Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cinestar 6' started by kjetil tønnesen, Oct 12, 2013.
So why post about your products if you aren't going to answer questions about them?
In a previous post someone was wondering if the U8's would be good and I posted our average flight times showing they are. If someone asked a question, does not mean it has to be answer but instead of leaving them hang I replied the best can. I encourage everyone to test these motors/props, they are finally what is need in this heavy lift market
Ya but this forum is a Freefly support forum for helping others and exchanging information on freefly stuff. Sounds like you are just pitching your specs in each thread.
Fair enough, the U motors are very nice I agree... no such thing as secret sauce anyways.
I am setting up a couple ultra heavy lifters for a few folks now with U's and I'll gladly pass along any info to anybody as I come across it.
Oh I'm totally open on sharing info, Kjetil PM'ed me with questions and gave him all I know a minute ago. It's not rocket science what we are all doing (only Amazon thinks so LOL - we where to do that commercial that's online, even with NDA's they decided last second to do their selves because they thought it was 1 of a kind idea Stoked your going to start using the U8's, awesome motor. Took us a month solid testing with the 24 motor and 16 sets of prop combos - made our heads spin with all the combinations. Now looking forward to U11's - only can dream of what we can be lifted with these monsters... 3D anyone!
Some notes for anyone interested on the U8's.
- Forget 6S, use 8S - will be testing 10-12S once the crazy holidays are over.
- X8 and H8 work - flat Oct is ridiculously large (laid it out and laughed how large it was, might as well get a real helicopter
- Quad/X4 works well for light payloads and tighter budgets.
- Because the UAV will be around 5-6', its put it on a whole new level. Make sure your super safe, update your "operating manual / risk management / pre-flight checklists", don't fly around/over people and be insured... because if something goes wrong with a U8 sized UAV there could be serious consequences!
Thanks for the info that was all I was trying to confirm that the 6S is now the new 4S when using these motors. I am not in slight bit interest of doing a 20 or larger inch prop U8 setup at the moment. I just wanted to know for Geewiz. I figure Kopterworx using is using a 12S setup by using four 6S's, two in series and then in parallel.
Agreed Once they get too large and considering the cost of all of equipment, I would just go get a Robinson and get a Rotorwing added to my Commercial fixed wing cert. It kind of negates the whole point of doing this. The MR brings that special effect of flying at low altitudes and then establishing aerial or vice versa.
Couldn't agree with you more there. IMO I Also think the autopilots need to be more robust before there is wide spread use of such mammoth systems. I suppose if I were to do one of these I would probably tie in a secondary autopilot system through a multiplexer as a backup.
To add complexity to propellers, whatever you are using in California or Canada, are probably not the ideal propellers for use in places like Colorado or parts of New Mexico where the pressure altitude is in some cases over is 6000 feet. We probably are a few years a way from a constant speed propeller solution.
Yeap 6S is the new 4S... I'm pretty sure kopterworks using 4x 6S 10,0000 = 6S/40,0000 rather than 12S/20,000. We are actually using 4S in series then in parallel to make 8S's - most charger/balance boards are 6S so this is a easier setup for most.
Yeah X8 is huge enough - I should build a Turducken version of an octo for the heck of it have it carry a regular octo, caring a phantom caring a walkera
I suggest everyone to fly manual, auto pilot system are good to assist but most depend/rely upon them which is not good. Some have a simple thing like GPS switch to ATT due to low satellites, they didnt know what was happening and got out of control. Thats kind of the issue with this UAV thing, it easy for the mass when it works... but when it doesn't
We have not had a chance to test the U8 at high altitude but our small rig with 16x5.4's... we did not not notice a difference when we fly at sea level or near whister 5000-6500ft. Now with these low KV motors there might be a noticeable difference, we will be testing very soon on an Olympics job. Any higher than this might need a totally different approach because you want larger props for the low air mass but the low KV's might not have enough oomph to efficiently lift?
"I suggest everyone to fly manual, auto pilot system are good to assist but most depend/rely upon them which is not good. Some have a simple thing like GPS switch to ATT due to low satellites, they didnt know what was happening and got out of control. Thats kind of the issue with this UAV thing, it easy for the mass when it works... but when it doesn't "
Beyond all doubt, this trumps any tidbit of technical info, like prop/motor combinations. I think 99.9% of all MR accidents could be prevented, if operators just followed this practice.
Umm, Not many will disagree with you... However the whole point of this discussion is how different motors perform and what is the most ideal motor for a specific application.
"IMO I Also think the autopilots need to be more robust before there is wide spread use of such mammoth systems. I suppose if I were to do one of these I would probably tie in a secondary autopilot system through a multiplexer as a backup."
Just following your lead.
Prop & motor conversations, that involve talk of building monster-endurance-lifters, often lose sight of the exponential growth of risk, associated with upsizing. I was simply applauding a comment that reinforced this reality.
Back on track….
We're running U7's on T-motor 17.5, 6s, in X8, 900mm config, and getting far better flight performance in initial testing against a Droidworks Octo, running orbit 20-18 on 15.5, with castle esc. Though I haven't logged much efficiency data on the new rig, I'll tell you the X8 on 6s is a very different bird than the Octo, and I'll never go back. Our best flight times, 11.5 minutes of forward flight(total), and a little over 9 minutes of hover(total), were achieved at sea level, using the T-motor carbon props.
I only wish Graupner made 18" E-props……..
I was speaking in general about what is needed for the robustness with larger ultra heavy rigs when more is at stake. I agree people should be comfortable in manual however, some of these systems still fail or have glitches even in manual. Not sure if want to trust a rig that will be 6 feet in diameter, with 27 inch props, carrying very expensive camera equipment like Reds with Zeis, without redundancy.
That's good to know about the U7's they look like the most ideal motor for the type of application most of us are trying to achieve, I think for the money they are not much more than the MN series but perform much more efficient while carrying somewhat larger loads.
Which U7's are you using? What gross weight you typically flying at? I am seriously thinking about doing these motors instead of my 4014's.
We run the 420kv version at around 22-25 pounds. By the numbers, it seems like too much power, but in the X8 config, we love it. I'd run the 490's on a 4s rig if I had to, but they're a bit pricey for a smaller rig, imho. Pletty 15-20 would be my personal choice on a dslr rig on 4s.
Of note, just had a chat with Michael McVay, about mounting U7's to his cinestar; they are M3 mounting holes at 30mm, so you may have to have a new motor plate cut.
Looks like they will fit the new heavy lift mounts that QC sells. The MN series uses M3's as well.
Good find! We can't use them, but they look pretty slick.
Yeah they're pretty nice I am happy with them. Beats having to fab my own stuff
Hi Guys...here is the problem with the new heavy lift mounts from QC for fitting the U7s. The frame clamp holes with the press nuts fall inside the base plate of the motor. In theory I guess it might be possible to get the perfect size bolt that maximizes the full use of the threads and some of the super strong loctite, but I am not very comfortable with that as a solution. Plus, I was hoping to use them in a coax configuration and would need to be able to access both end of the bolt for tightening.
I was hoping someone may have designed something as a better solution. Maybe QC would make design that would fit the U7s for us. If the plate was more rectangle in the hole pattern and spaced the frame clamps farther apart you could get the frame clamp holes outside the width of the motors - but it would put the motor a little further in from the end of the boom by doing so (although not much).
F-BOMB times 20! Yeah they fit just navigator series barely except not for coaxials. I can get the bots in but there is not enough room for me to get a driver in. I need them to iedeally be a 1/4'' longer yours they need to be 3/4'' longer.
Send me a napkin drawing of what you want; I'll Cad it & cost it for a few dozen sets.
Here you go, Basically the sane concept as the QC except elongated minus the loop for the wire its neat but necessary. Looks like my initial coctail drawing would be too small for U7's their bell is approx 6.1 cm so probably the ideal spacing for future upgrades withrn reason the legnth between spacers will probably need to be 6.5 cm to give some margin for the U7's
Here's the rough idea though. I am not sure if I have the exact spacing for the width due to not having a more precise measuring instrument.
Here is a quick idea. The main point being get a plate big enough for the U7 or similar (they are about 2.5 inches) and have enough sticking out the sides to use the regular 25mm metal frame clamps. Thanks a lot!
I see Shaun was faster than I was...and a better artist as well.