10 min?!!?? I'm using the same pack same brand even and I'm not getting anywhere near 10 min. Maybe 7 min but I'd think I'd be at damaging the lipo that point. Wow Kaity awesome build getting 10 min even with that bulky VTX!!

I did design this to be a top mounted lipo. I looked into expanding the gap between the arms so you can use the 16mm lipo strap for bottom mounted but it was getting too tricky. I was going to revisit it after you mentioned you were going bottom mounted. I'm curious why you think it doesn't fly well bottom mounted? Is it too much momentum from the bottom for a light build (feels really "swingy")?

(31-May-2021, 05:39 PM)the.ronin Wrote: 10 min?!!??  I'm using the same pack same brand even and I'm not getting anywhere near 10 min.  Maybe 7 min but I'd think I'd be at damaging the lipo that point.  Wow Kaity awesome build getting 10 min even with that bulky VTX!!

I did design this to be a top mounted lipo.  I looked into expanding the gap between the arms so you can use the 16mm lipo strap for bottom mounted but it was getting too tricky.  I was going to revisit it after you mentioned you were going bottom mounted.  I'm curious why you think it doesn't fly well bottom mounted?  Is it too much momentum from the bottom for a light build (feels really "swingy")?

The pack I am using are newish.  Still no GPS installed, but I would guess my speeds are likely around 45-55 kph.  I can drain the pack in about 5 minutes when I start to push things...but that is still a few minutes better than when I push The Japalura.  The 10 minute mark is only a minute less than the same pack on the Explorer...but The Ninja is way funner to fly!  It is responsive enough that I can kind of just aim it and go.

Kind of wants to slide out more with the pack weight below the motors.  I am used to belly packs, I find myself sliding into things and it feels like I have to keep the throttle spun up more with the battery below on this one.  It feels more locked in when the pack is on top.  I could likely create a tune that would be better for the lower CG...might have to work on that.  It really is not that it does not fly well, it is more BF429's stock tune is "off".  There is a setup where it will work...just have to find it.

This is not a complaint!   I truly feel this is the funnest build I have right now and I am loving putting pack after pack through it.  Supper steady, even in the lake induced turbulence here.  It is robust enough for my abuses as well.  It has really only taken one rough tumble, but many little rolls and such in the tall weeds.

LOL, when I set up the VTX POWER on S2, forgot to include a fourth zone so I have only 25-100-400 at the moment.  Still works fine though, nice to be able to switch the VTX power while in flight.  

I will eventually try out LiION cells, but for now I am truly enjoying LIPO performance!



So for now, no GPS keeps me under 250g with my favorite packs...

you have a nice antenna mounted, but you would be able to save som weight by another one :-) adding a 5g gps and still under 250g

GPS and MAG are installed.  GPS works wonderfully. the MAG is too close to stuff and it is not pretty.  I believe it is oriented 90 degrees out, so had to add 270 degrees.  It points in the general direction I expect, but drifts.  This is nowhere near final in the install.  Just wanted to get it attached and functional for the moment.



There is a ton of extra wiring that can be trimmed and no other attempts to trim the craft's weight down have been made.  I can shave likely 5 grams without thinking about it and if I offer the solution a little time, another 5 grams should be possible.

If you can mount the GPS to the strap on top of the battery with a bit of shielding under it, I think that might be easiest! Otherwise, a 3D printed holder attached to the rear standoffs would be a good option too. You could even use a piece of hard plastic like iFly does for a cheap, lightweight mount!

(05-Jun-2021, 06:11 PM)V-22 Wrote: If you can mount the GPS to the strap on top of the battery with a bit of shielding under it, I think that might be easiest! Otherwise, a 3D printed holder attached to the rear standoffs would be a good option too. You could even use a piece of hard plastic like iFly does for a cheap, lightweight mount!

The rear mounted option will likely be the way it ends up.  I have some carbon scrap here that I could shape and there is plenty of wire available for mounting out on a boom.  The GPS locked 14 sats in under a minute, so not too concerned with shadowing.  The issue is actually the MAG being so close to ferrous material and electrical influences.  It is bad enough that INAV will not be able to use the data bits it provides...too erratic at the moment.

Just flew out a pack and netted 4 kilometers of endurance with a bunch of squirrel in the yard gaps.  This is the funnest quad I have at the moment!

I am still on BetaFlight flight and am flying a few packs a day on the build. The frame is holding up splendidly! No refinements so far, too stuck on busy right now. Just getting in flight time has been rough...but it is so calming to me.

Have settled on the 4S-850mah packs as the best so far.

Hey , I've really enjoyed both my tbs pro32nano and my immersion tramp nano. Both of them seem pretty bulletproof and will save you a few more grams. This is a wonderful build. I can't wait to see distances you can travel with it...and maybe some smo4k or gopro lite footage as well ?

So far I have managed a few flights out to about 2km around my home with 6km+ endurance distance. Likely will never mess with any of the HD cameras as there is no way to stay within the weigh constraints...and the FAA is really starting to scrutinize those videos. Just do not need that level of focus.

I confess that I have an issue...many times I can start a flight with the intent of distance only to find myself obsessed with having fun with some "obstacle" that my craft crosses path with. I can still get some impressive efficiency. I am waiting till we are on our new property to start pushing things yet.

I'm guilty as well with the FPV ADD. Squirrels are the worse. I'll chase em forever lol.

Hmmm any reason you would say that about the FAA scrutinizing viodeos more these days? I've been out of the loop lately not sure if anything happened in youtubelandia.

Been absent for a while, but still finding time to fly.  Updated The Ninja with a new camera, the T-Rex is a nice one!  Wonderful picture and ok low light...but not low light like the Cat2.  Still, I like it better for flying around the property.

I installed the Flywoo Goku G8M-5883 V1 GPS module and it is working well.  I am running INAV 3.0.2 and it seems to be pretty decent.  Not using too many of the navigation features yet, but ALTHOLD and POSHOLD are nice when I need a break for a few minutes

Hope everyone is doing well! 

Good to see ya around Kaity! The T-Rex is awesome. Personally, I can really see the added detail of the 1500tvl. Would be sick if they came out with a 1500tvl Cat or Toothless.

it wont be the tvl you can see, analog transmission does only provide 600tvl, only an onboard dvr would display the true resolution.
it might be better somewhere else too :-)

There has got to be something .... I realize that the VTX transmission is "only" 600 TVL from what everyone says...
However, I can tell the difference between a 600 TVL camera and a 1200 TVL camera in my FVP view.
Now, whether it is due to TVL or some other "better" characteristic of the camera...that I don't know,
but the cameras rated at 1200 TVL are clearer in my view.

You know, the expedient way to improve analog FPV would be to make VTXs that can transmit in higher TVL;
maybe up to 1500 TVL...OR...a firmware compression to allow the better video to be transmitted to the goggles.

Technically PAL system is limited to 625 lines whereas NTSC is limited to 525 lines. These standards are not strictly followed by most FPV products but there is no way this is being doubled up because it means a change has to be made at both the camera end and the vtx end for the individual protocols.

Most cameras with higher TVL usually have an more latency which may indicate that even if the camera sensor is acquiring more TVL lines of image/light data, there is some processing going on in the camera to produce the final output analog signal in the supported PAL/NTSC TVL size that will be transmitted.

Some cameras also have a better quality or larger lens which captures more image/light which results in a better image being transmitted.

But often at times I see manufacturers claiming higher TVL on cameras with the same sensor size and same lens size as other lower TVL cameras.

So there are multiple factors at play here and its hard to actually nail down what is causing a better image and whether its a good thing from a perspective of image quality/latency.

I definitely see a better image in my higher TVL cameras but I do notice the slight degrade in latency when I fly back to back with lower TVL cameras.

Example if I fly my Mobula 6 with a Runcam Nano2 700TVL camera back to back with my 1s BabyTooth that has a Caddx Ant 1200TVL. The Caddx Ant has a much better image but suffers in latency compared to the Runcam Nano.