Extended Motor Mounts.
- Thread starter Dtacmed
- Start date
Big waste of money and time. You are just gaining weight. Nothing else. More stability? Is he kidding. You can't get any more stable than it already is. He just had an idea and a CNC machine and was hoping to cash in on it. My motors never got hot anyway. He claims good fly time (I guess that's why he had his timer on the video) but how many batteries is he using? Get a Phantom 2 and you can more than double your flying time. But in the end he had to try and think up some benefits for it which fails.
"More stability? Is he kidding. You can't get any more stable than it already is."
I beg to disagree on that one. The wider the body....distance from center to the motors, the slower the moment of rotation to each and every variance of power to motors causing it to tip or twitch in any of the 3D, roll, pitch, yaw dimensions. Bigger....as in wider....will absolutely increase stability. Simple physics. Now, with a good gimbal, one might argue there is no need....if your gimbal is working absolutely perfectly, but most on a Ph are only 2D....which leaves Yaw rotation....which is a REAL problem to get slow and smooth...on a Ph.
For stability, increasing the "footprint" would be an asset. The only problem in my mind is that the bird becomes that much more difficult to find a case for and carry around.....whereas most of the larger quad and hex copters have folding legs.
Looks to me like a way of getting a bigger, more stable bird out of a Ph without buying a whole new bigger frame and starting over.....with some of the advantages and without some of the other advantages.
I'm not jumping for it but he is absolutely right about stability being improved.
I beg to disagree on that one. The wider the body....distance from center to the motors, the slower the moment of rotation to each and every variance of power to motors causing it to tip or twitch in any of the 3D, roll, pitch, yaw dimensions. Bigger....as in wider....will absolutely increase stability. Simple physics. Now, with a good gimbal, one might argue there is no need....if your gimbal is working absolutely perfectly, but most on a Ph are only 2D....which leaves Yaw rotation....which is a REAL problem to get slow and smooth...on a Ph.
For stability, increasing the "footprint" would be an asset. The only problem in my mind is that the bird becomes that much more difficult to find a case for and carry around.....whereas most of the larger quad and hex copters have folding legs.
Looks to me like a way of getting a bigger, more stable bird out of a Ph without buying a whole new bigger frame and starting over.....with some of the advantages and without some of the other advantages.
I'm not jumping for it but he is absolutely right about stability being improved.
Peter Patricelli said:
And I will beg to disagree even more. The electronics do all of the work keeping these things stable. Without them they are useless as a boar with ti$s. The electronics have become the Physics. Just look at many modern jet fighters. They don't really want to fly but the sophisticated electronics force their way in and replace the lacking physics.
If I take either one of my Phantoms outside now and set the controller down they are ridiculously stable. Once you are in motion those extensions totally disappear. That is if they did anything at all on the Phantom anyway.
Now granted with an inferior product with a less sophisticated system, a wider stance may make a quad a bit more stable. But we are looking at a system that uses many different things to keep itself planted.
You are also overlooking the added cost and weight of the, aluminum, wiring, extra screws, and let's not forget the batterieS and the comparably lame flight time. And all of this not counting the landing gear. The workload you are adding to the motors because of weight and larger props. Oh but you can upgrade the motors. We'll there is even more money. This whole idea is just down right useless and silly. Just an attempted money grab. To make the unknowing believe they need this. A fool and his money. Some people make things just because they can. Not because they have any value.
dcoski said:
Now I don't know about that. It doesn't seem to make any sense. Larger props= more mass and air drag on one revolution which in turn takes more energy. Power from energy is not free. You can take an electric transformer and get more volts but you will lose amps. Nothing is free.
I have seen this debate (argument) many times but I have not experimented with this theory myself . But my common sense says it is not true if you look at it in general terms of bigger is better.
There is this thing called tuning and efficiency though. Anything that is designed has a perfect tuning (sweet spot) as to power,weight and design. Did DJI get the Phantom perfectly tuned with its power, weight and all by choosing the design they did for the props? I don't know. They did very well either way. But for someone to say "just put a bigger prop on and it will be better" is just silly. If you were ever a good motor head you would definitely understand this. Efficiency in design is key. Parts need to match and work together. I can put a bigger cam in any random car and that will not, necessarily, make it more powerful. But if I tune it's duration, lift, etc to match the other parts I will get somewhere.
Now if in fact you gained more lift and time you WILL be losing something in turn. Unless the props you choose happen to be the ones that match everything about the Phantom dead perfectly. Which isn't really going to happen. On another note, it can also depend on what characteristics you are looking for because there are variables.
Let's go back to the car analogy. One person may want quicker times at the track so he will want to put in a "shorter" set of gears. He will lose some top speed. It's a give and take. Distributing the power/energy. This is fine but he may not gain what he wants because the other components are not working efficiently with this new part so let's change the intake, carb, weight and maybe heads and so on. Efficiency does not mean saving gas per se. It is getting things to their peak of performance.
And bigger is not necessarily better.
Just ask my wife.
Increasing the length of the arms will increase the moment of inertia. That makes the aircraft more stable in the sense that it would require a stronger outside force to change its attitude. That means that the motors would have to work harder to change the aircraft's position and that it may take longer for the changes to take effect.
It's a balancing act (soft-of pun intended). Modern fighter aircraft are designed to be less stable so that they can turn more quickly and at sharper angles. Other aircraft don't need to respond as dramatically to the controls so they are designed to be more stable.
The above is a discussion of the static stability of the aircraft. In the case of the Phantom, as with the fighter jet, the avionics contributes to the stability dynamically. So, the actual stability is determined by both the physical characteristics of the aircraft and by the software.
I doubt that the improvement in performance, if any, would be enough to justify the risk, cost, and work involved to do the modification. On the other hand, a lot of people enjoy tinkering and experimenting with things like this and I certainly would not want to discourage that!
-- Roger
It's a balancing act (soft-of pun intended). Modern fighter aircraft are designed to be less stable so that they can turn more quickly and at sharper angles. Other aircraft don't need to respond as dramatically to the controls so they are designed to be more stable.
The above is a discussion of the static stability of the aircraft. In the case of the Phantom, as with the fighter jet, the avionics contributes to the stability dynamically. So, the actual stability is determined by both the physical characteristics of the aircraft and by the software.
I doubt that the improvement in performance, if any, would be enough to justify the risk, cost, and work involved to do the modification. On the other hand, a lot of people enjoy tinkering and experimenting with things like this and I certainly would not want to discourage that!
-- Roger
A Phantom 1, GoPro, 8" props were good enough. Now we are flying around in the 1300g with short flight time. The move to the Phantom 2's props helped. The stock motor can pull a 10" and maybe 11" prop quit good, but won't fit on a Phantom. The next step and it has already started is 3D gimbals and I think we are going to need extended landing gear. So extended motor mounts could be an option.
I doubt that the improvement in performance, if any, would be enough to justify the risk, cost, and work involved to do the modification. On the other hand, a lot of people enjoy tinkering and experimenting with things like this and I certainly would not want to discourage that!
-- Roger[/quote]
That was my base point. Although mine was a bit more long winded.
As far as the tinkering and experimenting goes, I get that. I have been doing that since I was a little kid. But usually my ideas and designs. Not so much by buying somebody else's, that incidentally, is practically useless. I give the guy credit for trying but it is a fail in my eyes.
-- Roger[/quote]
That was my base point. Although mine was a bit more long winded.
As far as the tinkering and experimenting goes, I get that. I have been doing that since I was a little kid. But usually my ideas and designs. Not so much by buying somebody else's, that incidentally, is practically useless. I give the guy credit for trying but it is a fail in my eyes.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,219
- Reaction score
- 7
I know of a few people who have used these mounts, primarily so they could make significant mods and create X8 configuration Phantoms. One runs 10" props and a larger gimbal/camera underneath. For way-out-there mods like that, they seem to have their place as a niche solution.
For us mere mortals, that's a lot of change for relatively unknown gains. These have to add quite a bit of weight to the Phantom, and though I'm sure the shell can generally stand the greater forces involved, the stresses will be higher and you'll need to (be able to?) run larger batteries to keep it in the air.
Quite frankly, this type of thing isn't really to my "style" of modding, but they definitely have their place for more ambitious projects.
For us mere mortals, that's a lot of change for relatively unknown gains. These have to add quite a bit of weight to the Phantom, and though I'm sure the shell can generally stand the greater forces involved, the stresses will be higher and you'll need to (be able to?) run larger batteries to keep it in the air.
Quite frankly, this type of thing isn't really to my "style" of modding, but they definitely have their place for more ambitious projects.
ElGuano said:
Ok, at first glance I thought your name was Elguapo from The Three Amigos.
So are you playing on that by using Elgauno instead..........that being "The Bat Turd"? Or is it a real name?
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,219
- Reaction score
- 7
Nvr2fst said:
At your service, sir.
Nvr2fst said:
Yes, you are correct. My real name is Thaddeus M. ElGuano. The M stands for Madeleine, but you understand why I go with just the initial. But you have me at a disadvantage sir. May I presume you are Gerald R. Nvr2fst Jr. of the Boston Nvr2fsts? I knew your father, he was a good man.
ElGuano said:
Ah yes, Madeleine , such a beautiful name, why hide it?
And you would be correct, that would be me, of the Boston Nvr2fsts.
Oh and I will send your regards to my father, as you appear to have been misinformed of his passing, as he is alive and well, Thank You sir and good day. :lol:
ElGuano said:I'm mortified sir! Sincerest apologies.And a happy new year to yours.
As you should be, sir.
After our last correspondence I realized I may have spoken to soon because, you see, I have not spoken with my father in at least a fortnight, so I dispatched a carrier to his residence post haste in Yorkshire where, to my relief, I was told, there was no acrid smells emanating from under the doors.
All is well and a happy new year to you and yours. Sir.
lol how about them apples. I always just assumed you were referring to yourself as being "The ****" (in a good way) :lol:
Thanks guys. I guess as with most of my RC Planes, Heli's Boats etc. I get bored with them and start looking at modifications. I'll give them a try and report back. If nothing else I'm out 40.00. Thanks again !!
How about this. I think this could be a very good modification. If there is a weak point I think the landing is it.
http://www.fusuno.com/product_info.php? ... s_id=17078
http://www.fusuno.com/product_info.php? ... s_id=17078
Similar threads
