A few conversations with Terrestrial Imaging about the 920 generated quite a bit of information about the system I'd like to share for those that are entertaining a purchase.
The CGO-4 camera does not generate geo position data in the EXIF files. When Yuneec adapted the sensor from the GH-4 they might have figured the GPS data from the auto pilot would be enough for the users, and so discarded the GPS hardware from the camera. Team mode is not an option when using the CGO-4 and the ST-16.
Terrestrial Imaging developed an adapter mount to employ the CGO-3 and CGO-ET cameras. Using a -3 camera increases flight time considerably due to the reduced weight of the CGO-3 camera. More importance of this later in this post.
Yuneec discarded the ST-24 and incorporated the ST-16 for the 920. Why is unknown. Adopting the ST-16 killed the previous ability to import maps to the flight controller. This ended the easy method of developing way point flight plans that was available with the ST-24. if you want to build way point flight plans you will have to use either the CCC feature or Tuna's App.
Yuneec provides no information relative to the use of the ST-16 with the 920 on the Yuneec website. If you review the current User Manuals for the 920 they all reflect the use of an ST-24. This is very deceiving since features that had been available with the ST-24 are missing from the ST-16. Where the ST-16 is concerned, you're kind of on your own to figure it out.
Obstacle Avoidance (OA) and Real Sense (RS) are not available for the 920. If you're one of those that like to fly through the brambles and bushes you need to know how to fly. The aircraft is not going to save you from yourself. OTOH, the 920 can and has been flown in 30-40mph winds and maintained absolute stability. This is something common to larger hex and octo designs. The 920 is not as fast as an H-480 or 520. Top speed is a bit over 30mph. It's designed for imagery and film making, not FPV racing.
The D Pad features available for the Typhoon H on the ST-16 are not available for the 920. This is a major drawback since "Cruise Control" is not an option and the elimination of map importing also eliminated single way point (and "Tap and Fly) flight planning. Single way point flight plans cannot be accomplished with Curved Cable Cam (CCC) a multi point plan must be created, and using CCC the plan has to be flown to generate it, reducing useful battery time by the amount of time it takes to build the flight plan. See the earlier reference to Tuna's UAV Toolbox App.
The 920 can be flown using 2 or 3 batteries. Batteries are sold in sets, each set being a pair of batteries. If you want to make all your flights using three batteries you'll need two sets of batteries. If you want a spare set of batteries to fly triple battery flights you'll need three sets of batteries. They run about $275.00/set.
Flight time using 2 batteries and the CGO-4 is about 10 minutes or so. Using a third battery adds only a few additional minutes to the flight time. This is pretty much how things work when you add larger capacity batteries to multirotors. Much of the added capacity will be consumed by the system needing to generate more power to carry more weight so the benefit of larger batteries is inversely proportional to the added weight.
Using a CGO-3 camera increase flight time significantly due to the lighter weight of the camera. Using a CGO-3 camera has other benefits. It returns the Team Mode feature to the ST-16. It returns geo position reference to image EXIF data. If you have a spare, a 12 mpxl CGO-3 can be fitted with a Peau 8mm lens to deliver an inspection image that is equal or better than what is delivered by a 12 mpxl E-50. Going that route gives you an inspection camera on one hand with a CGO-4's 16 mpxl triple zoom and wide range of camera controls on the other. AT 16 mpxl the CGO-4 is only slightly behind the E90 in image resolution, but having a triple zoom could make it a better choice than the E-90 for a lot of applications. Just don't plan on doing mapping applications with the 920.
The conversion of the 920 to the 920+ introduced quick connect prop adapters. Although quick and easy the quick connects have had issues with detaching from the motors while in flight. If you are not adverse to doing things the old way the quick connects can be removed from the props. You bolt the props on just like in the old days. If you choose to go this route, check the length of the screws to assure they are short enough to clear everything inside the motors and use a little blue Loctite to make sure they remain affixed.
Do not look for soft/firmware upgrades going forward for the 920. They have talked a lot about improvements but over the life cycle thus far have done little in this regard. In ways they went backwards by eliminating the ST-24 in favor of the ST-16. Yuneec is putting all their focus on the 520 platform as it seems they are capable of only working on one thing at a time. Do not be surprised if Yuneec discontinues the 920 as they are not doing much now in areas of 920 improvement. They didn't sell a lot of them, which is understandable when you consider most people look for the lowest price they can pay to accomplish their intended tasks. A $900.00 Phantom or $1,200.00 H-480 is their working price point and spending more is something they are not prepared to do. On the flip side of this, with the H-520 being, when equipped with an E series camera, a $4,000.00 machine, making the price point between the 520 and 920 comparable. Because of the comparable pricing the 920 may now start seeing a lot more interest that it had previously. The only place the 920 takes a hit is with the loss of map importing and way point flight. For many this may not be an issue.
Mr Spotted Eagle, please take note. Yuneec needs all the platforms they currently have to maintain market viability. If Yuneec is serious about the commercial market putting a dev team on continued improvement of the 920 would be extremely beneficial to Yuneec's commercial market application interests.