SUB-2.5in(115mm) brushless frames


#41

Wouldn’t you need to go higher cell count, then higher weight? On the E90?

This is just me thinking out loud, I don’t know definitively of course.


#42

And where did you see 6-bladed props?!?


#43

I haven’t, but there are 5 blade props, and the small high power thing seems to be taking off. More blades seems likely to be a thing soon.

I need to get some 5 blade props actually.


#44

Good news! Apparently, Rotorious FPV has just inked a deal to sell their micro-brushless frames via Diatone USA.

RIP 120 is designed for 3", but flies great on 2.5" quad-blades too. Crook 110 and Speck 85 are perfect for 2.5" and 2" props, respectively.

Unfortunately, I first have to finish the pile of builds I already have, before I can even think about some of these nice Rotorious FPV frames. :confused:


#45

This one also look cool, but it’s a bit heavy


#46

I bought an Emax Babyhawk and on about the 10th flight smashed it into our driveway, which caused the camera to stop working. Then it was time to do some experimenting to see if the powertrain could handle the weight of a full size FPV camera. It actually performs better than I expected it to. The weight minus lipo is 84g.

The parts on this build are:

  • Power train from Emax Babyhawk (nothing desoldered, just directly transferred the motors, ESC’s and FC to the new frame)
  • 3D Power BabyHawk 100-BLAC-SX Stretch X FPV Racing Quadcopter Frame (www.taco-rc.com)
  • 0.8mm silicone soft motor mounts
  • Foxeer Monster V2 camera
  • Eachine TX03 VTX
  • Zip ties used for the roll bar structure
  • Using Tattu 3S 450 25C lipos and getting 3 minutes plus of fairly aggressive freestyle

https://youtu.be/7yqxyf6J1MI

-Dustin


#47

Nice work, @Bama3Dr! Both re-build and flying. :smiley:

But… isn’t that giant HS1177 style cam much too heavy for a micro? Sounds like the negative impact on flying performance isn’t as bad as you expected. However, Foxeer and RunCam now have micro CCD cams, so you could save a lot of weight and still have CCD image quality. Something to think about down the road. :wink:


#48

I wouldn’t say it’s much too heavy, but I’m not going to disagree that it’s affecting the vertical punch out either. I just started using a set of Headplay SE goggles and the 7" 1200x600 screen really highlights the image quality difference between the micro cameras and the cameras that are only available in a full size form factor like the Runcam Eagle/Foxeer Monster V2 (I have both of these). These cameras have really spoiled me on image quality. Also, the night cameras like the Runcam Owl Plus and Foxeer Night Wolf are only available in a full size form factor currently and I’m planning to get one of these set up for night flying with one of those.


#49

Loved the powerlooping the bridge video, that was great!


#50

Thanks! I had fun editing that one.

-Dustin


#51

The camera is definitely the downfall of the babyhawk. It handles light so poorly that a bright day gives tons of jello and rolling shutter twitches. Fly it at dusk or inside and suddenly it is butter smooth. I separated my vtx and put a 600tvl cam up in front of it to maintain the stock look and it got a little better but that camera is not great either. The white prop guards reflecting light into the cmos sensor don’t help either. I’m close to hacking them off. I tried to remove them and use the shorter screws but they are still too long and shorted against my motor windings. Just waiting to break one I guess. But that’s hard to do cause it flies so predictably that it doesn’t get crashed much. Lol


#52

Since the weight info on a lot of websites is incomplete and weight matters more than anything else on these machines…
Could everyone of you guys weight their spare frames? The real weight is key and sometimes really hard to figure out and as a matter of fact - a lot of these frames are ridiculously heavy (!).

Let me start this with only the weights of the top and bottom plates of some two plate frames (everyone uses different spacer hardware and the stock hardware is very often too heavy and unusable):


Lantian 90L
bottom plate: 9g (pretty much exactly)
top plate: 2.7g
total: 11.7g

waaaaay too heavy (especially for 1102 motors)


Bobo 95mm:
bottom plate: 6.68g
top plate: 1.45g
total: 8.13g

a bit better, still not super light.


Should have some spares of the X2 ELF 88mm soon to weight top and bottom plates.


#53

X2 ELF 88mm
Bottom plate (2mm): 7.5/7.6g
Top plate (1.5mm) : 1.6g

Total:9.1/9.2g


#54

These frames are all too heavy. :wink:
I feel the desperate need to buy a dremel…


#55

@las What do you consider to be light for a sub 2.5" build?

Edit: I also had the idea of buying a Dremel… I wanted to drill tiny little holes all over the bottom plate of the frame, Swiss cheese style, to reduce weight.


#56

Roughly speaking: Less than 7g is lightweight. 11g is a fat turtle.
Swiss cheese style approach was what I was also thinking about - additionally most frames lack the “speed holes” (a lot of people dislike them ;)) which are required for bottom mounting separate ESCs (yep, I’m not using 4in1’s).


#57

Have anybody tried this frame yet.


#58

Just think that that will be a beast with the Tinyfish FC paired with the Fishpepper 1-2s 4 in 1 esc’s. Just. With that frame and this FC/ESC combo weight would be just under 10 grams without motors and battery.


#59

That looks like it’s not been crash tested, I’m sure it will break very easily, too many design faults to list.


#60

Thanks for the heads up… Well one item removed from cart… On to the PepperFish Br1103 frame