Old new multi-rotor guy, lots of questions.

[Cotharyus]

First, let me say I found this site by finding the FliteTest podcast, and I'm enjoying that. What led me here is a recent interest in multirotors, and a lack of interest in becoming re-involved with many of the RC forums I used to participate in.

I've got something like 30 years of off and on RC experience, ranging from electric cars and gliders to nitro cars and electric planes and heli's, rock crawlers, and now, a recent interest in multirotors.

Short version: having sold all of my RC stuff several years ago due to lack of time, space, and money to continue to throw at competitions which seemed to be the only place I could run the stuff I had, I thought I was done. Then a cinematographer friend of mine approached me about using multirotors to get aerial footage, and asked me if I would be interested in flying for him. Of course, I was.

So here I am, looking at a brand new breed of RC. A little quick reading produced an easy choice of models to buy to get a little stick time with a quad, so the Blade Nano QX came into the picture. It turns out, it's pretty easy to fly, and it was only a matter of a few batteries before I was able to handle it in just about all the wind it can handle. So I'm comfortable with the idea of something larger and more expensive while my friend and I are still sorting out the requirements for the filming craft - likely an 8 rotor rig with 6+KG lifting capabilities. But I want to try some FPV stuff as well, and there are a few things I'd like to take a crack at still with the Nano. So:

Nano: Is there an LED kit that can be rigged up easily on the Nano to make orientation at a distance easier to sort out? My eyes aren't what they once were, and I think this would make things much easier.

Something completely different: Cost being a key consideration, I would like something I can rig some FPV stuff on and fly around some. I'm under the impression that's right out with the nano - it's just too small. Or is it? I simply don't know. Whatever I end up with if the nano won't do it, I'd like it to be able to carry around a GoPro as well. I can see this "new" aspect of RC working well with my mountain biking addiction.

Normally, I'm pretty self sufficient in terms of gathering data, and sorting out features and requirements for RC stuff, but it turns out, many of the communities I used to be active in rub me the wrong way, and come across very elitist, and many of the sites I used to frequent for products and information on other things I was into RC wise have little or nothing with regards to multirotors.

The guys on the podcast talked this community up, and said over and over what a fantastic group of people it is, which fits with most of the people I knew face to face in RC, so I'm taking the chance and throwing myself at your mercy. Thanks for any help, tips, sites full of information I can browse through, and all that stuff.

 

[AeroMaestro]

I built my first quad about a year ago from one of the Flite Test rotor bones kits. I learned a great deal, and gradually upgraded the whole device one piece at a time. Now my quad doesn't contain a single original part from that first quad (except for the power distribution cable!) but I've gained a great understanding for how these things work and fly in the process. With the rotorbones, you could start out as a quadcopter, and gradually expand to hex and octo without even needing to buy a new frame.

 

[AeroMaestro]

Anyway, any tri-quad-etc copter you build from the flite test rotor bones kits would be able to fly a GoPro and FPV gear, no problem.

(And to answer your question about the Nano, YES it is possible to add FPV. I've read that the little Spektrum camera/transmitter kit works OK on the Nano. But that thing costs more than the Nano itself! It's possible to cobble together your own little camera/transmitter for the nano, but I suspect the result isn't worth the time or effort.)

 

[Ludodg]

I think you'll learn more by building your own copter, tri for extra low cost or a quad for simplicity.
you can start off from a bought chassis, or very easely buld your own with some wood, plexi, ...
Then you can buy a starterset with cheap but very fine Flight Controller (KK of Flip ...), a couple of ESC's, motors and props.
You will find LOTS of info on how to start with the KK-board.
Learning curve might be a bit steep but do-able.
COnnecting a GoPro and later on getting into FPV will not be a problem.

And, IMHO, you'll have it easy to scale up with all you have learned.

(I, myself, am completely new to flying RC,
Got off the "wrong way" by building a tri myself, tuning it, ... so the learning curve is even steeper, but I like what i read, learn, ...a lot)

 

[Ludodg]

http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?7837-Multirotor-Top-Tips

 

[Craftydan]

I'll agree with the above . . . flying and building are two different artforms, but both are central to our hobby.

You've got flying down ( I assume you've been flying it comfortably in agility mode, right?) but before you start building the heavy lift octo, build something smaller -- a 350 size quad is a good sweet spot to scratch build. It should easily lift a light payload (gopro, small FPV rig) for you to experiment with, teach you the feel of a heavier airframe . . . and more importantly, teach you some of the pitfalls of building, setup and tuning before you take on the challange of a heavy lifting frame.

There is a BIG leap in complexity, strength and precision required as you scale up beyond a 350-450 size quad, and if you don't spend the big bucks for a RTF rig, there's a lot less out there to help you through the process. It's not hard to brute force something and make it fly in that scale, but it won't be easy or stable to fly, expensive to crash, poor flight times, and poor video quality. Each of these are fixable, but not always inexpensively. Building and flying a smaler frame will go a long way toward heading off these build issues with experience.

As for the lights on the Nano . . . SF Solutions has a good UMX kit for less than $20, shiped, that should be light enough, although it will likely eat into the flight time a bit:

www.sf-design-solutions.com

The lighted MQX and Hubsan X4's I've flown are much easier to orient with the lights . . . and become *easier* to fly at night. The ProtoX is nearly impossible to fly without lights (you can turn them off, but it's HARD to fly it that way)

You'll likely have to tap off the main power connector to power the lights since it doesn't have any servo ports like most UMX bricks, but that shouldn't be a hard splicing job.

The Nano's payoad capacity is nearly nil -- It can likely lift Horizon's micro FPV module, but I wouldn't expect it to fly welll or long. if you want to play with FPV, I'd strongly recommend moving to a larger airframe -- I expect the FPV experience on a nanoQX won't be representitive.

BTW, Welcome to the forum!

 

[Cotharyus]

Thanks for the info guys Anyone got links to info on KK or Flip flight controllers? I've got no problems with building - I understand building something that will fly is a bit more precision operation than building something you drive on the ground, but I fabricated quite a bit with the crawling stuff I did.

Also, as far as controllers go, is the Spectrum still the top of the line? Is there something else I should look at that offers good performance at a significantly lower price point?

 

[Ludodg]

hello Cotharus.

Spektrum and controllers. I guess you mean Spektrum for Transmitter and receiver?
Yes nowadays, most people go to the 2.4 Ghz-digital solutions.
Allmost every brand of transmitters now runs with this. SOmetimes via a Spektrum-module in the transmitter, somtetimes with a 2.4Ghz-solution of their own brand.

I actually run a Hobbyking Orange T-six transmitter and some Orange receivers. This radio is very cheap compared with other brands and with 6 channels, it is enough to run a multicopter. The Orange-devices run the same DSM and DSM2-protocol that Spektrum uses (all though Spektrum now also runs a third kind of digital protocol: DSMX, but is still backwards compatible with DMS and DSM2)

As for controllers:

Do you mean Flight Controllers?

Flip 1.5:
http://witespyquad.gostorego.com/flip-mwc-flight-controller.html
and mucho information on http://witespyquad.gostorego.com/videos.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iry4vaE4RUY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCVN8v60FU

as for KK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_j-d2a-iUM
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2061620
http://www.rcproreviews.com/kk2-0-flight-controller-setup-and-settings/
http://flitetest.com/articles/quadcopter-build-kk2-0-initial-setup
....

and for Electronic Speed controllers:
mucho to choose from .. but you want a multicopter-ready ESC. These have some different functions as a regular or car-esc.
For starters: the Lipo-cutoff should be DISABLED. You would prefer damaging a Lipo-battery and getting the multicopter on the ground safe over crashing it from a big height just to prevent a lipo-problem.
I have heard lots of good things (performance vs price) of the Tunigy Plush series, Afro ESC series .. but there are more.
It is even possible to buy a single ESC for a quadcopter where all motors are connected to this one ESC.

 

[Cotharyus]

Thanks Ludodg, I was asking about transmitter/receivers, I suppose I should be more specific since there are so many types of controllers and modules involved in these things now. The info on the flight controllers and speed controllers won't go amiss, I'm sure I'd have gotten to some of that before too long anyhow.

I was looking at the Turnigy i6 radio from HobbyKing - that's sort of where I was going with wondering about quality, etc - the module setup there is a little confusing at first, but I think I'm catching on.

 

[cranialrectosis]

Spektrum is nice because of the Lemon Sat receiver.

Taranis is a VERY respectable transmitter and can use the little FrSky D4RII receiver.

The HK Turnigy transmitters are cheap and great for first timers but use the FlySky receivers which are HUGE and don't offer PPM. If you go with a Turnigy I suggest the 9X. The i6 is limited and you may find that frustrating when you want to set throttle ranges and such.

A LOT of folks go with the Taranis. I eventually modded my 9X to FrSky to use the D4RII but I will never have all the options the Taranis offers.

 

[Cotharyus]

You've got flying down ( I assume you've been flying it comfortably in agility mode, right?)

I want to follow up a little bit, specifically address this, and ask another couple of questions.

Up until about 24 hours before my post, no, I had not been flying in agility mode. I assumed this was something for people showing off, or that had something to prove - after all, I have no intentions of doing loops with a $3K camera hanging off the bottom of an octo, right?

Well, I *don't* have any intentions of doing loops with that rig. However, I would like to state that at this point, I *do* get why you'd want to fly in agility mode, sort of. I've even almost got the hang of it. I think my previous flying experience helped, to be sure, but I have to confess, I'm having issues getting my blending of controls right for smooth turns, and I've put the whole rig in the grass a few times trying to turn. I suspect there are three reasons for this:

1) My eyes simply aren't what they once were. I suspect it's been too long since my prescription was updated, and need to make a trip to the eye doctor. The upshot of this is, at times I find it very difficult to actually mark the angles and orientation of such a small craft to make such fine adjustments at what you might call a "safe" distance.

2) I fly on top of a hill, where there's always a little breeze, and along with it, some turbulence - this only makes things more difficult, I'll touch on it in a moment.

3) I'm completely disenchanted with the radio that came with the RTF nano. The only thing that doesn't seem to have a significant dead zone is the throttle. Everything else seems to require a fair bit of travel from center before it actually does anything. I've confirmed this with the qx sitting on the ground in a slow speed (throttle just up enough to spin the props) test to see if I was imagining it or not - I'm not - that the stick has to travel "a ways" off center before the controls seem to do anything, and then the first step seems disproportionate - as though it takes up all the slack from the dead zone to suddenly catch up with the movement, rather than coming on smoothly.

So, I can potentially fix problem 1.

Problem 2, I found an interesting solution to. The "learning to fly a multirotor" video says if you get in trouble cut the power. After turning off safe mode, the turbulence would cause the qx to wobble quite a bit, and sometimes simply fall out of the air. Fair enough - after cutting the power a few times, and scratching my head, I thought - I've got a good enough grasp of this to try to recover that, and step one is going to be more throttle, because the wobble that precedes the fall is simply to fast to catch up to and recover with the right stick. Imagine my surprise when more throttle solved the problem entirely - a little more altitude, rather than falling to the ground, but most importantly, it snapped the whole thing right out of the wobble. Interesting, I thought. So, the wind is obviously still going to play with something this light, but I'm learning to deal with it a little at a time.

Problem 3. I've asked about radios and gotten some advice. I've looked around some, and I've developed a few more questions.

I remember when 4 channel radios were IT. Then we got 5 6 and 7 channels. I had a DX7 that I used for my last heli, and my rock crawlers - dig, 4ws - we did all kinds of fun stuff with extra channels. But I see radios with as many as 18 channels now, maybe there are more than that - and I'm wondering, what are they for? Is there a reason I might need that many channels with a multirotor? The short version of this is, I think I can solve the dead-zone radio problem by going on and buying another radio to bind to the qx, but whatever I buy, I want a good radio that will serve me for any and all of the rest of my multirotors. So why so many channels? I suspect I won't need more than 5 or possibly 6, but I'm willing to be open minded about technology and why I might need more - after all, I found it's cheaper to buy more radio than you need than it is to discover you haven't got enough radio.

Thanks again for the help, you guys are golden.

 

[Craftydan]

Glad we can hlep

First off . . . have you tried binding your nanoQX to your DX7 (or did you sell that one off)? It won't bind DSMX, but it will bind and fly just fine (and beyond visual range) on DSM2. Might not be the best contorller long term (a 350 quad build would be fine, but I'd upgrade before anythign bigger), but it's still a fine radio for now.

Yes, the RTF TX is crap. It works fine for flying the nanoQx, but you've already outgrown it. That's not that unusual.


For channel count on most multirotors, it's not a big deal. For a typical quad, you'd burn 4 channels for flight control, and 1-2 for flight modes -- all set up to the taste of the pilot.

. . . so above 4-6 channels, it's all optional, but what you can do with the options:


- If you want to go gimbaled FPV, it's nice to have 2-3 channels to manually adjust the gimbals "center" attitude, so you can look up/down/left/right and lean the camera in roll.

- It's also not uncommon for the high-end camrea-ship pilots to have both a fixed view camera (cheap, for piloting) and a gimbaled camera (nice, for video capture), with the video link on a switch so the pilot can choose which camera to view . . . one more channel.

- Retracts are nice -- good to get the landing skids out of the way of the camera, but they'll probably cost you a channel


To start, if you don't have the DX7 anymore, picking up a DX5e or DX6i is dirt cheap and they'll serve you well as an intermediate radio. Consider what you want to do and as you progress and experiment with a smaller build, you'll have a better idea what you need. Picking up somehting like a DX9 or a Tarranis with a DSMX TX module may suit you well long term if you don't want the intermediate step. You can always have more channels than you need . . . but it's hard to have "too many channels".

 

[Cotharyus]

Sadly, my DX7 went away when I sold everything last time, so I'm going ground up. If I had the DX7, I would have gotten a BNF version and saved a buck or two.

So, intermediate, the DX5e is ~$60 bucks, the DX6i is $130, but the Turnigy 9x is, again, ~$60. So, it starts to look like the turnigy is the easy choice.

http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/stor..._Module_8ch_Receiver_Mode_2_v2_Firmware_.html

Unfortunately, I have no idea if that's a unit that can bind to the nano. But it certainly seems to fit the notion of a future proof radio. Any comments or suggestions on that?

 

[Craftydan]

It won't bind with the nano, but for +$30 ish you can get an Orange DSMX TX module that'll fit in the back of the 9x that will.

It's not a bad radio -- good features and capable, but a little cheaply built. If you're good with electronics, it's got some upgrades it needs to go from "meh" to "good" that might involve a little soldering and re-flashing firmware, but nothing horrible.

 

[Cotharyus]

I see. I've also dug up the Taranis as an option. It's pricier, but I haven't found much negativity directed towards it yet. I'm just trying to cover my options.

 

[Cotharyus]

Just to follow up on this a bit - I see a Taranis in my future - but for now, I've picked up a DX6i because they're basically dirt cheap, they were coming with a free receiver (helpful later, probably), I had a discount code I could use with that, it runs on 4 AA batteries, and for now "it's good enough" for what I'm doing. Additionally, at some point in the near future, I'm likely going to be acquiring a "RTF" filming rig that will come with a DX6i, and regardless of quality, that gives me two of them in case one fails, or for use buddy box style while my son is learning.

The timer being built into the transmitter is a nice touch - much easier than setting the timer on my phone - and in agility mode yesterday, after a few practice flights over the last week or so, I was able to keep the nano in the air for the full 5 minutes my timer is set for in a 12 mph gusting wind. I didn't do any fancy flying in that wind but I think it was probably sufficient that I kept it in the air. Also, it turns out that the nano is much easier to fly with a decent transmitter. It took a minute to really get the hang of making nice sweeping turns with it, but again, I think past flight experience helped. Anyhow, thanks to everyone who chimed in on this thread, hope everyone managed to get some flying in before this weather hit the US.

 

[Craftydan]

Just don't forget to click on that timer. Had a buddy recently have to replace his H3 3D gimbal (~$350) because he ran a bit too long on the flight . . . and the high end gimblas don't like to take the hard landings directly.

Not that terrible of a problem with a nano, but the bigger they are, the harder they fall . . .

 

[Cotharyus]

True words, for a fact. Flight time on the larger bird is going to be one of my biggest question marks. I'll have to keep a pretty close eye on the time and the battery for several flights to sort out how long it will stay in the air.

 

[tward]

At our weekly Sunday Bash, one of the guys mounted the small self contained camera/tx on a 180QX. It eas enough to get me hooked on FPV. That and a look thru his Fatshark goggles. The camera was $100.00 and the 180QX... well you know.