H.A.L. Build with NTM 35-30 1100KV (My first build)

[Samsord]

Hello, hello! So I have selected parts for my first 4-rotor multi and first TX/RX set up. I'm pretty sure it will fly as it's similar to other builds I have seen that fly really well, but I am still unsure about a few aspects that will affect the ability of the craft to fly well etc.

Selected parts so far (all able to be sourced from HK although I can source from anywhere that will ship to NZ in a timely manner and fit in the same price bracket):

• Frame
  • Turnigy H.A.L. (Heavy Aerial Lift) Quadcopter Frame 585mm
• Motors
  • NTM Prop Drive Series 35-30 1100kv
• ESC
  • Afro ESC 30Amp (flashed with SimonK)
• Props
  • 10x4.5 SF Props (generic black ones from HK? Maybe a bad idea)
• Flight Controller
  • HKPilot Mega V2.5 FC with GPS Module / other APM FC with GPS
• TX/RX
  • Turnigy 9XR Mode 2 (No Module)
  • OrangeRX DSMX/DSM2 2.4 GHZ Transmitter
  • OrangeRx DSMX Spektrum Compatible DSMX 3Ch S.BUS 2.4Ghz Rx (twin long antennae version) (has S-Bus but I'm not sure about compatibility with FC)

My main concerns:

Prop: I'm not sure whether there will be a good reason to choose the 10x5 vs the 10x4.5 ones and whether they need to be of a higher quality, as I will need to learn how to balance props anyway. But roughly this is the size of Prop I think I should swing with chosen motor.

Flight Controller:I figure I'll be able to get a lot out of the HKPilot gear, since I want to be able to program way points and loiter etc, and am happy to have to spend time tweaking the board and installing firmware. But I don't know where I should source one of these controller boards (are HK ones any good?).

TX/RX:The Turnigy 9XR Transmitter seems to be used by a lot of hobbyists and is very affordable, can't find any real advantages over more expensive units. I'm not sure on the compatibility of the OrangeRX units I've selected (one module for the 9XR as doesn't come with one and the receiver and I'm not sure about telemetry with this combo).

Any advise would be grand. I think the most important part is selecting a suitable frame/motor/ESC and prop combo. I just need to do my reading with regard to selecting an FC and sourcing good TX/RX gear. Also I've noticed a lot of people with similar requirements as mine flying wooden Y4 quads. I want to build an X-config, but only because I think that looks cool, what are the advantages there? I can google that too, but opinions?:black_eyed:

 

[Samsord]

I've discovered from reviews that the 9XR is a hateful TX and will probably shell out on a better one, or just the 9X which sounds better then it's newer counterpart.

 

[jbrumberg]

Welcome Samsord.

I have the same frame, but with different components and transmitter. I have a Flysky TH FS 9XB version of the 9X in many ways it is the most user friendly of the 9X models in that it requires no internal antenna wire modifications for the TX modules. One just needs to get the modules with attached antennas. There have been complaints posted in other sites about that Tx/Rx as to range and signal drop off. A lot of owner/operators are switching over to the Taranis with Frysky for a radio Tx. There have been complaints about the HK SF props swell. Gemfans are a step up in quality, but they are not the best balanced and are difficult to balance as they can be out of balance at the hub-prop juncture. HQprops are pretty reasonably priced and are pretty well balanced as purchased. Do not forget the HK 10 pack of 10cm servo wires to connect the Rx to the FCB; the PDB as well (the HK PDB has QC issues, I use a power breakout cable/squid).

The HAL frame landing skids connectors are pretty chintzy. You will break those yellow connectors I guarantee it so buy a lot of extras or better yet get some automotive vacuum "T" connectors (3/16", I forget the mm equivalent >4mm) and use hot glue. The 4mm CF shafts are decent. The motor baseplates look nice but will bend with a hard impact they can be bent back to shape. It is really hard to bend those booms, but it is possible. I have proven that.

oddcopter.com is a site that features a quad build using the HAL frame.

Get extra props you will be breaking them in the early stages of your learning curve, motors too if they are long shaft motors.

eCalc is a pretty decent, fairly accurate predictor of flight performance. Use it to see how your components match and fly.

Hope this helps.

Good luck.

Jay

 

[Samsord]

Welcome Samsord.

I have the same frame, but with different components and transmitter. I have a Flysky TH FS 9XB version of the 9X in many ways it is the most user friendly of the 9X models in that it requires no internal antenna wire modifications for the TX modules. One just needs to get the modules with attached antennas. There have been complaints posted in other sites about that Tx/Rx as to range and signal drop off. A lot of owner/operators are switching over to the Taranis with Frysky for a radio Tx. There have been complaints about the HK SF props swell. Gemfans are a step up in quality, but they are not the best balanced and are difficult to balance as they can be out of balance at the hub-prop juncture. HQprops are pretty reasonably priced and are pretty well balanced as purchased. Do not forget the HK 10 pack of 10cm servo wires to connect the Rx to the FCB; the PDB as well (the HK PDB has QC issues, I use a power breakout cable/squid).

The HAL frame landing skids connectors are pretty chintzy. You will break those yellow connectors I guarantee it so buy a lot of extras or better yet get some automotive vacuum "T" connectors (3/16", I forget the mm equivalent >4mm) and use hot glue. The 4mm CF shafts are decent. The motor baseplates look nice but will bend with a hard impact they can be bent back to shape. It is really hard to bend those booms, but it is possible. I have proven that.

oddcopter.com is a site that features a quad build using the HAL frame.

Get extra props you will be breaking them in the early stages of your learning curve, motors too if they are long shaft motors.

eCalc is a pretty decent, fairly accurate predictor of flight performance. Use it to see how your components match and fly.

Hope this helps.

Good luck.

Jay

Thanks Jay! I'll probably look at getting the Taranis Frysky radio combo or maybe another better one. Thanks for the heads up about the servo wires and flimsy T connectors on that frame. I wonder if I could use heatshrink to strengthen them for a quick fix. I might be better off with a more robust design, even something with square bars with the props mounted directly on them like on the Hoverfly build tutorial on youtube. I set my heart on the HAL frame after seeing the Oddcopter tutorials. There are better frames out there, though. Yes I heard the long shafts on those motors can make them easy to damage with a light crash. I might try to find an equivalent motor somewhere else. What motors do you use Jay/anyone?

 

[jbrumberg]

You can not do much better than a Taranis for the cost. Heatshrink would work on those yellow T connectors as well as on those vacuum T connectors. There is a marine grade heatshrink too and the guy who repaired my well used some kind of heatshrink too. There is also a thread at rcgroups.com dedicated to the HAL and a spinoff thread. There some really good ideas about landing gear mods in that thread as well as different setups used by different builders. It's a good thread, but does not have a lot of post activity.

I really like the looks of the basic HAL frame chassis and spacious dome. It is pretty heavy though.

If I remember correctly I have Turnigy 1000kv 2830-11 motors and 9047 SF Gemfan props and 30A ESC's. I also have HQProps 9036(?) that I will be trying out. I am currently using a KK2.0 version 1.6 FCB. It is basically the oddcopter design. I also have the HAL gimbal frame carriage to carry an 808 keychain cam (at present) and to which I can/could/will attach a better, stronger landing gear setup. Those round booms are plenty strong and more aerodynamic than a lot of other shapes. The motor mount plate setup really mounts up and aligns up pretty well. I also bought and added the alternative short landing struts that attach to the motor mounts. They really make aligning the motor mount plates easy and provide some additional protection to the motor mount plates. I wish I could give you more particulars, but I have been and will be +1000 miles from home, family, hangar, and almost all things RC for awhile :dejection:. In my desperation I recently purchased a Traxxas Latrax Alias quad due to RC withdrawal. :highly_amused:

Hope some or any of this helps.

Good luck

 

[Samsord]

Thanks for you reply Jay. It's some good advise.

I'm having trouble deciding whether I should spend $800+ building a quad with functionality similar to a DJI Phantom (although possibly a lot more lift/power capability, but lacking the streamlined, impact resistant shell and military developed FC chip), or just buying the DJI Phantom or similar kit and my own radio gear, or even just a complete RTF kit and some spare parts. I want to build and customize but I don't want to spend more to do that, and I want something more powerful than the affordable RTF kits I've found under 1K. I need to research how to get economy out of the design as well, as I want to be able to fly for 20mins with a >250g extra load. I don't think that will be difficult to achieve but, yeah, I'm having trouble deciding on each part, and there's no definitive answer.

For example, do I go with Turnigy or other Cheaper Motors? or should I really go for a better (more trusted?) brand. I have a few ideas for where to get good props, and some frames I like the look of, but there is a challenge selecting the parts, naturally.

I still would like some advise. Even a partial/complete build spec that meets my requirements. A powerful quad that can lift 500g or so or fly really well with lower load and get decent battery performance, has GPS wayfinding, pos holding etc, and have good impact resistance for a keen newbie.

As far as the physics go I think I can build something that will work to carry it's own weight and some extra, and be able to fly smoothly, but i don't want it to crap out because the parts are of a poor grade or because it won't take a bit of a beating.

?_?

 

[jbrumberg]

Whatever you do do not go cheap. Cheap is cheap. It will be a waste of money, even if it is a small amount of money. Turnigy motors are not that bad; I would not go cheaper on motors.

Everything else is a tradeoff. eCalc is a decent tool to help give you an idea of basic flight performance and payload lift capacity for the components selected for input into the program. eCalc is not perfect; it is only relatively accurate, but for a given setup with established components and varying identified components like battery size, prop size, and motor power individually it will be "accurate relative to that setup with performance estimates.

 

[egrims]

Hey Samsord. I'm by no means an expert but one of my more recent builds was a H.A.L. frame. I had similar specs to your build and had success with it. I actually used Turnigy D3536/8 1000KV motors and Turnigy Plush 40A ESCs (certainly overkill for what I needed, I had ordered them before I fully understood what I really needed). I originally started out with it on 3S batteries but after I added the RCTimer Brushless Gimbal setup I struggled to keep it up and my flight times were horrible. I moved the build over to 4S and was able to hover around 50% throttle. I was running APC Slow Fly 10 inchers with a KK2.0 board. I didn't do a lot of crazy acrobatics though as it was my AP rig. Just pretty much up and then down, sometimes moving around at the top of my flight.

The landing gear with the H.A.L. is complete and utter garbage. I highly recommend avoiding it. My set broke on literally the first landing (albeit with me landing a little hard but still...). I ended up getting landing gear from Quadrame.us. I'm pretty sure it was the 155mm clearance set:

http://www.quadframe.us/collections...opy-of-155mm-clearance-landing-legs-version-1

Definitely recommended. Holds up really well. It even held up pretty well when my quad fell out of the sky from 100'+. No fault of the frame or the build, pretty sure it was my stupid @$$ not tightening a prop enough before taking off. It's because of this that I'll be moving to something with redundancy (and also to not be an idiot and do the proper pre-flight checks before I fly, live and learn).

I think the frame is decent, especially for the price but if you're competent in doing repairs and making parts and things on your own you might be more beneficial going for a frame with square aluminum arms since they are usually easier to source from someone other than HK. I'm not even going to bother getting replacement parts for this frame only because it's such a pain. I'm moving all my quads and my new Y6 to frames that I can more easily repair and rebuild myself with parts sourced locally or built myself.

Like jbrumberg I also have a 9x transmitter. I've got it flashed with er9x but I'm still using the original receiver from it. With all the talk about the Trannis I'll most likely be looking to move over to that system with all the good reviews I've seen on it. The original 9x with er9x does work really well though. I'll probably keep it and use it to test out things like OpenLRS.

Hope that helps. Good luck on your build.

View attachment 17910

 

[jbrumberg]

egrims- welcome. It's always nice to meet another HAL owner/operator and thanks for that frame link. There is one landing gear frame that I believe can bolt directly to the basic frame of HAL gimbal assembly which I bought basically for that reason and to also carry a small 808 or mobius or maybe FPV equipment in the future.

They are a sorry sight when they break up with a major crash. I was lucky with mine with my worst crash I just cartwheeled over and through a lot of snow for a while and just bent a boom and a motor shaft and motor mount. Nothing like your crash.. I have to say you did good. I had broken almost two full sets of those yellow t connectors flying before I switched to those automotive T connectors. I have only broken a couple of those automotive T's with "hard" landings. My last few flights were damage free. The weight of the HAL does not help with soft landings.

I have to say I like my HAL. The HAL thread at RCG has a lot of interesting variations of the build and component options.

Post freely and often.

J

 

[egrims]

Thanks for the warm welcome :nevreness:. I did enjoy my H.A.L. while it lasted. Definitely felt rugged and was confident that any small crash should save most of my gear. It was definitely unfortunate that I lost it but just means I get to build another platform :tennis:.

I had to do some modifications to get that landing gear to fit my frame but nothing to crazy. I also put some custom 3D printed plates and machined aluminum brackets on the front and back to move the gimbal forward and then counteract that move in the back with my battery mount location. It definitely worked well but the added weight made it pretty inefficient. If I were to do it again I would probably shift some things around and try and lighten up more parts than I did. That thread at RCG has some crazy builds on it, definitely some creative people working with the H.A.L. frame which is always nice to see.

 

[rotovacgroupca]

HAL build a great NTM 35 30 1100KV, but i want to know which technique you have used either vacuum forming or injection molding.