Watching this really helped me understand better the relationship between voltage, current, motor sizes, and KV! Very cool to see the back to back flights with different batteries.
If you built it with the VY 2004's, you could've saved 20 grams and gone under the limit. 20 grams for those 2005's is way too heavy imo. Awesome stuff though! I'm building my first ultralite 5in on 1805's, which are small, but I'm hoping it's enough since the quad will be so light.
The gnb 1100 mah 120C 3s pack is almost exactly the same weight as that 4s 850. Pair that with 2800-3000 kv and Gemfan 5125 props for a surprisingly good setup. I've been running 2203 3450 kv motors with a 4s 850 and 4" Gemfan 4023 triblades with great results at an auw of 257g.
I think the floatyness does not only come from it being super light or not filtered enough, it could be due to the nature of low pitch props. They tend to be more agressive on low throttle cause they have that lift ability, but on the other hand they sacrifice on overall throttle resolution + in the corners they tend to lack in bite. I guess until someone comes up with a clever low weight, higher pitch prop (and I mean like 48 to 51), those ultralight 5" toothpicks will not fly as confident as high pitched, regular 5inchers on lets say 2306 or 2207 motors. Nevertheless it's an interesting problem to watch being fought against. I have personally jumped over to 3" 3S toothpicks cause they make more sense in just every aspect and don't cause headaches :p I do experience the same drifting, it's obvoiusly less occurent because of less overall weight of the quad, but it pushed me to jump from two blade to three bladed props on the 3 incher. That gave it a significant increase in bite but it's not completely solving the issue - it increased the disc/lift of the quad and therefore I can stop/change direction quicker but I need to turn more to apply thrust in the opposite direction I was flying to, to give it an opposite thrust pop. This however did not give the latteral airbrake effect which give high pitched props. I am now waiting for someone to make higher pitched 3" props than the usual 18 or 20 gemfans. The good thing about 3 inchers is that you have much bigger headroom in weight to accomodate for the higher pitch with a bigger battery, cause I have only 88g used from 250g to spare. The higher weight due to bigger battery shouldn't have a vast impact in handling/performance cause 3 inchers have great disc to quad size/weight ratio. I see a bright future for those 3 inchers in our hobby. I was really shocked by how awesome, cheap, resistant and unobtrusive those tiny little rockets are! :D
Totally agree. This 5" TP is great but my 3S 3" builds perform just as well while being much cheaper, quieter and especially using super cheap batteries. So I really don't see much need for sub 250 5"
@@overdosed51 I know bob was flying his fouride on 3s 5” and it looked awesome but was super heavy, so I just thought maybe that would be viable at a super low weight
@@friendlynomad9840 i have a fouride 5" on 3s and i gotta say its flying absolutley amazing. Bob says the 3mm arms are a bit to thin and break easily but i havent had any problems in crashes and spares are cheap. Only can recommend it!
As for sub 250g builds on Betafpv 4&5 inch frames I have built a lot of different configurations on that frame. I can easily build a sub 250g build with analog configuration. But it's been even a bigger challenge with a Caddx Vista involved. I have been experimenting for well over a year before these was even popular. The Betafpv frame is decent if you dont mess with the screws alot.. they strip really easy. Definitely got to use Lock tight on the screws and leave it alone.Or the screws come loose and tune is impossible..And even then it's still hard to tune noise out without some rpm filtering involved. I found that the BH Hyperbola V2 frame is much stiffer Frame like the RacerX frames ..and much easier to tune without rpm filtering involved. I have a Beast I flight F7 Aio FC Caddx Vista ,crossfire, Betafpv canopy & motors 2004 /3000KV build running 850mah 4s RDQ pack and it is sub 250g. Throttle curve helps a little but still floaty.I have been testing for a very long time .And if you are not tunning Betaflight savvy. Run Emuflight! Keep this content coming! Love it😀
I heard that about those motors. one prop choice. Mentioned in the survey on RDQ,s site. Brothers would be a better choice. Also playing with the ESC software and reduced mass in props and motor bells not to mention idle speed.
@@DaveCFPV I'm talking about motor output limit, but can't really comment on efficiency. Would be super interested to see the impact - technically speaking I can't really see how that would be though I'm not too clued up on the details. I just have being able to change KV at the push of a button
IMO those EU rules are the are so overly bureaucratic, complicated and in many parts nonsensical that you could almost think its satire. Total failure on all levels.
@@hannesju3315 yeah the rules basically contradict themselves. In one part it says to be in A1 you need to be under 19m/s but then later it says that if it doesn't meet the requirements but is under 250g then it is in A1 class.
Just curious what you think about the samsung 30q and why you chose the Sony vtc6 for the mini long range? It's obvious your extremely intelligent man.
Thanks! Would love to see if you could get one under 250g with the DJI system - that would be my holy grail with these 5 inch toothpicks. I think 6s might have made sense before these crazy rated toothpick boards, but not a concern with 35-40A boards. And it seems to have benefits to stay at the lower cell counts. In regards to motors, you considered ummagawd Aerolites?
The Ummagawd are great motors but in my opinion they have a big issue since the wires are at a 45 degree angle relative to normal motors mounts. The more or less need a specific mount design. I think it's too difficult to get a Vista equipped TP5" below 250g with those 2005. It's barely possible with analogue while still using a decent sized battery. 2004 is a better choice in that case.
Hey Dave, ich hätte da mal ne Frage an den Experten ;D. Mein Explorer ist jetzt auch angekommen und ich wollte mal wissen ob ich auf 3 oder 4s mehr Flugzeit bekomme. Und du empfiehlst doch die Sony VTC6 soweit ich mich recht erinnere oder?
Thought my Rekon 4 FR was floaty lol... Was thinking about copying your toothpick 5" and just slap on 2000kv motors and 4s lipo's with xt60 (tattu 1050) but you just did that in the vid lol. It's build season again so maaaaaaaaybe copy the build in this video, but on 4s.
Inspiring experiments. Thanks for sharing. Do you think it's possible to build a LR fpv quad using this 5" toothpick frame? I really like this shape. It looks very elegant.
@@DaveCFPV Btw how do you think about the stock BetaFPV X Knight 5"? It also uses 35A AIO fc+esc, 1550KV motor etc. I want a FPV cruiser which can fly 1~2KM. Thanks!
By my estimates, I can only use the Brotherhobby 2004 instead of the iFlight 2005 for a Digital build to stay below 250g (JUST!). Any idea of the performance difference between those 2? The Brotherhobby does have a rather convenient 2100KV version.
I am just getting into FPV but I was under the impression you were supposed to land at 3.6V per cell but I see in most of your videos you land much lower. Am I missing simething?
The pack will slightly recover after landing. So if I'm seeing 3.4-3.5 in flight it's fine especially in the cold :-) On Li-Ion packs you can easily go down to 3V or even 2.5V if you have to.
@@DaveCFPV Great, thanks Dave, it is now the FC on my list for the next build. Right now I am working out the kinks on a tadpole 3 that is hovering at 7% throttle and feeling like the equivalent of your 5 inch toothpick on 6s (floaty, with lots of on off power).
Haha that’s sweet, I’ve been waiting for someone else to do a ultralight 5 since I have been flying mine for a while. I have found mine to be a challenge to tune for sure but it reminds me of my 2.5 little premo I used fly a ton on 2s but this powerpick 5” 2203 3450kv on 3s is absolutely nuts, really floaty and doesn’t smash the battery but does pull enough amps to need a 40a at least for the hose hard moves. 3s 130c 1100mah is 👍👍👍 And getting 7 1/2 min flights hard flying. We definitely need more 2203 motors!! A rcinpower 2203 2900kv would be the absolute best!!!!!!!!!!!! When you did the 4s on that it looked exactly like my primo 2.5
Wenn du T-Motor 2004 nimmst, dann kannst beide Proparten montieren, der hat T-Mount und das andere Maß. Der BH 2004 und der T-motor sind im Test recht gut, der Xing liegt etwas dahinter, sieht dafür sehr hübsch aus. ;-) T-Motor hat im interessanten Bereich den besseren Wirkungsgrad, BH top end gut. Den ganz neuen hab ich noch nicht im Test gesehen. Vll. macht Gal noch einen. Werde evtl. meinen FW Explor V2 mit 2004 upgraden, ich will unbedingt auf 40min kommen. die 1404 NIN sind ~ hmmmm, nur leicht. Die g/W Angaben von flywoo sind grober Unfug.
Hab den BH 2004 2100kv für 6S genommen. Hab GF 5125, 5126, 4525, HQ 5x3x2 probiert. Alles sehr enttäuschend im Vergleich zu meinen 3.5 Zoll Bauten im sub250 Bereich. Die kleineren fliegen schneller und besser. Hab auch die hglrc 1804 3500kv Motoren verbaut auf 3.5 Zoll. Den sub250 5 Zoll hab ich nun HQ T90mmx3 props genommen und jetzt fliegt der spitze. 5 Zoll props sind für long range gut, aber insgesamt hinter 3~4 Zoll in performance
@@chrisbee5481 Glaub auch, daß ein 2004 eher so bei 4S und LR seinen besten Einsatz findet. Ein 5Zoll kann schon super fliegen, wenn man ihn leicht genug bekommt. Sobald halt DJI mitfliegt sollten es schon 4Zoll sein. Ich versuch halt maximale Flugzeit zu bekommen, muss erst mal viel üben. 14 Jahre nur LOS.......
newbeedrone has a 2004 2450kv and umagwad has a2004 2400kv, I have the umagwad motors but there mounting pattern is weird only 2 bolt and the wire exit the motor in a way that that they do not follow the arm
@@DaveCFPV i also use the ummagawd aerolite 2004 4s 2400kv motors for builds around 250-300g, as mentioned in the video perfect middleground for ul 5" with lots of throttle resolution in the lower end. kabab has a good video why in this weight class 4s works better. To bad that they are so hard (expensive) to get in germany. cable pattern is not a problem on my catalyst machineworks shocker frame, the angle is ideal to route the cable around and under the arm
Too agressive on 6s 550mAh Too tame on 4s 850mAh -> Should be perfect on 5s 650mAh Sadly those are not very common. Mylipo sells some in Germany. 5s 750mAh might be even better for these agressive motors, considering the AUW is above 250g anyways.
In Deutschland macht es leider keinen Sinn mit nem FPV Quad unter 250g zu gehen weil man so oder so in der A3 Klasse landet sobald der quad schneller als 64,4 km/h fliegt... :/
Ist es eigentlich schon fast so wie ich es verstehe. Nach dem alten Gesetzt ging "richtiges" FPV außerhalb der Sichtweite und ohne Spotter wenigstens mit sub. 250g. Das scheint eine sinnvolle Abwägung der Risiken. Bei sub 250g passier realistisch einfach nicht viel außer man ist grob fahrlässig. Jetzt darf man eigentlich nur noch auf'm Feld in nächster Nähe um sich herumkreisen und einer muss zuschauen. Selbst mit einem lächerlich kleinen Whoop wenn dieser selbstgebaut ist. Fliegen in der Nähe von Industriegebieten etc. braucht eine Sondererlaubnis. Also einfach so einen kleinen 65g Toothpick Sonntag auf einem leeren Parkplatz oder Parkhaus fliegen: Illegal. Das neue EU-Gesetzt ist nicht nur unfassbar kompliziert und bürokratisch sondern führt in der Realität auch zu absolut absurden Verboten bei denen die Freiheitseinschränkung in keinem Verhältnis zum vermiedenen Risiko steht.
@@DaveCFPV Also soweit ich weiß hat man aber schon immer einen Spotter gebraucht egal wie schwer der quad war. Und man musste immer schon in Sichtweite bleiben. Aber ja da hast schon Recht, ist echt mega kompliziert da noch durchzublicken... Das Video von "Halitic" gibt aber einen ganz guten Überblick darüber :D
Dann is da halt die Sache mit der Eu Drohnenverordnung. Ein sub250 5 Zöller würde gar keinen Sinn machen, denn langsamer als 68,5 km/h wird dieser nicht sein.
I dig what you do, and thanks for your efforts to date, however, let's get real about your position on "new random standards." If what you claimed, that new random standards are a "big no no," with you, then you wouldn't have made your build with those motors, and featured them throughout this video. While you say you are against such proprietary BS, you literally just did a 30 minute commecial for motors that are proprietary for the sake of extracting more money from the target audience of pilots. So you are making a significant, untrue claim to your viewers, most of whom you know take what you *say* as gospel. That's a violation on your part, of the trust element that is essential for your channel, and the directly related efforts, to succeed. Now for the part that pains me, as an avid viewer of your content, the most. You are extremely bright, so much so, that I have much trouble believing this is any kind of honest mistake, so for me, you've severely damaged your credibility from here forward. And any time you've been given the benefit of the doubt on these matters (what your motives are,) in the past, they now fall back squarely under suspicion. Please, point out my grave error here, or flaw in my logic, because Id prefer to admit my error, and continue on as I/we were. Ive looked to you as a source of independant/nonaffiliated, non sponsored information, with goals that match those of the average pilot, a rare resource, and losing that leaves very little else in the category (at least for me.) Sadly, I have little hope of an adquate explanation here. But by all means, someone tell me how Dave_C's actions here, do not undermine, and contradict his verbal claims about his position on the matter of new, customer-hostile, unecessary, "random," hardware standards cropping up. In summary, if you dont support something, that means you dont feature that something, and give that something 10+ uninterrupted minutes of screen time, in all its shiney new glory, in your video. It's no fun having to point this out, but I think inviting discussion is important to the value of any final conclusion that may be drawn here. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for any consideration you might give to my concerns.
Hi James, I understand your point. Most of these parts I feature are indeed sponsored and thats not a secret. Otherwise it would just be a crazy amount of money to spend and these reviews wouldn't be possible. However I really always give an honest opinion on the products and clearly point out the weaknesses. In this case I really had mixed feelings. Is it bad that they invented a new and objectively unnecessary standard ? YES Absolutely! Is is still a great motor that does perform very well on that kind of platform? Also yes! So I think it is fine to give that product screen time as long as I am objective and clearly point out pros and cons. I'm not sugarcoating or hiding anything about the product so people can decide for themselves whether they can live with e.g. sticking to proprietary props or not for the sake of having that specific motors size. It's not up to me to decide wether that is a good choice or not. Hope I could clarify :-)
@@DaveCFPV Thanks for replying. I never saw anything explicitly indicating sponsorship, and you come off more as an enthusiast, but it does make sense that all your content is sponsored. There is a lot you do to invoke the idea that you arent necessarily sponsored, at least to someone like me. Some greater indicator of sponsorship would help those of us who are a little slow, so that we dont proceed with the wrong set of expectations. With that said, what I am getting at is, sponsored or not, your claim that you are against random new standards is invalidated by the fact you feature and *promote* random new standards, for example in this video. Making that claim only serves to confuse, and is disingenous at very best, if I give you the benefit of the doubt. That's all. So if you can speak to that, I am very open to listening.
Watching this really helped me understand better the relationship between voltage, current, motor sizes, and KV! Very cool to see the back to back flights with different batteries.
I built one of the 5” gate hunters when you came out with the STL. I enjoy flying it, rips hard and can fly easy for 17+ minutes if I use a 1100 4s
If you built it with the VY 2004's, you could've saved 20 grams and gone under the limit. 20 grams for those 2005's is way too heavy imo. Awesome stuff though! I'm building my first ultralite 5in on 1805's, which are small, but I'm hoping it's enough since the quad will be so light.
The gnb 1100 mah 120C 3s pack is almost exactly the same weight as that 4s 850. Pair that with 2800-3000 kv and Gemfan 5125 props for a surprisingly good setup. I've been running 2203 3450 kv motors with a 4s 850 and 4" Gemfan 4023 triblades with great results at an auw of 257g.
I think a motor like the T-Motor F2203.5 that
Scott Tomlinson tested in his newest video would be a good option.
I think the floatyness does not only come from it being super light or not filtered enough, it could be due to the nature of low pitch props. They tend to be more agressive on low throttle cause they have that lift ability, but on the other hand they sacrifice on overall throttle resolution + in the corners they tend to lack in bite. I guess until someone comes up with a clever low weight, higher pitch prop (and I mean like 48 to 51), those ultralight 5" toothpicks will not fly as confident as high pitched, regular 5inchers on lets say 2306 or 2207 motors. Nevertheless it's an interesting problem to watch being fought against. I have personally jumped over to 3" 3S toothpicks cause they make more sense in just every aspect and don't cause headaches :p I do experience the same drifting, it's obvoiusly less occurent because of less overall weight of the quad, but it pushed me to jump from two blade to three bladed props on the 3 incher. That gave it a significant increase in bite but it's not completely solving the issue - it increased the disc/lift of the quad and therefore I can stop/change direction quicker but I need to turn more to apply thrust in the opposite direction I was flying to, to give it an opposite thrust pop. This however did not give the latteral airbrake effect which give high pitched props. I am now waiting for someone to make higher pitched 3" props than the usual 18 or 20 gemfans. The good thing about 3 inchers is that you have much bigger headroom in weight to accomodate for the higher pitch with a bigger battery, cause I have only 88g used from 250g to spare. The higher weight due to bigger battery shouldn't have a vast impact in handling/performance cause 3 inchers have great disc to quad size/weight ratio. I see a bright future for those 3 inchers in our hobby. I was really shocked by how awesome, cheap, resistant and unobtrusive those tiny little rockets are! :D
Totally agree. This 5" TP is great but my 3S 3" builds perform just as well while being much cheaper, quieter and especially using super cheap batteries. So I really don't see much need for sub 250 5"
wow the acceleration is huggggge man!, should throw the brother hobby motors on if you want it even lighter.
Absolutely powerful motors on the quad and the 4s battery gives it a lot of pep as well. Awesome stick control!🖐️😎👍🆙
4s or even 3s 5” ultralight sounds awesome
So a 5in TP3? I think Kabob is working on it
@@overdosed51 idk.. he said he did the 4" because so many request but didn't like how it flied.
@@overdosed51 I know bob was flying his fouride on 3s 5” and it looked awesome but was super heavy, so I just thought maybe that would be viable at a super low weight
@@overdosed51 Kabab has already made the 5" Powerpick and the 5" Fouride. They're both great.
@@friendlynomad9840 i have a fouride 5" on 3s and i gotta say its flying absolutley amazing. Bob says the 3mm arms are a bit to thin and break easily but i havent had any problems in crashes and spares are cheap. Only can recommend it!
Very interesting build, Dave! Keep them coming :)
lowering the dynamic idle to about 17 -19 will give better throttle res and get rid of the float. but watch out for de-syncs if you go too low
Nice video and interesting tests with the batteries 👍
thanks!
Love your frame designs Dave !
thank you!
rc in power 2105 has 5mm nut so no problem with props or ripping the bell off the stem
Toothpick’s rule! Any size
If you raise the camera angle it won't be so floaty. With this power to weight ratio you need more tilt, easier to control altitude.
As for sub 250g builds on Betafpv 4&5 inch frames I have built a lot of different configurations on that frame. I can easily build a sub 250g build with analog configuration. But it's been even a bigger challenge with a Caddx Vista involved. I have been experimenting for well over a year before these was even popular. The Betafpv frame is decent if you dont mess with the screws alot.. they strip really easy. Definitely got to use Lock tight on the screws and leave it alone.Or the screws come loose and tune is impossible..And even then it's still hard to tune noise out without some rpm filtering involved. I found that the BH Hyperbola V2 frame is much stiffer Frame like the RacerX frames ..and much easier to tune without rpm filtering involved. I have a Beast I flight F7 Aio FC Caddx Vista ,crossfire, Betafpv canopy & motors 2004 /3000KV build running 850mah 4s RDQ pack and it is sub 250g. Throttle curve helps a little but still floaty.I have been testing for a very long time .And if you are not tunning Betaflight savvy. Run Emuflight!
Keep this content coming! Love it😀
Love this build... 5" for EU city rippin 😁... SO cool !
Also very interesting Batt-test, I'm gonna try this myself on my new mid-range setup.
Still A GREAT looking quad, even with all those Frankenstein parts!!
thank you! :-D
I heard that about those motors. one prop choice. Mentioned in the survey on RDQ,s site. Brothers would be a better choice. Also playing with the ESC software and reduced mass in props and motor bells not to mention idle speed.
Nice test 💪😁👍
Thanks!
Can totally motor output limit a 1900KV to like 1500kv on 6s and you'll have the perfect benefit of high voltage :)
But as far as I know a throttle limit is less efficient than actually having the right kV
@@DaveCFPV I'm talking about motor output limit, but can't really comment on efficiency. Would be super interested to see the impact - technically speaking I can't really see how that would be though I'm not too clued up on the details. I just have being able to change KV at the push of a button
Very good comparison, thanks
Hey Dave! Hab deinen Kanal grad über das Spinfast Interview gefunden. Bist n nicer dude! Weiter so :) Sub is raus ✌
Danke war echt cool heute!
Very cool :) Been reading up on the new EU regulations and being able to stay
As far as i know C0 is only for
Yeah, C1 is also
IMO those EU rules are the are so overly bureaucratic, complicated and in many parts nonsensical that you could almost think its satire. Total failure on all levels.
@@hannesju3315 yeah the rules basically contradict themselves. In one part it says to be in A1 you need to be under 19m/s but then later it says that if it doesn't meet the requirements but is under 250g then it is in A1 class.
Maybe those 5inch T mount props in the last FPV crate were made for something like this
i think bob roogi settled on 4s 2800kv 2204, which obviously is above 250g mark
What’s your PID profile ? Have you change some think? Or is it stock PID profile?
Thank’s
Tom from France
Just curious what you think about the samsung 30q and why you chose the Sony vtc6 for the mini long range? It's obvious your extremely intelligent man.
Thanks!
Would love to see if you could get one under 250g with the DJI system - that would be my holy grail with these 5 inch toothpicks. I think 6s might have made sense before these crazy rated toothpick boards, but not a concern with 35-40A boards. And it seems to have benefits to stay at the lower cell counts. In regards to motors, you considered ummagawd Aerolites?
The Ummagawd are great motors but in my opinion they have a big issue since the wires are at a 45 degree angle relative to normal motors mounts. The more or less need a specific mount design. I think it's too difficult to get a Vista equipped TP5" below 250g with those 2005. It's barely possible with analogue while still using a decent sized battery. 2004 is a better choice in that case.
Hey Dave, ich hätte da mal ne Frage an den Experten ;D. Mein Explorer ist jetzt auch angekommen und ich wollte mal wissen ob ich auf 3 oder 4s mehr Flugzeit bekomme. Und du empfiehlst doch die Sony VTC6 soweit ich mich recht erinnere oder?
Thought my Rekon 4 FR was floaty lol...
Was thinking about copying your toothpick 5" and just slap on 2000kv motors and 4s lipo's with xt60 (tattu 1050) but you just did that in the vid lol.
It's build season again so maaaaaaaaybe copy the build in this video, but on 4s.
I think u can find filler connectors for Gemfans to use on 1.5mm shaft
Fantastic, comprehensive video 👊🏼
Would love to know your thoughts on the hglrc 1800kv in comparison to the brother hobby or others you.have tried
They are the best so far
Inspiring experiments. Thanks for sharing. Do you think it's possible to build a LR fpv quad using this 5" toothpick frame? I really like this shape. It looks very elegant.
Yes, absolutely. Just make sure to have lower kV motors. But it can be a bit tricky to fit all the components you would want for a real LR build.
@@DaveCFPV Btw how do you think about the stock BetaFPV X Knight 5"? It also uses 35A AIO fc+esc, 1550KV motor etc. I want a FPV cruiser which can fly 1~2KM. Thanks!
I wonder how it would respond to slightly smaller props at ˜ same low pitch Perhaps just under 5 inch and how this would reduce floatiness ?
Lithium ion batteries fine down to 3v easy often down to 2.5v
By my estimates, I can only use the Brotherhobby 2004 instead of the iFlight 2005 for a Digital build to stay below 250g (JUST!). Any idea of the performance difference between those 2? The Brotherhobby does have a rather convenient 2100KV version.
I think you are right. After all that testing I would go for 2004 2100kV with 850mah 4S. The performance of 2004 and 2005 is similar.
@@DaveCFPV Nice. I was thinking of the same battery as well. Well, looks like a new build is coming!
Set motor_output_limit = 83
Save
Fixed for 6s.
I am just getting into FPV but I was under the impression you were supposed to land at 3.6V per cell but I see in most of your videos you land much lower. Am I missing simething?
The pack will slightly recover after landing. So if I'm seeing 3.4-3.5 in flight it's fine especially in the cold :-) On Li-Ion packs you can easily go down to 3V or even 2.5V if you have to.
@@DaveCFPV So when I am flying, what is a very safe voltage you would land at for lipo 6S as seen in the OSD? Is it kind of dependent on the quad?
How´d you compare the iflight props with the gf 5125?
hmm, there are some 2100kv 2004s sounds like they would be a solid pick.
the VY2004? Yes could be perfect.
have you tried the fpvcycle 2203/2204 motors?
Interesting, how do you like that F745 goku? That might make it into my next build.
it's great. Perfect layout and the baro is a nice thing to have
@@DaveCFPV Great, thanks Dave, it is now the FC on my list for the next build. Right now I am working out the kinks on a tadpole 3 that is hovering at 7% throttle and feeling like the equivalent of your 5 inch toothpick on 6s (floaty, with lots of on off power).
Do you preheat your batterys? Mine don‘t like these temperatures🤪
No :-D
the america drone
When wilk the 1s 3inch video go out?
Haha that’s sweet, I’ve been waiting for someone else to do a ultralight 5 since I have been flying mine for a while. I have found mine to be a challenge to tune for sure but it reminds me of my 2.5 little premo I used fly a ton on 2s but this powerpick 5” 2203 3450kv on 3s is absolutely nuts, really floaty and doesn’t smash the battery but does pull enough amps to need a 40a at least for the hose hard moves.
3s 130c 1100mah is 👍👍👍
And getting 7 1/2 min flights hard flying.
We definitely need more
2203 motors!!
A rcinpower 2203 2900kv would be the absolute best!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you did the 4s on that it looked exactly like my primo 2.5
Have you tried 2104 kv1800
Perhaps 5s with 1900kv :)
Wenn du T-Motor 2004 nimmst, dann kannst beide Proparten montieren, der hat T-Mount und das andere Maß. Der BH 2004 und der T-motor sind im Test recht gut, der Xing liegt etwas dahinter, sieht dafür sehr hübsch aus. ;-) T-Motor hat im interessanten Bereich den besseren Wirkungsgrad, BH top end gut. Den ganz neuen hab ich noch nicht im Test gesehen. Vll. macht Gal noch einen. Werde evtl. meinen FW Explor V2 mit 2004 upgraden, ich will unbedingt auf 40min kommen. die 1404 NIN sind ~ hmmmm, nur leicht. Die g/W Angaben von flywoo sind grober Unfug.
Hab den BH 2004 2100kv für 6S genommen. Hab GF 5125, 5126, 4525, HQ 5x3x2 probiert.
Alles sehr enttäuschend im Vergleich zu meinen 3.5 Zoll Bauten im sub250 Bereich. Die kleineren fliegen schneller und besser.
Hab auch die hglrc 1804 3500kv Motoren verbaut auf 3.5 Zoll.
Den sub250 5 Zoll hab ich nun HQ T90mmx3 props genommen und jetzt fliegt der spitze. 5 Zoll props sind für long range gut, aber insgesamt hinter 3~4 Zoll in performance
@@chrisbee5481 Glaub auch, daß ein 2004 eher so bei 4S und LR seinen besten Einsatz findet. Ein 5Zoll kann schon super fliegen, wenn man ihn leicht genug bekommt. Sobald halt DJI mitfliegt sollten es schon 4Zoll sein. Ich versuch halt maximale Flugzeit zu bekommen, muss erst mal viel üben. 14 Jahre nur LOS.......
newbeedrone has a 2004 2450kv and umagwad has a2004 2400kv, I have the umagwad motors but there mounting pattern is weird only 2 bolt and the wire exit the motor in a way that that they do not follow the arm
I know it's really a pity they will only really fit the ummagawd frame
@@DaveCFPV i also use the ummagawd aerolite 2004 4s 2400kv motors for builds around 250-300g, as mentioned in the video perfect middleground for ul 5" with lots of throttle resolution in the lower end. kabab has a good video why in this weight class 4s works better. To bad that they are so hard (expensive) to get in germany. cable pattern is not a problem on my catalyst machineworks shocker frame, the angle is ideal to route the cable around and under the arm
Now we just need a build, that isn't able to fly faster than 19m/s ;)
I'm testing something right now that would fulfill that criteria. But not sure if it's actually applicable for DIY models or need a certification
Thought iflight 2005 took only their props.. 6mmx1.5mmx6mm.. ok u said it..
I wonder if it is testing for 7" t-mount
That would be even more stupid 😅
@@DaveCFPV I can't see why they made mount beefier.. plans for higher pitch 5"?
das ist nicht zufällig in der Nähe von Feldkirchen oder??
omg haha doch schaut so aus. War genau da vor einer Woche das erste mal fliegen. Krasser zufall!
hab dich mal auf insta angeschrieben;) Lol was ein witziger zufall:))
They need to make more 6s lihv to be under 250g..
the 5” toothpick is being replaced by just “5 inch sub 250g quads”
Do you have gps that it's showing alt?
The Fylwoo AIO has a barometer
Too agressive on 6s 550mAh
Too tame on 4s 850mAh
-> Should be perfect on 5s 650mAh
Sadly those are not very common. Mylipo sells some in Germany. 5s 750mAh might be even better for these agressive motors, considering the AUW is above 250g anyways.
Yes that really why I hardly consider 5S
In Deutschland macht es leider keinen Sinn mit nem FPV Quad unter 250g zu gehen weil man so oder so in der A3 Klasse landet sobald der quad schneller als 64,4 km/h fliegt... :/
Ja leider ist FPV kaum noch legal machbar ...
@@DaveCFPV Hoffentlich bleibt es wenigstens so wie es jetzt ist, denn wenn es noch strenger werden sollte ist unser Hobby komplett tot.
Ist es eigentlich schon fast so wie ich es verstehe. Nach dem alten Gesetzt ging "richtiges" FPV außerhalb der Sichtweite und ohne Spotter wenigstens mit sub. 250g. Das scheint eine sinnvolle Abwägung der Risiken. Bei sub 250g passier realistisch einfach nicht viel außer man ist grob fahrlässig. Jetzt darf man eigentlich nur noch auf'm Feld in nächster Nähe um sich herumkreisen und einer muss zuschauen. Selbst mit einem lächerlich kleinen Whoop wenn dieser selbstgebaut ist. Fliegen in der Nähe von Industriegebieten etc. braucht eine Sondererlaubnis. Also einfach so einen kleinen 65g Toothpick Sonntag auf einem leeren Parkplatz oder Parkhaus fliegen: Illegal. Das neue EU-Gesetzt ist nicht nur unfassbar kompliziert und bürokratisch sondern führt in der Realität auch zu absolut absurden Verboten bei denen die Freiheitseinschränkung in keinem Verhältnis zum vermiedenen Risiko steht.
@@DaveCFPV Also soweit ich weiß hat man aber schon immer einen Spotter gebraucht egal wie schwer der quad war. Und man musste immer schon in Sichtweite bleiben. Aber ja da hast schon Recht, ist echt mega kompliziert da noch durchzublicken... Das Video von "Halitic" gibt aber einen ganz guten Überblick darüber :D
Dann is da halt die Sache mit der Eu Drohnenverordnung. Ein sub250 5 Zöller würde gar keinen Sinn machen, denn langsamer als 68,5 km/h wird dieser nicht sein.
Unter der neuen Verordnung macht eigentlich nichts mehr Sinn wenn du ohne Spotter fliegen willst :-(
@@DaveCFPV ja eh, leider
Dazu kommt noch, dass ich unter 16 bin und so den Drohnenfürherschein eigentlich nicht einmal machen darf...
So wie ich das nachgelesen habe sind die 19m/s bei sub250 Eigenbauten nicht relevant. Das ist Vorgabe für die Hersteller.
Why you need 5"?
Why you need "under 250" if you try to fly "over 250"?
BRO , if that aint anything crazy flying... i wanna see wat you call crazy flying...
xing are battery killer..
That sucks for real......
13:43 I love that. Do you love me? 😍💋 💝💖❤️
i love that landing too!
I dig what you do, and thanks for your efforts to date, however, let's get real about your position on "new random standards." If what you claimed, that new random standards are a "big no no," with you, then you wouldn't have made your build with those motors, and featured them throughout this video. While you say you are against such proprietary BS, you literally just did a 30 minute commecial for motors that are proprietary for the sake of extracting more money from the target audience of pilots. So you are making a significant, untrue claim to your viewers, most of whom you know take what you *say* as gospel. That's a violation on your part, of the trust element that is essential for your channel, and the directly related efforts, to succeed.
Now for the part that pains me, as an avid viewer of your content, the most. You are extremely bright, so much so, that I have much trouble believing this is any kind of honest mistake, so for me, you've severely damaged your credibility from here forward. And any time you've been given the benefit of the doubt on these matters (what your motives are,) in the past, they now fall back squarely under suspicion.
Please, point out my grave error here, or flaw in my logic, because Id prefer to admit my error, and continue on as I/we were. Ive looked to you as a source of independant/nonaffiliated, non sponsored information, with goals that match those of the average pilot, a rare resource, and losing that leaves very little else in the category (at least for me.) Sadly, I have little hope of an adquate explanation here. But by all means, someone tell me how Dave_C's actions here, do not undermine, and contradict his verbal claims about his position on the matter of new, customer-hostile, unecessary, "random," hardware standards cropping up.
In summary, if you dont support something, that means you dont feature that something, and give that something 10+ uninterrupted minutes of screen time, in all its shiney new glory, in your video. It's no fun having to point this out, but I think inviting discussion is important to the value of any final conclusion that may be drawn here. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for any consideration you might give to my concerns.
Hi James, I understand your point. Most of these parts I feature are indeed sponsored and thats not a secret. Otherwise it would just be a crazy amount of money to spend and these reviews wouldn't be possible. However I really always give an honest opinion on the products and clearly point out the weaknesses. In this case I really had mixed feelings. Is it bad that they invented a new and objectively unnecessary standard ? YES Absolutely! Is is still a great motor that does perform very well on that kind of platform? Also yes! So I think it is fine to give that product screen time as long as I am objective and clearly point out pros and cons. I'm not sugarcoating or hiding anything about the product so people can decide for themselves whether they can live with e.g. sticking to proprietary props or not for the sake of having that specific motors size. It's not up to me to decide wether that is a good choice or not. Hope I could clarify :-)
@@DaveCFPV Thanks for replying. I never saw anything explicitly indicating sponsorship, and you come off more as an enthusiast, but it does make sense that all your content is sponsored. There is a lot you do to invoke the idea that you arent necessarily sponsored, at least to someone like me. Some greater indicator of sponsorship would help those of us who are a little slow, so that we dont proceed with the wrong set of expectations.
With that said, what I am getting at is, sponsored or not, your claim that you are against random new standards is invalidated by the fact you feature and *promote* random new standards, for example in this video. Making that claim only serves to confuse, and is disingenous at very best, if I give you the benefit of the doubt. That's all. So if you can speak to that, I am very open to listening.
I need boyfriend 💋💋💋💋💋💞💞💞💞
shut up
I need Beer and Pizza
Dave_C FPV 😂