I've been exploring the possibility of hiring a helicopter with a Wescam (or other similar stabilization system) to get some aerial footage of our campus. This is obviously expensive (I'd expect to pay $8,000-10,000 or more for a good day's worth of shooting.)

But lately I've been seeing more and more footage acquired with radio-controlled flying camera platforms. And the more amazing R/C aerial footage I see, the more I'm becoming convinced that this is the way to go. Why? Because it is vastly more flexible—you can do almost anything: near-to-the-ground shots, flying between buildings, hovering in place, slow crane-style moves, you name it.

For example, take a look at the products offered by this company...
KopterWorx (http://www.kopterworx.com/)

Their flying platform (I wouldn't exactly call it a helicopter) looks pretty amazing, and the footage I've seen from this system is jawdropping.

One of these ready-to-fly, complete systems costs around $20K. Yes, that's a lot of money...but not when you consider...

a) We've spent more than that on a single lens...
b) If we charter a (real) helicopter, we've already spent half of the cost of one of the KopterWorx systems for just a single day of shooting.

My point is that I'm starting to think that buying a KopterWorx system could well be a justifiable expense. Would we use it? Heck yes!!! I can absolutely guarantee you if I had the capability to get any aerial shot and aerial move I wanted, anytime I wanted, I'd use it constantly.

So I'm interested in hearing others' experiences (if any) with these radio-controlled camera platforms.

Thanks,
Scott

One problem is that you need to learn how to fly the thing, which could take a bit of time, plus a few possible crashes along the way.

I worked on a documentary that hired in a R/C helicopter company and they could get various shots pretty quickly, but there's a lot of skill in doing it safely and consistently. I also know a well known DP who wouldn't go near that particular company for a number of operating reasons, although we were happy enough on our production.

Good points Brian. No doubt skilled piloting is required. But as someone who has flown radio-controlled gliders for years, I can say that while it takes skill, it requires nowhere near the skill required to operate a Steadicam, for example. Anyone can learn to pilot one of these as long as they have good vision and good hand-eye coordination.

I just think the benefits of having the ability to acquire such amazing aerial shots anytime we like outweigh any inherent cost or operations issue.

I know nothing about KopterWorx (based in Slovenia)...and purely for support reasons, I'd like to find out if someone in the U.S. or Canada makes a similar platform.

From a flight perspective, I think the KopterWorx multi-rotor system is the right way to go---superior (in my opinion) to a traditional helicopter design (but that's not to say a traditional design couldn't work well too).

Scott

I think much of the decision making will be driven by what camera you're planning on flying.

I've had some experience as DP on aerial shoots where we were flying the 5D/7D, and then later the AF-100 and FS-100 on a TRex 700E aerial platform. That's a pretty full-sized heli, and if you plan on flying cameras that size, I wouldn't go with anything less.

If you're looking for the best price/performance ratio, I'd probably look at a smaller helicopter paired with something like the Sony NEX-5N. It's smaller, lighter, and if it crashes, you're only out about $600 on the camera side. Not to mention it shoots 1080/60p, which you'll likely want for greater ability to post-stabilize footage.

Regardless of the choice you make, keep in mind that operating an R/C aerial video rig for commercial use is, technically, illegal. As I understand it, the FAA is currently exploring ways to control/license the market, and given some of the things that I've heard can happen on these shoots, it's not necessarily a bad thing. We're talking about spinning blades on a fairly large beast. Have a safety plan in place, and make sure your insurance is up to date, if you're going to do this.

I agree that a DSLR isn't the ideal R/C Heli camcorder. The big win for DSLRs is the ability to control DOF. Their weaknesses are motion (rolling shutter) and when the background is in focus (aliasing). A small sensor cam will do, if it has low weight, a wide view, and a decent codec.

Good comments on flying with an inexpensive camera versus a DSLR or larger camera. (Heck, we used a GoPro for two-thirds of the shots in our nationally-broadcast television spot---camera quality is, for the most part, irrelevant these days.)

In my opinion, smooth, professional aerial shots (along with professional Steadicam use) is the "final frontier" in video production. By that, I mean this is the one technical capability (as opposed to creative skill) that sets a production apart and above the competition more than any other.

And for obvious reasons, SUAS platforms (Small Unmanned Aerial System) will be the way to go. Far more cost-effective than renting helicopter time.

Some might argue, "How often do you really need footage like that?" If you're talking about helicopter footage, my response would be "rarely."

But an SUAS platform gives a lot more versatility: you can do the equivalent of traditional crane/jib shots with one of these (but extended beyond what a crane or jib can do)...not to mention more dramatic aerial shots. So if you have an SUAS platform, you'll use it a lot more than you think.

The FCC issues are concerning though. I tried to do some research on this last night and it was a rat's nest of debates, arguments, reports that say one thing, reports that say another...my head was spinning after a half-hour of trying to get to the bottom of it (which is partly---I think---because the FAA hasn't actually finalized any regulation yet).

The only thing (again, I think) I found out is that universities are exempt from much of the proposed regulation, which primarily affects (I think) commercial operation. We're a university, so I think we'd be okay to do this.

Scott

PS - By the way, this is the kind of footage I'm talking about: More af100 Remote Helicopter Footage on Vimeo

You might want to research potential legal issues pertaining to commercial use, e.g. FAA Looks Into News Corp's Daily Drone, Raising Questions About Who Gets To Fly Drones in The U.S. - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/08/02/faa-looks-into-news-corps-daily-drone-raising-questions-about-who-gets-to-fly-drones-in-the-u-s/)

I'm still researching...but from what I've seen, all the FAA red tape only applies if you want to operate one of these over 400 feet. If true, then no sweat---all the shots I'd love to get are easily under 400 feet (including all the shots in that video clip above).

Scott

I'm looking at this option seriously as well. I'm experimenting with a small T-Rex 450 and a GoPro. I'm going to mount a ContourRoam in it as the image quality is a lot less harsh-looking than a GoPro, at least from the comparisons I've seen posted.

For larger payloads, take a look at this:
Welcome to Bergen R/C - /Observer (http://bergenrc.com/Observer.php)

And for gimbals, here's a good one:
PhotoShip One - Aerial Photography - Aerial Video Products - Mikrokopter - Law Enforecement Drones - SUAS - Gimbal - RC Camera Mount (http://www.photoshipone.com/)

Both Bergen and Photoshop One have joined forces in building a camera platform for someone here in Maui.

There's a lot of discussion (to put it nicely) about RC flying with cameras. I'm hoping the vast majority are responsible and won't do things that make people paranoid about it.

Another thought: The multi-rotor helicopters use smaller fixed-pitch props to provide lift and maneuverability. They're steadily getting bigger and capable of lifting larger payloads.

If these props can be shrouded, that provides a great safety factor. Someone could walk right into one without getting lacerated. Of course long hair would get caught up in it. But scissors can fix that...

The one thing about multi-rotor helicopters is that ALL of the motors have to be running perfectly. If one fails, the whole thing comes tumbling down. In a conventional helicopter, if the motor goes out, you can do an emergency "autorotation" landing. Hopefully onto dry land and away from anyone.

I'd be careful about using high end R/C companies as examples, because these guys specialise in the work they'll have equipment and operating experience that lower budget less experienced operators won't have. It's like filming with a full size helicopter, what you get depends on how good the pilot is.

Also. those close passes to people need planning and skill, those blades go round at a hell of a lick.

I'm very concerned about the number of people who are of the mindset that it's an easy thing to fly a heli or multirotor. I've been flying fixed wing and rotary wing RC for over 20 years and with the rotory craft, there is nothing easy about it. Especially when you start mounting camera gear which changes the flight characteristics completely.
Sure all of us who have experience had to start somewhere but as a kid I had time to devote several hours a day to learning to fly a heli. And even as good as I am now, I still don't put the heli in dangerous situations. The biggest thing that gets overlooked is these RC aircraft require diligent maintainence and especially when putting the extra weight of a camera on it. Many of the linkages and gears are plastic and wear out. It's not pretty when a mechanical failure happens. The regimen I used to teach heli students included this maintainece check and also how to deal with in-flight failures. And even that doesnt prevent some potentially serious damage from being done.
To gain the correct skill set for flying a camera at a competent level is gonna take years if you only spend a couple of hours a week at it.
There's a LOT beyond simply flying the craft around to make the footage look good and maintain the necessary level of safety.
Please... everyone that is considering getting into this...keep safety at the top of your list.

FAA Looks Into News Corp's Daily Drone, Raising Questions About Who Gets To Fly Drones in The U.S. - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/08/02/faa-looks-into-news-corps-daily-drone-raising-questions-about-who-gets-to-fly-drones-in-the-u-s/2/)

"Using drones for news-gathering seems like a pretty cool idea, though it’s easy to imagine the robot paparazzi future that Ryan Calo fears."

The idea of face-recognizing flying robots isn't out of the question, but at the present time it's an outlandish concern.

The big and immediate concern is the potential for reckless use. Having seen the occasional "crush" of news photographers up close, and having been a pilot as well, I can imagine collisions of these things, with the equivalent of flying lawnmowers coming down on people's heads.

"While FAA regulations may currently prohibit such a use, the agency is planning to revisit — and possibly relax — those regulations this year, potentially making it easier for private companies to fly the friendly skies with drones."

I'm all for the ability to use RC aircraft to provide a unique perspective.

But that has to be tempered by the need to maintain a reasonable level of safety, too. Perhaps a consideration can be given to the risks posed by RC aircraft of different sizes and designs. Some are less risky than others. One with shrouded props, for example, could be operated in relatively close proximity to people with less fear of injury in case of incidental contact, although it's still a hazard should one fall from 100 feet with a 3-pound camera attached.

Hopefully some good guidelines and rules emerge from thoughtful discussion involving all parties.

Robert, I agree with all you said about putting safety first...except I find it hard to believe it would take years (at a couple hours a week) to become competent at flying one of these craft.

I admit I haven't flown RC helicopters (I have flown RC gliders for years)...but I've seen plenty of people go from never having flown one to literally "mowing the grass" with an upside-down, gyro-stabilized chopper in a matter of months. My impression is that a lot depends on the dexterity, sensitivity, and hand-eye coordination of the operator. (Some people pick up juggling right away...others practice for years and don't get it.) I think operating any RC vehicle requires a certain ability to think abstractly (in terms of spatial orientation) that some people have and some don't.

I also get the sense (from what I've read) that the technology in this area is leaping forward----improvements in engine reliability and power, stability, gyroscopes, accelerometers, etc. all seem to be making flying these things less difficult (but I didn't say "easy!").

I think operating one is very analogous to operating a Steadicam---those, too, require a lot of focused time and practice to master. But in my opinion, that time would be well worth it!

Scott

Agreed that some people progress faster than others but it is one thing to do the 3D flying (which I am quite good at) and trying to develop the control to keep things smooth. One of the best pilots I used to fly with said that 3D flying was easy as long as you were willing to accept that it is not a matter of IF, it is WHEN you are going to crash. Keeping a heli or rotor craft in a perfect hover requires the same dexterity as balancing a pen on the tip of your finger.

Much like using a Steadicam, anyone can strap one on and use it with a bit of practice. But to get the really good results requires a good chunk of time learning the nuances and lots and lots of practice.
And while all my students used simulators to supplement their practice, nothing beats doing it for real. And once again, adding a camera changes everything.

All I'm saying is when you start adding actors or people into the equation, you'd better be a damn good pilot with plenty of experience in dealing with issues that can occur faster than you can blink an eye.

I've saved helis after a linkage broke in flight. I've also had to purposely ditch aircraft with technical issues to avoid hitting people or objects. It's not easy but it does happen. And as mentioned, if you're carrying a 3-4lb camera, the total flying weight is likely to be in the 15-20lb range. That's a lot of mass if it hits something.

Up side to all this is it's a heck of a lot of fun when it goes right which is most of the time.
Not to beat a dead horse but just be safe and use common sense. And find out who the "hotshoe" pilot is in your area and get some instruction and advice. It'll be worth it!
The biggest improvement I've seen is in the radio reliability. The new 2.4ghz system uses digital binding of the transmitter and receiver so no other system can interfere.
Our biggest fear before those systems were available was getting radio interference and losing a very expensive flying machine.

Great points Robert. I'd be interested to know if the multi-fixed-prop platforms are any easier to fly than a traditional helicopter design?

I'm clueless about all this in general---just trying to learn enough to make a good decision on whether it's worth pursuing or not. As I said above, the alternative is to fork out $10K to rent a real chopper with a stabilized camera...but that's one day of shooting---all your eggs in one basket, as it were. If what you get isn't perfect, you've blown you're $10K. (Which makes the RC option---at least---seem no worse.)

We're also looking into more "grounded" options to get those great shots...such as using zipline-mounted cameras. That can be complex to set up but I've seen some amazing results using a system like this.

Heck, I'd even consider just getting a smaller RC helicopter and putting a GoPro on it just to learn with.

Scott

Another low tech approach would be to tow a balloon with the camera attached.

Re the 400 foot reference, I still think that is referring to hobbyist RC platforms (i.e. non-commercial), but you could call your nearest FSDO and find out for sure. There would all of a sudden be a lot of jobs created if they came up with a ruling that made the commercial usage OK, but they'd be pretty skittish about people putting untraceable flying things in the air over populated areas.

Seems to me like the big debate is over what kind of flying vehicle do you call a "hobby" device, and what do you call "a drone?"

I think the FAA is wary of stepping into the hornet's nest of deciding to regulate all radio-controlled model planes and helicopters...I suspect that would anger a LOT of hobbyists around the country...

...and where do radio-controlled gliders fit into this? (e.g. silent, nonpowered unmanned aircraft)

This whole issue is beginning to look to me very much like when the record industry started screaming about digital music and MP3s and streaming music. It was basically a juggernaut they couldn't control. This could well be the same...(the FAA---like all federal agencies---is strapped for cash and doesn't exactly have the personnel to enforce RC regulations in every village, town, and city across the country).

Scott

I'd assume in legal terms you'd be using a commercial device rather than a "hobby" device. It's one of things you'd have to clear together with any insurance requirements.

Regarding any shots from the full size helicopter you'd need to fit within FAA regulations regarding being close to objects and people plus get special clearance to fly closer. In the end it really depends on the type of shots you want as to type of kit you use, there can be an element of crossover between the R/C and the helicopter,but many respects they're different.

You could be expecting the R/C to do material that the full sized helicopter can do better, they are different tools and selection should be based.on the shots you need to do.

RC helicopters fill a gap between "too low or confined for a full-scale helicopter" and "too high or extensive for a jib".

Here's footage from someone who used a multi-rotor helicopter to fly around -- and through -- his house!

http://youtu.be/bsrzBwylodU

Over the past couple of years I've been following the technology and it's become very advanced. For example, I have a little electronic gadget on mine which allows me to use a rotorhead without a "flybar". The flybar was designed to help stabilize the rotor head and make it easier to fly.

The "digital flybar" now performs the same function. Except now it can be programmed to actually keep the helicopter level, too. So if I let go of the cyclic control, the helicopter simply levels itself. There are other systems that can use GPS to lock the helicopter into a fixed point in space. You can even pre-program it to fly a specific course.

The multi-rotor helicopters have become very easy to fly due to this motion-sensor technology, and so have some of the conventional designs. You still have to practice to become proficient, but much of the difficulties of flying RC helicopters have been reduced.

But there is the need to be meticulous about mechanical and electronic issues. Just getting rid of vibrations is a major challenge. I found myself using a scale to weigh the main rotor blades to within 1/100 of a gram.

Making sure it's airworthy and reliable will always be a serious issue. I feel it has to be approached with the same attention to detail as a full-scale helicopter because of the dependence upon intricate moving parts and the risk of damage or injury.

Understanding aerodynamics is important, too. I noticed that during a rapid vertical descent the helicopter tends to lose a lot of stability. I was guessing it was dropping into its own downwash and that guess was right: It's something known as "vortex ring effect" or also referred to as "descent with power". It's avoided by descending with forward motion. If the helicopter should start to descend too fast, you apply cyclic to move forward and take advantage of translational lift, instead of only applying collective in hopes of making it climb.

If the main rotor blade rotates clockwise, the helicopter will tend to drift to the left: the tail rotor's anti-torque thrust keeps the helicopter from yawing counter-clockwise, but it also pushes the entire helicopter to the left. The end result is that the helicopter's rotor disc looks like it's oddly tilted to the right (to compensate for the drift to the left) if it's in a steady hover.

Lots of tricky things like that.

With all that in mind, the pilot (plus camera operator) has to maneuver the helicopter with the smooth precision of a Steadicam operator. There are RC fliers out there who are no doubt skilled but can they put the camera where it has to be? I've experienced that with full-scale helicopter pilots. Some are just great.

This combination demanding technical expertise, flying skills and creative judgement can either overwhelm someone with frustration, or prove itself as a tremendously satisfying challenge.

Scott... go and get yourself a Xaircraft x650 V8, fit it with the options of electrical compass, GPS module and the GoPro camera gimble... get the best Radio you can afford (more channels the better) also get PhoenixRC flight simulator (to practice flying)

A warning, you're going to get hooked... thats why I'm suggesting you get a very advanced Radio because after you start working with the X650 V8 you're going to understand that you can purchase every single component and build your own heavy lift platform for around $4000 to $5000...

As to Frames, the Droidworx and CineStar are top of the line... but you can also go a little cheaper if you want... RC-carbon makes some very nice frames that are classified as heavy lift at a good price.

Probably the most expensive item on a heavy lift platform is going to be a top notch camera gimble... but the higher cost seems to be worth the price...

DJI just released a new flight controller setup thats plug and play... $1200... but it is very nice.

I think your going to see a few folks moving from the GoPro over to the Sony NEX-5n... its just that much better video quality... here's an example
Sony Nex 5n on a Cinestar 6 on Vimeo

And just to get you a little more excited :-)

A new craze thats up and coming with the RC guys is to fit cameras on airframes, either multirotator heli's or fixed wing, and fit onboard a video transmitter... they use video goggles because they get 50 mile ranges, so they can't see the aircraft, but they sure get to see from the pilots view point... here's an example of a fixed wing
platfom using electrical motor, two batteries (50 minute flight time ), flying around 85mph... and the pilot is wearing video goggles with OSD (on screen display) giving him full telemetry feedback of the equipment ...
just like a real fighter jet pilot... :-)

enjoy the video...

Dirty Loud Team BlackSheep on Vimeo

I think your going to see a few folks moving from the GoPro over to the Sony NEX-5n... its just that much better video quality...

The Canon Vixia also gets a nice picture when in the cine mode.

But both the Sony and the Canon are more than some helicopters can lift. That's the reason some use the GoPro. At least it is for me.

The helicopter I have wasn't intended to carry any payload. But it can lift a GoPro, and that's what I had. So I literally "stuck" it onto the helicopter to try it out. Worked OK. But I don't care all that much for the picture quality.

I'm hoping to test a Contour camera. I saw some side-by-side comparisons, and the Contour doesn't exhibit the contrasty, over-saturated qualities of the GoPro.

Dean, I saw a post on another sight today where this guy replaced the esc's on the X650 V8 and claims he can lift 7.5 pounds payload... thats great... at least for that small of a quad heli...

Ray... I'm planning to put a different ESC on this helicopter. Some have reported about a 25% increase in flight times when it's flown with a Castle Creations Ice Lite 50, rather than the stock Align ESC. It'll still lift the same payload, just longer flight times.

It certainly beats putting a larger battery because of the basic laws of diminishing returns: more weight. More power required. Net duration increase: zero?

Also, the Ice Lite can be programmed via computer instead of listening to beeps and moving the throttle stick to determine settings. And the built-in battery eliminator circuit means I don't have to have a separate BEC as I do now.

Oh man Ray---video goggles??? 50-mile range??? 50-minute flight time? HOLY COW! I want this, LOL. Talk about some serious virtual reality---sorry 3-D animators, but this blows anything you can do out of the water. :-)

Those flying wings look almost identical to the Zagi (a popular slope-soaring RC glider). I've flown Zagis for years and always have a blast (there's something magical about flying unpowered for 2 hours on nothing but the wind...)

Dean, your comments about the technological improvements tend to support what I said earlier: that while flying these copter-style aircraft can be challenging, it's not impossible. And I'm certain it'll only get easier with time.

Scott

The Black Sheep gang does some amazing things. I purchased the FPV camera they sell (TBS-69) and installed it on my T-Rex 450. I haven't done much FPV flying with it. Instead I often look through the monitor to check out what the camera's seeing, with the intention of being able to fly via video monitor.

It's harder than I thought. I flew airplanes (real ones) and am totally comfortable with the concept of doing the same with a video feed. But helicopters don't handle at all like airplanes, and it's a big challenge just to get it to go where I want it.

As for tiny HD cameras, the Contour proved to be a big disappointment. Lots of hype on their website with a lot of user complaints. So I have a Replay 1080 XD on order and will see how that works out. Meanwhile I have to reconfigure the T-Rex. The lighter camera changes the weight and balance, so that means moving the battery forward, the FPV camera to a different spot, and figuring out a different mount for the Replay.

I watched a vid of a guy using the replay camera yesterday... it looked better than the GoPro.. not a wide but it didn't look like you are shooting through a bubble either... good price too for that camera...

I'm going to post a review of the Replay 1080XD, along with a test clip comparing the GoPro to the Replay.

I resurrected this thread because I'm about to purchase an AR.Drone 2. For those not familiar with it, check out this vid on Vimeo: Parrot AR.Drone : Flight Demo on Vimeo

The newest version of the AR.Drone shoots stills and 720p video from 2 on-board cameras. It's controlled via iPhone or iPad. It might seem like a toy...but it's a pretty impressive toy.

My reason for getting one is because I believe---at only $299---this represents a great proof-of-concept test platform for anyone considering doing more advanced videography from a remote-controlled aerial platform. My goal is to get one, practice a lot with it to the point where I can get some half-decent aerial video footage flying between and over campus buildings, etc...then use this "offline" footage as justification for us to spend some serious money on a bigger platform capable of carrying better cameras.

The AR.Drone 2 even has an "indoor" mode with foam bumpers around the props, making it safe for indoor use.

Arguments made earlier in this thread were that these platforms are extraordinarily difficult to fly well. While I'm sure that's true, technology has come a long way---the AR.Drone has built-in accelerometers and gyroscopes that make it self-stabilizing---you can simply press a "hover" button and it sits dead-still (not counting, of course, any outdoor wind conditions, which you'd obviously have to be careful about).

The literature says you can even program a preset flight route into this thing and just press "Go." I doubt it's highly accurate...but even if it's sort of accurate, that's huge!

Don't know if anyone else has played with one of these...if so, post your impressions! (I'm particularly curious, for example, how smooth moving aerial video is.) I'll post my impressions after getting one.

Scott

PS - What's clearly lacking in the promo video above are examples of the 720p video footage shot from the drone. I haven't had time to search for any yet...but if anyone can find some examples online, post up!

UPDATE: After some more digging around, I found a guy who has put together a nice how-to video with what he considers to be must-have mods to the AR Drone for aerial videography---mods which aren't expensive, by the way. The most critical mod (which makes complete sense to me) is one that allows the AR Drone to be flown using a traditional RC transmitter (much more/better control).

Check it out:
AR Drone / GoPro DIY Aerial Video Mods - RC Quadcopter on Vimeo

Scott

For those who may have missed it...
Flying People in New York City - YouTube

Fun!

Last year I was experimenting with a small single-rotor helicopter that wasn't designed to carry a load. To get a decent-looking image, something more than a GoPro or Replay needs to be taken aloft. I'm planning to use my Canon Vixia.

Based on the weight of that camera, along with a target for flight duration, I came up with some basic specifications for motors, props, battery, etc.

Since then I built and have been testing a prototype multi-rotor. Here's a "blog" of what I've been doing for the past couple of months.

Building my first quadcopter. From scratch. - OpenPilot Forums (http://forums.openpilot.org/topic/7680-building-my-first-quadcopter-from-scratch/)

Despite all the motors and props being nicely balanced there was still a problem with vibrations. Might be due to phase amplification -- each motor contributing a bit of vibration, and the combination of all four motors adding up. So I made vibration isolators for the motors and have to see how they perform.

Motor mounts with vibration isolation - OpenPilot Forums (http://forums.openpilot.org/topic/9171-motor-mounts-with-vibration-isolation/)

I just got the gimbal but won't install it until I know the quad copter flies properly now that I've built motor mounts intended to reduce vibration levels. And before the gimbal can be installed, a new center plate has to be made with the necessary mounting points.

For what it's worth, it would be a good idea to seriously consider a multi-rotor with 6 props. There have been a few reports that a hexacopter can still fly with one motor out.

Coptercontrol Doing a FANTASTIC job flying a hexacopter missing a motor - OpenPilot Forums (http://forums.openpilot.org/topic/9086-coptercontrol-doing-a-fantastic-job-flying-a-hexacopter-missing-a-motor/)

Interesting Dean! I'll check out your blog. In the meantime, take a look at the latest demo video posted here:
Quadcopters for aerial video and photography | Xpro Heli (http://xproheli.com/)
These guys have a vibration dampening system they've built into their frame, and the results are impressive---the best I've seen, and they use a 4-rotor platform...
XP2 Frame - Aerial Video Quadcopter | Xpro Heli (http://xproheli.com/quadframe/xp2-frame-aerial-video-quadcopter)

I'm very close to pulling the trigger on one of these systems! Another recommendation I'm going to pursue is getting a good flight simulator (Phoenix v3.0 has a quad-copter) along with an actual dual-joystick transmitter to practice flying virtually---I've heard this makes a BIG difference.

Scott

Hi Scott...

Interesting design. A fast build, too.

Many of the multirotor designs are undersized for what I wanted. And the ones that were of the right size were overpriced and not exactly what I wanted.

After I played around with a single-rotor 450-sized helicopter with a GoPro and a Replay 1080XD, I decided I wanted to put a better camera aboard the copter, A Canon Vixia. Everything had to be scaled up.

A number of things had to be figured out simultaneously: What it would take to lift a one-pound camera for about 10 minutes, how much power that would take, how large a battery was needed and how the battery weight would affect performance.

I knew I wanted something that operated on higher voltage in order to put less demand on the wire gauge needed to power the motors. Others have reported that higher voltage meant everything ran cooler. Less heat meant less energy wasted and more efficiency. The higher voltage (22v instead of 11v) eliminated a lot of possible motor choices.

There was only one line of motors that provided extensive test data (Cobra Systems), with actual measured values for thrust, power consumption, etc. As I got closer to estimating what the total weight would be -- including the battery which weighs more than the camera -- I was able to narrow down the list.

Knowing which motors to use led to the selection of a particular prop, and with that I could figure out how large to make the airframe.

It's all prototype at first. The arms and landing gear were re-designed. And now that I have a gimbal I can re-design the center plate. I might also make a different power distribution setup.

For vibration reduction the motors each have isolation mounts, using isolators designed by 3M. Another multi-rotor pilot said he's tried everything from foam to Sorbothane and gels, and the 3M E.A.R. isolators have given the best results. From my initial tests, they seem to work very well. There's a lot less vibrations being transmitted into the airframe, and the remaining vibration levels -- which appear to be very low -- can be easily eliminated by the camera gimbal's isolation mounts.

Here's a video showing the test results with a hard-mounted camera. Before and after the motor isolation mounts were installed: Vibration mount test - YouTube

Hey Scott - Did you get the XP2? This is the latest: XP2 RC Aerial Video Quadcopter | Xpro Heli (http://xproheli.com/affiliate/25/quadcopter/xp2-rc-aerial-video-quadcopter)

Have we spoken already? I'm the guy that made the drone video, and I also own an XP2 - and have made most of the XP2 videos out there. I frickin' love that thing! It can carry an NEX-5n too for some really sweet 1080p60 footage. That's much better for stabilizing in post than the Hero2.

This is the most recent vid I put up:

Humboldt Bay Wildlife Refuge 2 - XP2 Aerial - GoPro Hero2 - YouTube

Hey Guys,

You have a lot of great information that I have been reading over! It is certainly appreciated and I now would like to ask for more of your input...I've seen several people begin using GoPro cameras mounted on a 450 heli. It's kinda ironic that I don't know much about R/C helis even though I grew up around real choppers most of my childhood. My father was a pilot and technician but even though I've helped him assemble real helis together growing up, I never really had that much interest in any of it beyond that.

Anyway, I just wanted to get your thoughts and perhaps suggestions on a fairly inexpensive RC heli so can purchase and start getting a feel for the flight and then eventually mount a GoPro or similar type camera to shoot ariel footage for my final senior project. Suggestions, ideas and general comments on this subject are greatly appreciated!

Cheers,

Scott Warren

ha ha, nevermind...you guys have already posted some great stuff! Thanks!

Scott... if you're interested in buying a complete setup I'm looking at selling my T-Rex 450 which is ready to fly and is set up to use a Replay 1080XD.

I just have to set the "governor" to get the proper RPMs and do a final test flight.

This also has a Skookum Robotics SK-720 stabilizer system in it. If things go a little off and you're trying to get back under control, it's a simple matter of letting go of the right stick and increasing throttle. It will automatically level itself and the increased power you apply will make it climb out, away from harm.

It also has a small video camera in the front with a 900 MHz transmitter to provide a pilot's eye view.

Aloha,
Dean.

Here's my most recent series of aerial vids from a Kinetic Sculpture race in the Eureka Ca area. I used my XP2, but it's not cheap. It carries a GoPro with no "jello" the wobbly image you get from most quads. The secret is this gel they put between the frame and the landing gear/camera mount. It can also carry a Sony NEX-5n, which has DSLR quality, but in a very light package.

Kinetic Grand Championship 2012 - Aerial Video 2/5 - Dead Man's Drop (Sand Dunes) on Vimeo

Get an XP2 From XPro Heli Here: ‪‪http://xproheli.com/affiliate/25/quadcopter/xp2-rc-aerial-video-quadcopter‬‬

Hi
What are your thoughts on this Quad...
http://www.foxtechfpv.com/glyder-600-quadcopter-disc-motor-versionpnp-set-p-856.html
I've looked at a few different quads on the net, this seems to be the most stable at the cheapest price.