Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.
This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
First FPV quad build
#16
the fit check test plate is an awesome idea Big Grin
as for the frame it's a bit on the heavy side though Big Grin
Don't be a LOS'er, be an FPV'er :)  My Gear - Facebook - Instagram - Twitter
[-] The following 1 user Likes Oscar's post:
  • Helibus
Reply
Login to remove this ad | Register Here
#17
(09-Mar-2017, 06:53 PM)Oscar Wrote: the fit check test plate is an awesome idea Big Grin

Thanks.  IMO one should be included with any design that involves a lot of material or a long print.  My most elaborate test plate was the one included with my overhaul of the Greg's Wade extruder and 9/47 herringbone gears.  I included it here mainly due to reading so many people complaining their motors don't fit in whatever frame they printed.  

Quote:as for the frame it's a bit on the heavy side though Big Grin

Yeah, maybe.  IDK.  As I'm sure you know - 3D prints can turn out to be heavy.  I was probably hoping for something under 10 gram frame weight, but is that really much of a difference?  I'm curently quite happy with this thing. Maybe it's because I'm using Racerstar motors and not slower, lower-end motors. Mine hovers right at about 50% throttle, and has way more zip than my experience level can handle in my back yard full of trees and other obstacles.  Some day I have to get this to a park where I can experience what full throttle forward flight would be like with it.  Or a full throttle climb that can last for more than short height.  The low profile and centralized mass distribution likely don't hurt, either.  

Part of the reason why I included the openSCAD source in the release was so that people could turn the frame into what THEY wanted, whether that was something lighter or even beefier.  I even included a paragraph of comments in the openSCAD script talking about weight reduction options.  It's all a matter of what the user wants to end up with, and what compromises they're willing to make.

As a platform for a beginner experimenting with FPV, I'm finding it to be exactly what I was looking for.  The released frame design is holding up well in hitting fences, tree trunks, picnic tables, falling into rocks, etc.   About my only gripe is the quad doesn't do well in a wind, but even that is turning out better than I was expecting.

EDIT: I also think that knowing I can break this frame and replace it at essentially zero cost and be flying again in about an hour lets me fly more aggressively than if I was using a purchased frame that can take weeks to replace. There's a value there that I find hard to compare to a few grams of weight.
Kevin B.
Quads:
Custom 110mm FPV, NanoQX w/DX6i
Other: 3D printing (printer buildThingiverse), electronics, AVR microcontrollers
Reply
#18
My current flying "field".  It's pretty hard to go full throttle... Two more large trees right behind where this picture was taken - one to the left rear, and one to the right. And that's just the trees in OUR yard. But hey - I'm not complaining. Lots of good FPV training opportunities here.

[Image: 40011a.jpg]
Kevin B.
Quads:
Custom 110mm FPV, NanoQX w/DX6i
Other: 3D printing (printer buildThingiverse), electronics, AVR microcontrollers
Reply
#19
What a great build thread you have made here Helibus!

It's a shame that you had to suffer through the two completely useless releases of Cleanflight that happened with 1.14.0 and 1.14.1. You're absolutely correct in working out that 1.14.2 fixed the problems that were present in the previous releases.

Now, Cleanflight is essentially dead. Development on the 1.14 versions has been abandoned and Dominic has now released Cleanflight 2.0 which is exactly the same code as Betaflight 3.1.

When you move to a brushless build, that garden is going to feel even smaller than it does now! Big Grin
[-] The following 1 user Likes unseen's post:
  • Helibus
Reply
#20
(10-Mar-2017, 08:41 PM)unseen Wrote: What a great build thread you have made here Helibus!

Thanks! I'm thinking of encouraging Oscar to create a "wordy member" badge. You know, close, but not quite the same as "worthy".  Big Grin

Quote:It's a shame that you had to suffer through the two completely useless releases of Cleanflight that happened with 1.14.0 and 1.14.1. You're absolutely correct in working out that 1.14.2 fixed the problems that were present in the previous releases.

Thankfully I was gun-shy about upgrading CF from the pre-release 1.12.0 that came installed on the board, and learned about the 1.14.0 fiasco beforehand.  I luckily jumped right to 1.14.2.  This has just been yet another endeavor that I had to spend a lot more time researching stuff than I expected.  

Quote:Now, Cleanflight is essentially dead. Development on the 1.14 versions has been abandoned and Dominic has now released Cleanflight 2.0 which is exactly the same code as Betaflight 3.1.

I've gathered that about CF.  I've already received another Scisky board for another build, but that one is based on the Evo design instead of Naze and has an STM32 F3 on it.  That board came with Betaflight on it, so I'll probably be moving this first board to betaflight as well once I get familiar with it.   

Quote:When you move to a brushless build, that garden is going to feel even smaller than it does now! Big Grin

Yeah, when I'd test the 130x or especially the 300x heli in the yard after a repair, I joked about going to the "hover park" for testing. That's probably why I'm having such a blast zipping the micro back and forth along that long length - it's something I couldn't dare do before.  I've probably only done about a dozen flights in goggle FPV mode, and can sure see it being addictive.
Kevin B.
Quads:
Custom 110mm FPV, NanoQX w/DX6i
Other: 3D printing (printer buildThingiverse), electronics, AVR microcontrollers
Reply
#21
UPDATE: Still quite pleased with this frame. I've been banging into tree trunks & branches, the deck, the fence, the grill, and everything else shown in the picture of the yard as I practice new things. I think I've been hung up in every one of the trees and bushes at least once as well. I've been through a number of props and bands for the battery, but I'm still on same frame. The band-mount for the AIO works well - if the AIO antenna hits something, it just rotates back until the roll bar can take the brunt of the impact. The AIO doesn't always upright itself after the impact, but that's no big deal. I think going for the polycarbonate rollbar was a good idea. For the weight, it provides phenomenal strength.
Kevin B.
Quads:
Custom 110mm FPV, NanoQX w/DX6i
Other: 3D printing (printer buildThingiverse), electronics, AVR microcontrollers
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Build Armattan Tadpole 3" 2-3S Build brettbrandon 39 2,277 5 hours ago
Last Post: brettbrandon
  Build GEPRC SMART Walksnail 2.5 Inch Toothpick build Cyberess 28 758 26-Mar-2024, 10:21 AM
Last Post: hugnosed_bat
  Build Low profile 3 inch prototype quad design ph2t 24 692 11-Mar-2024, 03:53 PM
Last Post: skywanderer
  Help 3 inch toothpick build is EXTREMELY sensitive! swequad 20 637 01-Mar-2024, 04:03 PM
Last Post: swequad
  Advice for sub 250 3" 03 Air build B4tn 5 159 14-Feb-2024, 02:48 PM
Last Post: skywanderer


Login to remove this ad | Register Here