Search results

The only way to get to the answers you're seeking is through eCalc

Don't get me started on DIYD/3DR ;)

Well - their own financial report on their website admits their income is dependent on airline activity levels so they've had a bad year - but then we all have, haven't we?

That AeroVironment Qube is, I'm sure, a lot more than $50K - the prices the big boys ask are ridiculous and IMO out of proportion to their likely practicality in the majority of the "scenarios" that the sales literature (and the press) refer to.

Love it :) - so they can't even copy properly :D

Personally - I'd "talk to Tabb" ;)

Provided that you are within the specified weight limit for the copter and the gimbal, and that the camera is very well balanced in the gimbal, then I reckon you'll be good to go. Any size of frame/gimbal seems to need careful and patient "tuning" to get any particular combo operating optimally...

Which model/spec Boca bearing did you get? Are there any markings on them?

I'm not sure. I have a strong feeling (backed up by one apparently knowledgeable poster's comments in an RCG thread) that things might be heading for a change anyway. EuroUSC, in their website and all their printed literature, features very carefully worded descriptions of their role and...

I go look at it every time I lose a job to some muppet that quotes less than my gasoline estimate. Makes me feel better ;)

I'm guessing the Radian uses these, too - would be a sensible choice for their single-axis approach.

The eternal problem with any kind of photography, not just aerial, of course. Quality of results is what will keep you in business long after the "fauxtographers" have moved on to some other scam ;)

Yep - it looks like the Radian is not completely immune to the horizon problem, but I reckon that's a better performance than I've seen from anything else. Great stuff! Nice van, btw ;)

Thanks, swisser - you've helped me understand some of the subtleties and gotchas - we're aligned on this. It will be interesting if/when a UK-based "manufacturer" becomes accredited to offer CAA-recognised qualification.

SNAFU, then ;) Even their definition of the weight seems to differ from CAA's version - MTOM includes "fuel" whereas the CAA weight divisions specifically exclude the "fuel" load.

I have to agree - thanks for posting it and all that - but one would need to see the video from the stabilised camera to assess how well it's holding the horizon.

I think that a complete OM either given away or sold would kind of defeat the object - CAA/EuroUSC are correct in emphasising safety which is an "active" pursuit, i.e. you can't just buy/download the manual and stick it on the shelf. The framework provided by the CAA seems straightforward enough...

I agree that RTH is a useful safety feature - but it's not mentioned in the ANO or CAP722, except indirectly as an "autonomy" Mode and therefore a Class (which EuroUSC then seems to ignore). Does a Cessna or a Robinson have a RTH feature in case the pilot is incapacitated? ;) Re...

If restricted to those particular props, I'd put the 11x5 on the bottom.

Yeah, but that's where the "vets" are hanging - they converse in film industry slang and actually posting video would be just "not cool" ;)