This thread makes me want to dig out my old Silverlit X-UFO and restart my UAV-mod project of it.
(I already have the parts; X-UFO, Propellers on Protoype boards, Gyro/Accellerator, IR LEDs for proximity detection, a Li-ion pack to replace the Ni-mh pack, a flyCam One - should probably be replaced with the latest model, with 'First Person View' wireless system)
And when I get my current project(Prusa Mendel) finished, I will even have production capability to create a better body.
This thread makes me want to dig out my old Silverlit X-UFO and restart my UAV-mod project of it.
(I already have the parts; X-UFO, Propellers on Protoype boards, Gyro/Accellerator, IR LEDs for proximity detection, a Li-ion pack to replace the Ni-mh pack, a flyCam One - should probably be replaced with the latest model, with 'First Person View' wireless system)
And when I get my current project(Prusa Mendel) finished, I will even have production capability to create a better body.
I'm sure this experience would be helpful, especially what you learned in FPV. It seems there are a group of people like yourself - sure would be great to see this come together in a larger movement with the Propeller. That's obviously one interest of ours, but I've got to say the other: these things are totally fun to fly in an R/C mode. The crowd-drawing capability is like nothing else. It seems to draw scifi types, people who have seen drones on TV, and kids who start frothing at the mouth.
This is cool, three years ago when I got into the RC flying hobby a fellow flyer built a quad using one of those other uControllers it started with an "A" can't remember the name. Its the one they used on RC Groups Forum. At the time all I had was BS2 stuff, but I knew of the Propeller and its capability's I thought the Propeller would be perfect for such an application. My friend asked me to build one like his, I told him I'll wait until I can use a Propeller. Three years have passed, my wait is almost over. If there is a line I'am in it.
OK... OK... I've been following this thread since it started and I think I am really hooked.
But I have questions - Since I am a total newbie at RC, what is a good way to get started? I am only interested in the QuadCopter, so should I get one of those small electric helicopter toys or what? All suggestions are welcome.
OK... OK... I've been following this thread since it started and I think I am really hooked.
But I have questions - Since I am a total newbie at RC, what is a good way to get started? I am only interested in the QuadCopter, so should I get one of those small electric helicopter toys or what? All suggestions are welcome.
Al
Al, being down the road we need to get you to the Rocklin office more often. I should know if we've met or not, but I don't. These are my suggestions and I'd like to hear from others on the subject as well.
We got interested in quadcopters when Al Ducharme from Hoverfly was at Parallax - you may remember the forum thread. Al is a professor at University Central Florida, so he has lots of ability to share when it comes to flight instruction. I watched him pretty closely when he was handing his transmitter around the office. He would first ask people to primarily use the throttle to get the craft off the ground. Once he saw that they could hover, then he'd move them to the right stick, and suggest some gradual movements to steer the quadcopter around the space. Most anybody with some guts was succeeding, and those with R/C experience found it easy. A few of my office peers (won't name them) still fly my ships into walls and trade show booths we've got setup in the training room.
From watching Al Ducharme and others who've flown my quadcopter, it helps to have some prior R/C experience. Everybody seems to have the same trouble initially - using some sort of proportional control on the throttle to keep the quadcopter in the air. Some people crash it into the ceiling or the ground, and struggle with the idea that the initial throttle to get off the ground is more than you need when you're a meter off the ground. You can get over this really easily by buying a $50 helicopter at RadioShack. Once you can hover it's all easy. I've also flown larger R/C helicopters and the quadcopters are far easier to fly - just let go of the aileron/elevator stick (but keep throttle up) and it will level again. This experience will give you a tremendous advantage when first flying a quadcopter.
Many of us will ask "why R/C at all? - UAVs are where we want to go!". OK, I agree. Having a full R/C system is really necessary in my view because it isolates problems out that you may never discover if you took a programming-only approach. You'll know if your airframe is worthy, if your propellers are balanced instead of the fact that you're missing a c-clip on the motor shaft, and that the ESCs are in fact fully functional. After all, some of these parts come from China. Just like you step into a programming project by developing sections at a time with your eye on the bigger goal, the same applies with these complex electro-mechanical flying contraptions. Break it down into manageable pieces - don't build a giant monster and put your favorite Sony camera on it too quickly.
It sure wouldn't hurt to have some experience. If you get a small electric heli make sure you get a four channel some of them are only three channels. To simplify a four channel version has on the left stick throttle and rudder while the right stick has aileron and elevator this should be the same as a quad. A three channel has only throttle on the left stick while the right stick has elevator and rudder(not a good practice to get into) . Another good way to practice is a simulator Real Flight is probably the most popular Phonix is another good one. A decent 4 channel micro heli is the MCx or MCx2 they can be had for just under $100.oo. Like anything else it all depends on how much you want to spend. This is defiantly a hobby where 'you get what you pay for' applies.
@Al Booth,
This is defiantly a hobby where 'you get what you pay for' applies.
-Ron
True, and I think this is what makes quadcopters interesting. Radio aside, $400 will build a really nice quadcopter. The value proposition changes pretty quickly with quadcopters when you hit the ground - crash repairs don't require much in the way of repair. Crash a thousand dollar heli and you'll be in the shop for days and giving the hobby store your paycheck. And from the looks of it, quadcopters are much more readily adaptable and customizable to become a UAV.
@RonP. Oh, the pain of that photo. All of those mechanical linkages and gear systems are sometimes never the same.
You are the perfect candidate for a quadcopter. Can't wait to get one in your hands - it'll be a very rewarding experience considering your history with helicopters!
Also, if my stuff isn't working by then, then I might get a Hoverfly board too. :P
Roy
Your arrival is the kind of deadline I like. Best case is that you've got a flight-ready system in your hands, worse case is that we'll be able to hand you a quadcopter, ready to fly. Just bring your 6CH radio and receiver.
Ken, I have been to all 3 UPEW's. We have briefly spoken, but never had any serious chats. I am trying to make it to the October Meetup, and will contact you there, if I make it. Thank you for the detailed reply. I am also looking to maybe go to UAV's eventually, but see the quadcopter as a necessary intermediate step. If you need a newbie beta tester, I would be interested.
Ron, Thank you for the information on 3 versus 4 channels. I have found the MCX for $79.95 and the MCX2 for $119.95. Is the MCX2 worth the extra $40? I am in the "old dog and new tricks" category, so maybe I should go with the cheaper one, assuming I will crash it beyond repair at least once. And now I see that Ken is talking about 6 channel radios.
Just to let you know, Ben holds you completely responsible for this latest competitor for my time with him. Hell hath no fury like a cat with a grudge!!
P.S. The MCX2 has cool blinky lights and can be set to fly more aggressively once you stop crashing!! ....and 4 channel is really cool!
The MCx and MCx2 are mechanically the same but like mindrobots said lights and forward flight are better with the mcx2 those improvements i believe where all on the circuit board. They fly very similar almost identical. Since your main goal is to fly a quad I would save the 40 bucks for a radio or simulator in the future. BTW the simulator will pay for itself I couldn't tell you how many times I would have crashed or how much it would have cost in repair, it would have been a lot of crashes and a ton money to get to the level of flying i am at now with no simulator.
The six channels Ken refers to are the number of channels required to fly the quad(i think maybe Ken can chime in here I don't have a Hover Fly Board) the four channels I talk about just refers to where control surfaces are located on the sticks. Most people learned with 3 channels then stepped up to 4 with planes that is. Not necessary with a quad or heli, you have electronic help with gyros ect...
@Ken what is the minimum # of channels to operate a Hover Fly is there radio mixing involved is set up like a heli or a plane? I would imagine a DX6 would do the trick, for those needing radios.
MCx's are so lite they rarely get damaged in a crash.
I am away from home at the moment. I did take with me my new prop pcbs and the wii motion plus and nunchuck pcbs (clones). Yesterday I hooked up the mp (has the 3axis gyro) and the demo object came to life! Now to hook up the nunchuck (has 3 axis accel) and try it.
Those using the wii motion plus and nunchuck - anyone??? Have you hooked the nunchuck onto the motion plus, or have you parallelled it directly to the prop???
The total weight has not been an issue, even at elevations of 6,000 feet carrying GoPro cameras. I don't know the payload, but it'll carry a Boe-Bot or S2 nicely [or a small fleet of Penguins].
Ken Gracey
(to the tune of Ride of the Valkyrie)
Why am I seeing visions of a swarm of quadcopters air lifting an army of boe-bots, S2s, and penguins?
(queue fog of war)
Send in a couple of quadcopters with a number of penguins each, to secure the beach head, then send in the (light infantry) boe-bots & S2 to start the invasion, followed by the sting ray heavy infantry!
Our technical support engineer Nick assembled his own quadcopter in the last couple of weeks. At first I wasn't so sure if this would fly or not because of the weight, but the mass actually provided a super stable platform. He's got aluminum plating on bottom, Delrin on top, and a bunch of screws and standoffs to hold the sandwich together. Nick is using the Hoverfly SPORT board. Nick has eight years of experience with the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan so his design is certainly inspired by real field applications.
When I was in high school in the late 70's the ND National Guard used Skycranes to deploy their assault floation bridge (aka inflatable patoon bridge). When I joined the unit in the early 80's they switched to a foldable version that they just needed to back the truck into the water and it would unfold!
Interesting concept! I assume the reason for the "H" configuration, as opposed to an "X", is that there's more fuselage to contain batteries, electronics, etc.? I can't tell from the photo or video, but are the propellers on the corners of a perfect square, or is it more rectangular?
Interesting concept! I assume the reason for the "H" configuration, as opposed to an "X", is that there's more fuselage to contain batteries, electronics, etc.? I can't tell from the photo or video, but are the propellers on the corners of a perfect square, or is it more rectangular?
-Phil
You don't miss a detail, do you? It's a rectangle, and the ends of the I-beam are 1-inch further out than the width of the I-beam.
Seems we maybe concentrating too much on getting a lightweight quad running. With this design in mind, an "I" design would be quite simple (i.e. no splays in a "Y" form at each end, just straight across). Seems this is way easier than using round tube where it is harder to drill vertical holes accurately without the proper tools. Looks like I am going to revist my hardware store for some new material. Now, how can I use that round tube???
Ken/Nick: Would you mind posting the full dimensions of the rectangle (being the centre of the motors)? BTW what motors are used?
You guys are so frustrating Just as I get all enthused with my RepRap project, you bring me back to my QuadCopter project. Trying to find the time to do both is quite consuming!!!
Hey Cluso99 - Nick will need to report on the dimensions. The motors are Turnigy 2217s - the motor I've been favoring among all of those I've evaluated.
I think you're right that the focus on weight is a bit obsessive for some of us. The benefits are quite significant, though. My quadcopter can climb vertically about twice as fast as Nick's with the same motors/battery/ESCs.
Today we did some destructive testing on a new landing gear. MattG designed a wheg-looking landing gear with a bit of springy action. We used it nicely for takeoff/landing and then got a bit aggressive as we performed some aerial drops. Worked great from about 2-4 feet, but we broke half of the landing gear whegs with a 10-12 foot drop. I kept flying after that, but it really wasn't a good idea because some wires shook loose while we were test-landing. About 30 feet up in the sky one motor connection failed and my quadcopter descended at high speed on a knife edge, narrowly missing the HR manager's X5 BMW. Parked next to that was Jim Carey's VW bug, which I also barely missed. Everybody held their breath for at least three seconds during the crash.
Keep in mind this crash was well-deserved. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots. Guess that phrase needs to sink in.
You guys are so frustrating Just as I get all enthused with my RepRap project, you bring me back to my QuadCopter project. Trying to find the time to do both is quite consuming!!!
Well, we need your attention in both places Cluso99! Truthfully we can't be all that inspiring. . .with the number of crashes we've had showing off you'd think we would resist trying to fly upside down, inside the building, and passing a transmitter around with a quadcopter aloft. A bit irresponsible, perhaps.
Irresponsible is fun though! I've had my fair share of crashes, and some of them weren't even my fault. :-)
Nick's copter looks very cool - I like the directionality of his design, as one of the problems with quads in general is that they're symmetrical, making it very hard to tell what's front / back / left / right.
Regarding the number of radio channels, four -should- be enough, as that's throttle (vertical), elevator (front/back), aileron (left/right), and rudder (spin). Radios only have two sticks covering those four axis, so any additional channels are used for things like flight mode (stunt vs soft), landing gear, camera pan/tilt, and so on. My base quad only uses four, but I'm planning a few more in the final version.
Thought I would post these pics of a Quad Frame I bought in January at the AMA Convention, for the benefit of those still contemplating design. I got it from Gorilla Bob's booth but I can't find it on his web site, he sell's a lot of stuff for Slow Sticks for those familiar. I think its a one off, but don't know for sure he only had one it was already built, anyway.
It has carbon fiber square tube It's very strong you can see in the close up it has thick walls and a round center. The frame is G10. It seems fairly light I don't have a scale that can weigh it. What I don't like about it is the landing gear or the motor mounts. I never went further with it because as you can see the booms are to short, the motor mounts I think need a redesign. I couldn't find anywhere that sold the same carbon fiber with the round center, until just the other day when I was crying about Hobby King I decided to check out there site and see there current offerings well guess who has the carbon fiber tube in stock Hobby King. Is that not funny???
The way it is now sitting flat the carbon tubes are supper strong against vertical movement but a sideways hit would split the carbon fiber because the holes they drilled in it if it was just sandwiched I think it would be very strong. Hope someone finds it useful.
I still haven't figured out how to make pictures bigger. Click on em.
Thought I would post these pics of a Quad Frame I bought in January at the AMA Convention, for the benefit of those still contemplating design. I got it from Gorilla Bob's booth but I can't find it on his web site, he sell's a lot of stuff for Slow Sticks for those familiar. I think its a one off, but don't know for sure he only had one it was already built, anyway.
It has carbon fiber square tube It's very strong you can see in the close up it has thick walls and a round center. The frame is G10. It seems fairly light I don't have a scale that can weigh it. What I don't like about it is the landing gear or the motor mounts. I never went further with it because as you can see the booms are to short, the motor mounts I think need a redesign. I couldn't find anywhere that sold the same carbon fiber with the round center, until just the other day when I was crying about Hobby King I decided to check out there site and see there current offerings well guess who has the carbon fiber tube in stock Hobby King. Is that not funny???
The way it is now sitting flat the carbon tubes are supper strong against vertical movement but a sideways hit would split the carbon fiber because the holes they drilled in it if it was just sandwiched I think it would be very strong. Hope someone finds it useful.
I still haven't figured out how to make pictures bigger. Click on em.
Comments
I do hope you plan to sell a full kit minus the hoverfly board.
(I already have the parts; X-UFO, Propellers on Protoype boards, Gyro/Accellerator, IR LEDs for proximity detection, a Li-ion pack to replace the Ni-mh pack, a flyCam One - should probably be replaced with the latest model, with 'First Person View' wireless system)
And when I get my current project(Prusa Mendel) finished, I will even have production capability to create a better body.
You bet, Roy. In time for your visit here, too.
Ken
I'm sure this experience would be helpful, especially what you learned in FPV. It seems there are a group of people like yourself - sure would be great to see this come together in a larger movement with the Propeller. That's obviously one interest of ours, but I've got to say the other: these things are totally fun to fly in an R/C mode. The crowd-drawing capability is like nothing else. It seems to draw scifi types, people who have seen drones on TV, and kids who start frothing at the mouth.
Welcome on, Gadgetman.
Ken
-Ron
But I have questions - Since I am a total newbie at RC, what is a good way to get started? I am only interested in the QuadCopter, so should I get one of those small electric helicopter toys or what? All suggestions are welcome.
Al
Al, being down the road we need to get you to the Rocklin office more often. I should know if we've met or not, but I don't. These are my suggestions and I'd like to hear from others on the subject as well.
We got interested in quadcopters when Al Ducharme from Hoverfly was at Parallax - you may remember the forum thread. Al is a professor at University Central Florida, so he has lots of ability to share when it comes to flight instruction. I watched him pretty closely when he was handing his transmitter around the office. He would first ask people to primarily use the throttle to get the craft off the ground. Once he saw that they could hover, then he'd move them to the right stick, and suggest some gradual movements to steer the quadcopter around the space. Most anybody with some guts was succeeding, and those with R/C experience found it easy. A few of my office peers (won't name them) still fly my ships into walls and trade show booths we've got setup in the training room.
From watching Al Ducharme and others who've flown my quadcopter, it helps to have some prior R/C experience. Everybody seems to have the same trouble initially - using some sort of proportional control on the throttle to keep the quadcopter in the air. Some people crash it into the ceiling or the ground, and struggle with the idea that the initial throttle to get off the ground is more than you need when you're a meter off the ground. You can get over this really easily by buying a $50 helicopter at RadioShack. Once you can hover it's all easy. I've also flown larger R/C helicopters and the quadcopters are far easier to fly - just let go of the aileron/elevator stick (but keep throttle up) and it will level again. This experience will give you a tremendous advantage when first flying a quadcopter.
Many of us will ask "why R/C at all? - UAVs are where we want to go!". OK, I agree. Having a full R/C system is really necessary in my view because it isolates problems out that you may never discover if you took a programming-only approach. You'll know if your airframe is worthy, if your propellers are balanced instead of the fact that you're missing a c-clip on the motor shaft, and that the ESCs are in fact fully functional. After all, some of these parts come from China. Just like you step into a programming project by developing sections at a time with your eye on the bigger goal, the same applies with these complex electro-mechanical flying contraptions. Break it down into manageable pieces - don't build a giant monster and put your favorite Sony camera on it too quickly.
Ken Gracey
It sure wouldn't hurt to have some experience. If you get a small electric heli make sure you get a four channel some of them are only three channels. To simplify a four channel version has on the left stick throttle and rudder while the right stick has aileron and elevator this should be the same as a quad. A three channel has only throttle on the left stick while the right stick has elevator and rudder(not a good practice to get into) . Another good way to practice is a simulator Real Flight is probably the most popular Phonix is another good one. A decent 4 channel micro heli is the MCx or MCx2 they can be had for just under $100.oo. Like anything else it all depends on how much you want to spend. This is defiantly a hobby where 'you get what you pay for' applies.
-Ron
True, and I think this is what makes quadcopters interesting. Radio aside, $400 will build a really nice quadcopter. The value proposition changes pretty quickly with quadcopters when you hit the ground - crash repairs don't require much in the way of repair. Crash a thousand dollar heli and you'll be in the shop for days and giving the hobby store your paycheck. And from the looks of it, quadcopters are much more readily adaptable and customizable to become a UAV.
Before
After
Its been a few moths since the tragedy my first official crash in 3 years of flying and I fly a lot.
You are the perfect candidate for a quadcopter. Can't wait to get one in your hands - it'll be a very rewarding experience considering your history with helicopters!
Ken Gracey
re: in time for my visit. Awesome.
Also, if my stuff isn't working by then, then I might get a Hoverfly board too. :P
Roy
Your arrival is the kind of deadline I like. Best case is that you've got a flight-ready system in your hands, worse case is that we'll be able to hand you a quadcopter, ready to fly. Just bring your 6CH radio and receiver.
Ron, Thank you for the information on 3 versus 4 channels. I have found the MCX for $79.95 and the MCX2 for $119.95. Is the MCX2 worth the extra $40? I am in the "old dog and new tricks" category, so maybe I should go with the cheaper one, assuming I will crash it beyond repair at least once. And now I see that Ken is talking about 6 channel radios.
Al
Just to let you know, Ben holds you completely responsible for this latest competitor for my time with him. Hell hath no fury like a cat with a grudge!!
P.S. The MCX2 has cool blinky lights and can be set to fly more aggressively once you stop crashing!! ....and 4 channel is really cool!
The MCx and MCx2 are mechanically the same but like mindrobots said lights and forward flight are better with the mcx2 those improvements i believe where all on the circuit board. They fly very similar almost identical. Since your main goal is to fly a quad I would save the 40 bucks for a radio or simulator in the future. BTW the simulator will pay for itself I couldn't tell you how many times I would have crashed or how much it would have cost in repair, it would have been a lot of crashes and a ton money to get to the level of flying i am at now with no simulator.
The six channels Ken refers to are the number of channels required to fly the quad(i think maybe Ken can chime in here I don't have a Hover Fly Board) the four channels I talk about just refers to where control surfaces are located on the sticks. Most people learned with 3 channels then stepped up to 4 with planes that is. Not necessary with a quad or heli, you have electronic help with gyros ect...
@Ken what is the minimum # of channels to operate a Hover Fly is there radio mixing involved is set up like a heli or a plane? I would imagine a DX6 would do the trick, for those needing radios.
MCx's are so lite they rarely get damaged in a crash.
Ron
Those using the wii motion plus and nunchuck - anyone??? Have you hooked the nunchuck onto the motion plus, or have you parallelled it directly to the prop???
(to the tune of Ride of the Valkyrie)
Why am I seeing visions of a swarm of quadcopters air lifting an army of boe-bots, S2s, and penguins?
(queue fog of war)
Send in a couple of quadcopters with a number of penguins each, to secure the beach head, then send in the (light infantry) boe-bots & S2 to start the invasion, followed by the sting ray heavy infantry!
Any luck on air lifting a sting ray?
The MadeUSA of course would come ashore as a LCAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-cushioned_landing_craft), with more pengiuns and boe-bots...
Sure now I have visions of the big battle at the end of Robin William's Toys, from 1992...
Jay
Great...now I have "Kill the wabbit" ear worm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxiv3CBMS4M
Been looking for that DVD in my boxes for a year!
My LCAC will handle two Penquin, not enough for for a full onslaught.
But my other craft might carry about two or three dozen.
Our technical support engineer Nick assembled his own quadcopter in the last couple of weeks. At first I wasn't so sure if this would fly or not because of the weight, but the mass actually provided a super stable platform. He's got aluminum plating on bottom, Delrin on top, and a bunch of screws and standoffs to hold the sandwich together. Nick is using the Hoverfly SPORT board. Nick has eight years of experience with the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan so his design is certainly inspired by real field applications.
Nice job, Nick!
Ken Gracey
Look like it could be the Sikorsky Skycrane of Quadcopters. (Heavy lifting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-64_Skycrane
Jim
That brings back memories!
When I was in high school in the late 70's the ND National Guard used Skycranes to deploy their assault floation bridge (aka inflatable patoon bridge). When I joined the unit in the early 80's they switched to a foldable version that they just needed to back the truck into the water and it would unfold!
Nick, cool quad copter!
Jay
-Phil
You don't miss a detail, do you? It's a rectangle, and the ends of the I-beam are 1-inch further out than the width of the I-beam.
Ken Gracey
Seems we maybe concentrating too much on getting a lightweight quad running. With this design in mind, an "I" design would be quite simple (i.e. no splays in a "Y" form at each end, just straight across). Seems this is way easier than using round tube where it is harder to drill vertical holes accurately without the proper tools. Looks like I am going to revist my hardware store for some new material. Now, how can I use that round tube???
Ken/Nick: Would you mind posting the full dimensions of the rectangle (being the centre of the motors)? BTW what motors are used?
You guys are so frustrating
I think you're right that the focus on weight is a bit obsessive for some of us. The benefits are quite significant, though. My quadcopter can climb vertically about twice as fast as Nick's with the same motors/battery/ESCs.
Today we did some destructive testing on a new landing gear. MattG designed a wheg-looking landing gear with a bit of springy action. We used it nicely for takeoff/landing and then got a bit aggressive as we performed some aerial drops. Worked great from about 2-4 feet, but we broke half of the landing gear whegs with a 10-12 foot drop. I kept flying after that, but it really wasn't a good idea because some wires shook loose while we were test-landing. About 30 feet up in the sky one motor connection failed and my quadcopter descended at high speed on a knife edge, narrowly missing the HR manager's X5 BMW. Parked next to that was Jim Carey's VW bug, which I also barely missed. Everybody held their breath for at least three seconds during the crash.
Keep in mind this crash was well-deserved. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots. Guess that phrase needs to sink in.
Ken Gracey
Well, we need your attention in both places Cluso99! Truthfully we can't be all that inspiring. . .with the number of crashes we've had showing off you'd think we would resist trying to fly upside down, inside the building, and passing a transmitter around with a quadcopter aloft. A bit irresponsible, perhaps.
Ken Gracey
Nick's copter looks very cool - I like the directionality of his design, as one of the problems with quads in general is that they're symmetrical, making it very hard to tell what's front / back / left / right.
Regarding the number of radio channels, four -should- be enough, as that's throttle (vertical), elevator (front/back), aileron (left/right), and rudder (spin). Radios only have two sticks covering those four axis, so any additional channels are used for things like flight mode (stunt vs soft), landing gear, camera pan/tilt, and so on. My base quad only uses four, but I'm planning a few more in the final version.
Jason
Thought I would post these pics of a Quad Frame I bought in January at the AMA Convention, for the benefit of those still contemplating design. I got it from Gorilla Bob's booth but I can't find it on his web site, he sell's a lot of stuff for Slow Sticks for those familiar. I think its a one off, but don't know for sure he only had one it was already built, anyway.
It has carbon fiber square tube It's very strong you can see in the close up it has thick walls and a round center. The frame is G10. It seems fairly light I don't have a scale that can weigh it. What I don't like about it is the landing gear or the motor mounts. I never went further with it because as you can see the booms are to short, the motor mounts I think need a redesign. I couldn't find anywhere that sold the same carbon fiber with the round center, until just the other day when I was crying about Hobby King I decided to check out there site and see there current offerings well guess who has the carbon fiber tube in stock Hobby King. Is that not funny???
The way it is now sitting flat the carbon tubes are supper strong against vertical movement but a sideways hit would split the carbon fiber because the holes they drilled in it if it was just sandwiched I think it would be very strong. Hope someone finds it useful.
I still haven't figured out how to make pictures bigger. Click on em.
-Ron
...Tiger