Since I fly RC airplanes I have a lot of friends allowing (or asking) me to chase their airplanes. Everyone loves to see their own airplane from the goggles POV. It is fun but when we get to the big expensive stuff my offer to fix any damage I cause falls flat and I just say no. So I am becoming interested in owning a Cine style quad with prop guards. The bigger 3.5" ones like the AOS Cine35 EVO and GepRC CineLog 35 look like the best choice for speed and acro. Does anyone here have experience with these or similar designs?
FWIW the older GepRC Cinelog frames were 103-105g and the new V2 or AOS frames are 130 something. The AOS frame is expensive and probably more fragile.

Uufhh, that would be freaky xD trying to film airplanes on a huge cinewhoop xD

a cinewhoop is much slower, the design is thought for a slowflyer. The prop guards or ducts makes everything worse for acrobatics or on higher speed, the ones you speak about are more heavy than a lightweight 5inch quad with gopro (open prop) but on speed the mass of a more heavy cinewhoop might be more dangerous in a midair.

I would suggest to choose something woth tve best handling on low weight, 3,5inch or 4inch sub250 would be controllable on higher speeds and much less danger in a crash. nacked gopro on top, good handling and the rest is up to you ;-)


i believe its just no perfect match between quad and airplane. high chance for contact would make the footage special, it might be a gamble... insurance maybe?

after funraces we often launched a trashwing, the quad which was able to crash the wing out of the way did win :-) but that did only work by many quads, planes arent beatable on straightline and therefor not in range either. alot quads and the limitation of airspace does allow that.

maybe the best option to stay a bit saver but get a unique footage might be by a 3d cam quad or airplane. just fly next to it and choose a nice focus later on the pc.

Yes, I have experience of Cine Whoops (none of them good enough to recommend, really!) also I have done a LOT of close formation RC flying, though over the years far more plane to plane than involving quads (I'm a RC show/event ex-demo team pilot with more than 50 years experience)

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you are suggesting doing the equivalent to buying a jacked up 4x4 jeep and then expecting it to be smooth, fast and corner well when following a sports car.

It won't.

Bottom Line - If you are not a good enough pilot and/or your target plane pilot is not skilled enough to accurately control the flight to safely avoid contact, then you should not be attempting formation flight. Most display pilots run with a spotter all the time, FPV or not.

Flying ducted prop is not a controlling factor nor the solution.

Thanks guys! I understand what you are saying, what I propose is not really feasible with Cinewhoop type quads. Maybe I will have to try one of my EDF jets with a head tracker camera for this type of fun. Or build the ReadymadeRC Goblin pusher I bought 5 years ago...

FWIW I have also had fun chasing EPP combat wings with 5" racers where contact is not a big deal. But it is wild and wooly!
For formation flying I have found that the skill of the airplane pilot is key to getting good footage, if they are smooth and steady, predictable, and I can keep up, it is easy, if they are herky jerky or have poor throttle control, I give up! It is the same flying LOS formation or combat with airplanes BTW. And I have done a lot of LOS formation flying with my turbine warbirds. FPV formation flying is much closer to real formation flying (I was USAF) and it is a total blast. But if the airplane has any real speed they can get away from you quick.
There are a lot of guys flying FPV airplanes at my local field, but they are mostly into really boring long range flying, LOL. I have no interest in that I prefer an aerobatic quad

I've just picked up a 3" Cinewhoop. No idea how it will handle or how well or fast it will fly. I'll let you know once I have it operational.

But as for fast enough to chase a plane, I don't think possible. Only a big open prop is going to have the speed.

You should buy a frame and build one. I'm going with a Cloud 149, but there are other options. But I see it as more of a fly through forests type craft, than a chase craft. Mine will be running 2004 motors, but I think i will downgrade to 1507 or something more sane. Anyway, just a thought.

Oh it's a fun thought! I think a cinewhoop in its element could be a lot of fun. I have a Flywoo GOKU GN722 40A BL_S AIO 20x20 FC which would be perfect for a sub 250g 2 1/2" cinewhoop like the Hurricane 2.5 (CNC Madness) with Walksnail.

One thing I see a lot on CNCMadness is a frame like this one will have options for "analog, digital, or DJI 03 compatible" but then no explanation. I don't know the difference. At least with the Hurricane 2.5 it is well documented, with printed part files, etc. and he does say the digital version has two sets of 25.5 and 20mm holes. So I can mount the FC on the 20's and my Walksnail on the second set of holes. This FC is not a whoop style.

I know one very well done video of a buddy; jet with impeller, landing rudders out during the whole flight and another was filming with a 6inch quad.
A video from start to landing.

I belive you still fly 6inch?
6inch might be the sweetspot between higher average spwed than a five inch but still enough rotorresponse to be able to handle the quad close to a plane.

6inch will cause damage easy but mightbbe also the most promising for the bestbpossible footage

Agreed. My 5" and 6" quads are pretty fast. Good enough to keep up with most prop planes. Not turbine jet fast but fast for quads.

I decided to get a Hurricane 2.5 frame from CNCDrones. Im going to make it as fast and aerobic as I can, LOL
To that end I’d appreciate some motor recommendations. Sooo, the quad will be about 160g, without a go pro. The designer recommended 1404 motors, Xnova is a brand that I know from RC helis. They have a good price, i think 3800 or 4800 kv. @recursion compared the Tmotor F1404 3800. Light and powerful. There is also a build on Rotorbuilds that used Tmotor 1604’s around 3800 kv and he is liking the power of those. I am thinking a sweet spot might be the Brother Hobby 1504.5 3950 kv that I put on my Carnage 3.5 freestyle build, they are smoooth, it goes good. The top end power might help but its 10 g heavier for a set. So a 1404 is around 10g and the bigger motors are closer to 12. I guess i want this thing to fly like a big whoop on 3-5 blade props. It’s a puller too. Tmount motors 9 or 12 will work. What do you guys think?

Are you still planning to chase planes with it? 2.5" is pretty small prop size, you would have better top end with a larger prop.
If you are just looking for a very aerobatic cinewhoop, maybe consider OddityRC. It seems Nick Burns quite likes their 2 inch version, and they have a larger 2.5" that runs 1405 motors. Or maybe the Betafpv Pavo 25v2 with 1506 motors, the ELRS kit (no VTX) is on Ali sale for $150. But I don't think a 5 blade prop would fly very fast.

No not going to try to chase planes with a cinewhoop. I have everything i need to build this Hurricane 2.5 except for the motors. Ive been looking at it and again, not many people are trying to make acrobatic cinewoops, but I don’t want it to be underpowered, i want it to be fairly quick and agile but able to bounce off objects if flying in tight spaces, around trees, vehicles, etc. I’m not going into business filming home interiors or anything.

I decided to order a set of XING 1404 3800 kv motors. The brand got nice reviews for their 1504 motor. I will save 10g over a set of BH 1504.5 3950 or Tmotor 1604 3800 but more than that the quad was designed around 1404 3800 Tmotors and the designer has tunes for that size motor. It looks like a lot of the difference in weight between 1404/1504/1604 motors is due to the mounting plate going from 9x9 to 12x12. But the difference in power output can be considerable when a light 1604 motor uses 9x9 mounting and my researching leads me to believe too much power in this heavy draggy frame might not handle too well. The designer has some vids flying fast and doing acro on 3s so what the heck, 4s should take me to my comfort limit in tight spaces around objects.

It'll be interesting to see how it flies, but I'd be cautious 2mm is pretty thin for CF, and when made into thin round hoops they may be too fragile for aerobatic flying or should I say aerobatic crashing. Most of the modern whoops have whoop guards that offer some flex and are also replacable separate from the frame, with that CF frame looks like you will have to replace the whole frame (top and bottom plate) if you break a single duct.

If you go with 1404 motors, I would recommend T-motors. They always finish at the top of any shootout in performance+effeciency, and my favorites for 3.5" builds. I also have the iFlight 1504 motors, smooth and beefy bells, zero magnet notchiess. They were ok, a little heavy but I didn't really feel the extra power on my set and despite the thick bell, still destroyed one in a tumble over concrete.
The Xing 1404 feel notchier than their bigger brother, I have a set of 4800kvs that came on a iflight 2.5" whoop. They seem ok, but haven't flown it much.

I'll find out. I ordered the XING2 motors yesterday. FWIW CNCDrones offers the frame in 1.5mm or 2.0mm. I got the latter. Thin but I couldn't imagine it in 1.5mm. I'm hoping the minimalist CF frame will fly better and that I don't crash it or break it right away, LOL. Plus CF can be repaired pretty easily... Mostly I just like the way those CF frames and the XING Unibell look. It's a bit vain...