Hi all,

Been in RC for a long time but have never built a quad yet. Pretty sure I want to do a 5" focused on freestyle FPV and some air-to-air footage of other RC aircraft.

Have been doing a lot of reading and Youtubing, so I have a basic understanding (or at least I think I do) of what will be involved.

I'm really tempted by the following components and am wondering if I couldn't make them the core of my build?

- Lumenier Asgard AIO FC/ESC/PDB/OSD/etc
- Runcam Split
- QAV-X frame

Combined with a 200mw VTX and some lightweight motors, it seems like the above could make for a pretty compact and lightweight build?

With that said, I know the Asgard has had some QA issues, and the Runcam Split has relatively high latency, and the QAV-X is kind of dated now and is a potentially cramped build (and maybe doesn't protect the FPV camera too well?)

But, am I on the right track? Anyone have other suggestions to consider? Budget isn't super critical, I'm pretty sure I can build something very cool for $500 or less.

I already have a suitable Spektrum radio and Fat Shark Aviator goggles (which still work great) with 5.8ghz vrx. And a bit of fixed wing FPV experience.

I've used the Realacc 210x on my first build (a clone of the QAV-X from what I can tell) and it was a great frame! Camera protection could be a little better but honestly I think its a great match for the Split because it brings the camera up a little higher than normal and because the lens protrudes from the front a little you don't end up with the frame in.. well, frame (still get some props though).

I've also been using the split, and absolutely love it, minus the fact that it adds another board to my already pretty tall stack (it was a difficult build to make everything fit). But using the Asgard AIO essentially solves that problem.

I think you're off to a great first quad build, but am interested to see what others think. My next build will include some type of AIO also.

Thanks for the reply. I don't mind having the props in view and actually would enjoy it. Good for orientation and definitely lets people know it's a FPV quad (in case it wasn't obvious from the tricks).

If I'm not mistaken, the only stuff I'd have to accommodate within the frame would be the Asgard, Split board, and VTX?

It seems like that could fit OK, and it would be awesome for mass centralization, but I wonder if it wouldn't throw the QAV-X balance off a bit, since it was basically designed around having an action cam strapped on top? Maybe make it a bit bottom-biased, in the vertical CG sense?

Hey surfimp. I'd love to see that build! (And after watching your other videos, can't wait to see some footage.) I have a couple of thoughts - not really suggestions.

I've got one of the RC Splits on the way. From everything I've read, I've decided I will power mine with an external voltage regulator instead of using an onboard source for power. If you decide to do that, you'll need to add a small regulator to your build (cheap and lightweight and can stick them anywhere).

The other thought has to do with the AIO FC. My only problem with that much on one board is the ESCs. I've got one quad with a separate 4-in-1 ESC, and although I haven't had trouble with it (yet), it's always in the back of my mind that one of them could go at any time, especially with all of the crashing I do. (Get one motor hung up on a branch and not get off of the throttle in time, etc.) . Hasn't happened yet, but it's on my mind when I fly that quad - and although I have another 4-in-1 in the parts bin, I haven't built anything with it. My current build uses a Betaflight F3 FC (which is AIO except for the ESCs), and my stack height will be the same as yours except I'll have ESCs on the arms (where they are easily accessible and individually replaceable).

Anyway, like I said - just thoughts. Can't wait to see the results of your build!

Another element that it doesn't have that you'll need to find a place for is the receiver. It's a part that I tend to struggle finding just the right spot for in my builds all the time and generally have taken to just strapping it to the top plate. It doesn't go directly into the flight stack but I do mention it because it may take up some of your internal space.

In general these days my flight stacks have 2 boards in them. FC/PDB combo and a VTX. This will probably be part of my standard build which I am getting closer and closer to defining for myself. So my stack is about as short as what you're talking about, and most frames would still have room above to squeeze a receiver in there somewhere depending on how you want to hold the thing in.

Unfortunately I don't have any experience with the QAV frames so I can't comment on that specific frame past the fact that I have a buddy who uses it as his standard frame for all of his builds these days and loves them.

I'll make a few comments on your proposed build if I may Steve.

The QAV-X is a good frame. Go for the 4mm arms seeing as it's your first quad. You will be crashing it and some extra strength is always a good idea for a first frame.

I'd also advise you to have a look at http://www.armattanquads.com/ They have some truly excellent frames and many of them come with a lifetime warranty. If you break it, send them a picture of the wreckage and they'll send you replacement parts! Camera protection on the Armattan Chameleon is as complete as you could get and the battery is mounted on top of the frame for better protection.

Don't worry about balance on the QAV-X or any other frame. Whether there's an action cam on top or not is irrelevant to the flight controller. Quads are very different to fixed wing craft and the flight controller can compensate for any balance issues on any axis. Obviously one shouldn't take that to extremes as it will make some motors work harder than others to maintain the craft's attitude, but having an exact CG is not required for a multirotor.

The Runcam Split does have about 10 to 15 milliseconds more latency than a pure FPV camera, but unless you're the next FPV racing star, you are unlikely to notice.

The Asgard (designed and made by Airbot) is a risk for a first build. One danger when crashing is not disarming the motors swiftly enough. If the flight controller is still trying to spin the motors but the propellers are prevented from moving, the ESCs can be destroyed due to the huge current flow that is generated in a stalled motor. With the Asgard, you now have a very expensive door stop if you blow up one of the onboard ESCs. I'd counsel you to look at a flight controller with separate ESCs.

(07-Sep-2017, 10:41 AM)unseen Wrote: ... I'd counsel you to look at a flight controller with separate ESCs.

 To back up the separate ESCs idea... having 4 separate ESCs on the arms is not really much more complicated for the build than all-in-one ESCs anyway and will keep your flight stack low if that is still your goal. Another thing I ran into with all in one ESCs before was my motor wires weren't long enough to reach the pads anyway and I had to solder extra wires together. As a result I did just as much solder work (with as many failure points) as I would have if I had ESCs on the arms.

(07-Sep-2017, 09:46 AM)surfimp Wrote: It seems like that could fit OK, and it would be awesome for mass centralization, but I wonder if it wouldn't throw the QAV-X balance off a bit, since it was basically designed around having an action cam strapped on top?

Without the action cam on top, you can easily move the battery to get good COG, as it's the biggest piece of mass. Even though as unseen mentions it's not as important as in planes.

Regarding the all-in-one, you also have to consider that might generate a lot of heat in a very small space. I wouldn't recommend it for a first build, as there can be some traps like adjusting PIDs and filters which can possibly result in things heating up quickly.

Thanks guys! I've given consideration to some of the downsides you're mentioning, too - especially heat. I suspect keeping the FC and ESC bits separate for a first build will potentially aide my sanity in the event I've got to debug any glitches or problems. And perhaps save a bit of space in the build, too!

I've considered the Armattan Chameleon as well, though it sounds like that's a bit of a tight build as well. I do like the idea of the battery on top instead of serving as the landing gear, and the camera protection is of course excellent

As for latency on the Split, I'm certainly not the next FPV racing star (don't have the racing gene), though my innate proclivities for flying close to the ground will probably benefit from as low of latency as possible.

Good food for thought and advice to help a newb - exactly what I was looking for. Thank you all!

Steve

Even though the stack height in the Chameleon is more restricted than the QAV-X, there's probably at least as much room for electronics, if not more, as there's plenty of room behind the stack for the receiver and video transmitter. There's also some room between the camera and the stack - in my case, the beeper is installed there.

I'm sure that once you've got the bug, the QAV-X won't be the only quad you ever build, so there will be plenty of time for other frames!

In fact, having more than one is probably an essential as it's incredibly boring to have your day out cut short by breaking the only quad that you have.

What rx will you be using? I got spektrum too, and the lemon diversity sats w/ long antennas worked well for me - they're also small & cheap.

Anyway i'd recommend one that works for serial 11ms connection.

Thanks again for the great feedback.

@unseen: the Chameleon's unibody 4mm frame appeals to me (one of the same reasons I like the QAV-X) and the extra length will surely help ease the build a bit. It looks pretty cool, too. I'm sure I'll wind up with at least a few quads, heck I've got literally dozens of gliders

@fftunes: I was planning to use the Spektrum quad race serial receiver: https://www.spektrumrc.com/Products/Defa...ID=SPM4648

That's a good receiver if you have a Spektrum radio. I used the same Lemon RX satellites as fftunes previously as Spektrum didn't have an equivalent receiver at the time.

These days I've moved on to FrSky receivers as the telemetry functions that they provide in a very small receiver is invaluable. For the radio, I use Walkera Devo radios running DeviationTX firmware.

It appears this Spektrum RX has telemetry too:
https://www.spektrumrc.com/Products/Defa...D=SPM4649T

I am using a DX6e which I actually really like quite a bit. It's inexpensive and quite capable for what I do. Have owned high end radios from JR (11x) and Multiplex (Profi 4000) and prefer my cheap and cheerful DX6e. It provides basic telemetry alarms which, combined with an OSD, should hopefully be sufficient to help prevent wrecking my batteries and/or quad through over discharge.

Indulge me... at first glance, going with Betaflight seems the obvious choice. Should I be considering KISS at all?

(07-Sep-2017, 09:50 PM)surfimp Wrote: It appears this Spektrum RX has telemetry too:
https://www.spektrumrc.com/Products/Defa...D=SPM4649T

I am using a DX6e which I actually really like quite a bit. It's inexpensive and quite capable for what I do. Have owned high end radios from JR (11x) and Multiplex (Profi 4000) and prefer my cheap and cheerful DX6e. It provides basic telemetry alarms which, combined with an OSD, should hopefully be sufficient to help prevent wrecking my batteries and/or quad through over discharge.

Indulge me... at first glance, going with Betaflight seems the obvious choice. Should I be considering KISS at all?

I haven't tried that receiver myself - again because it wasn't available before I made the switch to FrSky stuff - but from what I've heard, it's a very good receiver if you already have a telemetry capable Spektrum radio.

I've not tried KISS. I run Betaflight on all my quads (except for one or two which are on old versions of Cleanflight and as they fly just fine, there's no reason to change anything). On my big Tarot Iron Man, I run Arducopter on a Pixhawk as Betaflight has no meaningful support for GPS, altitude hold and the autonomous functionality that you'd want on a flying video platform.

Both Betaflight and Arducopter are open source and run on open or easily available hardware. KISS is closed source and only runs on Flyduino's hardware. I'm sure KISS is very good at what it is designed for, but as a programmer myself, I want the ability to get into the source code if needed.