Quadcopters / Drones / Helicopters / Rotary wings stuff > FPV
FPV in IRL
Happy Days:
Nice Video Ron. (Shame about the sound track! :lol: )
No, seriously, that Quad 3 seems a very stable platform. People actually pay good money to have aerial photographs of their houses. You could make a little cash ‘on the side’ with that set up. 8)
Excuse my ignorance but is the camera operation radio controlled, or a kind of “Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance” sort of thing? :roll:
It looked very calm conditions, how would it perform with a breeze blowing?
K
Ron:
The Nex-5 looks good.
Yes the quad has gyro stabilisers, couldn't fly without them.
But I found a snag with the 2.4GHz radio.
The antenna is vertical on the quad, and when I go straight up, directly over head, it's end on to me with the Tx. And the Tx antenna is end on to the quad as well. In the first crash I think it lost signal just as I'd started to descend, so it went unstable.
I don't think it liked descending so quickly either.
Also, if you watch carefully, the gyros do start to stabilise it just before it hits the bushes.
That has happened to me twice now, and always it's happened when directly overhead.
So a change in the antenna layout is called for, and also to keep the Tx antenna horizontal so the quad gets more signal.
My pilot sklls could do with sharpening a bit too :( :(
Used to fixed wing that's the trouble.
Ron
Ron:
Hi Keith,
Yes it's a bit dodgy stability-wise at the mo.
But I'm planning to make it bigger with longer arms that should improve the stability.
And I'm planning on learning to fly it too :cry:
At the mo it's just start the video cam and take off.
Stop it when landed and dump it to the computer to see what it got.
It's not steerable on it's own, just pointing forward, but in theory you can turn the quad on the spot, so that shouldn't be a problem.
As long as the pilot gets the idea on how to point it the right direction.
I did rig a small(ish) still camera with a servo to press the shutter release, but it was all a bit heavy for the quad which struggled a bit, as did the pilot. :roll:
Yes it was very calm.
They can fly in wind, but that comes in lesson two…..
Not sure about making money.
Have to get the flying skills sorted first.
Good idea though. :clap:
Ron
Happy Days:
From the images that I saw it looked pretty good. :clap:
Okay, it crashed a couple of times but that seemed to be just a case of student pilot syndrome, (for that type of aeroplane I mean.) You’ll soon get the knack of it I’m sure.
Re: Loss of Signal. Most 2.4 rx’s have two antennas specifically to stop L.o.S. as you appeared to have experienced. Bit of a nuisence if you only have one. :!:
If you place the rx antenna horizontal you’ll risk L.o.S. as the machine lands.
I think I’d go for a rx antenna at 45degrees from vertical. With the Tx antenna vertical, (or horizontal) the rx will experience a 3dB signal reduction but you’re not likely to be flying the model too far away from you so I’d have thought the signal strength would still be strong enough to able the rx to function properly.
Have to say, it’s all very interesting. :D
K.
Ron:
Yes I'm still very unsure of the signal loss.
It just seems the most likely thing due to both antennas being vertical and end on at the time.
The Rx one does have a 90 degree bend in the middle of the actual active bit at the end, but then at the time it was effectively shielded by the base plate of the quad.
Hmmmm.
Since then I've got a better Rx with two antennas and two parallel receivers, so that might cure it, even though the new Rx was/is destined for the Squall (which hasn't even flown yet :oops: )
Rxs could do with 'S' meters on them :lol:
But maybe it was just a crap pilot.
These multi propellor wrong-way-up whizzy things don't behave like proper aircraft y'know :roll:
But... it's early days yet.
Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version