Solution for P4 range/battery life issues - Updated with Contact from DJI!

I see a lot of allegations. For all you conspiracy theorists out there, relax. There is no way in hell DJI would ever limit the performance of their product to placate bureaucrats. They may implement safety features like a max height or NFZ but there's no way they would limit battery life or range without being forced to do so.

So what do you want them to do? Unless there is a hidden software defect, the flight time and range won't change much. Your only recourse is a refund or buy back.
 
For all you conspiracy theorists out there, relax. There is no way in hell DJI would ever limit the performance of their product to placate bureaucrats.
I appreciate your posts, ianwood, but on this one I have to disagree. DJI will do just that. They prefer selling Phantoms everywhere than having to deal with a few customers that are unhappy.
Firmware upgrades have shown that they do just that.
 
If you're talking about what they've done on previous Phantoms, they reduced range to comply with the FCC and they reduced speed due to instability. If they could market a drone that flew for 10 miles and 1 hour, they would. Those are key selling points. Someone comes along with better numbers, DJI will have issues.

As for range, the only guess I have at this point is more RF noise on the P4 than previous birds.

As for flight times, it is dictated by the prop shape, motor characteristic and power distribution. The P4 has larger motors which will make it faster but will be less efficient at lower speeds. They clearly thought the sport mode would be worth it.
 
I see a lot of allegations. For all you conspiracy theorists out there, relax. There is no way in hell DJI would ever limit the performance of their product to placate bureaucrats. They may implement safety features like a max height or NFZ but there's no way they would limit battery life or range without being forced to do so.

So DJI will implement geofencing into the firmware to restrict flying in the NFZ's --- why wouldnt they also implement reduced power output to comply with the LOS rule? It doesn't take a genius to assume 3+ mile range is clearly beyond LOS for unaided human eyesight.

DJI is not just placating to ordinary bureaucrats --- this is U.S. federal government that can prohibit their products from being used if they dont comply with FAA rules.
 
So DJI will implement geofencing into the firmware to restrict flying in the NFZ's --- why wouldnt they also implement reduced power output to comply with the LOS rule? It doesn't take a genius to assume 3+ mile range is clearly beyond LOS for unaided human eyesight.

DJI is not just placating to ordinary bureaucrats --- this is U.S. federal government that can prohibit their products from being used if they dont comply with FAA rules.

The FAA does not have any regulations on RC power output or range. As long as DJI complies with FCC regulations, they can power it however they like as far as the FAA is concerned. Furthermore, effective range depends on many conditions. It is very easy to make the case for using the maximum allowable power to satisfy varying conditions.

Meanwhile DJI no fly zones more or less reflect FAA advisory circular 91-57a.

P.S. There is a market for DJI products outside the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WetDog and Myetkt
The FAA does not have any regulations on RC power output or range. As long as DJI complies with FCC regulations, they can power it however they like as far as the FAA is concerned. Furthermore, effective range depends on many conditions. It is very easy to make the case for using the maximum allowable power to satisfy varying conditions.


Where is the FCC mandate to reduce output power on the P4? Unless we see actual documentation or credible reference for this, you're just conjecturing.

Meanwhile DJI no fly zones more or less reflect FAA advisory circular 91-57a.


So if the No Fly Zones are incorporated into the Phantom's firmware to comply with FAA Advisory Circular 91-57a --- why isn't the 400' AGL limit also imposed in the firmware since that rule is also part of 91-57a?

P.S. There is a market for DJI products outside the US.


Yes, of course --- but when the U.S. and UK represent the two biggest markets for DJI products, then they will start bending to the will of the civil aviation authorities in those two countries. That is just simple Econ 101.
 
Yes, of course --- but when the U.S. and UK represent the two biggest markets for DJI products, then they will start bending to the will of the civil aviation authorities in those two countries. That is just simple Econ 101.

I'd like to agree, but just because we're English speakers we don't necessarily make us DJI's (or any other global consumer product manufacturer's) biggest market. In fact, the EU is huge with >600m inhabitants, The German forums are also huge. I'd bet there's a healthy Spanish speaking market, never mind our Asian friends...

Just sayin' like...
 
So if the No Fly Zones are incorporated into the Phantom's firmware to comply with FAA Advisory Circular 91-57a --- why isn't the 400' AGL limit also imposed in the firmware since that rule is also part of 91-57a?

Because 400' AGL is not a rule imposed by 91-57a, it is part of a recommendation to adhere to best practices.
 
I'd like to agree, but just because we're English speakers we don't necessarily make us DJI's (or any other global consumer product manufacturer's) biggest market. In fact, the EU is huge with >600m inhabitants, The German forums are also huge. I'd bet there's a healthy Spanish speaking market, never mind our Asian friends...

DJI is like any other company that sells to the global marketplace --- they have to comply with government regulations of whatever country they sell products in --- and they have to make products that can match or exceed their competitors.

DJI is not stupid and they know appeasing the FAA and CAA will be very good for their bottom line in the years to come. Anger those authorities and it could be financially disastrous. By the same token, DJI wants to keep making Phantoms that can compete with products like Yuneec Typhoon and 3DR Solo, which may have expanding range and flight times.

So basically, it's a balancing act between the two primary forces of govt. regulation and market competition. This is Econ 101.
 
DJI is like any other company that sells to the global marketplace --- they have to comply with government regulations of whatever country they sell products in --- and they have to make products that can match or exceed their competitors.

DJI is not stupid and they know appeasing the FAA and CAA will be very good for their bottom line in the years to come. Anger those authorities and it could be financially disastrous. By the same token, DJI wants to keep making Phantoms that can compete with products like Yuneec Typhoon and 3DR Solo, which may have expanding range and flight times.

So basically, it's a balancing act between the two primary forces of govt. regulation and market competition. This is Econ 101.

I agree with you completely, but my point is that it's not JUST the FAA and CAA that they would be talking to - there are a whole lot of other regulatory bodies EASA being one of them...
 
Because 400' AGL is not a rule imposed by 91-57a, it is part of a recommendation to adhere to best practices.

Flying a model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport or above 400' AGL is not prohibited by U.S. law (yet).

Imposing NFZ's into firmware but not a 400' AGL limit seems contradictory to me. You either follow all the FAA rules completely, or you follow none of them.
 
I agree with you completely, but my point is that it's not JUST the FAA and CAA that they would be talking to - there are a whole lot of other regulatory bodies EASA being one of them...

I think what's eventually going to happen is that all civilian UAVs will have firmware limitations based on what country you purchased it in. UAVs will be treated the same way as automobiles --- Toyota sells cars to the U.S. market that have to comply with laws regarding emissions and safety airbags and minimum crash ratings, whereas in Europe or Asia they dont need the same requirements.
 
I think what's eventually going to happen is that all civilian UAVs will have firmware limitations based on what country you purchased it in. UAVs will be treated the same way as automobiles --- Toyota sells cars to the U.S. market that have to comply with laws regarding emissions and safety airbags and minimum crash ratings, whereas in Europe or Asia they dont need the same requirements.

Absolutely.
 
Flying a model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport or above 400' AGL is not prohibited by U.S. law (yet).

Imposing NFZ's into firmware but not a 400' AGL limit seems contradictory to me. You either follow all the FAA rules completely, or you follow none of them.

The clause relating to operations within 5 miles of an airport is part of the determining criteria for model aircraft operation - i.e. it may only be considered a model aircraft operation IF that is only done by arrangement with the AO or ATC.
 
As for range, the only guess I have at this point is more RF noise on the P4 than previous birds.

@ianwood : This is the right answer, I finally see on the RF point. Just to clarify:

1. The controller ouput power in dBm from RF PA chip doesn't make much difference in the range. The DSSS signal tx from RC is not the range issue.
2. The video FPV is managed by TX on P4 board. Now the p4 board is redesigned since p3p/a ! This means that something may be not coupled perfectly between RF/Filters/Antenna system in some way. In this case may be that trasmitted signal has some attenuation due to noise, stationary wave, poor spectral density linearity ... many things can go wrong enough. Keep in mind that cables going from the mainboard to tx antenna may attenuate 1db or more at 2.4Ghz.
3. The FPV signal run at 10Mhz bandwidth, and is very easy to introduce noise on the tx side, rx side, and often on both sides.

Many of this problems can be fixed via firmware, other cannot. We will see.
My personal opinion, is that board redesign could create some glitch in the overall P4 tx system for many reasons. I have no P4 in my hand to make some tests ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianwood
Honestly, I don't think Franky got called by the FAA. Remember this is a Chinese Company. They don't play by OUR rules. Its ridiculous to think that our FAA has any control over a company in China. They will sell their drone here anyway. They have been dumping products on the US for years and we have not stopped them. The Pidilly *** FAA is not gonna do it now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larry.Marshall
Blame the FCC. You probably need a radio license for the power output of P3s.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
It's not only DJI playing nice with government aviation authorities. Yuneec, and 3D Robotics are too. Every major player will make compliant drones to avoid heavy regulation or a complete ban as some have proposed.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
CostCo's solution is to only sell drones under .55 pounds that are exempt from registration. 500 foot range, $79, no FAA registration.:cool:
Propel Titanium 2.0 HD Sonic Drone with Camera
Costco Wholesale
 
Last edited:

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic