<div id="post_message_23249960">I have been watching numerous videos of fpv planes flying to the clouds and above them, the view is amazing. I want a plane that can fly very high like that. They dont have to fly that high, but I want one that I can strap my camera on and fly higher than normal planes. I have seen a lot of people either use Radians or Bixlers, am I correct? Also, I have heard that the Bixler is the way to go because it is so cheap, but dont you have to build them? They are not BNF or RTF are they? I have a Spektrum Dx5e so I dont need a RTF.

Anyways, can someone give me an opinion on which aircraft I should purchase in order to fly to the clouds? Or build a part list for me and I can order it? I hope I am making sense and I don't sound stupid.</div>

Remember that most of our TX/RX combos are limited to around 2000' slant height/range.

The plane must remain in the line of sight of the pilot too.... all of this assuming you are not within 10 miles of any airport or restricted airspace.

The FAA might have something to say otherwise.

That is plenty high with me. I just want something that I can fly super high with. Any suggestions? Also, I live in TX.

Thats not neat, its stupid, when the RC pilot cant see the plane he or she endangering manned aircraft.

I am talking about flying high to make aerial videos...? Of course I would want to see the plane so I wouldnt crash.

As long as you're line of site, no problem.

I'm talking about the yahoo's flying the models where they can't phsyically see the model or flying with VR goggles on without a spotter.

I find that the best results are obtained with Quad Copters.

I've tried helis, planes, gliders and quad copters.

Unfortunately Quad Copters are hard to fly a such distances, so your best bet is any glider style aircraft. Radians and Bixler's fall into this catagory.

You'll get better images/videos when you shut down the motor and let the plane glide.

Also image refresh speed ( shutter speed ) is very important to avoid the "jello" effect visible in so many videos posted.

A GOOD HD camera with a very low "F-Stop" produces the best results.

I am not interested in Quad Copters, but thank you for your opinion.

I have heard planes like, Radian, Bixler, Spy Hawk......

All three are good gliders, but bare in mind that the results will be limited by your choice of camera.

As I mentioned a low F-Stop on a good HD video camera will produce the best results.

That eliminates most RC Hobby cameras except for maybe the Hero Pro 2.

You will not be pleased with the the cheaper choices. ( Been there, tried that, was dissapointed, upgraded, tried again, upgraded, tried again... )

Offhand I don't remember what the specs are for the Spy Hawk, but it is likely to have too slow of a shutter speed for good results given the small size of the optics.

Thanks for all of the help. I assume that the larger wingspan does not mean it will go higher correct? I have been looking around and it seems that the radian is much more money than the others. I might try and get a cheaper one.

I also ran across the AXN Floater-Jet EPO with Motor (ARF) for $50. I have the transmitter and battery, I just need to order a receiver. Seems pretty cheap for a high altitude glider, any opinions?
 

I recently checked the video range on a Spyhawk.

Both the plane and the Tx were on the ground, held at waist height.

Managed 380 yards ... but Tx orientation is quite critical at that range.


You can see the quality of video that you get with the Spyhawk, here ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=wAtt0NbyuFg

I think that it's not at all bad, for the money. And the auto-stab works great.

There are many, many airports in the Dallas area.  You must watch out for the 400ft maximum withing a certain range from an airport - and that is any airport, not just big ones.  Get an aviation map to see what is around you.  Also, anytime you do that be sure to check if there are any NOTAMs in effect - you never know when some big wig will show up.

There are no charts that will show you all the airports in your area. In the county I live in there are 13 airports listed in the FAA's web site. Only one of them is on the sectional chart.

It's not bad given the price. Certainly much better than some of the cameras I've tried including the FlyCamOne2.

However you still see the "jello" effect because the effective shutter speed is quite low.

You also get a bit of a hazy non-vibrant image. The optics are not able to recover from bright light exposure quickly, etc.

This is where you see the difference between a better camera and not.

Ultimately it boils down to what results the buyer expects. I wanted something better than the Spyhawk, comparable to some of the better HQ flying videos.

But in lieu of that demand, the Spyhawk looks like a good compromise.

That said, range-wise you'll do better with a NON-FPV choice.

I believe the Spyhawk is FPV only right?

Well, it appears that you know where they are. It is your responsibility to keep below the required altitude. You can say what you want, but it still remains that you are responsible to know.

"Say what you want"?? Did something I said give you the impression that my view of a pilot's responsibility is different from yours? My point isn't that you're free to ignore these airports, it's that it's not a simple matter to find out where the airports near your field are. You can't just get an "aviation map" that shows all the airports near your field. The FAA's web site will list them and give you latitude and longitude, and if you have a decent chart you can plot the locations yourself. Have you ever done this? Very few RC pilots have. Nobody in my club (a group that includes several full-scale pilots) had any idea how many airports we have in the county where most of them have lived for years.

Only if someone reads your post. The point is that it's the pilots responsibility to know the area he/she is flying in. That's all. If you got a different impression, well, what can I say. Maybe you should have provided more info to support what you said. The first impression was that you didn't care.

So now you want "more information" to support what I said? What I said was simple, straightforward, and accurate. What "more information" could one want? And what language in my post gave you the absurd "impression" that I didn't care about dangerous flying? As for your response, I have no idea what you mean by "Only if someone reads your post." That doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Someone made a post about getting an "aviation map" to find airports. I pointed out that it isn't that simple; a piece of information that people who want to comply with the rules should know. And then you attack me for holding a view that I don't hold and that finds no support in anything I said. Your response seems to say more about you than about me.

I am not going to argue with you. Clarify what you say or don't say it. Period.

CGr.

Ok guys-I think we are getting overboard on this one.

I don't want to argue. But I would like to know how to "clarify" a statement that there are no charts that show all the airports in an area, which (plus an example to show the shortcomings of the sectional charts) was the entire content of the post that has gotten you so teed off. Should I repeat it several times? Should I say there are "really really really" no such charts? Do you want italics or capital letters? Or how about "There are no charts that show all the airports in an area. Period." I'm trying to learn from your example, but it's not easy.

Wing span is what you want (the OP, not the BS above)

You can easily fly LOS very high if your plane is big.
Have seen many gliders at "clubs" we'll over 1K feet and well within LoS.

<h3>Did you read the November 2012 issue of Model Aviation pg15 Titled Congress has Spoken: did the FAA listen ... After reading this and what I know about the FAA after being in General Aviation since 1970 I would be very wary of flying any RC air craft at any place but sanctioned fields. If flying FPV (first Person Video) it should be done per the guide lines set by the AMA. Remember most all hospitals have a Heliport with a federal ID associated. Flight for Life Helies arriving and departing rarely exceed 500 ft AGL. With the pending Legislation by the FAA and the UAPO ( Unmaned Aircraft Program Office) now refereed to as the (UAS) Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, I'd be very wary flying any RC aircraft (FPV) or other wise in the vacinity of any full scale Maned air craft or airport. We have 2 RC fields on the north side of Phoenix that have been restricted to a mandatory maximum of 400 ft AGL. This has severally curtailed IMAC, Jets and Even Pattern flying, not to mention any soaring activities. It's best to be warned than create an incident and be sorry. Here is a Couple of URL's that will allow you to determine the location of all Federal Registered Airports in your area. </h3><h3>http://aeronav.faa.gov/afd.asp#results </h3><h3>http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/productcatalog/supplementalcharts/airportdirectory/</h3>

Great Post, Houndog!