New to this section of forum, question wether this plane is any good for video and photo etc.  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       


Miniature Aircraft USA Ion-X - RTF
Seller:  1surfer
Details:   $5,000.00   |  10/5/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Aerial Photography and Video >> New to this section of forum, question wether this plane is any good for video and photo etc.
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New to this section of forum, question wether this plan... - 11/27/2007 12:01:21 AM   
headhunter23


 

Posts: 820
Joined: 8/7/2007
From: Waterloo, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Hello, decided to take first step into this part of the forum. I probably should have posted before buying this but what do you guys think about this model? I figured if its used as a scout for war, that it should work as a scout for us normal people.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160184883229&ssPageName=MERC_VIC_RCRX_Pr3_PcY_BID_IT&refitem=160182351110&itemcount=3&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&usedrule1=CrossSell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget

I don't care about the electronics etc that comes with it but the amount of weight it would carry. I will replace the electronics etc later with better stuff later. Anyways I hope based on the size, it should be suitable for this. I know I haven't stated what electronics is going in yet but will determine that over the next couple months. That new osd from ... austrailia is very interesting and more than likely will get it later. So sorry about no weight estimates.

What do you guys think?

Ivan.
       Post #: 1

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 11/27/2007 1:28:51 AM   
imora99


 

Posts: 42
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: San Salvador, EL SALVADOR
Status: offline 		I have one. It comes with a 400 brushed motor and the electronics, well are chinese, that says it all.

It is too small for AP unless you fit it with one very small camera. Other then that is stable enough but it won't be a screamer with such small powerplant.

(in reply to headhunter23)
       Post #: 2

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 11/27/2007 2:06:18 AM   
headhunter23


 

Posts: 820
Joined: 8/7/2007
From: Waterloo, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		I'm not worried about the motor, there are tons of em out there for cheap. But I guess if you have one, what's the max payload you could carry and still run it well? Even a guess would work, I'm intending on using light small electronics anyways but would be nice to have a barrier.

Ivan.

(in reply to imora99)
       Post #: 3

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 11/27/2007 3:18:22 AM   
imora99


 

Posts: 42
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: San Salvador, EL SALVADOR
Status: offline 		If you are going to change motor, you'll probably change propeler as well, and most likely battery. Now you are talking a whole new setup. In any case if you must have a figure, I'd say you could haul safely about 12 to 14 oz. with that airframe. In my case I didn't bother, there are so many other better choices. I bought it because I didn't know any better, but immediately was impossible for me to fit any decent camera for AP. I am talking 7.0 Megapixels or more. Of course there are some Aiptek or something similar with 3.0 Megapixels or so that would fit quite well on that plane. It will depend on what quality of pics you want to take.

I hope this helps.

(in reply to headhunter23)
       Post #: 4

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 11/27/2007 4:01:46 AM   
headhunter23


 

Posts: 820
Joined: 8/7/2007
From: Waterloo, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Well here's what I have in mind, but just putting it out there. Would like a video camera strapped to the front for flying and looking where I'm going and just a point and shoot camera for the belly pointing straight down. I know it's not SLR quality but these cameras to me would produce good enough photos for myself.

Anyways so far I have found 2 camera's that meet my criteria of better than 3x optical zoom for the undercarriage.

the FUJI FINEPIX F650 6MP 5X 3i DIGICAM which weighs a hefty 170g
and OLYMPUS STYLUS 750 BLACK 7MP 5X 2.5i MIS which weighs 140g

I would strip these to bare essentials, maybe even remove the LCD as it wouldn't be necessary by the time I'm done with em unless it's required to shoot. Would get rid of cases etc and make new.

So there would be no servos to move either camera's, would wire it in so I could zoom the undercarriage one and flip from one video feed to the other (I'm sure that would be a pita).

Other than the servos for running it, a better antenna, reciever etc, there shouldn't be too much weight otherwise.

Think a setup similar to this would be possible? And if you don't mind me asking, what plane did you choose?

Oh just a side note, for the most part the plane would be used to scout areas more specifically rivers and bush to find hidden lakes and check em out before hand. Google earth is nice, but there's a lot that still missing!

This is an edit, had reread your post.

Doing some calc and this is what I came up with...
batt 163g 11.1v 2250mah
motor 65 20a
esc 30g 25a
video camera front 18g approx
servos 26g
receiver 10g

total weight 312g

Which leaves 40-85g for belly cam

So sneaking in that camera on the bottom would take a lot of weight reduction to make it... if we went with your optimistic assumption, that would put the total payload to close to 400 grams. Its not looking good... I could more than likely shave 40g off the camera easily by just shedding the case but.... still bloody close and would eventually want that osd stuff with gps etc. So close....

You haven't seen a thread on planes and payloads by chance have ya?

< Message edited by headhunter23 -- 11/27/2007 4:59:25 AM >

(in reply to imora99)
       Post #: 5

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 11/29/2007 11:53:07 PM   
JettPilot



Posts: 1151
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Paradise, USA
Status: offline 		Your thinking " If its a preditor, its good " is very wrong. First the plane is much to small to be useful. YOu will buy it and quickly find it will not do what you want to do. The quality of the plane also has everything to do with how it flys, materials, etc. and I would be willing to bet good money that this ebay model is a very cheap, useless toy.

If you want a good plane, forget scale, dont get hung up on a cool predator look alike, and get the well tested and performance proven easy star. Getting all excited and buying this piece of junk just because it looks like something the military has is a sure sign of a newbie that does not know much. Nothing wrong with that, you did the right thing by asking here, there is a lot of help and knowlege that can save you lots of mistakes and wasted money. You can do a lot better than this plane for aerial video.

JettPilot

_____________________________

THE TRUTH ABOVE ALL ELSE...

(in reply to headhunter23)
       Post #: 6

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 11/30/2007 6:51:40 PM   
headhunter23


 

Posts: 820
Joined: 8/7/2007
From: Waterloo, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		I just don't understand how come it's such a bad design, the wing span is 1.5" shorter than the easystar, torso is 4" shorter. Heck I even found it the same place as the easy star, hobby lobby.

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/predator.htm

It can handle 2 oz less than the easy star, wow! That doesn't sound that bad. Plus the same model can come with camera installed, so it has to have some planning into weight that the plane can use. The other thing is, if the easy star is such a better design, why doesn't the military go with that design? It would only make sense.

For the price it's worth a try to see how much weight it truely can carry and still be functional, on top of that I'll need some more experience regardless so crashing this thing isn't something I'm worried about. Heck I might fly it as is without changing anything just to get in practice. But personally after reading some of the earlier posts, I would go with the twinstar II over the easy star, although it is more complicated with the dual motors, it seems to be a better design in terms of weight, handling and slower speeds.

Btw, in the future try not to come off as such a dick. If you had read the previous posts, I had stated that based on imora's estimates that this plane would not live up to my expectations. But if this information from hobby lobby is correct then yes this plane could very well meet my expectations with upgrading the motor, prop and batt. Yes I am new to this section of the forum but it's still not neccessary to come off so condescending, heck ya can't learn anything with out asking questions. Take it easy mon.

Ivan

< Message edited by headhunter23 -- 11/30/2007 7:44:26 PM >

(in reply to JettPilot)
       Post #: 7

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 12/3/2007 7:55:33 PM   
headhunter23


 

Posts: 820
Joined: 8/7/2007
From: Waterloo, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Package made it... unreal amount of everything for 90 bucks. Still boggles the mind that everything came, Yea I know it's got crap for hardware but look back 5 years and this would be worth crazy amounts. Anyways did some weighing of everything!

battery 140g nimh at 9.6v
Everything else that flys 354 grams.

total flying weight is 494g There is an obvious amount of weight savings available. The motor alone is huge, a brushless should cure more power less weight, also a lipo running 11.1v 2250mah would be 24g more than current battery.




<Just personal notes>:

the receiver weighed 6g.

The servos look to be 10g a piece but I did not pull them out to test.

<end personal notes>

btw the scale I use is 2 gram increments, so whatever the weight is it's withing 1 gram.

With any luck will test flight her out in a week or so as I have exams and other crap for the next little while.

Ivan.

(in reply to headhunter23)
       Post #: 8

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 12/4/2007 2:32:31 PM   
healthyfatboy


 

Posts: 160
Joined: 11/25/2005
From: Norman, OK, USA
Status: offline 		"if the easy star is such a better design, why doesn't the military go with that design? It would only make sense."

This really makes me laugh. I'll end my comments on that.

I think they referred to the EasyStar because it really is a proven model that is great for AP. The predator is not very common anywhere so people don't know much about it so can't give you much information about it.
I think it's worth the try if you'r willing to spend the money on it. If it doesn't work out, just go to another good plane, the Slow Stick.

On a side note, have you not read anything JettPilot has done? Yeah, he may have sounded a bit harsh but he's done stuff from his plane that few will ever come close to when it comes to quality. He's not someone you should bite at so quickly. His help could really help you out if you really get into AP in any way.

< Message edited by healthyfatboy -- 12/4/2007 2:34:55 PM >

(in reply to headhunter23)
       Post #: 9

RE: New to this section of forum, question wether this ... - 12/5/2007 5:27:45 PM   
headhunter23


 

Posts: 820
Joined: 8/7/2007
From: Waterloo, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Yea I have read older posts to get more of an idea of who he was, background etc. before stating what I did above but it's still not neccessary for him to have come off that way (he seems to have a history of this). Like I said, I am new to the forum and I didn't appreciate it. Nor would other new people to the forum, heck why would you want to discourage new people enjoying your hobby and bringing new ideas and yes duplicate questions to the forum. I try to do seaches before I post questions and so should most but sometimes it's easier to get someone's quick opinon rather than sifting through tons of threads.

I'll have to look at your slow stick, thanks for the other plane to look at. I still stand by the statement, just as the easystar and such are proven in this forum for ap, so has the predator desgin in it's line of work, which was originally long range reconnaissance, perhaps it does not transfer as well to AP as one would assume. At the very least, it will be good experience one way or another and it's cheap 95 bucks, everything.

Ivan.

< Message edited by headhunter23 -- 12/5/2007 8:01:22 PM >

(in reply to healthyfatboy)
       Post #: 10

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Aerial Photography and Video >> New to this section of forum, question wether this plane is any good for video and photo etc.
Page: [1]





Jump to: