The square cube law is a real big pain. Scaling up aircraft makes them more delicate, and in the case of quadcopters, rigidity matters more. Rigid typically also means fragile.
The counter answer to that, is going simple. Dead simple. Like a single plate of 3mm fiberglass simple. ... Like this.
That's a HK Maltese.. more or less, built upside down. More than half the time I think I'm smarter than the designer of something. so my plan was to put the battery under the flight controller. (a KK 5.5 board in this case. That's.. another story..) So I put the short standoffs under the frame, and the long ones on top.
I flew it a couple times like that. Discovering just how difficult life is with a KK 5.5.
Oh, the sins I committed building this thing. My intent was to fly it a bit, and reuse everything. So I didn't trim most of the wires.
Ugh. Embarrassing. But still, it flew. But not well, that may be part to blame on the puffed 850 2s packs fault.... And some blame may be on not getting the gyros settled on the KK 5.5, and was essentially flying the thing without gyros. I do not recommend this...
Here's my full review of the KK 5.5 board: http://realtinker.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-kk-55-board-five-point-five-you-say.html
When I ordered the QFO, I decided that the Maltese was going to be a permanent feature of my stable. I sat down, and did everything right.
I did a proper warpquad wiring job of the power harness, and stuffed that under the Naze32. Did I mention I ditched the KK? I ditched the KK board. In the interim, I bought a sprung FCS carrier from HK. I didn't like how it worked. But the FCS mount board ended up being just the right size to go where the KK 5.5 was.
I moved the speed controls to the tops of the arms, and now strap the battery under the airframe. Taking a cue from the warpquad people, I use the battery as the landing gear.
As long as it's on 3 cells, it flys quite well. On 2 cells it's.. not a very happy quad. What it needs next? is a 9gram FPV rig.
For a $9 frame.. I'm pretty happy. It's a lot easier to build than the QFO. And easier than the X-Factor.
The counter answer to that, is going simple. Dead simple. Like a single plate of 3mm fiberglass simple. ... Like this.
That's a HK Maltese.. more or less, built upside down. More than half the time I think I'm smarter than the designer of something. so my plan was to put the battery under the flight controller. (a KK 5.5 board in this case. That's.. another story..) So I put the short standoffs under the frame, and the long ones on top.
I flew it a couple times like that. Discovering just how difficult life is with a KK 5.5.
Oh, the sins I committed building this thing. My intent was to fly it a bit, and reuse everything. So I didn't trim most of the wires.
Ugh. Embarrassing. But still, it flew. But not well, that may be part to blame on the puffed 850 2s packs fault.... And some blame may be on not getting the gyros settled on the KK 5.5, and was essentially flying the thing without gyros. I do not recommend this...
Here's my full review of the KK 5.5 board: http://realtinker.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-kk-55-board-five-point-five-you-say.html
When I ordered the QFO, I decided that the Maltese was going to be a permanent feature of my stable. I sat down, and did everything right.
I did a proper warpquad wiring job of the power harness, and stuffed that under the Naze32. Did I mention I ditched the KK? I ditched the KK board. In the interim, I bought a sprung FCS carrier from HK. I didn't like how it worked. But the FCS mount board ended up being just the right size to go where the KK 5.5 was.
I moved the speed controls to the tops of the arms, and now strap the battery under the airframe. Taking a cue from the warpquad people, I use the battery as the landing gear.
As long as it's on 3 cells, it flys quite well. On 2 cells it's.. not a very happy quad. What it needs next? is a 9gram FPV rig.
For a $9 frame.. I'm pretty happy. It's a lot easier to build than the QFO. And easier than the X-Factor.
