By the way,

I have just (2023-10-03) ordered a Spektrum SkyID for $69 USD, 
so we will see how long it takes to get here.

(04-Oct-2023, 09:03 PM)iFly4rotors Wrote: By the way,

I have just (2023-10-03) ordered a Spektrum SkyID for $69 USD, 
so we will see how long it takes to get here.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Hi Lemony,

I am also working on the Flight Test FT EZ ID, however, it is not in stock at Flight Test Store.
That said, I am trying to get one. I have added it to my Flight Test Wish List (2023-10-5)
and requested email notification when these are back in stock.

Later, My Good Friend, iFly  

(05-Oct-2023, 11:35 AM)iFly4rotors Wrote: I am also working on the Flight Test FT EZ ID, however, it is not in stock at Flight Test Store.
That said, I am trying to get one. I have added it to my Flight Test Wish List (2023-10-5)
and requested email notification when these are back in stock.

Maybe you want to consider one of the Dronetag BS modules instead. They don't seem to broadcast the required data too well, which is exactly what you want See Ken's video in the following post...

https://intofpv.com/t-dronetag-bs-remote...#pid206787

Hi Snow,

Thanks for the information.

Actually, I DO want the module to Broadcast well. In fact, I would like for it to broadcast
the maximum range which is typically less than 1K, but could be longer if conditions are
right. I want it to work precisely how it is intended. 

Once I get it installed and start flying again, I want to see if anyone even notices, cares,
gets an app, snags the information, and (ultimately) approaches me. I want to see for
myself. I am betting that no one even snags the RID broadcast, much less approaches
me about it. I want to be able to report my "real world" account of my experiences
with Remote ID. 

The Flight Test FT EZ ID only weighs 10 grams (with a GPS receiver) and the board
has 20x20 mounting, plus there is a box available. The Spektrum SkyID weighs a bit 
more being 14 grams which might be about the same as the FT EZ ID when it is in 
a box. Not that I need to, I want to mount the FT EZ ID onto a tiny whoop just to
see the feasibility of doing so. Hey, if an HD system can be fitted to a small whoop,
then why would a RID module not be feasible. 

Besides, this will allow me to resurrect my Rescue Quad and to finish the BEAST build.
 
Once I get everything collected and get the Rescue Quad out, then I will start a 
REMOTE ID thread somewhere in order to document the process and my experiences.

Later, My Friend, iFly  

2023-10-21 Remote ID Update

2023-10-03 I order the Spektrum SkyID remote ID module.
2023-10-21 I am still waiting. I expect it to arrive in December 2023.

2023-10-07 I ordered the Flight Test FT EZ ID remote ID module.
2023-10-12 I received the above module. 

===============:

2023-12-21 Remote ID Update

2023-11-29 I received Holy Stone Remote ID module (from Amazon).

2023-12-10 (more or less) I received the SkyID remote ID module.

I now have 3 different Remote ID modules which I will add to my
Recreational Registration. 


 

Good Fly Modes (0001


What is going on here?     Post #11

Which remote works with this drone?     Post #52

2024-01-02  Enter the New Year  2024  

Here we go; my plans and goals for the upcoming year has many things 
coming together. I should be finishing the house building project which will
allow me time for my FPV (drone) hobby. It will be a year for building new
quads and finishing all currently unfinished builds. Basically, clean up and
moving forward. During the past year, I have taken time to reflect on many
things and have even had an epiphany (or two). So let me continue with
an outline of how I see my self fitting into things, what I want to do, and
how I want to move forward as follows, but not necessarily in order:

1)  Build a quad based on my DIY all aluminum "X" frame design.

2)  Finish all of my currently unfinished BUILDs.

3)  Get back to actually flying my quads. 

4)  Get my BNF 3" Darwin BabyApe (add receiver) in the air.

5)  Install, test, try, and evaluate my Remote ID modules.

6)  Fly more in ACRO mode, experiment, and document my experience.

7)  Read the new 2023 FAA Reauthorization act and FAA regulations.
     I want to keep up with and understand (to the best of my ability)
     the regulations and how to comply; how to truly and legitimately
     have flights that qualify for the Recreational Exemption. 

8)  Update my Parts Guide and my Sub-250 Build Methodology.

9)  Update my DIY Frames thread and work on filling things in.
     I want to create a few more graphics, explain more things,
     actually cut and build example quads, and just offer as much
     as I can for those interesting in making "simple" DIY frames.

10) Renew my focus on sub-250 gram, FAA category 1, UAS (drones).

11) Resume and continue my research and experimentation in the 
      area of endurance craft which includes, but is not limited to,
      battery evaluations and propulsion packages.

12) Help and assist others when and where I can. 

Did it ever crossed your mind to fly a 5"?

<spam links removed>

(01-Feb-2024, 07:42 PM)domidunas Wrote: Did it ever crossed your mind to fly a 5"?

Hi Domidunas,

Yes.  I have built two 5" quads and one 7" quad. I lost both of the 5" ones.
I still have the 7 inch, but right now I don't have a location to fly it and 
nothing to rescue. 

The funny thing is that I can't really tell the difference when I am flying regardless 
of the size. Except for the amount of throttle needed and the airspace that is covered, 
the view from my 2.5" GEPRC Phantom is the same as the view from my 7" Rescue Quad 
through the goggles. Being an endurance pilot and enjoying smooth, easy, cruising at
almost 400 feet, all of the quads fly about the same with no advantage for the larger 
craft. I am not a stunt pilot and I don't race, so hi-performance doesn't mean much to 
me. The time in the air does mean something. Thing is, my 2.5" GEPRC Phantom gets 
between 15-17 minutes of Fly Time from a GNB 3S 1100 mAh 60C 67gram battery. 
Yeah, a couple of my builds have been flown for over 20 minutes, but right now I don't 
have a good place to fly them. In the small location where I now fly, 15 minutes is a 
pretty long time and the smaller craft just feel better. Larger, faster, craft just means
that I would be flying in a very tight circle. 

Since I am purely, solely, and only a recreational pilot (no one benefits and I don't do
anything with the video), the sub-250 gram, FAA category 1, quads are exempt from
registration and Remote ID. However, I have picked up a few RID modules so that I
can fly my 7" quad and might finish my BEAST 7" build (currently on hold). 

One of my "in progress" builds is a sub-250 gram, 6 inch, quad built on a 32 gram
prototype frame. With this light frame, I think that it can be done. 

By the way, I have all analog video. Since I don't do anything with the video
and don't need HD to fly, the benefit is just not worth the cost. 

Later, iFly  

My signature line contains a link to My Builds. 
  ||
  \/

Welcome to IntoFPV! My favorite aircraft is my 3" Japalura that I built. About 80% of my flying is with it and the rest I fly just so they do not collect too much dust...okay, I fly them as they are fun, but the 3" is my fave! The neat part is that over the last few years the "micro" market exploded and now there are as many choices in the 130mm to 150mm frames as there are for 210mm to 230mm (at least it seems so).
waplus

projectfreetv.onl

Hi Harrytomyzs,

Yes, the 2.5-3 inch size ( I consider these to be about the same) is what I fly 
the most and overall have the most fun with. The 2.5 inch GEPRC Phantom 
(now the SMART Freestyle) is one of my favorite quads. In the small location 
where I now fly, it is just the right size. It is large enough to have plenty of 
fun and small enough to actually fly in that size of space. This little guy just 
does everything that I want to do. Plus, the craft is darn durable. Maybe, not 
quite indestructible, but darn close. 

Yes, just a few years ago, the variety and amount of both quads and parts
for the smaller, sub-250 gram, quads sort of limited. However, over the past
couple of years, this category seems to be where most things are going.

I believe that it is, in part at least, due to the whole Remote ID issue which
has really stirred the pot. During the past couple of years, the RANTs about
RID served to raise awareness, but mostly more of an education of sorts
than being able to actually stop Remote ID from going into effect. Imagine
that. From what I could tell, a lot of folks actually did NOT know (or maybe
even care) about the FAA regulations. Actually, this was not a big surprise
to me. Anyway, it did serve to bring a focus on what craft needs to be
registered and have Remote ID and the ones that don't which is actually
a pretty small niche; for a true solely and purely recreational only flight
a sub-250 gram craft is not required to be registered and not required
to have remote ID. In my opinion, this is why a lot of interest has shifted
from the larger craft to the sub-250 gram category.

Anyway, that is how I see it.


Later, iFly  

You can still just about build a super fast agile 3" that comes in under 250g and potentially runs 6S. This video keeps coming up in my feeds for some reason, but a lot of people are questioning how he kept it under 250g with the parts he used. The battery he uses weighs 100g alone. Anyway with some cursory calcs, I think he's telling porkies. I have it at 255g without the battery straps and antennas.



I do think it is possible to do it in under 250g, but not using an O3. Same build using the Walksnail HD V2 kit would get it to roughly 238g, leaving 12g for antennas, battery straps and possibly a BEC for the WS if needed. If you tweaked every component I think it's possible to get it even lower. If you went for analog VTX then it would shave even more weight from it.

2024-03-02       New Project ADDED


I have just ADDED another project to my list of things to do

T-Mount prop durability testing

This project was prompted by some question about using T-Mount props
and whether or not they would hold up especially with a heavy load and
with larger motors. The issues are explained in the following thread:

                      T-mount propellers

Since I use T-Mount motors and props almost exclusively and plan to use 
Gemfan's 7-inch, T5-Hybrid prop on a light weight build, the issues are worth 
testing in order to determine what the T5-Hybrid props can and can not handle. 
Plus, methods for mitigating any issues of either standard T-Mount or T5-Hybrid
props. 

Since the original discussion centers around a 5-inch build and 2004 T-Mount
motors, my testing will start with a 5-inch frame and 2004 T-Mount motors.
Although, I might just user a 6-inch frame and test the 6-inch T-Mount props
that I already have for another build. 

I may use an aluminum frame. I have a set of 1/8" thick arms already cut for the 
2.5/3 inch frame, so, I could use arm extensions set for 6 inch props. As a side 
benefit, I will be able to do some stress testing on the aluminum frame.

Fly Modes:

Controversial? Interesting choice of words.

I never saw the controversy, just folks pushing an agenda. What we do with
that is a choice each of us makes. When it comes to fly modes, there is no
thing as a single CORRECT fly mode and no such thing as non-compliance if
you choose to fly in something other than ACRO mode.

We each have our own style and flying preference. Yes, I have the Fly Modes
on a 3 position switch: ANGLE, HORIZON, ACRO. Yes, I have flown in ACRO,
but I really don't care for it as it just doesn't suit me. For the flying that I do,
I simply prefer ANGLE or HORIZON mode. Actually, I just don't like how the
right quad's angle does not mirror the right stick. I find this counterintuitive.
I can do it, I just don't care for it.

Where the perception of controversy comes in is when "folks" try to align
everyone with their way of thinking, push it as the only way, and believe
that flying in ANGLE mode is not acceptable. I just don't understand why
they feel that way, but they do. Each of the 4 fly modes has a place and
a purpose. It is fine to use which one fits your use case and maybe even
switch between modes for any given situation or reason.

ANGLE mode is just fine for a beginner if they just want to learn, fly around,
and have fun. Another case is with a new build which should be tested, perhaps
in stages including a hover test where the quad is, or should be, more or less
stable. ANGLE mode is really the best for a quad's initial testing. If it misbehaves
in ANGLE mode, what do you think it will do in ACRO?

As for the size of quad. You know, the 5 inch basher was all the rage a few years
ago when no one cared about the quad's weight. Yeah, the regulations were there,
just nobody seemed to follow them. When Remote ID was being implemented
(now it is in place), there seemed to be a growing interest in the Sub-250 gram,
FAA category 1, UAS (drones) and the availability of BNF quads, parts, and
components for smaller craft just sort of exploded or blossomed.

Does sub-250 matter? Well, that just depends on where you live, the airspace
regulations, whether or not you comply, how you intend to fly, what you do with
the drone, and what you do with the video footage. In the USA, sub-250 really
only matters if you want to fly without registering and without Remote ID which
means that you must legitimately fly solely, purely, and only for the recreational
fun of the pilot where no one benefits from the flight and the video footage is NOT
posted to a monetized platform such as YouTube. All flights are Part 107 UNLESS,
the flight legitimately qualifies for the Recreational Exemption. In this case size
doesn't matter since all craft use for Part 107 must be registered and have an
operational RID unit regardless of weight.

To comply or to violate the FAA regulations is totally up to the individual.
Just like speeding.

That said, smaller tends to be more cost effective than larger. Tiny whoops are
nice for indoors, but larger whoops have less relevance and really just make the
craft heavier. Ok, they do give the illusion of being safe or safer that open prop
quads. Still, not legit to fly over people in the USA since most of them are over
250 grams. Now, this is where sub-250 might come in since the FAA regulations
do allow a sub-250 gram quad with prop guards to be flown over people.

To each his own. To thyself be true.