA
RagTheNutsOff - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWP6vjgBw1y15xHAyTDyUTw

[Anonymous No.1523854]

>>1523847
>>What about aerial photography, is DIY viable?
>DJI is the only sensible option.
That's just plain misinformation. The STorM32 board gives better results than anything DJI produces.

[Anonymous No.1523858]

>>1523854
No, no it doesn't.

Nobody is claiming that you can't get good results from a DIY AP platform, nor that building your own AP platform can't be fun & rewarding. Rather, the point the OP is making (& largely for people new to the scene) is that if your actual goal is shooting good AP footage, rather than finding a DIY project to tinker with, then DJI is the only reasonable option. You will spend more money & substantially more time building your own AP rig that simply won't have the features nor performance of a cheaper off-the-shelf solution from DJI that 'just works'.

I've built DIY AP rigs, I also own a DJI, I also fly commercially with DJI. When it comes to actual results, there's no competition.

[Anonymous No.1523870]

>>1523858
Cringe and bluepilled. You can get a multi-IMU sensor fusion setup running for under $100. >>>/toy/

[Anonymous No.1523874]

>>1523847
Drones are shit. What's a good platform for a high loiter time photography glider?

[Anonymous No.1523876]

>>1523874
>Drones are shit
Come say that to my face, you little bitch.

[Anonymous No.1523881]

>>1523870
>You can get a multi-IMU sensor fusion setup running for under $100

So? That's not the challenge when building an AP platform.

>>1523874
Not sure about gliders, most people I've seen use things like the X-UAV Clouds for long flight time survey platforms etc.

[Anonymous No.1523884]

>>1523881
If you knew anything about engineering, controls, or how an IMU works, you would understand why that's really important for building a high performance gimbal.

[Anonymous No.1523891]

>>1523884
You've completely missed my point. I fully understand the role of IMUs when building a gimbal; I even wrote sensor fusion code myself from scratch long time ago, before I realised the BNO055 is so much easier for most of my applications.

>You can get a multi-IMU sensor fusion setup running for under $100'

My point was that this statement of yours, while true, was presented as though you think that's the only challenge to building something that competes with DJI? Which is just bizarre.

Just because you can buy a MPU920 for $3 & copy-paste some sensor fusion code from the storm32 project or ROS doesn't mean that you've magically got everything you need to build your own Mavic killer.

[Anonymous No.1523902]

HOBBY10KING for 10% off for anyone who's interested.

[Anonymous No.1523907]

>>1523876
Please no ;(

[Anonymous No.1523919]

They said they found a drone crashed near Gatwick. So they automatically assume that is the one that caused all the drama. But what if it was just some random lost DJI drone lol.

Image them tracing it back to that guy... he would get the same treatment as the first guy who was arrested for 2 days and had his house searched.

[Anonymous No.1523922]

Also imagine being the asshole who informed to the police about that couple who were arrested for living near the airport and having owned a drone at one time in the past.

[Anonymous No.1523923]

>>1523919
>. he would get the same treatment as the first guy

if your drone is crashing at an airport you are doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.1523930]

Theoretically, what's stopping someone from getting a high endurance glider and fitting it with an ardupilot, and then just flying circles above the airport for hours?

[Anonymous No.1523936]

>>1523930
Something like Drone Dome can jam both control frequencies & GNSS frequencies, so even if the glider's control surfaces were locked in a position to produce a circle, it would pretty quickly drift away from the airport when they jammed.

[Anonymous No.1523937]

>>1523930

The Arial Swat Team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRHJkvuQPG8

[Anonymous No.1524006]

>>1523839
Imagine being such a brain let that you come to this thread asking for help and discount all the people telling you it's not worth it as not being committed enough.

You act like a stupid bigger. You came here and asked us for help. We told you to are going to spend more time and effort doing g it than it's worth and it might not even work. How is that so hard to understand. You must be the same retard that asked about a drone solely for holding a light, then got mad when we told you to buy a pole.

Like I said waste your fucking money for something that won't work, I dont fucking care. But dont come in here and beg for help then tell anyone that gives you and answer you dont want to fuck off. You act like a stupid child, and frankly I hope you do try all this shit. Just so you can figure out all the issues yourself. Then you'll come back here begging and pleading for help with the problems and everyone will tell you how dumb you were to try to begin with.

Kindly fuck off back to whatever 3rd world nigger pile you crawled out of.

[Anonymous No.1524070]

>>1523881
What would be the drawback to a lighter than air craft in long loiter applications?

[Anonymous No.1524078]

>>1524070
Wind. Lighter than air stuff is big, and big things get blown around easily. If using a tether is alright and you can tolerate a bit of wind drift, a weather balloon is absolutely a great choice to loiter a long time. Sometimes things like cell phone towers can be replaced with a transmitter suspended from a big balloon if they need to do maintenance or the tower took hurricane damage or something.

[Anonymous No.1524089]

I think I need an Extendable Pole Saw.

What is a good one?

[Anonymous No.1524120]

>>1524089
I dont understand how people get so mad when they dont get the answer they had I their head here but no one flips out at the off topic posts.

Took me 13 seconds to search extendable polesaw on Amazon. First result, best seller, 318 reviews, 4.5 stars. Now would you like me to tell you what your having for dinner tonight as well, maybe a book recommendation?

[Anonymous No.1524123]

>>1523936

GPS isn't the only way to navigate.

Intel's had a functioning self-contained indoor inertial guidance system capable of piloting an entire swarm since at least last year. Navigates with voxels or some shit.

>>1523930

Mostly the fact that it's stupid and pointless. Pretty much anyone with the capability to make it happen is smart enough to use their time on something else.

[Anonymous No.1524126]

>>1523936
What if you use GLONASS?

[Anonymous No.1524181]

>>1524120
>Now would you like me to tell you what your having for dinner tonight as well, maybe a book recommendation?
that would be very nice anon, yes and thank you

[Anonymous No.1524191]

>>1523936
Okay but how does it jam the INS and optics

[Anonymous No.1524194]

>>1524181
I'm gonna go with beef stroganoff, and Data & Goliath.

[Anonymous No.1524196]

Is it feasible to get four pounds of thrust from a 5" prop? What sort of setup would I need? Not able to use a different size prop for this very specific case.

[Anonymous No.1524203]

>>1524196
I remember reading somewhere that one of Tmotor's or Emax's motors are capable of 1800g of thrust but I dont remember if it was on a 5 or 6 inch prop.

I think youd definitely need 40 or 50a ESCs though. I also kinda wanna say it was a 2300kv motor or something like that on 6s, so it probably wouldnt last long.

[Anonymous No.1524270]

>>1524123
>Intel's had a functioning self-contained indoor inertial guidance system capable of piloting an entire swarm since at least last year. Navigates with voxels or some shit.

Vision based navigation systems that are accurate above a few feet of altitude (like optical flow) are still very nascent. Not something that the average hobbyist/terrorist could pull off.

>>1524126
GLONASS is GNSS.

>>1524191
Neither is realistically sufficient to actually loiter an aircraft properly.

[Anonymous No.1524298]

>>1523847
You use the realacc uxii antennas or the original axii?

[Anonymous No.1524346]

>>1524298
All legit axii so far. Had a friend that used the uxii when they first came out & the durability was awful. They might've addressed that, he might've gotten unlucky, dunno.

[Anonymous No.1524369]

Are there water proof drone motors + camera?

I want to make a CF frame with a vacuum-formed canopy to keep everything rain proof

[Anonymous No.1524377]

I know almost nothing about drones. I have a 3D printer for the chassis. Is it at all feasible to use something usable that'll last longer than like 5-7 minutes between charges, on a cheapo budget (hard under $100, ideally $50 or less)? At least 20+ minutes would be cool.

[Anonymous No.1524380]

>>1524369
Motors are waterproof by default, but you'd have to worry about them getting corroded over time and if there's any oil lubricating any moving parts, that would also get depleted over time (that's if, you plan on running them completely underwater). You should be fine if you plan to just run them while raining.

If you just want to fly while raining, there are a lot of videos where people waterproof their stuff using nail polish or some kind of plastic film spray.

>>1524377
You can only 3D print accessories, not a frame, for example. I really doubt you can make anything decent completely from scratch for under a 100$, considering you probably don't even own a transmitter already.

[Anonymous No.1524385]

>>1524380
Fair, thanks

[Anonymous No.1524418]

Hi /diy/. GF got me a E58 drone (pic related) for Christmas and now I've got the bug.

Had a lot of fun flying it around the house / yard and we live on a pretty rural island so there should be plenty of opportunities to take it out.

Any recommendations / advice for me ?

[Anonymous No.1524424]

>>1524418
Pic didn't upload for some reason.

[Anonymous No.1524426]

>>1524377
Yes you can print a frame and it can fly, but it will be on the heavy side.

[Anonymous No.1524427]

>>1524418
First things first, that's a "quadrotor" (or "quad"), not a drone. Second, it's a camera platform, what you do with it is film things.

[Anonymous No.1524433]

>>1524427
> OP has the word "quad" in it 5 times, excluding the word "drone" in the subject for a total of 6.
> only mention of the word "quad" is in a URL.

[Anonymous No.1524434]

>>1524427
> OP has the word "drone" in it 5 times, excluding the word "drone" in the subject for a total of 6.
> only mention of the word "quad" is in a URL.

[Anonymous No.1524439]

>>1524434
OP is retarded, this guy is just uninformed. There is a difference.

[Anonymous No.1524441]

>>1524439
> search thread for "quad"; 4 matches
> search thread for "drone; 18 matches
No really, you are a cock mongler. The terminology is wrong of course, but if you're going to be a turbo autist, police the entire thread, not just some random dude who is new to the game.

[Anonymous No.1524442]

>>1524439

[Anonymous No.1524568]

>>1524346
Banggood sells the UXII in a 2 pack for $7 so I think I'll risk it, hoping to not crash the rig ike using them on much anyways.

Thanks.
>>1524418
Look up the bird bone frame. Got an entire Facebook group around it for printing frames. You'll likely break the camera plates and or tear the standoffs out every time you crash, but the rest of the frame apparently holds up pretty well.

[Anonymous No.1524597]

If I want to tune up my old RC truck with a brushless set, do you reckon one of these Chinese worm drive gearboxes could handle 6000 RPM or thereabouts?

[Anonymous No.1524599]

When manufacturers talk about "burst" current ratings, how many seconds is a burst?

[Anonymous No.1524600]

>>1524599
About as many seconds as it takes you to say "burst current rating".
It's a fairly loose definition, all it really means is "for a little while". Think of how long it takes the average RC car to go from naught to top speed. That's about how long you can expect "burst" to last.

[Anonymous No.1524617]

>>1524599
basically you should only use the burst when you're about to crash and you need to punch the throttle to save it
don't use burst just when flying around for extra power
unless you don't mind burning through several batteries every time you go flying, that is

[Anonymous No.1524623]

>>1524617
What would be the repercussions of using burst power for two seconds during takeoff for a VTOL?

[Anonymous No.1524650]

>>1524623
If your ESC is Chinese it could kill it, since they tend to double or triple any value they slap on their stuff.
But with a real ESC, nothing really. You'll wear out your ball bearings slightly quicker, but that happens regardless. Burst power is for just that, bursts, as long as you don't fly around on full throttle willy nilly it'll be fine. Just don't get it in your head to hover with your VTOL.

[Anonymous No.1524653]

>>1524599
Every ESC Ive ever looked at said 5-10 seconds.

[Anonymous No.1524668]

You guys do RC cars at all, or just multirotors? I've been out of RC for a few years, wanted to see if I missed anything putting a Rustler together. This is based on the old weakpoints of the Traxxas 2wd platform I knew fairly well. Just want it to not really break unless I crash hard, but handle/drive better than the shit-tier stuff they give you in the RTRs.
>Ebay rolling chassis, transmission, Ultra shocks
>aluminum shock caps
>hardened shock shafts
>Losi XXX series springs
>Aluminum caster blocks
>RPM wide front A-arms/appropriate camber/steering links to be able to rotate tires
>various "quality-yet-chinkshit" electronics
Also, Proline discontinuing all Rustler bodies makes me a little sad.

[Anonymous No.1524672]

>>1524668
>You guys do RC cars at all, or just multirotors
The latter. All you'll get from this lot is "go to /toy/, only quads are tolerable".

Unfortunately I don't know anything about cars, so I can't help you, but check out this forum. https://www.rctech.net/forum/ They're the most active forum about cars I know of.

[Anonymous No.1524726]

>>1524668
You might get help if you post specifics, Ive seen it happen. But >>1524672 is correct, seems to me the RC car and multirotor communities just go back and forth prodding each other with the "toy" tag.

I dont really help much, I had RC cars when I was 9, I feel quads are much more big boy toy range.

[Anonymous No.1524766]

>>1524672
>>1524726
>All you'll get from this lot is "go to /toy/, only quads are tolerable".

Wat. I'm not disputing that these threads are heavily multirotor based, with a little bit about fixed wing, but I have no idea where you're getting this perception of hostility towards cars from. Pretty much the only time /toy/ has even been mentioned here was the last thread & that was by a blatant troll.

[Anonymous No.1524802]

>all of my quad motors have clockwise threads
why the fuck is this even a thing
how do I stop my prop nuts from automatically spinning loose?

[Anonymous No.1524804]

>>1524802
You buy clockwise, or anticlockwise prop nuts, depending on your direction of rotation. Not hard.

[Anonymous No.1524805]

>>1524802
Just use nylock nuts.

[Anonymous No.1524813]

>>1524805
I've had these fail on me too
if one nut rotates even the smallest amount, you're falling out of the sky
I think the whole concept of using a nut to secure these props is flawed
they should use some other locking mechanism that isn't based on rotation

[Anonymous No.1524819]

>>1524813
Or, you can use a CW/CCW nut that tightens against the normal rotation of the engine like every powered flyer made since the dawn of the hobby. We have been strapping props to shafts long before you faggots and your quads came along anon. The system works if you're intelligent enough to use it.

[Anonymous No.1524891]

>>1524813
>>1524819
Nylocks are by far the best option for miniquad size stuff (eg where you have a single nut that tightens onto the motor shaft, not something like T-style props where you bolt through the prop into the motor bell). This is why literally everybody in the miniquad scene uses them.

The only situation where they come loose is when the motor shaft isn't long enough to twist all the way through the nylon insert (I've had this with one model of Brother Hobby motors). Otherwise you can literally smack your props into concrete until they snap all the blades off at the hub & the nuts will still be tight.

Self-tightening solutions were fine in the old days of fixed wing, but they are no longer viable today with multirotors because we have active braking that can (& does) loosen them & send them flying off.

tl:dr - things have moved on, nylocks are best for multirotors, stop throwing homophobic insults around

[Anonymous No.1524893]

>>1524891
>stop throwing homophobic insults around

calm down, he will be banned from this subreddit.

[Anonymous No.1524894]

>>1524891
Welcome to 4chan, needle dicked faggot

[Anonymous No.1524896]

>>1524668
Build a vacumn form table. Make a mold of yours and the make 300of them if u want

[Anonymous No.1524898]

>>1524894
Go back to 4chan, you homosexual derogative. This is 4channel.

[Anonymous No.1524900]

>>1524089
Anything lithium powered.

[Anonymous No.1524904]

>>1524089
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp0DqARvjwY

[Anonymous No.1524906]

>>1524120
Pizza is always a aolid choice and i will openly shill rich dad poor dad until the day i die. That book changed my life anons. Went from laid up broken on my mother-in-law's couch for over a year with 450 credit score to 750 and actively getting rich. Not just gambling. Investing in rental real estate. And i tell you scrubs. If you are poor like me it's second full time job. Passive is a joke until you can afford proper help to run the business, a property manager, a cpa, an attorney specializing in asset protection, etc...

Right now i am working on an llc or two for 5 rentals and shoping for a 6th. Two of my houses are worth double the value of the shithole i live in. But, it's warm, leak free, pest free, and has a large fenced in yard. It'll do until i clear 120k after taxes. The wife and I will quit our jobs and work the rental game until we clear 250k. Then we will start drilling oil wells and doing larger business deals with wealthy people i know who like me.

It's a stressfull pain in the fucking ass trying to have a beer and then you have to go fix a leaking shitter or repair a water line in 6 inches of ice and water. But it is worth it.

Getting rich isnt wolfe of wallstreet. It's playing real life monopoly. Buy properties. Charge rent that is fair bit also exceeds any upkeep and payments.

Once you get it down it's pretty easy tho. I mean, even if i broke even every month i am currently paying 6 fucking mortgages. 1 is out of pocket and the other 5 are essentially free.

[Anonymous No.1524907]

>>1523919
Fuck that. Only handle with gloves and delete all serian numbers. Hide transmitter off site.

>what drone officer?
>lol feel free to search. I dont even know how to drive on of those!
>dont forget hide charger and any extra packs off site

[Anonymous No.1524908]

>>1524906

subscribed and liked

[Anonymous No.1525169]

How common is field oriented control on hobby ESCs?

[Anonymous No.1525180]

>>1525169
Very much not. They're pretty much all controlled with the Futaba servo system, 1000 to 2000 microsecond PWM pulses with 1000 as lowest and 2000 as highest. On flying stuff that means 1000 is off and 2000 is full blast, on car and boat stuff it generally means 1000 is reverse and 2000 full blast, usually with 1000 as 25% reverse, neutral user configurable, and 2000 being full forward.

[Anonymous No.1525196]

>>1525180
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm referring to the way the ESC commutates the motor.

[Anonymous No.1525215]

>>1524891
>Self-tightening solutions were fine in the old days of fixed wing, but they are no longer viable today with multirotors because we have active braking that can (& does) loosen them & send them flying off.

Hadn't actually considered that. Today, I learned something, you cock sniffing faggot.

[Anonymous No.1525298]

Would it be possible to land/handlaunch a fixed wing drone, (something in the 1800mm category) in a backyard, with approx 100' of cleared space before the treeline/ house? Looking to get into this, but it would be much easier if i was able to fuck around with it in my backyard...

[Anonymous No.1525352]

>>1525169
Non-existent afaik, because it would require the ESC to be programmed with all sorts of specifics about the particular motor/prop/battery combination which is simply too variable in hobby multirotors. Iirc there was either (maybe both?) a DJI or T-Motor commercial UAV package (eg a bundled set of ESCs, motors & props) that does it though?

[Anonymous No.1525401]

>>1525298
launching is easy, you don't need any space for that
landing depends on how skilled you are. it's possible to land vertically with these drones because the motors are absurdly powerful compared to the weight of the drone

[Anonymous No.1525526]

KV ratings are just about the worst way to characterize the performance of a motor that I can possibly think of. Hobbyists are retarded.

[Anonymous No.1525598]

I finally put tuned PIDS on my Martian II frame after flying for a year with default value.

I was using D setpoint weight and very low transition to remove most of my propwash with the dynamic filtering.

But now that I have done some tuning the motors are sounding very clean and this is the least propwash I have had. Also the stick feel is really good. When I turn around 180 quickly is easier to do.

[Anonymous No.1525613]

>>1525526
t. Elon Musk, engineer extraordinare and god of professionalism

[Anonymous No.1525620]

>>1525613
KV rating tells you almost nothing. Two motors of competely different sizes can have the same KV rating, and it doesn't even represent how fast the motor will spin in practice because it doesn't take torque into account.

[Anonymous No.1525622]

>>1525620
No, but if you put torque on the box instead that tells you just as little. KV is usually the most important rating for us, that's why it's so front and centre, the other ratings are in a spreadsheet somewhere else on the box. And KV in conjunction with how many LiPo in series it's used with actually often is all we need. A 730KV 3S motor can be expected to have pretty good torque, and if you want to confirm that you'd look at how many windings it has, which would be in the table with the other stats.

[Anonymous No.1525667]

>>1525526
You say that as though people choose motors solely on the kv rating, ignoring stator width/height, supported voltage range, etc.?

[Anonymous No.1525768]

>>1525620
Torque = (30*I)/(pi*kv) you mongoloid

[Anonymous No.1526106]

I was thinking, instead of using a 4S 5000mAh LiPo battery that weighs ~540 grams, I could buy 2 2S 4000mAh, each with a similar C rating to my existing 4S 5000mAh one, and put them in series, and I would end up with a pack that weighs almost the same (~510 grams) with 8000mAh capacity.

Is it as simple as that?

[Anonymous No.1526107]

Nevermind my last shitpost.

I am now using a 5000mAh 4S 40-50C LiPo that weighs around 540 grams, along with 2212 920KV motors.

Instead of using that battery, could, say, using two of these in parallel:

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/turnigy-battery-nano-tech-4000mah-3s-25-50c-lipo-pack-xt-60.html

I would end up with a 8000mAh pack, for an additional ~150 grams.

Would it be worth it considering that the motors would have to work with less voltage since I'll be using a 3S pack instead of a 4S?

[Anonymous No.1526115]

>>1526107
No. The 8000mAh setup is 16.6% higher capacity but 27.7% more weight. Efficiency will also be worse at 3S voltage compared to 4S voltage. You'd get substantially less flight time on the 8000mAh setup.

[Anonymous No.1526134]

>>1526115
Honestly it depends on how much throttle he'd need to use. If his 920s have big props he might have enough thrust to fly efficiently even with that fat 3S battery.

[Anonymous No.1526136]

>>1526134
Even if efficiency is identical between the two setups, rather than being worse on 3S which is way more likely, the fat 3S pack is still 27.7% more weight for only 16.6% more capacity. This is a non starter.

[Anonymous No.1526137]

>>1526136
Right, I'm from planes so I don't really think of weight the same way. My bad.

[Anonymous No.1526140]

>>1526107
https://hobbyking.com/en_us/zippy-flightmax-8000mah-3s1p-30c-lipo-pack-xt90.html What you ought to do is get four of these bad boys and wire them up in parallel.

[Anonymous No.1526190]

>>1526140
this one unironically weighs something like 10-15 grams more that my existing 5000mAh 4S one.

would this one actually give me more flight time?

how much of an efficiency hit are we talking about when switching from 4S to 3S?

[Anonymous No.1526215]

>>1526190
eCalc figures (which should be taken with a pinch of salt, but are generally a good indication) says 28 minutes hover with the 8000mAh 3S vs 23 minutes hover with the 5000mAh 4S, however when it comes to more realistic conditions of actually flying around the difference is 15 minutes against 13 minutes, so negligible.

Remember you're still only talking about 16.6% more capacity, which is the same as comparing a 5000mAh 4S with a 5800mAh 4S. An 8000mAh 3S isn't as much bigger than a 5000mAh 4S as you probably think - which is why it's possible for that 8000mAh 3S pack to be so similar in weight to your current 5000mAh 4S.

Also for some real world feedback, my 2312 960kv quad flies like shit on 3S but half decent on 4S.

[Anonymous No.1526239]

>>1526215
eCalc gives me around 16 minutes of flight time with my configuration, and I haven't flown it at all yet because I'm waiting on a battery for my radio.

what should I expect?

[Anonymous No.1526249]

>>1526239
In my experience eCalc figures are usually fairly accurate, but you have to learn to look at the right bits & understand what they mean. For example just looking at the hover flight time is fairly meaningless unless you literally just want to hover, because it can easily be double the flight time you get when actually flying around.

It's also difficult to really judge how absolutely accurate eCalc is from your real world experiences, because there are so many variables in a flight that can have an effect on flight times. Introduce a 10mph wind, or have the battery 10°C colder, or have a small tuning problem that results in lots of small corrections & suddenly your flight time drops a third or more.

In other words, use it for high-level sanity checks & to guide your component choices, but don't rely upon it or be too disappointed when you don't get as much as it says.

[Anonymous No.1526331]

are generic chink ESCs safe? at least for now, I want to save up and replace them all with branded ones. any good 30A ESCs?

[Anonymous No.1526348]

>>1526331
>are generic chink ESCs safe
All ESCs are Chinese. Generally speaking generic ones are good.
>any good 30A ESCs
Plenty. If you buy generic Chinese, start by looking at branded ESCs. Chinks will slap any old Amperage on their stuff to sell it, so you'll want to look at what a good ESC with that capacity looks like, and find a Chinese one that looks close to that with a realistic rating.

[Anonymous No.1526353]

>>1526331
>>1526348
Racerstar & Spedix are both solid for cheap ESCs. Lots of more expensive brands are just rebadged Spedix.

[Anonymous No.1526364]

>>1524426
I mean not necessarily, the dimensions of the quad frame mean that the layers are at pretty much perfect orientation, the strength is fairly close to injection molded plastic.
Also, you can make the frame really light and just print multiple frames for when they break from crashing.

[Anonymous No.1526395]

>>1526364
>the strength is fairly close to injection molded plastic

Which is still exponentially weaker than even the cheapest chinkshit carbon fibre when it comes to flat sheets like that.

>Also, you can make the frame really light and just print multiple frames for when they break from crashing.

Enjoy also replacing motors each time you crash as the wires get torn out, or ESCs as the pads get torn off.

[Anonymous No.1526406]

Love the charger port mod for the QX7S

[Anonymous No.1526407]

>>1526395
Carbon fibre is strong and rigid right until it snaps and shatters. Plastic flexes and bends.
I agree with you, Chinese carbon is better, but you can 3D print a quad frame that works well enough for a hobbyist no problem.

[Anonymous No.1526415]

Do you guys think "Prepreg Carbon Fiber" is going to be the future of miniquad frames? Armattan quads is switching to using it over the usual carbon we see and they say its much stiffer and does not bend. That means you have much less vibrations and you need less filtering.

The new Marmotte is gonna use Epoxy Impregnated Carbon Fiber which is cast offs from NASA.

[Anonymous No.1526426]

>>1526407
>Plastic flexes and bends.

Which means it flies like shit the whole time until it breaks. You remember why the oldschool Flamewheel frames were such a pain to try to tune? Because those plastic arms (which, incidentally, were a helluva lot better than anything you'll 3D print) would flex & bend.

>I agree with you, Chinese carbon is better, but you can 3D print a quad frame that works well enough for a hobbyist no problem.

Except it is a problem & doesn't work. Every time your 3D printed frame breaks (which will be all the fucking time) not only does that end your flying session short, but you're also very likely to trash other components like motors & ESCs as the wires get torn out.

Spend $20 on a chinesium carbon frame & you'll fly literally hundreds of packs before you break it.

3D print a frame & you'll be lucky to fly half a dozen packs before you break it & have to go home to rebuild the whole damn thing & spend >$20 replacing trashed components.

3D printing has its place in this hobby, frames is not it.

[Anonymous No.1526427]

>>1526415
>Epoxy Impregnated Carbon Fiber

All carbon fiber is epoxy impregnated, that's literally just how you make it.

[Anonymous No.1526550]

I'm thinking about building a FT Explorer and have some concerns.

1) including FPV gear, I suspect this will weigh 2.8lbs (1230g). I'm looking at motor/prop combos and see many motors such as the DYS 2830 1300kv motors putting about 900g of force. Will this be adequate for basic flying and a little bit of verticle flight?

2) I see that people make control rods out of piano wire. Any hints on this or alternatives? The control rods in this model are really long (18ish inches, 46cm) and I'm worried a straightened piano wire isn't going to be stiff enough.

[Anonymous No.1526561]

>>1526550
will it fly with that motor? Probably, but it's not going to go vertical well. You can make longer control rods out of carbon fiber rods with piano wire glued to the ends. You can also use zip ties as guides for the piano wire to keep it from bending. I don't remember the control rods being that long on the explorer, my friend and I both had one.

[Anonymous No.1526608]

Where do I find wooden propellers that aren't over 7 inches long? I only managed to find 5 inch ones off ebay but they ship from UK

[Anonymous No.1526668]

>>1526608
Hobbyking has alot of outdated stuff, try there.

[Anonymous No.1527517]

>>1526608
You probably won't find many. Wooden props are mostly made for glow or gas engines and not many swing a small prop. >>1526668
is right, hobbyking has 5x5 and 6x5 bullnose wooden props for some reason.

[Anonymous No.1527553]

>>1526550
instead of piano wire just use two strings, on both sides of the control surface

[Anonymous No.1527852]

Hello friends. I'm a newbie so please go gentle. I promise not to be dumb on purpose.
I'm home for the holidays and house sitting for my dad, so I finally have access to his tools and shop, and since I'm bored I chose to rummage in some old RC plane parts he's got laying around gathering dust.
I decided to disassemble and clean one of the small engines in the box, and have managed to get it almost all the way back together, with the parts able to move where they were seized up from schmoo before.
However, I don't know how to get the motor running. I have a small bottle of "molecular fuel", some fuel lines and a small tank, as well as a handful of servos and old battery packs I don't know the quality of, but I can't seem to find anything resembling an alternator or spark source, which would go onto the top of pic related, which seems to be a kind of spark plug protruding from the inside of the cylinder head.(?)
Does anyone have an idea what I'm missing, and if I need to go and buy new parts or if there is something I should look for in the mess of a box I found this in, in the first place? Thank you so much.

TL;DR: how to give spark to small rc motor? Also cocks.
>And yes I made the soft jaws for the vise out of wood first because I didn't want to crap up the little engine.

[Anonymous No.1527879]

>>1527852
I'm probably about as knowledgeable as you but if I remember correctly it's all internal. You fuel it and attach a prop, then most people have this thing, I've seen a power drill used, that you attach to the end of the prop shaft and give it some RPM. Kinda like an old crank motor.

[Anonymous No.1527902]

>>1527852
It's a nitro engine, you'll want to go buy a new bottle of fuel since anything your dad has probably spoiled away years ago unless he still actively flies.
What it is is essentially a very basic diesel engine. You'll want to heat up the glow plug (probably the thing you're confusing for a spark plug), screw it in, and get it going by spinning the shaft. Attach a propeller on there, pour some fuel into the tank (it might have an external tank, in which case you'll want a fuel line and fuel pump), push the throttle lever forward, and spin the propeller. It'll take a few tries to get it going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqxKnjXEwVM
This guy shows what to do. His motor has a pull start, that's only common for cars, your plane motor probably doesn't have one.

[Anonymous No.1527920]

>>1526608
Maybe they are not feasible? remember smaller = faster = higher stress so maybe wood isn't good enough?

[Anonymous No.1527931]

>>1527920
The biggest reason is that wood is heavy compared to more modern materials. You get less weight and more strength with a carbon propeller, even 3D printed plastic is better than wood as long as you polish it up.

[Anonymous No.1527938]

>>1527920
>>1527931
For small stuff plastic is far superior, for big stuff carbon fibre is far superior. Times have changed.

[Anonymous No.1527939]

>>1527938
And wood isn't competitive in either situation.

[Anonymous No.1527997]

Is there a noticeable difference in video quality/range between different types of 5.88ghz antennas?

Current build prety much has to use an SMA pigtail to that hole on the top of he frame, but I dont want an antenna sticking straight out of the back of my quad. Gonna buy a 45 degree adapter and a discrete antenna. Those AXII things are a bit too expensive for me now, and the UXII clone seems to have questionable quality. Next thing Ive stumbled on is a little linear dipole. Im just wondering if something like a clover leaf or pagoda is straight up better.

[Anonymous No.1528011]

>>1527997

Yes something like a foxeer cloverleaf in a hard plastic case or a Pagoda is better than an Axii.

Axii are nice because they are small and they work really well and they dont break so they are popular for racers who roll in the grass all day.

But if you freestyle you want something like a TBS triumph and the cheap good clone is a Foxeer antenna.

$7 on bangood for something like a cloverleaf or a pagoda. Pagoda are more prone to breaking. So I use it on my goggles and ground station. Not my quad.

I use a Martian II freestyle frame and I have a 3D printed part that goes on the back standoffs and it has a 45degree angle mount for the SMA connector and a couple holes for antenna tubes. Got them on banggood also.

[Anonymous No.1528017]

>>1527997
Any difference between antennae types would be overshadowed by the degradation of adding a 45 degree adapter. Any extra part between the solder point on the chip and the radiating element of the antennae degrades the quality.

For quads cloverleaves are usually your best option. They offer a good signal regardless of the orientation of the quad, where a dipole has a lot more variation and degradation from reflected signals. Not really sure about the radiation pattern from an UXII, but it's circular polarised so reflection shouldn't be an issue.
Instead of a 45 degree adapter, just buy a cloverleaf with a slightly longer wire. It's much better for the signal, and you can bend them a full 180 degrees if you feel like it.

[Anonymous No.1528020]

>>1528017
>Any difference between antennae types would be overshadowed by the degradation of adding a 45 degree adapter

Its not a 45 degree SMA connector.

Its a TPU mount that angles the antenna to a 45 degree and mounts it.

https://www.banggood.com/Realacc-15_53916_5mm-TPU-SMA-MountRX-Antenna-Fixing-Seat-for-31mm-Spaced-Frames-RedBlue-p-1312869.html?rmmds=search&ID=228&cur_warehouse=CN

[Anonymous No.1528024]

>>1528020
>selling that little 3D printed thing for that much money
I guess I should put my printer to work, if people actually pay for things that use so little plastic.

[Anonymous No.1528026]

Sometimes people use zip ties and mount it out the back like this.

[Anonymous No.1528027]

>>1528024

Antenna mounting solutions is about the only thing I have found 3D prints useful for.

I like to put my antenna wire into antenna tubes.

Again zipties is another solution.

[Anonymous No.1528030]

>>1528011
The Triumph is kinda obsoleted as the axii performs at least on par & is even more durable (& smaller & lighter).

[Anonymous No.1528033]

>>1528020
Wait, adding a 45 degree connector degrades the signal?
>>1528017
What antenna is that pictured? With one flexible like that Id be able to just stick the lead of the antenna itself through the hole in the top of my frame and not have to use a pigtail.

[Anonymous No.1528034]

>>1528030

Its always going to be better to get the antenna away from the carbon. Again for a racer the Axii is just fine but if you do any kind of freestyle with some range you want a real antenna.

[Anonymous No.1528036]

>>1528033
>Wait, adding a 45 degree connector degrades the signal?

Dont buy or use one of these:

https://www.banggood.com/1-PCS-Realacc-45-Degree-Antenna-Adpater-Connector-SMA-RP-SMA-For-RX5808-Fatshark-Goggles-p-1084114.html?rmmds=search&ID=511528&cur_warehouse=CN

[Anonymous No.1528038]

>>1528033
>What antenna is that pictured? With one flexible like that Id be able to just stick the lead of the antenna itself through the hole in the top of my frame and not have to use a pigtail.

Does your VTX have an MMCX connector?

Because if so you can buy an antenna with an MMCX on the end. Instead of SMA

https://www.banggood.com/Foxeer-Pagoda-Pro-5_8GHz-2dBi-RHCP-FPV-Antenna-86mm-MMCX-BlackRedOrange-p-1241973.html?rmmds=search&ID=228&cur_warehouse=CN

[Anonymous No.1528041]

Putting your antenna at an angle out the back gives you the best possible reception. You want it to be angled. Not going straight out or straight up.

Because your quad is pointed down in flight. And if you have the antenna coming out at an angle the null zone will point up at the sky.

You want the null zone of the antenna to point at the sky in flight. Not at you.

[Anonymous No.1528056]

>>1528038
No I have a regular SMA connector, just havent found any antennas like that one pictured.

[Anonymous No.1528059]

>>1528056

SMA size wont fit through the hole dude.

[Anonymous No.1528063]

>>1528059
....Oh shit Im an idiot.

[Anonymous No.1528115]

I just pulled the buzzer - pad off my FC, is that just a ground that I can solder anywhere or is it actually vital to the buzzer working?

[Anonymous No.1528127]

>>1528115
Tried it anyways, the answer is no. Apparently the - is the signal.

[Anonymous No.1528146]

Apparently I had my VTX and camera grounded wrong, OSD flickered, but I had video. Swapped the camera and VTX signal grounds to pads just underneath the OSD input/output now I have no video at all?

[Anonymous No.1528149]

>>1528146
update, swapped that vtx with one of the same type I had, and I get video, but my OSD is flickers stil. What are the causes of OSD flicker? Up until now I read that the camera and VTX had to be grounded on the same thing, I assumed that just meant grounded on the PDB/FC instead of the camera grounded off the VTX. Do they both have to be grounded to the same pad or something?

[Anonymous No.1528175]

>>1528149

It helps if you put both ground wires from the camera and the VTX to the same ground pad.

[Anonymous No.1528177]

>>1528175
Tried that, still flickers.

As of right now the VTX power is connected to the battery pads, camera is powered off VTX, VTX signal ground and camera ground are on the same pad on the FC. Ive tried swapping between NTSC and PAL in betaflight and I connected a capacitor to the battery leads.

Still flickers, does it in like a pattern though, flashes 5-6 times then goes blank for a second or so before it does it again, OSD also completely disappears when I arm the copter.

[Anonymous No.1528229]

>>1527902
Thank you very much, this makes sense.

[Anonymous No.1528240]

>>1528034
As somebody who freestyles at some range & moved from Triumphs to axiis, I get better performance now than I did before. There's probably good reason the Triumph is pretty much the only lindenblad on the market.

[Anonymous No.1528390]

>>1528240

Well I guess they do make Axii with a coax cable.

I instantly think of the stubby version.

[Anonymous No.1528395]

>>1528177

Have you tried to power the camera off another bec, not the vtx? Do you only have 1 ground wire for the vtx? sometimes they have 2

[Anonymous No.1528403]

Flicker in the OSD can also be helped by adding a low ESR capacitor.

I have four 470uf caps on my build, one for each esc.

[Anonymous No.1528439]

>>1528177
Is there continuity between ground & the carbon of the frame (such as if you have your VTX antenna mounted through the frame)?

[Anonymous No.1528658]

I flashed the 4.06 Naza M V2 firmware on my Naza Lite but the mod values for the GPS are way too low, something like 200-400. I tried hovering a magnet over it, but still nothing, I keep getting error 27, although it says "no calibration needed".

Any ideas? Do I need to shield it or some shit? It's on the small pole that came with it.

[Anonymous No.1528675]

>>1528395
Haven't tried that, nothing I saw suggested that would be the issue, everything seems to depend on ground which I have correct, honestly just gonna try and get a refund on this FC, this isnt the only issue I'm having.
>>1528439
I think if the VTX was shorting I'd have bigger issues than the OSD flickering.
>>1528403
I put a 330uf I had on the battery lead but that's all I've got, dont think it even helped the slight noise I have in the camera signal.

[Anonymous No.1528709]

>>1528675
It's not 'shorting' if ground has continuity to the frame, but it can (but doesn't always) cause issues.

[Anonymous No.1528717]

>>1524898
*barfed a little*

[Anonymous No.1529043]

>>1528390
The axii is simply a better performing antenna design (parallel resonance whirl or whatever it is) than the triumph (lindenblad). In my experience even an axii mounted like picrelated outperforms a stubby SMA triumph that sits ~1.5" away from the frame.

The Triumph was never really about performance, it was more about durability. But since the axii came along, the Triumph doesn't even have that anymore. I sold all of mine & didn't look back.

[Anonymous No.1529099]

Do commercial drones with hour hover times exist yet?

[Anonymous No.1529101]

>>1523876
Many a sandnigger has found that drones are some mean shit.

[Anonymous No.1529105]

>>1529101
>sandnigger
why the racism?

[Anonymous No.1529147]

>>1529099
Yes, there are a few companies that sell gas/electric hybrid multirotors, plus others that sell just the gas/electric module to retrofit existing all-electric multirotors. They are very noisy & very expensive, but if neither of those is an issue for your application then the options are out there.

[Anonymous No.1529160]

>>1529105
Do you know where you are?

[Anonymous No.1529166]

>>1529105
Sorry, I meant to say dunecoon. Please forgive my autocorrect.

[Anonymous No.1529178]

>>1529043
Ive been burned by Lumenier gear twice before.

I really dont want to give them any more money.

Their Diversity RX is garbage and so are their motors.

[Anonymous No.1529263]

>>1529160
4channel, it's a safe for work imageboard. Please take your racism with you when you leave.

[Anonymous No.1529310]

>>1529178
>so are their motors
How so? I rather like the look of the titanium oxide ones.

[Anonymous No.1529323]

>>1529147
Those are expensive and noisy as you say, so there are no all-electric ones?
>>1529160
This >>1529263

[Anonymous No.1529355]

>>1529323
/diy/ is not google, thanks for pointing to a post that replied to me. Also, I'm not the anon who used a badwrongword, but I wanted to remind you that this isn't reddit.

[Anonymous No.1529403]

>>1529263
I always assumed it was just the images that had to be worksafe. Never really thought about it before. Strange!

[Anonymous No.1529407]

>>1529403
I think it's down to the feelings of those in the thread. I called some idiot a nigger a few threads ago and my post was removed within the hour, so clearly someone got sad and reported it. This time seems to be different.

[Anonymous No.1529432]

>>1529323
>so there are no all-electric ones?

No, current battery technology just doesn't have the energy density. Wikipedia says lithium ion is 250–693 W·h/L while gas is 9500 W·h/L

[Anonymous No.1529529]

I saw this browsing the other day and want to build one like it, basically the biggest motor you can reasonably fit on a small frame. It's my understanding that even though it has heavy motors it would be responsive even with heavy very high pitch props because of the high torque, what's the flaw to a build like this? I already have a very lightweight 5" build on a similar frame with 2207 motors and I just want to have different quads for different moods. What should I expect? Do I need a giant 50A ESC for a motor like those 2507s if they're spinning 5" props?

[Anonymous No.1529548]

>>1529529
Theres a GPS on the back of that thing so I dont think this guy uses it for alot of freestyle or racing.

Maybe watch Bardwells videos on those 2407 motors he put out. That might give you a decent idea of what to expect.

[Anonymous No.1529555]

>>1529548
I have a GPS on my freestyle quad. They're so small and light and it's worth it for the speedometer alone, then you have the GPS rescue function which is rudimentary but can bail you out when your video goes to snow on the other side of a building or hill. It's pretty fun to go full tilt and see how fast you can go once in a while, and my quad does almost 100mph on my favorite freestyle props. I'm sure it would be faster with some pitch heavy biblades but they just don't handle as well imo. I'd guess that kopis build is for big punchouts and top speed but I've never run a motor bigger than a 2306.

[Anonymous No.1529557]

>>1529432
I had a design for a commercial electric drone that could hover for an hour, no new battery technology, just optimisations and maxed out efficiencies. I haven't pursued it because one of those things that's such a simple idea you think it must be that nobody is doing it because there's no market for it. Closest I saw was some KS drone that claimed to be able to manage 45 minutes so it is feasible.

[Anonymous No.1529559]

>>1529555
All the research I did before building my most recent quad suggested 2207s were best for top speed and punchout. I guess I also just assumed he was using biblades for longer flight time with that GPS. That being said Im pretty sure those Brotherhobby motors are 6s so I suppose youre probably correct, I never thought of using a GPS for a speedometer.

[Anonymous No.1529687]

>>1529529
Honestly the biggest drawback to a build like that is durability. The thinner the arms & the more motor weight they have on the end the easier they will break.

I can't think of any situation in which you would want a 2507 for a 5" prop though. A decent 2207/8 or 2306/7 with a 40A ESC will spin even the most aggressive 5" prop just fine. 2507 is the sort of thing you would use for 7".

>>1529548
Now that betaflight has (rudimentary) GPS rescue it's becoming a lot more common to put a tiny GPS receiver on freestyle quads, especially for people flying in sketchy locations where recovery might be hard.

>>1529557
Hovering for an hour isn't hard, plenty of people in the DIY community have done it IRL with 18650 packs & big props, but hover flight time can easily be double actual useful flight time when moving around. If you want a multirotor that can actually fly around for 1-2 hours or more, while carrying a payload, you simply don't have a choice right now except gas.

[Anonymous No.1529774]

>>1529310

I built two quads at the same time using Lumenier 2206 2350 motors. I bought 10 of them at a time.

But after flying for a couple weeks my motors started failing while flying in the air. The motors were slipping magnets. All the sudden in the middle of flight they would slip a magnet and start grinding, making strange noises, making video electrical noise in the FPV feed terrible and the arm on the quad would dip and nearly make me crash.

I would land and spin the motors and one of them would have grinding magnets.

I replace the motors and flew for about 3 or 4 days before another motor would fail.

After I replaced my two extra motors I told GetFPV about it after another motor failed and they sent me 3 motors as replacements.

But this did not fix my issue because after flying for about a week a motor would fail the same way mid flight. This is with no crashing at all.

So over the course of about a month I went though all the motors and started taking motors off one quad and putting it on the other quad to keep at least one of them up in the air.

I burned though all 13 motors I got from them this.

Eventually I just bit the bullet and bought brand new T motor F40 pro's and its been perfect for over a year.

I still have 3 Lumenier motors that I dont use because I had 4 of the motors on the quad and the fourth motor failed and I replaced them all with T motors on both quads.

[Anonymous No.1529839]

>>1529687
Well yeah I've seen them but if you want one you basically have DIY yourself through trial and error with meme batteries, there's no commercial option you can buy and just slam in a multistar.

[Anonymous No.1529850]

>>1529099
What you want is a helicopter. It's a much more efficient platform than a multirotor.

[Anonymous No.1529851]

>>1529850
Are you proud of being a smug faggot?

[Anonymous No.1529853]

>>1529851
What? He wanted an efficient hovering platform, I told him what the most efficient one was.

[Anonymous No.1529855]

>>1529853
Quad enthusiasts are pretty fucking tired of helifags telling them "hurr just get a helicopter!"

[Anonymous No.1529858]

>>1529855
Okay? Are you disputing that a helicopter could hover longer than a comparable quad?
I'm not saying quads are shit. I own two, they're fun. They're just not as efficient as helicopters.

[Anonymous No.1529859]

>>1529850
>It's a much more efficient platform than a multirotor.

why is this? they both spin one or more rotors to stay aloft. a simple helicopter wastes energy in the tail rotor, while a quad uses all the rotors for lift.

I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm just curious as to the basis of your statement.

[Anonymous No.1529864]

>>1529859
The tail rotor doesn't waste a lot of energy, and other designs have similar issues. Coaxial helicopters have one rotor travelling entirely in the wash of the other, and while it's still better it's not a lot better. Synchropters and tandems are sort of better, and quads can avoid the issue entirely by simply having more distance between the rotors.
The reason is mostly in the size of the rotor. The bigger your rotor, the more efficient it is. One big motor powering one big rotor and one tiny rotor is a far more efficient approach than four small motors powering four small rotors. A rotor or propeller functions like a wing does, it moves a mass of air to create an equal but opposite force on the shaft and everything attached to it. The bigger your rotor disk, the more efficient it is.
Additionally, most helicopters use variable pitch rotors, which is still exceptionally rare even in very fancy quads. Variable pitch means that the "thrust" from the propeller can be changed without needing to slow down or speed up the rotation, which saves a lot of energy. Basically, your motor can sit comfortably in its optimal RPM the entire flight. This goes double when you consider that quads maneuver (and stay stable) by adjusting the rotations of their rotors. When hovering a quad needs to constantly expend energy speeding up and slowing down, while a helicopter simply throws its servos slightly and adjusts the pitch of the rotor, which uses less energy.

[Anonymous No.1529870]

>>1529858
If you weren't autistic you would know that there is more to a product than "efficiency". Maybe I'll be extra autistic and tell you to use a fucking balloon.

[Anonymous No.1529873]

>>1529870
You're the autistic one here, mate. I've never said that efficiency is only important thing, I was responding to a question specifically asking for an efficient setup.
Please, just get it into your thick skull that 1. Helicopters are more efficient. 2. That doesn't make quads bad. 3. I like quads, I just acknowledge that they're not universally superior.

[Anonymous No.1529876]

>>1529864

thanks for the info.

I recently read Chickenhawk, written by a vietnam era Huey pilot, and he gave a good explanation of helicopter controls and how hard it is to fly one. In training, the instructor would get it stable a few feet off the ground, and let the student learn to control one thing at a time, like the foot pedals, and gradually learn to combine all the controls. He eventually became a very good pilot, and could land and take off from in impossible situations, sometimes chopping substantial branches out of trees on the way in or out.

[Anonymous No.1529885]

>>1529873
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.1529888]

>>1529873
Stop replying to blatant trolling

[Anonymous No.1529894]

So on the top of my frame, I have mounted the flight controller, the reicever and the GPS on a small 10cm pole. Should I 3D print a small case that covers the flight controller and the receiver (the receiver antennas won't be covered by this) and then use this:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/copper-foil-shielding-tape-1-side-conductive-adhesive-guitar-accessories-KK/223056841826?hash=item33ef394c62:g:rOoAAOSw4apbQvTX:rk:3:pf:0

on the inside of the 3D printed cover to minimize interference with the GPS? or is it complete overkill?

[Anonymous No.1529929]

>>1529894
I've never experienced GPS interference of any kind from a 2.4ghz telemetry receiver.

[Anonymous No.1529930]

>>1529929
i'm having this issue described here>>1528658

for now I'm back at the old Naza M Lite firmware until I figure this out.

[Anonymous No.1529941]

>>1529930
Oh it's a Naza, those things are noisy in my experience. Yeah you need shielding

[Anonymous No.1529943]

>>1529941
is the one I linked earlier appropriate for this use?

should I also cover the nearby ESCs with that?

[Anonymous No.1529995]

>>1529943
Yeah pretty much any metal tape will work as shielding it's just a matter of finding one that works neatly. I use foil tape from home depot. I wouldn't cover the ESCs, just putting shielding between the interference sources and the GPS/compass is sufficient, noise that doesn't come through the wiring is pretty much line of sight.

[Anonymous No.1530019]

>>1529839
>there's no commercial option you can buy

Except there are several. Did you actually search?

https://skyfront.com/
http://www.quaternium.com/
https://www.walkera.com/index.php/Goods/info/id/49.html

[Anonymous No.1530029]

>>1530019
I dunno why hed search commercial, I watched a youtube video a few months back, dude strapped a gocart battery to a Hubsan H501s and supposedly hovered it for ~6 hours.

[Anonymous No.1530032]

>>1530029
Disregard..

It was a car battery, but apon finding the video again I noticed it was uploaded on April 1st. Maybe it would work with a gocart battery.

[Anonymous No.1530033]

>>1530019
>$24,699

[Anonymous No.1530037]

>>1530033
The fuck were you expecting for military grade technology??

[Anonymous No.1530040]

Guess I may as well do this, 1 hour hover time, LiPo, 500 bucks, available in a store near you. Wish me luck guys.

[Anonymous No.1530067]

>>1530040
Can't tell if you baiting or actually a moron.

[Anonymous No.1530074]

>>1530067
>>1530067
As someone else pointed out earlier plenty others have made homebuilt quads that lasted an hour so I don't see how a commercialised one is moronic.

[Anonymous No.1530082]

>>1530074
You do realise that if there was actually a market for such a thing & it were actually possible, somebody would've done it by now, right?

[Anonymous No.1530088]

I'm building a true X on a 3D printed frame I designed with the objective of going as fast as humanly possible on the cheapest possible parts.
>Samguk 2207 2600kv
>APC 5.2x6 props
>Cicada F4 AIO
you know, cheap stuff.
I'm looking at batteries now and in keeping with this theme I'm looking at cheap 4S batteries with good reviews. Bardwell reckons these are the best cheap 4S high amperage batteries, any of you guys have any experience with them? I know this thing is going to pull over 110A at full tilt my old 6" with Emax RS2205 2300KV pulls 105A at full throttle on 4S with 6x4 props.

[Anonymous No.1530115]

>>1524418
To get into it for real, follow this
https://www.fpvknowitall.com/ultimate-fpv-shopping-list/
Assuming you want cheap but growable gear you’re looking at:
$60 for a flysky transmitter
$100 for a micro quad
$250+ if you want to jump to a 5”
$70 minimum for cheap FPV goggles
$80 in batteries and props

[Anonymous No.1530147]

>>1524813
>I’ve had nylocks fail
They’re single use in industry for a reason. The only way they’re going to fail is if you use them a dozen or more times. If you go with 4 right hand thread motors, a box of like a million nylock nuts from Home Depot is worth the $4 and just throw new nuts on every time you break a prop.

[Anonymous No.1530149]

>>1530088
Chances are pretty good youll get vibration issues trying to push a 3D printed frame as fast as possible. Look into the Birdbone design if you do and insist on printing the frame.

>>1530115
>$250 for a 5"
I mean, a top of the line one yes? Could build a pretty decent one for $150-$200 easy though.

QX7 and a sim to start would be smarter.

[Anonymous No.1530158]

>>1530082
The circuitry for a standby battery or switching between multiple batteries in flight isn’t altogether complex. Strapping 6 2200mAH or higher packs on to an 8”-12” quad is doable weight wise. Is this a worthwhile endeavor? Probably not.

[Anonymous No.1530176]

>>1530149
You can definitely get in the air for $150. Hell I saw a guy do a 6” build on YouTube for $120. Are they fun? Are they reliable? Is it worth it for a new pilot to go through all the trouble just to throw away a $150-$200 Shitty quad that vibrates like a nightstand toy with a flashing, unwatchable video and get sick of the hobby?
To have any modern FPV features and be fun for more than a single fiery maiden flight it’s worth it to spend a fraction more.

Of course I think I have my finger on the pulse and then I see shit like this and I just don’t know anymore.
https://m.banggood.com/Eachine-Wizard-X220-FPV-Racer-Blheli_S-Naze32-6DOF-5_8G-48CH-200MW-700TVL-Camera-w-FlySky-I6-RTF-p-1077100.html
So I guess do whatever you can afford?

[Anonymous No.1530178]

>>1530176
If youve built a $200 quad that vibrates andhas shitty video you did something wrong. Hell $200 is an average to above average quad these days

[Anonymous No.1530182]

>>1530149
>Chances are pretty good youll get vibration issues trying to push a 3D printed frame as fast as possible. Look into the Birdbone design if you do and insist on printing the frame.

Thanks, but I wasn't looking for frame advice. It's a design exercise and it has been through testing and multiple iterations. I do not care if it has issues, because that's part of the process. I have used the birdbone in the past. It's a good, durable frame, but it has different design goals than mine, which are solely low drag and high rigidity. Crash durability wasn't even on the radar because this is an exercise in straight line speed not a racing or freestyle quad.

[Anonymous No.1530185]

>>1530182
Well then go for it, long as its rigid. Those RDQ batteries are widely used, but keep in mind most if not all batteries overestimate their C rating. I honestly dont know if there is a true 100C battery atm.

[Anonymous No.1530218]

>>1530185

I'm aware. I'm just seeking input on some budget batteries I haven't tried for a because-I-can project. It's not a situation of "most" anymore, pretty much anything claiming to be over 40C is a lie now. Companies started inflating C ratings to the point that they're pretty much meaningless and now if you want to sell your stuff you have to lie or not sell anything because people will just past your honest 50C by for a "100C" that costs more but performs the same or worse. It's even worse that companies like MaxAmps have taken the C rating inflation to a whole new level with their """"TRUE 175C""" horse shit that isn't even "TRUE" 100C, if you tried to pull 254A from a Maxamps 1450mAh 175C battery it would probably puff up like a popcorn bag if not burst into flame. C ratings are pretty much only useful to identify the particular battery and give a ballpark of what the battery might handle, and we will not likely ever see a honest to goodness 175C because we're already well into the realm of diminishing returns when it comes to LiPo tech.

On that rant, the other thing I hate in this hobby is the FPV channels. Whoever decided that alphanumeric channels were the way to go was a complete dick. If we had frequencies from day one we never would have the issue that plagues every public flying field of some dipshit plugging on "E5" because you told him you were on Race band 7 5880mhz hurr durr 2 different channels

[Anonymous No.1530235]

>>1530178
I’ve had a $200 factory build that shook like jello.

[Anonymous No.1530248]

>>1530235
What was it an X220 or some shit?

90% of BNFs cram the cheapest parts they can into a set price window, and then include an assembly charge in that price. Only BNFs Id even consider are the Hawk 5 and some of Diatone's nicest stuff.

[Anonymous No.1530319]

>>1530082
The market is a maybe, 1 hour is like a holy grail yet you can already buy lipo drones that last 40 minutes, it would just be a 20 minute gain and wouldn't be able to do anything beyond hover. But "holy grail". So maybe that is why no-one has bothered. As for "possible" I feel that the hobby industry suffers from the fact that the people who know how to make efficient stuff are uninterested in the hobby market while most hobbyists don't have the knowledge. If you study momentum theory it is possible which is why some have indeed managed to get an hour of hover time through trial and error. Pretty much the only new claim here is that you don't need 18650s.

[Anonymous No.1530338]

I did some maths and I worked out that a fully optimised perfect quad using 4s 5200mah LiPos would require 13" propellers to hover for 1 hour. You want to not flatline your batteries and crash out the air after exactly 1 hour so lets say 15" propellers to be safe. This guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fad4XX9IZrU got an hour hover time with 18650s and 15" propellers so you see the maths is legit and according to it you don't need 18650s if your quad design is optimised.

[Anonymous No.1530339]

Hi all

I am fairly new and have an odd question. Recently I got a Vivitar DRC-888 from the op-shop for like 5AUD, it only came with the body and battery (no remote).

Now the battery is dead, 2S LiPo with one cell being SC (0V), this is easy enough to replace.
The fun part is the remote. I have powered the unit up from a PSU (set to 7.4V) and unit powers up and does make a WiFi AP, though this seems to be only for the remote (connecting with phone and firing up app does nothing).

So with all that said would you guys know if there is some sort of "universal" remote that I could control the unit with, or is there no point trying?

[Anonymous No.1530351]

>>1530339
Unfortunately, a lot of the toy-grade drones that come with their own transmitters use manufacturer-specific protocols or some shitfuck analog signals so it’s pretty difficult to mangle together some way of controlling them with a major brand of modern transmitter. It’s usually doable and I’ve seen a couple forum guys that do it regularly, but it’s not really worth the hassle when you consider the quality difference between those shitty toys and a proper quad using standard receivers.

[Anonymous No.1530367]

>>1530351
Thanks for the input, though that would be the case. The body/motors/gears seem just so meh in quality, will just disassemble and use for parts

[Anonymous No.1530385]

>>1530147
I've literally used the same set of nylocks on a set of OG Emax red bottoms for 2+ years & they're still fine. Decent quality ones can be reused umpteen times, it's the absolute shit tier ones where the nylon cuts rather than twisting that you want to avoid.

And again, if the motor shaft is too short & doesn't pass all the way through the nylon, you're going to have issues. But that isn't the nylock's fault.

>>1530158
Why would you want to switch between multiple batteries? You know you can just wire up multiple batteries in parallel, right?

>>1530319
You missed my point a little bit. I never meant to say that you can't build a lithium-powered quad that hovers for an hour, as we both know that people have already done this. My point was more that it wouldn't have any use (thus my response when you joked(?) about selling them in stores).

Consumers want small drones like Phantoms & Mavics, because they have 4k video cameras, collision avoidance, computer vision based flight modes, etc & are convenient to travel with. Professionals want big drones like Altas, because they can carry cinema cameras, they have motor/prop/ESC redundancy & transport isn't as much of an issue.

Nobody wants a big drone that doesn't do anything but hover for an hour. And as soon as you start adding extra features & payloads to your quad to actually give it a purpose... it will no longer hover for an hour.

A Mavic that flew for an hour would be a holy grail & you can bet that DJI is doing everything they can to achieve that as soon as realistically possible. But a drone that can't actually do anything other than hover for an hour is nothing more than a hobby experiment.

[Anonymous No.1530477]

>>1530385
>You know you can just wire up multiple batteries in parallel, right?
Yes, you can but if the idea is to keep a drone in the air for as long as possible you’ll get better performance running one at a time. The internal resistance of your packs will vary slightly meaning that in parallel you’re actually wasting energy charging one pack with the one next to it.

[Anonymous No.1530486]

>>1530477
Wat. Even if that were true on a purely theoretical level, the difference it would make to flight time would be such a minuscule fraction of a percent you'd actually loose more flight time by adding even just a few grams of switching circuity to cycle them one after another.

[Anonymous No.1530495]

>>1530486
It is true, the cells won't discharge evenly. In series this means that for instance in a 2S pack you might have one at 3.10V and one at 3.12V, and a decent low-voltage cutoff will go by the lowest cell, thus wasting the energy stored in the more charged cell. In parallel, the cells will charge each other, and since there's no charging circuit if their charge level is very different this can cause a surge and fire. In actual flight, what will happen is that one cell will drain slightly below the other, and simultaneously be restored to the same level as the other by the other. There's a small loss of energy as heat due to this, but assuming the batteries used are of similar capacity it'll be absolutely miniscule.

[Anonymous No.1530509]

>>1530495
>It is true, the cells won't discharge evenly. In series this means that for instance in a 2S pack you might have one at 3.10V and one at 3.12V, and a decent low-voltage cutoff will go by the lowest cell, thus wasting the energy stored in the more charged cell.

That wouldn't happen until the IR of the cells was so unbalanced you should've disposed of the pack long ago.

>In parallel, the cells will charge each other, and since there's no charging circuit if their charge level is very different this can cause a surge and fire

Their charge level is never going to be that different though. Nowhere near enough to cause an issue. You do realise that literally all large lipo packs are internally paralleled anyway, right? That something like an 8000mAh 6S will actually be 6S2P, so inside it's 12 4000mAh cells arranged as 2 paralleled sets of 6 cells each?

>but assuming the batteries used are of similar capacity it'll be absolutely miniscule.

Precisely. So minuscule the idea of a circuit to cycle packs one after the other is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.1530555]

>>1530509
Just so we’re all clear, a 6S2P battery will have an internal protection circuit so they don’t back charge and drain themselves or explode if one cell goes bad. But moving on.

Since we’re out in fucking lala land already, consider this. You hypothetically get your giant 60minute+ rig set up. You’ve put a lot of time in getting everything set, money on buying shit, fixing your PIDs to account for the massive weight of all the batteries, researching the right motors, props, etc. But you skipped the couple hours it would take to make a basic battery control circuit. (The idiots on /arduino/ could do it). You fly it a few times and it’s wonderful. But the 12th time in the air, one of the 42 cells on board has a minor fault and the battery catches fire midair, destroying your whole project before it crashes uncontrollably. Good call skipping the easiest fucking step.

[Anonymous No.1530562]

I'm almost ready to cut my plywood frame, but I decided to design it from scratch instead of using one from grabcad

What kind of holes should it have? What size? Do I need a top plate?

[Anonymous No.1530564]

>>1530562
The holes need to match the motors and whatever flavor of standoffs you want to use, so you can just make it fit your build. Cameras are often mounted on vertical surfaces so you’ll need at least the standoffs or a micro-like canopy if you don’t want the top plate. That said, the top does cover the FC and prevent damage as well as give you extra mounting points for antennas, GoPro, or a top mount battery.

[Anonymous No.1530567]

>>1530564
How do I choose a motor?

[Anonymous No.1530578]

>>1530567
Let’s take a step back, how big are you making this? Motor size choice is dominated by prop size, which is best determined by frame size, and intended use. Assuming you want a more mainstream FPV quad for general fucking around you could start with 5” props (if that fits your frame), 20A ESCs, and 4S batteries, so a 2205 2400kv motor is about right.

https://www.racedayquads.com/products/racedayquads-badass-2205-2450kv-naked-bottom-racing-motors?aff=2

[Anonymous No.1530581]

>>1530555
>Just so we’re all clear, a 6S2P battery will have an internal protection circuit so they don’t back charge and drain themselves or explode if one cell goes bad

Wrong. Some might do, especially if we're talking about a consumer product like a big USB power bank, but something like a bare 6S2P hobby LiPo pack will literally just be 12 cells & some wires. Picrelated is a Multistar 6S2P under the green heatshrink, notice the lack of any sort of protection circuit.

>But you skipped the couple hours it would take to make a basic battery control circuit. (The idiots on /arduino/ could do it). You fly it a few times and it’s wonderful. But the 12th time in the air, one of the 42 cells on board has a minor fault and the battery catches fire midair, destroying your whole project before it crashes uncontrollably.

You make it sound as though this is a likely scenario. Do you think people that fly $100k+ Alta rigs with cinema cameras have individual cell monitoring & the ability to failover to different packs if one looks like it's going to fail? No, they just strap two big 6S2P packs to the bottom, connect nothing to the quad except the XT90s & fly. Because the likelihood of a spontaneous cell failure like you describe, for a battery that has been properly treated & had its IRs checked regularly, is slim to none. The amount you're blowing this out of proportion is very entertaining.

>>1530562
Don't treat plywood as if it's carbon fibre, because it's not. You don't want to just copy a carbon fibre design & expect it to work well in plywood. In other words, don't make what's in that picture.

[Anonymous No.1530585]

>>1530578
Same size as a DJI F330

So I picked the same motor size, which is 2212

It ises 8 x 4.5 inch props, so I basically lay them down and design the frame around the motors and props?


>>1530581
>Don't treat plywood as if it's carbon fibre, because it's not.
Really? I wouldn't have noticed that if you hadn't made that post

[Anonymous No.1530587]

>>1530385
Well yeah that was my exact thoughts as well hence why I never pursued it. However some may buy it, there are cameras small enough to make it useful and maybe just for the novelty of long hover time. You can sell anything with enough marketing, could just make up some bullshit about "breakthrough drone" I mean someone here called me a moron for even broaching the concept so it would be a novelty.
>I never meant to say that you can't build a lithium-powered quad that hovers for an hour, as we both know that people have already done this
Lithium polymer though, not ion, the majority of casuals won't bother to fuck around with 18650s but if they could just snap in any pack from HK they might be interested.
>you can bet that DJI is doing everything they can to achieve that as soon as realistically possible
Yeah I also really don't want to bother trying to compete with these guys. If I did I'd have to hope they are more focused on electronics and ergonomics than raw performance because obviously if they focused on performance they'd stomp on me.

[Anonymous No.1530591]

Is this basically it? With the motors/props in place can I just design the parts to hold them in place, cut it out and strap the electronics and it will fly as if by magic?

[Anonymous No.1530594]

>>1530587
Can you use 18650 on quads? Aren't they heavier than li-poly?

[Anonymous No.1530595]

>>1524802
Pic related is what I would use without knowledge of the subject matter. It works for bicycle crank arms.

[Anonymous No.1530608]

>>1530594
Yeah thats how people have been getting hour hover times, they have higher energy density than lipo.
>>1530591
Magic.

[Anonymous No.1530616]

>>1530591
These days you can strap 4 motors to pretty much anything & it'll fly. Picrelated.

>>1530594
18650 have higher energy density but much lower discharge, which makes them unsuitable for things like racing quads where you pull crazy high current from the battery, but they are a viable option for many fixed wing & for bigger quads where you're pulling less current relative to the larger size of the pack/higher number of cells.

>>1530595
Don't use threadlock on prop nuts, it can weaken the prop hub (it eats into certain plastics) & is completely unnecessary if you just learn how to use a nylock properly.

[Anonymous No.1530630]

>>1530608
Do I need to spot weld them? I want to make a spot welder. I have that battery that is like one number larger than 18650 too. Man, if I can just use 18650's instead and they're better than li po I won't even get a proper RC battery.

Also, check out my frame design


>>1530616
Now, this is the real deal. I could even make this instead. I have some aluminum tubes I could use.

[Anonymous No.1530634]

>>1530630
No see what >>1530616 said, they are only useful if you just want to hover for a long time and nothing else, in all other cases a lipo is much better.

[Anonymous No.1530637]

>>1526427
No, it can also be made with polyester resin

>>1526415
I'm sure it is. People make legs and arms with it. Imagine a styrofoam base model on top of which you lay down the prepreg, like making a bicycle frame. After it's done you dissolve the styrofoam with gasoline and you have a shell that is going to be many times stronger than a simple plate.

[Anonymous No.1530639]

>>1530634
I can still use it for electronics like gimbal, camera, blue ray laser, rocket launcher, etc, right?

[Anonymous No.1530654]

>>1530637
>No, it can also be made with polyester resin

Okay, but epoxy based carbon fibre reinforced polymer is still just what we call carbon fibre - I don't know what this fanciful 'NASA cast off' is supposed to be.

>>1530630
You can solder 18650 (I've done it before), but if you're going to do it more than a few times & want to make a spot welder that's definitely the better solution.

[Anonymous No.1530656]

It's done, it weights about 164g, which is 100g less than my 3d printed Peon 230 frame. It will get a bit heavier because of the long M5 bolts used to bolt top and bottom plates.

Like it, /rcg/? I doubt so!

[Anonymous No.1530723]

>>1530578
What a genuinely helpful response.

[Anonymous No.1530732]

>>1530639
Only anti-personnel rockets, anti tank rockets would be too heavy.

[Anonymous No.1530760]

>>1530656
It's far from the worst frame design I've seen.

[Anonymous No.1530883]

>>1530656
Good start.

I think youre going to run into rigidity issues between opposing arms. I suggest you design a stiffer second plate to sandwich the arms with. Another wooden one would work but something like 4-5mm stiff plexiglass would work better, maybe even a 3D printed part with a more rigid material like ABS or PC with really high infill. You should also add the correct holes for a regular flight controller stack. If you plan on using an APM you should probably make the arms a bit longer so the props dont overlap the top of the frame.

[Anonymous No.1530936]

>>1530883
>Another wooden one would work but something like 4-5mm stiff plexiglass would work better

Dude, plexigless would break in the first collision it suffered

Electronics are going to sit in the lower deck but I don't know much about them yet. I think I might print that lower plate with a low infill, maybe design something with a vacuum formed hull and the plywood for basic structure. It would be rain proof.

[Anonymous No.1530946]

>>1530936
I just know youre going to want the arms sandwiched somehow if youre using such a flimsy material. I still suggest you make the arms longer, it would be more stable. At a 350-400mm size a Pixhawk mini or some sort of iNav setup would work best if you plan on putting the FC in the middle. A full sized pixhawk would have to go on top. Keep in mind youre going to have to put the ESCs on the arms, or if you go with an iNav you can use a 4in1 but then youll have to make sure you have room in the stack area.

[Anonymous No.1530963]

>>1530946
>if youre using such a flimsy material
Do you think plywood behaves like cardboard?

[Anonymous No.1530964]

>>1530963
Compared to carbon fiber? Yes.

Youve been told this like 12 times in the last 3 threads.

[Anonymous No.1530967]

>>1530964
So what you're trying to say is that

If it's not carbon fiber, then it cannot function at all?

[Anonymous No.1530969]

>>1530967
No Im saying you need to account for the loss in rigidity, with a sandwich plate. A majority carbon fiber frames do it for multiple reasons.

[Anonymous No.1530971]

>>1530964
Stop being so autistic. Is it the perfect material? Of course not. Is it possible to make a good quad out of it? Sure is.

[Anonymous No.1530977]

>>1530971
What size is this one?

[Anonymous No.1530978]

>>1530971
Im trying to tell him to make up for the loss?

Only autistic one here is you and the rest of the retards that come here for help and then discount advice anyone gives you. Look at the picture you posted, the arms are the entire plate and theyre braced against another plate at 8 major points.

[Anonymous No.1530987]

>>1530978
I have 12 bolts in my design, I'm not going to make it in a single piece because I can't cut something that large and if it breaks I need to redo the entire thing, rather than just one arm

How stiff do you think this needs to be? 3mm glass fiber board would work fine if a small place wasn't the cost of a 2m x 1.6m of plywood

[Anonymous No.1530992]

There are commercial drones made out of fucking styrofoam and this dude is giving me engineering tips to "mak up for the loss of rigidity"

He thinks a plywood sheet will have the same mechanical properties as a thin sheet of paper

[Anonymous No.1530997]

>>1530992
1. That's a piece of shit
2. The arms aren't foam. In fact, the only thing the foam does here is cover up the electronics and provide a useless brush guard.

[Anonymous No.1530999]

>>1530987
You have 2 attaching each arm to 1 plate and 1 attaching it to another. With a design like that its not going to be rigid if you twist it. Even just cutting out that top plate a second time in slightly thinner material will increase the rigidity. Ive 3D printed frames out of PC that suffered vibration issues because the arms twist along their length or through the frame.
>>1530992
>brushed motors
Retard.

Also that styrofoam is in no way a structural part of that quad.

[Anonymous No.1531008]

>>1530999
It's not going to twist on its own, I assure you that

>Even just cutting out that top plate a second time in slightly thinner material will increase the rigidity

It won't simply because there will be no stress transferred to it, so it will just add weight

>Also that styrofoam is in no way a structural part of that quad.
But it can be. People make drone frames out of foam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a724Z8ffQ7U

[Anonymous No.1531013]

>>1531008
Once again the foam is not a structural part of the quad... And the arms are sandwiched even though theyre twice as thick as the ones in your design.

Im done with you, dont come to a thread asking for help and disregard the help you get. Just go ahead and build the fucking, watch it bounce around and flop over when you throttle up.

[Anonymous No.1531016]

>>1531008
>but that's just a bumper!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuvmydXnaqw

[Anonymous No.1531021]

>>1531013
>watch it bounce around and flop over when you throttle up.
See, so you do think it cannot function AT ALL unless it's carbon fiber

People have traditionally built RC planes out of foam board for decades, but something that basically needs to bear the stresses it would experience from being lifted by hand needs to be built out of a material that is stronger than steel per unit of weight

Completely clueless


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWglpoxv580

[Anonymous No.1531025]

>>1531016
Properly braced. cut in a way that increases strength along the lengths, and uses quite a bit of foam, that insulation is in fact stronger than cardboard as well.
>>1531021
For the second time I think it wont work AS YOU HAVE IT. RC planes dont have 4 opposing motors to generate lift.

That fucking plywood is 4x thicker than youll be using. Only one of us is clueless here, and based on your child like response to advice I dont think youd like to find out who. It fucking amazes me that youd post a design asking if it looks good and argue with the first person to offer you criticism over it for an hour. Waste your goddamn money, I dont give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.1531038]

>>1531025
I drew that like 30 minutes and if you read the last line I anticipated people not liking it. It's just a studty to see what it could look like.

Plus, NO, that plywood is not 4 times as thick as the one I'll be using. 4 times 6 is 24, that one looks like 6mm as well


>Properly braced. cut in a way that increases strength along the lengths
That lengthwise beam really does nothing to increase strength, if you model it and do a finite element analysis it will look mostly blue. He could have gone without it. Guess what? It doesn't need to be infinitely rigid to fly, or even to withstand a few crashes!

Here's a foam board quad for you (same kind used for RC planes, btw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLp87ja-w8A

[Anonymous No.1531046]

>>1531038
You think the plywood in that video is 6mm thick? You are incredibly clueless if thats the case. Its not even clamped down properly..

The thing youre missing from literally all if your own counter arguments is everything has bracing, or the arms are made in a way that increase their rigidity, your design has none of that.

I do not understand why youre arguing so much, if you think Im wrong build it and prove me otherwise. Ive tried shit like this before and it didnt fucking work, you need rigidity, stiffness, some sort of bracing. You see how well that foam quad flies, Id bet you thats after hes tuned and tested it for hours, and thats as good as it will get. Not stable, and will be utterly destroyed in a light collision with a small anything.

Id like to congratulate you though, you have absolutely baffled me. The way your mind works through evidence and arguments makes absolutely no sense.

[Anonymous No.1531049]

>mfw some nigga is going full sperg ITT about how plywood is inferior to carbon fiber
c'mon kid the guy isn't making a competitive racing drone or a top speed record rig. Let it go.

[Anonymous No.1531051]

>>1531049
>mfw you guys are stupider than reddit

Were not even talking about carbon fiber, how retarded are you people? I told him to brace the fucking arms. This is amazing me, Ive never seen this many stupid people in this thread at once.

[Anonymous No.1531053]

>>1531051
You're the one throwing a spergfit here I wouldn't know what about it is "reddit" because I don't spend any time there unlike you apparently. Let it go, he will have his fun and learn with his wooden frame.

[Anonymous No.1531054]

>>1531053
Oh believe me I am in no way bothered, like Ive said just baffled. When your own evidence contradicts your argument and you claim others are clueless youve reached some sort of South Sentinal Island brand of uninformed.

We clearly have different definitions of fun, failure is in no way fun.

[Anonymous No.1531077]

the area of the arm on a quad is at least 5% of the area swept by the propeller, if you 3d printed the arm, or at least a cover for the arm, with a more aerodynamic shape you could gain quite a lot of power and efficiency

[Anonymous No.1531100]

>>1531077
See youve made the same mistake I have.

His plea for help aside that anon posted that image to prove his intellectual superiority to the rest of us. Its already perfect, for a fact, and he is taking no clueless comment that says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.1531102]

are drones capable of carrying something like 10 to 20 pounds while still having a decent flight time able to be DIY'd without to many problems?

[Anonymous No.1531103]

>>1531100
i believe that you're confusing me with someone else

[Anonymous No.1531104]

>>1531103
Sarcasm doesnt carry well with text.

[Anonymous No.1531107]

>>1531046
>You think the plywood in that video is 6mm thick?
No, the plywood in this frame is 6mm thick: >>1530971


>>1531077
I actually thought about this, the arms generate drag and decrease the lift, but it seems people don't even care about this because mUh cArBoN FiBeR

[Anonymous No.1531108]

>>1531051
>I told him to brace the fucking arms
Do a simulation in Solid Works and then I'll give some value to what you're saying, otherwise it's just buyfag blabber

[Anonymous No.1531111]

>>1531108
I didnt tell you tell you to buy anything, I told you to add an extra plate to brace the arms, like damn near every single frame made out of a much superior material. Wonder why they do that.

But nah Im not gonna do shit, this is your fuck up.

[Anonymous No.1531112]

>>1531102
Sure. Modern controllers can get anything airborne. FliteTest Peter made one that can get people airborne, and he whipped that thing up in no time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPJaHkz2Ado&t=0s

[Anonymous No.1531113]

>>1531111
You know the drill, then. Do a simulation and prove me you have any idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.1531114]

>>1531113
What part of nah do you not understand? Youre the designer, run your own sims.

Youve been given advice from someone thats done shit like this before, fail or succeed, do with it what you will.

[Anonymous No.1531120]

the plate that the frames are made out of, be it carbon fibre or plywood ought to be thicker but the arms should be cut narrower
huge weight savings for the same stiffness to be had

[Anonymous No.1531122]

>>1531114
Dude anyone can stick stuff together and see if it works, but have you designed one to find out not what you need to add to the frame, but what you can remove? Even though I'm not going to build that frame ---not 100% like that---, I do believe it would work perfectly and that my bolted joints would survive a few crashes. You suggested acrylic would work better, for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.1531123]

>>1531102
It’s certainly possible, but there are many problems trying to DIY it and it’ll be pretty expensive.

[Anonymous No.1531125]

>>1531122
A second plate of thick acrylic or PC as a sandwich. Now you cant read?

[Anonymous No.1531146]

>>1531113
>>1531122
The real problem with these fames is the bad aerodynamics, I can literally see the eddies, use a tube at least, sheesh

[Anonymous No.1531150]

>>1531112
The omni hoverboard is the only one of these contraptions that I have ever seen get out of ground effect.
>>1531077
This
>>1531102
Main thing you'll need to work out is the power draw, then choose motors and batteries accordingly. Oh and don't forget a sturdy yet light frame.

[Anonymous No.1531188]

>>1531108
I thought this was a 5" or smaller design, not a Flamewheel style thing. In that case I'd expect flat plywood arms to flex too much. Hardwood dowel would be a much better idea for the arms, just like everybody used to use in the old days.

[Anonymous No.1531265]

>>1531150
That's probably mostly because Peter didn't want it to flip and break his neck. He had the power to get out of ground effect, he chose not to use it.
Besides, if it can carry a man into ground effect it can carry anon's ten pound weight out of it easily.

[Anonymous No.1531327]

>>1531150
>The omni hoverboard is the only one of these contraptions that I have ever seen get out of ground effect.
Bruh

this is clearly out of ground effect https://youtu.be/DPJaHkz2Ado?t=1211
It's at least 3 rotorspans above the ground.

[Anonymous No.1531356]

>>1531327
I think the day someone makes one with ducted fans is the day they become popular. People don't like the open propellers.

[Anonymous No.1531363]

>>1531356
Maybe the day they become popular with idiots. Ducting to keep you from chopping yourself to bits doesn't solve the main drawback which is that if there is any sort of failure, barring complete redundancy of every system, a thrust lifted aircraft will just drop out of the sky completely uncontrolled. A helicopter can autorotate, an airplane can fly, but a multirotor without complete redundancy just drops.

[Anonymous No.1531378]

>>1531363
Just stick a parachute on it.

[Anonymous No.1531458]

>>1531363
This >>1531378

[Anonymous No.1531583]

>>1531125
Would do nothing, what would work is if the plywood was reinforced with glass fiber between the wooden sheets as it was being manufactured

[Anonymous No.1531630]

>>1531458
>>1531378
>failure occurs at 200ft
oops!

[Anonymous No.1531649]

>>1531630
ejector seat.

[Anonymous No.1531653]

[Anonymous No.1531683]

>>1531653
B-but... Quads dont fly that way...?

[Anonymous No.1531684]

>>1531683
Anything is possible with pinned throttle and collective pitch. They just kick back up real quick and then the motors screech in full reverse. You ever see Aliens? Like getting jumped by a robot facehugger.

[Anonymous No.1531686]

>>1531684
To be completely honest Id rather have someone try to stab me with reversable thrust than glue razor blades to a prop and come to fuck you up.

[Anonymous No.1531689]

>>1531686
okay but now imagine there's a swarm of like 50

[Anonymous No.1531697]

>>1531683
So strap it on at a upwards angle on a race quad.

[Anonymous No.1531701]

>>1531683
3D mode nigga

[Anonymous No.1531744]

>>1531653
based

[Anonymous No.1531769]

Recommend me a soldering station.

My first iron shit out and my second uses proprietary shitty tips. Just want a nicesh station with the holder for the iron and sponge, with a temperature dial and reliable tips. I dont know what it is but all the soldering tips Ive ever used start to dissolve, and their heat transfer was shit. Lets say like $30-$50.

[Anonymous No.1531818]

>>1531769
https://www.ebay.com/itm/937D-Electric-Iron-Soldering-Station-SMD-Welder-Welding-w-Stand-Sponge-ESD-110V-/382415394964?txnId=932562942025

[Anonymous No.1531821]

>>1531683
Ever see the video where Mr Steele stomps stickers on office building windows with the bottom of his 5”?

[Anonymous No.1531858]

>>1531821
No, because only children watch his videos & you have to be over 18 to post here. Reported for underage.

[Anonymous No.1531862]

>>1531769
Just invest in a Hakko FX888D man. It's a tool you'll use all the time, and not even just for guads if you're into electronics at all. So it's worth it to just get one of the best

[Anonymous No.1531868]

>>1531862
Wish they were that cheap in the UK, I paid £130 for mine (& that was back before the whole Brexit debacle when the £ was stronger than it is now).

[Anonymous No.1531964]

>>1531862
I never understood why so many hakkos look like fisher price

[Anonymous No.1531983]

>>1531964
Scandinavian design. Just look at anything plastic IKEA sells.

[Anonymous No.1532035]

>>1531862

Dont listen to this guy about the Hakko 888D

It uses old outdated soldering iron tip technology and you can get much better these days.

The 888D has a ceramic rod that heats up and you put a metal sleave tip around it. This is really old outdated solder tip technology.

All the new types of soldering irons have the heating element built right into the tip. The integrated tips are very superior to the ceramic heating wand.

Hakko makes the fx-951 which uses the new tips and Louis Rossman showed on his youtube that the clones of the fx-951 from china are not too bad.

Also the new TS 100 and TS 80 soldering irons use the new integrated tip technology. Which is why they are so good and popular right now.

[Anonymous No.1532044]

>>1532035
The 'outdated' ceramic rod design is way better for swapping tips IMO. I must've swapped thousands of times between a conical tip & a chisel tip on my FX888D; if I tried that with a TS100 I feel like the contacts or something would've failed by now.

[Anonymous No.1532110]

>>1531821
Mr Steele is insufferable

[Anonymous No.1532146]

>>1532044

Pretty sure Hakko knows what they are doing.

TS 100 copies them. TS 80 copies other companies that have used a jack.

[Anonymous No.1532221]

is there a /diy/ rc model discord out there?

[Anonymous No.1532356]

>>1532221
Do you not see how slow the thread is
Also stop pushing discord it's a bad meme

[Anonymous No.1532393]

Are there any sub $100 x Class frames or should I just order the carbon and make my own?

Also curious if anyone knows of any 40xx/41xx motors between the 20$ racerstar and maybe $50 price points.

[Anonymous No.1532404]

>>1532393
Just give up on X class if you're on a small budget. Cheap shit like racerstar motors barely do the trick on miniquads it's much less likely to last and perform well in X class sizes. As X class becomes more popular prices will come down but right now it's impossible to build something worth flying for under $800, make that $900+ if you don't have the batteries.

[Anonymous No.1532411]

>>1532404
I can build the frame for $75 at the most, flight controller is any F4, needs a $50 PDB, $100 battery, Ive seen regular 30 Spedix ESCs used but Id probably go for 40a which arent much more. The Racerstar 4114 motors funny enough are actually known to be acceptable to start on amongst X Class racers.

So as far as I can see I can build one for around $300-$400. Im just curious if there are any $30 or $40 motors.

[Anonymous No.1532469]

>>1531858
>>1532110

[Anonymous No.1532499]

So I have a quad I bought off someone awhile back, practiced with it and haven't touched it in awhile. When I bought it the seller said it had Oneshot ESCs on it, as supported by Blheli set to Oneshot125. When I plug this quad into Blheli configurator it shows "GH 30 16.6" going by what the guy says they are likely Racerstar RS20a ESCs. My question is were these ESCs formerly made to support Oneshot, or is it possible they are Blheli S ESCs? I bought 2 identical quads from the guy and it doeant make sense to me that 1 would have inferior ESCs, since the other runs Dshot 600.

[Anonymous No.1532592]

>>1532499
I've read your post a dozen times & am still not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking whether Racerstar has released several versions of their 20A ESC, with the earlier versions being blheli with no dshot support & later versions being blheli_s with dshot support, then you would be correct.

>>1532469
God hates douchebags.

[Anonymous No.1532716]

How many people here have their ammetuer radio license? Are FCC approved FPV transmitters that hard to find?

[Anonymous No.1532774]

>>1532716
Nobody really cares. The only people you're actually going to interfere with & piss off are other people flying FPV.

[Anonymous No.1532784]

>>1532221

There are a few of them. UAV futures, Kwad Camp from Rotor Riot both have a discord

[Anonymous No.1532785]

Here we go again. A few minutes ago there was a POSSBLE sighting of a drone above Heathrow and the airport has been closed down.

[Anonymous No.1532789]

Heathrow just bought Anti drone systems from Israel.

This is all an Op

[Anonymous No.1532972]

>>1532592
Apologies, wrote that pretty late, you did in fact answer my question. However I now have a followup.

It still doesnt make sense to me that the guy would havce 2 identical builds but 1 runs Oneshot125 and the other Dshot600. Is itr possible these are in fact Blheli S ESCs, simple set in Betaflight as Oneshot125? Or would they not work if betaflight was set to the wrong protocol?

[Anonymous No.1532980]

>>1532784
these are all channels you should avoid

[Anonymous No.1532984]

>>1532980
All two of them?

[Anonymous No.1532987]

>>1532980
Kwad Camp is eh but without UAVFutures and Rotor Riot the only actually informative channels are Bardwell, which is on RR half the time, and JohnnyFPV whom only posts flying videos. Stop trying to meme anon, youre embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.1533004]

I've read too much and confused myself. I mentioned somewhere above that I'm building a fairly heavy FPV FT Explorer. I have read that both slow motors (~1100kv) combined with big props (~10") are good for these (generally speaking, I know my model won't fit a 10") big rc planes because they provide a lot of thrust. I just read on other forums that that sort of combo is better for 3d/acrobatic planes and I would want a faster motor and smaller prop for my big cruiser.

Expert input?

[Anonymous No.1533011]

>>1533004
Bigger the body. bigger the motors, bigger the props. That is a certain fact. If you put a 5" prop on a 4108 motor it will burn out, if you put a 15" prop on a 2207 it will burn out. Using big props with big motors for freestlyle is a very recent thing and most of them use 8-12s batteries to get the thrust they want.

If youre going for a large format build that you want 10-20 minutes of flight time or more on you want large, low KV motors, with large props, running 4-6s.

[Anonymous No.1533018]

>>1532972
Pretty much any ESC that supports Dshot will also support all of the older protocols (multishot/oneshot/pwm). Just try it, if the ESCs don't play the bootup tone when you switch them to Dshot that means they don't support it. Obviously props off when doing stuff like this.

[Anonymous No.1533040]

>>1533004
>FT Explorer
Just use whatever is closest to the recommended flite test power pack. There's no advantage to trying to get fancy with that plane, it's not fast and it will break if you try to do crazy aerobatics. Just pick something efficient.

[Anonymous No.1533042]

>>1533011
Apparently Im too dumb to read he's talking about planes.

[Anonymous No.1533045]

>>1532411
>40A ESC
>Motor that claims less than 3KG of thrust on 6S in the test charts
>X class
nigga...
That thing is going to be a dog.

[Anonymous No.1533057]

>>1533045
Well the huge attraction with X Class is a huge ass drone doing the shit a 250 can. It not like Im expecting 100mph. A number of the builds Ive watched on youtube just throw together a frame out of aluminum square tubing with those racerstar motors and a 13-14" prop. Looked fine to me? An X Class is an X Class right now, its not like Im gonna professionally race it.

Please explain your problems?

[Anonymous No.1533101]

>>1533057
>Well the huge attraction with X Class is a huge ass drone doing the shit a 250 can. It not like Im expecting 100mph.

Most miniquads worth a shit can do 100mph if you put the right props on them, it's not exactly a super impressive feat these days. I've seen a Diatone GT Tyrant do 110mph with upgraded props.

[Anonymous No.1533112]

>>1533101
Ehh I would argue most common Alien type top mount freestyle rigs only do 70-80 with average props.

[Anonymous No.1533117]

>>1533101
I did ask for motor suggestions, what do you think about the brotherhobby 4008?

[Anonymous No.1533189]

>>1533057
>>1533101
The attraction of X class (literally the whole point of X class) is that it's better for spectators, because they can actually see the thing in the sky. Nobody builds an X class quad thinking it's going to fly like a 5".

[Anonymous No.1533197]

>>1533018
So I switched everything to Dshot 600 in betaflight, plugged the quad in, it played the tone and all was normal. However when I went into the motor test tab and gave them a little power one of the ESCs smoked and shit out.

You absolutely positive they wouldnt work if they werent compatible or was that switch in BF what just burnt that ESC?

[Anonymous No.1533210]

>>1533197
I've never heard of an incompatible protocol damaging an ESC. If an ESC doesn't support dshot it won't work _at all_ if you set it to dshot (it won't even play the second stage of bootup tones).

[Anonymous No.1533230]

>>1533210
Alright thanks man, I guess it was just that ESCs time.

[Anonymous No.1533576]

>>1533112
>70-80 with average props

If we're talking 5/6" only a shit build or just an old build or one with completely crap props is that slow these days. Trust me. I've seen a 6" Martian on RS2205 motors with 6x4 props do 90mph, that is nothing special, small old motors on too big of a frame. Any number of bone stock and not too expensive pre built quads top out over 100mph, The ones I've seen do it personally are Holybro Kopis 2, 4S Diatone GT-Tyrant, Emax Hawk 5. It's in no way hard or expensive to build a quad that does 100mph these days. That doesn't make top speed not a fool's errand, a quad built for absolute top speed will fly below average in other situations, but no freestyle build that isn't on old parts (like that Martian) or just a cobbled together mess should top out at 70mph.

[Anonymous No.1533601]

>>1533576
I'm willing to bet your overestimating. On 6 inch props maybe but a Martian is a 130 gram frame minimum, 180 on 6 inch props. Damn near every single premade UAVFutures and AndyRC test only goes 70-90. But yea the Kopis and Hawk 5 are top notch BNFs, people use those in actual races.

It definitely isnt hard to get 100mph I'm just saying it isn't really as common as you think.

[Anonymous No.1533602]

>>1533601
>I'm willing to bet your overestimating.
I'm willing to bet that the radar gun doesn't lie dumbass

[Anonymous No.1533604]

>>1533601
No it's definitely as common as he thinks 100mph in 2018 is 2016's 70mph.

[Anonymous No.1533606]

>>1533602
It'll measure the quickest moving area relative to itself in the cone of detection. That's the leading edge of your rotors, you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.1533619]

This whole argument is kinda pointless, because how much fun can you really get from just pegging full throttle in a straight line in an empty field for a few seconds until your battery sags to nothing?

I couldn't really care less how fast any of my quads can theoretically fly, because I'm never actually going to want to fly them like that.

[Anonymous No.1533627]

>>1533606
You are a complete and utter irredeemable retard if you think a radar gun is telling me the tip speed of props instead of the speed of oh you know the big hunk of carbon fiber and aluminum hurtling at it. Fucktard

[Anonymous No.1533629]

>>1533606
>leading edge of the rotors
Those do not have a uniform speed, and even at idle they're going a lot faster than 100mph. You're grasping at straws

[Anonymous No.1533642]

>>1533602
Your radar gun gives you 100mph on the average BNF that gets 80 on 4 youtubers radar guns, so yea I'd say its overestimating, dumbass.
>>1533619
Pretty much my original point, I just want a massive acro quad, not first place in the internal x class division. That's basically the problem with these threads time after time. For certain people its go all in or dont bother, cant even talk about DIYing a camera rig.

Not to mention this >>1533606 fuckwit said something retarded to them and now they assume it was me, so my whole x class question is out the window because they assume I think a speed gun can register the tip of a 35000 RPM propeller.

[Anonymous No.1533647]

>>1533642
>it wasn't me being retarded, it was someone else! i swear!

[Anonymous No.1533653]

>>1533647
I understand where your stupid comes from but you must understand there are hundreds of people visiting these threads. Too autistic to believe me but no it wasn't me, I know how a radar gun works.

Now answer the original queries, I dont give a fuck how fast you think your quad is, I dont give a fuck about a mach 2 X Class. I just wanna have fun like the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.1533672]

>>1531769
YiHua 936

>>1531818
>https://www.ebay.com/itm/937D-Electric-Iron-Soldering-Station-SMD-Welder-Welding-w-Stand-Sponge-ESD-110V-/382415394964?txnId=932562942025

This is fine too

Alright, I got my spindle working, I need some more setting up to do and a spoil plate, then I'll be making dozens of plywood drone frames since the spindle is near silent even at 100%, and even while cutting wood.

I figure I might start with a 150mm frame instead of a 330mm right off the bad. Are there controllers that I'll be able to control via bluetooth and with a proper radio later?

[Anonymous No.1533676]

>>1533672
There are bluetooth sensors but a regular receiver would be smaller.

[Anonymous No.1533717]

can a 20a esc handle a 6030 dual blade prop?
using emax rs2205s 2300kv.

[Anonymous No.1533744]

>>1533606
Do you honestly think a radar gun is subject to the radar signature of an advancing 2.5" plastic propeller blade moreso than the radar signature of the motor bells, standoffs, carbon frame, etc? Or are you just trolling poorly? In reality, trigonometry dictates that radar guns almost always read LOW due to angles.

[Anonymous No.1533746]

>>1533717
With my old RS2205 2300kv build and 6x3.8x2 props I have pulled 105A at full throttle. Yes my onboard ammeter is calibrated. I'd say you're safe with a 6030 and a newer motor that is probably a bit more efficient.

[Anonymous No.1533756]

>>1533744
You're a retard who doesn't understand how these things work. The pistol sends out a ping and waits for a reply, the faster the object moves the faster the reply is bounced back. It reacts to the first returning ping, it doesn't average measurements over a grid or any shit like that, it just waits for the first ping and measures that.That means the quickest part of the quad is measured, not the slowest or average speed.

[Anonymous No.1533757]

>>1533756
That's sonar, and you don't understand how that works either..

[Anonymous No.1533758]

>>1533756
I still can't tell if you're trolling poorly since you apparently think the advancing edge of the propeller is the dominant radar signature to a radar gun.

[Anonymous No.1533759]

>>1533756
No you stupid shit radar guns use DOPPLER SHIFT not "pings" like some cold war era sonar

[Anonymous No.1533815]

>>1533756
I actually have some of those 6038s, might give them a try.

[Anonymous No.1533845]

>>1533746
what do you think of something like a 5140 or 5143?

[Anonymous No.1533870]

>>1533672
Bluetooth is kind of a beast to work around. A flysky transmitter is like $60 and can put their receivers on almost any quad.

[Anonymous No.1533875]

>>1533845
Are you asking if you can run that with a 20A ESC? Probably not.

[Anonymous No.1533880]

>>1533875
Well the other anon I was replying to said he pulled 26a per motor on a 6038, full throttle. I guess the math in my head thought that meant a 51xx would be no problem. I've ran 5048s on these ESCs before but admittedly I didn't use a voltage sensor so I dont know how much I was drawing.

[Anonymous No.1533926]

>>1533642
>Pretty much my original point, I just want a massive acro quad, not first place in the internal x class division. That's basically the problem with these threads time after time. For certain people its go all in or dont bother, cant even talk about DIYing a camera rig.

The thing about discussing camera rigs in these threads is that we get people coming here who are adamant that you can DIY a camera rig that will be better than an off-the-shelf DJI at the same price, which simply isn't true.

If you want to DIY a camera rig because you want a fun project, that's completely different & 100% fine. But that's not what the people who trigger these arguments are proposing.

[Anonymous No.1533999]

>>1533870
>Bluetooth is kind of a beast to work around
I know it has a very short range, but I can at least get something flying for demo purposes.

I kind of don't want to go all in with electronics until I get something physical working.

[Anonymous No.1534000]

>>1533870
If I get like a Naze32 and attach a bluetooth module on its serial interface... can I get it flying with my cellphone?

[Anonymous No.1534033]

>>1534000
How good at coding are you? Because this wouldn't be a trivial matter of connecting the module & downloading a joystick app.

[Anonymous No.1534057]

>>1534000
That diagram looks like it is to program the FC over bluetooth, not control it. You're not saving anything trying to substitute a transmitter. Save your money and buy either the FlySky or FRSky. If you don't continue the hobby, you can sell it and recoup most of your money.

[Anonymous No.1534126]

>>1534057
Yes but if it can be programmed via that serial port, I'm pretty sure someone already made a drone firmware that will allow it to be controlled via bluetooth instead. Making bluetooth-controlled cars is absolutely trivial, a drone is a bit more complicated because if has PID loops and whatelse, but still doable

[Anonymous No.1534207]

>>1534126
>I'm pretty sure someone already made a drone firmware that will allow it to be controlled via bluetooth instead.

That's where you're almost certainly wrong. There is zero demand for bluetooth control of a flight controller like that.

[Anonymous No.1534325]

>>1534207
Why would there be zero demand? There are toy quads like Parrot AR that come with bluetooth control by default. Would it be bad to add bluetooth control to a naze32 just for close range testing? It already works for telemetry

[Anonymous No.1534331]

Turns out I was right, someone already did this

It looks like Cleanflight supports bluetooth control.

This guy made a quad where the frame is the flight controller pcb itself.

Isn't it amazing what people can do when they're not saying things have no demand for them, or that they're not economical?

[Anonymous No.1534345]

>>1534325
>>1534331
You've found a project from 4 years ago that used bluetooth to control a brushed toy quad. That does not mean that you could nor should use bluetooth to control a quad like >>1533672 today.

Even $10 toy quads that you buy today don't use bluetooth because of how shit it is for this purpose. They use 2.4GHz, either a RC specific protocol (most of which can be interfaced with via an open source module, if that's your thing) or Wifi for those that use a smartphone as a controller (like the Parrot quad you mentioned actually does - it's not bluetooth).

So yes, of course it is technically feasible to use bluetooth. But why the fuck would you? If you don't want to buy an actual hobby RC transmitter & instead use your phone, use WiFi with an ESP8266 or something.

tl;dr - there's good reasons literally fucking nobody uses bluetooth to control quads today

[Anonymous No.1534350]

>>1534345
Tell me what is the last part from the post you quoted >>1533672

If you have more than 60 iq points you'd assume I'd use the bluetooth just for testing the fucking thing until I buy a proper fucking radio

[Anonymous No.1534352]

>>1534350
The bluetooth is just a link. You'll still need a way to send the correct commands over the Bluetooth connection. We're just trying to save you from wasting time and money here. You won't gain anything of value from "testing" via Bluetooth while you wait to buy a real transmitter. You're going to spend money on the Bluetooth modules so I don't know how you think you're saving money.

[Anonymous No.1534355]

>>1534352
>You're going to spend money on the Bluetooth modules so I don't know how you think you're saving money.

I already have them. You're not saving me from wasting any time, you're just being a negative nanny and pretty dense as well

>You'll still need a way to send the correct commands over the Bluetooth connection
This was taken care of years ago!

[Anonymous No.1534363]

I swear to god, the bluetooth guy, and plywood frame guy have got to be the same person as 4 hour hover time for a light, blimp guy, and shaking quad guy.

This fuckwit has got to be looking for problems to ask about so he can respond on the exact same "fuck off you buyfag Im smarter than you" way to every single person that replies. You come up with the dumbest fucking ideas, and just autism your way through the following argument.

[Anonymous No.1534365]

>>1534350
>I'd use the bluetooth just for testing the fucking thing until I buy a proper fucking radio

But _why_ would you do that? What exactly do you think you'll gain? You're going to spend all this time & effort setting up bluetooth control... to do what exactly? What exactly do you think there even is to 'test'?

You can buy a perfectly good hobby RC transmitter _with_ a receiver for $43. If you can't even afford that, you're coming at this hobby all wrong.

We're not trying to be negative, we just can't fathom why the actual fuck you would want to do this, especially considering the non trivial amount of work it would require.

[Anonymous No.1534371]

Speaking of density, I also added expanded polystyrene to my list of drone making materials, since I can get it easily, it's light and easy to mill.

>either gfrp or plywood core to hold the motors/electronics
>eps bumper glued/ziptied to keep my from breaking everything
>canopy/shell made from thin vacuum formed plastic on 3D printed mold

Hard part will be finding someone to do the third item since I don't want to make a vacuum forming rig just for this

[Anonymous No.1534373]

>>1534363
I am going to test my plywood frame with a bluetooth

>>1534365
Well if the radio arrives before everything else I won't bother with bluetooth, I just want to see the thing flying even if it's inside my house. The first time I got ahold of a brushless motor I bolted it down to a piece of wood just to see it spinning.

[Anonymous No.1534382]

>>1534355
I don't know why I'm still replying, but I'm assuming you're using this or something similar. If this isn't it, then at least post a link to what you're using in case anyone else is interested in this shit.

http://ez-gui.com/manual/controlling-a-model-from-the-ez-gui/

[Anonymous No.1534389]

>>1534382
That toy PCB-frame quad I posted uses EZ-GUI for control, that will be my starting point. I know I can't go very far with bluetooth (the modules I have will lose connection after about 9 meters), it's not like I'm going to race the drone around with nothing but the cellphone.

I'm interested in monocoque-style frames as well but I won't be building any in the near future. The material I wouldn't ever use is polystyrene sheet, since it's so brittle. PET plastic should work very well since it's strong and flexible.

[Anonymous No.1534390]

>>1534373
Fuck at this point the guys gonna have a poorly designed plywood frame, controlled via bluetooth, built to carry a light and all lift is generated with a blimp. You just fucking wait, give it a few days someone is gonna "randomly" pop in here with what should be a very simple, no its easier this way, problem. And when someone tells him that hes gonna argue.

Im 75% convinced this is all the same dude just coming in here to troll.

[Anonymous No.1534396]

>>1534390
I think what happened is that his balloon burnt down and now he's back on the original plan to lift his fucking lamp with a tethered quad. Explains why bluetooth would be a tolerable control system.

[Anonymous No.1534414]

>>1534396
I used to have an RC car when I was like 9 that had a wire connecting the remote to the car. He can just do it that way, hell at that connect a generator directly to the XT60 lead, it'll fly for days.

[Anonymous No.1534713]

>>1534711
>>1534711
>>1534711