YUNEEC Q500

[PhantomFanatic]

Hey all,
I've been testing one for just about a month now. It has it's pros and cons.
Have a look for yourself at some video (I have a few others on my channel too).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQcIq5hHHs

I think it a great video platform...steady and smooth.

,Anne you shouldn't judge a quad by the video it's camera shoots. But, after watching the above video, I don't recall such a rock steady and smooth video out of a Phantom.

(Hiding behind my cyber ballistic vest.).

 

[gbello23]

Hi Guys. I'm trying to decide between the Phantom or the new Yuneec Q500. For me video quality is the biggest question. I can't decide which machine gives better video images. The Q500 video output looks too warm (yellow) for the whites and seems not to have very good dynamic range i.e. the low level lightt areas seem to go too dark snd the high lights burn out. But that might simply be fixable in post production. Anyone else done any detailed comparisons. I've seen Demunseed's comparison but he didn't compare exactly the same scene for each camera so variations in shot disguish any differences. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

I went for the P2V+ instead, watched a ton of videos and the camera on Q-500 sucks.
Also the quad itself and the remote "feels" more like a toy from what I´ve read?
Q-500 has a built in FPV, sure you need a phone or a tablet for the Phantom.
But if you wanna upgrade from the standard FPV on Q-500?

Also the Phantom has been on the market some years now, Q-500 is new, so all the problems that new electronics bring with them hasn´t shown yet.
And also the Phantom has ton of extras like bags, stickers, mods etc that you can buy / do.

Here´s a good comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLYPX4RX2vw

I've read that the FPV on the Q-500 lags quite significantly and should only be used to frame shots.. I believe they even have it in the manual to not use the FPV system for flying. Looks like LOS flying only with the Q as-is.

EDIT: Here is the verbage:

WARNING: NEVER attempt to fly the Q500 via First-Person View (FPV). There’s a slight ‘lag’ in the CGO2-GB streaming video downlink to the ST10, and
as a result the streaming video/FPV should only be used for aligning camera shots and not for flying! Attempting to fly via FPV can result in a crash that will
cause damage to the product, property and/or cause serious injury. 

 

[Woods]

Doesn't look like it's quite refined enough yet. Needs another couple of model revisions to catch up the the phantom in my Hume opinion.
It's good to see others in the game though.

 

[HailStorm]

A buddy picked one up last week. Very smooth video (needs yellowish tint removed post production) and very quiet. Yeah, in GPS it moves slow, faster in Atti mode, but it is a marketed at a flying camera. The follow me mode is pretty cool. The gimbal quickly unplugs and disconnects, though he hasn't flown without it yet. 13 inch props look huge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx_yuFKONiw

 

[unclebob]

Hi Guys. I'm trying to decide between the Phantom or the new Yuneec Q500. For me video quality is the biggest question. I can't decide which machine gives better video images. The Q500 video output looks too warm (yellow) for the whites and seems not to have very good dynamic range i.e. the low level lightt areas seem to go too dark snd the high lights burn out. But that might simply be fixable in post production. Anyone else done any detailed comparisons. I've seen Demunseed's comparison but he didn't compare exactly the same scene for each camera so variations in shot disguish any differences. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

I went for the P2V+ instead, watched a ton of videos and the camera on Q-500 sucks.
Also the quad itself and the remote "feels" more like a toy from what I´ve read?
Q-500 has a built in FPV, sure you need a phone or a tablet for the Phantom.
But if you wanna upgrade from the standard FPV on Q-500?

Also the Phantom has been on the market some years now, Q-500 is new, so all the problems that new electronics bring with them hasn´t shown yet.
And also the Phantom has ton of extras like bags, stickers, mods etc that you can buy / do.

Here´s a good comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLYPX4RX2vw

I've read that the FPV on the Q-500 lags quite significantly and should only be used to frame shots.. I believe they even have it in the manual to not use the FPV system for flying. Looks like LOS flying only with the Q as-is.

EDIT: Here is the verbage:

WARNING: NEVER attempt to fly the Q500 via First-Person View (FPV). There’s a slight ‘lag’ in the CGO2-GB streaming video downlink to the ST10, and
as a result the streaming video/FPV should only be used for aligning camera shots and not for flying! Attempting to fly via FPV can result in a crash that will
cause damage to the product, property and/or cause serious injury. 

I didn't think analogue signals have laggings, unlike the vision wifi signals.

 

[HailStorm]

I forgot to mention that when I was with my friend flying, we witnessed up to a 1 second lag at times on the monitor - so no, it can't be used for FPV. It supposedly has a 8000 ft altitude :shock: ceiling and a 2 mile range.

Yuneec has been in the aviation business since 1999, they've won awards for their full size aircraft. And a lot of Blade, E-Flite, Parkzone, and other Horizon Hobby brands are made by Yuneec. I was quite impressed by this machine. I think Yuneec is going to be a challenger to DJI.

 

[PhantomFanatic]

I forgot to mention that when I was with my friend flying, we witnessed up to a 1 second lag at times on the monitor - so no, it can't be used for FPV. It supposedly has a 8000 ft altitude :shock: ceiling and a 2 mile range.

Yuneec has been in the aviation business since 1999, they've won awards for their full size aircraft. And a lot of Blade, E-Flite, Parkzone, and other Horizon Hobby brands are made by Yuneec. I was quite impressed by this machine. I think Yuneec is going to be a challenger to DJI.

I think the Hobbico Ora will also be one, when it comes out in March. Google it. I'll wait to hear the reviews, but I'm interested. FPV comes standard, with the screen in the transmitter. A parachute is an accessory with auto launch. I assume that a manual launch will be possible.

Watch the trade show footage.

 

[Woods]

^^^^^^^^

Ya, that Hob Ora looks pretty nice. Has some cool features.
They let you turn the lights off as well for night video shots.
Didn't know it was due in March. I'll definitely be checking that one out.

 

[hionbusa]

Here´s a good comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLYPX4RX2vw

Having owned a Vision + since they came out ( V1 & V3) ... I'm convinced that t the Yuneec has better footage.
The color is slightly off but that's a quick fix with any post editing software. What you cannot fix in the Vision + footage is the graining and noise around the corners unless you want to get into some serious editing with Adobe pro . It's a hit and miss sometimes ( from experience).Visible at 2:56 of the youtube video and any Vision + vision with dark spots for that matter...

Also, the gimbal is a lot sturdier on the Yuneec... Those gimbal protectors don't do much for the Vision + IMO

2 things Yuneec needs to work on . ( Waypoint missions & Telemetry feed when using a tablet ) .

Does anyone know if FPVLR is working on a Kit for the Yuneec ?

 

[hionbusa]

Good to know Tony.
Maybe you should just buy one or get yuneec to send you one for free.

 

[Simon]

Hi Guys. Many thanks for all of your responses to my question about the Yuneec's video quality. I think I will wait for their next version with 4k and judge if it is better. Doesn't seem sensible to buy a quadcopter for video / photography if the camera is not as good as a normal full hd bridge camera.

 

[johnp44]

They should have named it the Phantom Killer!

 

[Woods]

They should have named it the Phantom Killer!

Needs to be better than the Phantom to earn that title. It ain't there yet.

 

[ccase39]

does it have waypoint flying?

8k altitude is just dangerous high. Nothing good can come from flying that high imo.

 

[Byroman]

does it have waypoint flying?

8k altitude is just dangerous high. Nothing good can come from flying that high imo.

No waypoint flying onboard yet. Sounds like it will be forthcoming though. It does have a follow me feature however, which is fun to play with.

Regarding your comment about 8000' elevation ceiling... this all depends on where you fly. This restriction is one of my gripes to Yuneec as I live in a corner of Montana where there is the ability to fly at elevations beyond 8000' (some nearby peaks are right at 8000'). The Q500 manual is very specific that this is not an AGL height - but an elevation restriction. I'm hoping they modify this to an AGL setting and restrict it to perhaps 1000'.
Guess in the meantime I can fly my Vision in the higher country!

 

[ccase39]

does it have waypoint flying?

8k altitude is just dangerous high. Nothing good can come from flying that high imo.

No waypoint flying onboard yet. Sounds like it will be forthcoming though. It does have a follow me feature however, which is fun to play with.

Regarding your comment about 8000' elevation ceiling... this all depends on where you fly. This restriction is one of my gripes to Yuneec as I live in a corner of Montana where there is the ability to fly at elevations beyond 8000' (some nearby peaks are right at 8000'). The Q500 manual is very specific that this is not an AGL height - but an elevation restriction. I'm hoping they modify this to an AGL setting and restrict it to perhaps 1000'.
Guess in the meantime I can fly my Vision in the higher country!

I know this sounds dumb but I would be scared of planes. I know its a one and a million shot they collide but if I killed a 747 full of people I might lose some sleep over it. I have already had some closer than I expected calls with planes and a legitimate close call with a helicoptor.

 

[Meta4]

I know this sounds dumb but I would be scared of planes. I know its a one and a million shot they collide but if I killed a 747 full of people I might lose some sleep over it.

No-one's talking about flying 8000 feet up.
He was saying that if you are somewhere where the altitude is 8000+ feet, the Q500 won't allow you to start up.

 

[ccase39]

I know this sounds dumb but I would be scared of planes. I know its a one and a million shot they collide but if I killed a 747 full of people I might lose some sleep over it.

No-one's talking about flying 8000 feet up.
He was saying that if you are somewhere where the altitude is 8000+ feet, the Q500 won't allow you to start up.

Ahhhhhhh. yea I can see where that could be a pain.

 

[Byroman]

Not to mention that most large airliners are in the 29,000' to 40,000' elevation range.
The summit of Mount Everest is at 29,000'...guess I better be careful if I ever decide to fly my Vision there! LOL :lol:

 

[dennymont]

Re: YUNEEC Q500 8000' Altitude Restriction

Byroman wrote on Feb 19:
Regarding your comment about 8000' elevation ceiling... this all depends on where you fly. This restriction is one of my gripes to Yuneec as I live in a corner of Montana where there is the ability to fly at elevations beyond 8000' (some nearby peaks are right at 8000'). The Q500 manual is very specific that this is not an AGL height - but an elevation restriction. I'm hoping they modify this to an AGL setting and restrict it to perhaps 1000'.
Guess in the meantime I can fly my Vision in the higher country!

Byroman, have you found out any more from Yuneec whether there is a way to disable this restriction or why they imposed it? I have a Phantom 1 and it flies just fine at 9000', albeit with reduced battery life due to the props having to put out full power more often and being a little less responsive. When I tried the Yuneec Q500 at 8500' at a ski resort here in Utah, I saw the warning on the ST-10 but figured OK, fine and tried to start the quad. That is when I found out they disabled the start capability via software for altitudes above 8000'.

My questions relate to whether this is an arbitrary limit imposed by Yuneec to reduce potential conflicts with manned aircraft assuming the drone was being flown at a sea level/lower altitude or whether it has been verified by flight testing and if flight tested, was it a safety concern or something else. Being an engineer, I know how they impose safety limits by doing theoretical calculations, in this case regarding lift and L/D ratios, then adding a safety factor of 1 to 2X.

Wonder if there is any hope of ever being able to eliminate this restriction or at least set it higher via the GUI? Also wonder if the GPS is disabled and the Q500 set up for manual flying if the quad will start and then if it could be switched to the GPS mode while airborne?

Love the Q500 as a stable camera platform, but not being able to use it at 8000' or above eliminates a lot of my planned use here in Utah.