Flying to the clouds
 

<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>

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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

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

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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?
 

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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?

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

"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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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

CGr.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

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.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

<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>

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Great Post, Houndog!

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

you wont be doing any high flyng with that dinky radio system Spektrum Dx5e you have and also it seems like your new to this and i would suggest baby steps..the spyhawk seems like a good starting point for you. good luck.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Yes, I agree with you, re the camera' quality and such ... though I'm not at all experienced in such matters, I have experimented a bit with various devices.

The Spyhawk in the video is not mine; I was just "having a go with it".

I flew it with the auto-stab engaged and it seemed fine. In fact, I flew it to a range far beyond what I would have flown LoS.


Anyway, at one point, I decided to dis-engage the auto-stab. I thought, "This little thing will be a sweetie; doesn't need a load of technology for local flying." What happened? .... immediate spin. Aggressive, too. Couldn't believe it, nor could I recover manually. Had to re-engage the stabiliser.

On investigation, I discovered that the owner (a fairly experienced pilot) had the CG back beyond 50%. That is why I'm so impressed with the electronics. A model that it was impossible for me to fly manually, was tamed by the auto-stabilising system.

Anyway, the CG problem has been addressed and the model is much better behaved.




I was thinking that the auto-stabilising system allows a relatively small aeroplane to be flown to quite great height in safety ... you can't lose control.


Model planes ... they always find some new way to fox you... especially when you think you've seen it all.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEbvZNYVVI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrDt9zyZtFo[/youtube]<br type="_moz" />

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNlKKcvnvlA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwon-55NTNo[/youtube]<br type="_moz" />

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Ya never know. Just two weeks ago, I heard the sound of a plane that was evidently close and low coming from the rear left. No one saw it until it was over the field as it came from behind our pavilion. I was flying and when hearing the plane dived to about thirty feet off the deck and it was a good decision as the plane flew directly over our flying field at about two hundred feet.

There was a rush of gasp and someone noted that the idiot flying the plane was in violation of minimum height requirements. Someone else reminded it didn't matter, RC'ers are still responsible to avoid any flight that will pose a hazard to full scale flight.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: small;">Besides flying in an airport traffic area. which is an area ( within 5 miles of an airport with extensions for instrument approaches) Most of the USA is covered by some form of controled airspace wich if U look at an Aeronautical Secetional chart U will notice areas that have a blue (700 ft AGL) or Majenta tint ( 1200 ft. AGL). This indicates the altitude that VFR meterlogical conditions must be met. Usually 3 milse visibility 500 ft below 1000 feet above and 2000 feet horizontal distance from clouds. Not flying through or close to any clouds even if your are flying more than 5 miles from an airport traffic aera. U could be leagle if you were not in controled air space and stayed clear of clouds ie below 700' or 1200' in certian aeras. Again it's not a wise idea to post such videos on U-Tube ... no sence giving the FAA or anyone else the excuse to regulate us out of the air. Beleave me it is much eaiser for them to out law us if they feel they can't regulate us.</span></span>

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

+ 1

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: small;">U wre absolutly right about who has the right of way ... but if you get the aircraft registration numbers U can go to Landings.com US registrations http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*193800884!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/search_nnr.html
and find out where that plane is based and who owns it ... Contact the pilot and make HIM/HER aware of where your field is and where U fly. Alos if there is an mid air between his/her plane it porbba</span></span><span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ly will "Ruin his whole Day" and distroy a perfictally good model airplane.</span></span>

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Hey, Wrice4, life is short.  You go fly into those clouds and don't let all the Barney Fifes here tell you what to do.  I hope they don't let these Deputy Dawg wannabe sheriffs around here have any corks for their guns.  Geeze.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Thank you, haha. So if I am wanting a plane that can go higher than most, I jsut need to look for one with a greater wingspan so I can see it better? Like a Radian? or Bixler?

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Exactly the reason we will have the FAA regulating us :(

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

+1 that everything the OP is looking to do is a bad idea. I'll list the problems I see.

1. Flying beyond line of sight is a violation of the AMA safety code. I do understand that some macho jerks think they don't need a safety code because they are somehow endowed with super human abilities to not damage property they can't see with a plane they can't see, but the fact is the safety code has been developed with about 70 years of RC experience. It works.

2. Flying high enough to be in the clouds near an airport is illegal. You have DFW and Love Field near you, so there's nowhere in Dallas where you can do what you want to do legally. That's not to mention the smaller airstrips and medical flights that happen every day.

3. Using inadequate equipment won't get you good results. You're wanting to do this cheaply as most beginners do, but if you don't have the quality of FPV equipment you need and a radio with adequate range you're just going to lose your plane.

4. FPV stunts are a PR nightmare for the hobby. As others have mentioned, our hobby is getting lots of negative attention lately, and these sensational videos are a big reason why. FPV is a truly exciting new way to do the hobby, but if we aren't responsible with it we are going to bring regulations upon ourselves from people who know jack squat about what we do. They will err on the side of appeasing public fear and keeping full scale planes safe, not on preserving our freedoms to enjoy our toys. That may not matter to you as you may be one of the guys who flits from one hobby to the next every few years, but some of us plan to do this for a long time and don't want some newbie ruining it.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

Did anyone here mention that if you're within a 5 mile radius of an airport,(small airport), that you can go and sit down with the people in charge of things and let them know what you do and ask them if it's okay to fly above 1000 ft in your particular area.  I live 6 miles away from the nearest small airport, but I've still let the people in charge of it know what I do and where I do it from and all they wanted, was to see video footage of one of my flights, not to mention that one of those in charge of that airport, is also the president of my rc flying club. :)

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

I don't know where that first comment comes from nor the basis for it?

The DX5e is a full range TX that has exactly the same Milliwatt output rating as the DX18 high end radio, or JR's, Futaba's etc.

I agree about the Spyhawk. Good "all in one" package.

RE: Flying to the clouds
 

G'day all,

Only my two cents as a full scale commercial survey pilot and rc flyer from Canada so please don't flame me!

VFR charts or sectional charts may not necessarily show all airports.  My experience has been the charts are updated somewhat infrequently and wont always show all airports in your vicinity. It is also possible someone has mowed out a grass strip for private use and their field isn't registered and mapped accordingly. I've overflown many private fields that are not marked on charts.

In Canada the minimum altitude for aircraft is 500' from persons, vehicles, buildings, boats etc and 1000' over built up areas.  That being said there is nothing illegal about me flying around at 200' in a remote area free from all the above mentioned.  So if you decide to fly in a similar area there is potential for conflict where the low flying aircraft may not be in the wrong.  Bear in mind even in built up areas many survey aircraft have exceptions in their operating certificates to operate legally at lower altitudes (ex. the company I work for is approved to operate down to 80m or 262' AGL)

As far as flying in cloud goes, in my opinion this is just a bad idea regardless of AMA or FAA regulations.  Even if you have made all reasonable efforts to create a safe environment can you guarantee you are free of conflict with IFR aircraft?  There are many situations where a full scale aircraft may be cleared down to the lowest sector altitude or min alt on an airway while in cloud.

In Canada the air regs say.
Model Aircraft, Kites and Model Rockets
602.45 No person shall fly a model aircraft or a kite or launch a model rocket or a rocket of a type used in a fireworks display into cloud or in a manner that is or is likely to be hazardous to aviation safety.

Be sure the FAA does not have the equivalent. Has anyone looked into having the FAA mark your flying field as Advisory airspace or at least NOTAM your area when you're flying FPV? I've had one near miss with a rc glider and let me tell you they are very hard to see until you're right on top of them and when you're looking for other full scale aircraft it is very scary.  Fly safe. Cheers....

Schooner