Greetings and happy new year to all members of this forum. I open this discussion to find out if I'm the only one to be really pissed off for making the mistake of buying the Tornado H920. I was a happy owner of a Typhoon H and I decided to buy a Tornado H920 Plus because the CGO4 is much higher than the CGO3 and because he was convinced that what Yuneec advertised (24-minute flight time) was true. I therefore purchased the complete drone of ProAction and five original Yuneec batteries. I immediately realized that the flight time was not even half of that advertised and I informed the seller that he replaced the batteries. As with the batteries changed, the flight time had not increased, I sent the drone to the service center in Germany and I came back with a note from a technician who said that the drone with those batteries could not do more than 12 minutes of flight. Other protest with Yuneec and other dispatch to the service center in Germany. Another return with nothing changed. I ask you: are you convinced that you have made a good deal with the purchase of the Tornado? I ask you because I am not.
Are you sure you have made a good purchase with the Tornado H920 Plus?
- Thread starter giafogiafo
- Start date
PatR
Premium Pilot
giafogiafo,
First, you are aware the 920 MUST be flown using at least two flight batteries, yes? Don't take offense but I have to check as this is very important. Never fly using just one battery, unless that battery is of much higher than 4000mA capacity and supplies power to the system through two or more power input plugs.
I bought a 920+ back in November and can say absolutely that my flight times have been much better than yours, even using only two batteries. I have not flown a lot of flights with it yet but reviewing my flight logs shows flight times of between 0:20:51 to 0:25:01 using three batteries and form 0:10:20 to 0:15:28 using two batteries. The 10 minute flight was a relatively short flight that ended because I was done flying, not because of battery voltage or warnings. Battery voltage at the end of that 10 minute flight was 23.08v. I'm very methodical about logging battery voltages and flight times and assure you the numbers provided are accurate. The lowest battery voltage I have flown down to is 21.4v during a gentle three battery flight in no wind conditions ending at 0:25:01 minutes fitted with the CGO-4 camera and gimbal. I generally land before reaching that point. Bear in mind that all manufacturers advertise their products of achieving "up to "X" flight time". "Up to" does not mean "will do". it means on the rare day that are the stars are in alignment, the moon is blue and full, and the stock market has hit 30,000 you might. Since you bought the 920+ package you have a charger that provides the IR state of your battery cells. Charge up your batteries and let them cool off for an hour and check IR. You might consider charging them up, allowing to cool, and fly them for about two minutes and allow them to cool before pulling an IR reading. IR (internal resistance) will provide an indication of battery condition. The Yuneec batteries are not the best quality by any means but they do OK if used with a little care.
You are, I'm sure, aware of the first low voltage warning that occurs between 21.7v and 21.8v. The actual trigger for that warning is 21.7v but if you are on the throttle for a climb the voltage may be showing 21.8 but the battery on a short dip into the 21.7v range. The Yuneec 8C batteries do not tolerate high current loads very well. You may not be aware that you can fly for a considerable period of time after the first warning, but you'll want to clear the voltage warnings from the ST-16 screen by tapping the "back" icon at the bottom of the ST-16 screen a few times. It's rather persistent and requires a few taps to stop it from popping back up. The battery warnings stop after passing through 21,7v and do not reoccur until achieving 21.5v. That warning is one you should pay very close attention to as a voltage below roughly 21.2 or a little higher could damage the batteries. I don't know when the auto land voltage level occurs as I never, ever, fly a battery that low.
You mentioned you had been flying a Typhoon H. Hopefully you understand the 920 is not the "greyhound" the Typhoon H is. It's not intended to be flown extremely aggressively but as a camera platform. The more aggressively you fly it the faster you will deplete the batteries. Use smooth and coordinated control inputs and you will be rewarded with better performance and flight times. How you fly is everything for what you obtain in flight time from a battery. FYI, if you obtain and use a CGO-3 gimbal adapter you can obtain UP TO about 30-33 minutes of flight time with a CGO-3 camera. The difference in flight time is because the aircraft is much lighter with the CGO-3. Using a stock lens CGO-3 on a 920 kind of defeats the purpose of having a better CGO-4 camera though. But you could also use the CGO-ET on a 920 if you so desired.
As for your original question: "are you convinced that you have made a good deal with the purchase of the Tornado?" I mostly am, calling it a 90+% level. I deeply researched all the capabilities of the 920 prior to making a purchase, including flight times so there were no real surprises. The only disappointment I have is the lack of histogram but that is easily overcome with a little bit of effort in learning the camera system and controls.
I'd like to add that if you keep coming back here and/or join the Facebook 920 Owners Group page we'll be glad to help you gain understanding and better performance from your 920+. Sharing our experience and techniques helps others do better.
First, you are aware the 920 MUST be flown using at least two flight batteries, yes? Don't take offense but I have to check as this is very important. Never fly using just one battery, unless that battery is of much higher than 4000mA capacity and supplies power to the system through two or more power input plugs.
I bought a 920+ back in November and can say absolutely that my flight times have been much better than yours, even using only two batteries. I have not flown a lot of flights with it yet but reviewing my flight logs shows flight times of between 0:20:51 to 0:25:01 using three batteries and form 0:10:20 to 0:15:28 using two batteries. The 10 minute flight was a relatively short flight that ended because I was done flying, not because of battery voltage or warnings. Battery voltage at the end of that 10 minute flight was 23.08v. I'm very methodical about logging battery voltages and flight times and assure you the numbers provided are accurate. The lowest battery voltage I have flown down to is 21.4v during a gentle three battery flight in no wind conditions ending at 0:25:01 minutes fitted with the CGO-4 camera and gimbal. I generally land before reaching that point. Bear in mind that all manufacturers advertise their products of achieving "up to "X" flight time". "Up to" does not mean "will do". it means on the rare day that are the stars are in alignment, the moon is blue and full, and the stock market has hit 30,000 you might. Since you bought the 920+ package you have a charger that provides the IR state of your battery cells. Charge up your batteries and let them cool off for an hour and check IR. You might consider charging them up, allowing to cool, and fly them for about two minutes and allow them to cool before pulling an IR reading. IR (internal resistance) will provide an indication of battery condition. The Yuneec batteries are not the best quality by any means but they do OK if used with a little care.
You are, I'm sure, aware of the first low voltage warning that occurs between 21.7v and 21.8v. The actual trigger for that warning is 21.7v but if you are on the throttle for a climb the voltage may be showing 21.8 but the battery on a short dip into the 21.7v range. The Yuneec 8C batteries do not tolerate high current loads very well. You may not be aware that you can fly for a considerable period of time after the first warning, but you'll want to clear the voltage warnings from the ST-16 screen by tapping the "back" icon at the bottom of the ST-16 screen a few times. It's rather persistent and requires a few taps to stop it from popping back up. The battery warnings stop after passing through 21,7v and do not reoccur until achieving 21.5v. That warning is one you should pay very close attention to as a voltage below roughly 21.2 or a little higher could damage the batteries. I don't know when the auto land voltage level occurs as I never, ever, fly a battery that low.
You mentioned you had been flying a Typhoon H. Hopefully you understand the 920 is not the "greyhound" the Typhoon H is. It's not intended to be flown extremely aggressively but as a camera platform. The more aggressively you fly it the faster you will deplete the batteries. Use smooth and coordinated control inputs and you will be rewarded with better performance and flight times. How you fly is everything for what you obtain in flight time from a battery. FYI, if you obtain and use a CGO-3 gimbal adapter you can obtain UP TO about 30-33 minutes of flight time with a CGO-3 camera. The difference in flight time is because the aircraft is much lighter with the CGO-3. Using a stock lens CGO-3 on a 920 kind of defeats the purpose of having a better CGO-4 camera though. But you could also use the CGO-ET on a 920 if you so desired.
As for your original question: "are you convinced that you have made a good deal with the purchase of the Tornado?" I mostly am, calling it a 90+% level. I deeply researched all the capabilities of the 920 prior to making a purchase, including flight times so there were no real surprises. The only disappointment I have is the lack of histogram but that is easily overcome with a little bit of effort in learning the camera system and controls.
I'd like to add that if you keep coming back here and/or join the Facebook 920 Owners Group page we'll be glad to help you gain understanding and better performance from your 920+. Sharing our experience and techniques helps others do better.
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply even if some steps could have saved you. I specify that all the tests I have done have been made with no less than two batteries. I reached 17 minutes only on one occasion and with three batteries. Of course the flights have been made not covered and not in the rare day when the stars are aligned, the moon is blue and full, etc. but outdoors and with light wind. I assure you that my flight is not aggressive at all. My discontent stems from the verification of the absolute lack of seriousness of a company that aware of my problem has made fun of me sending me twice the assistance drone, telling me that it would change the software parameters to solve the problem, in reality only made me waste time and money. I would have appreciated that in returning the drone I was attached a technical note like the one you did. I returned a note from the technician who said: "Notes for the customer: Please note that Yuneec batteries are not able to work for more than 10 minutes Flying. ".
Finally, the solution proposed to fly with a CGO3 mounted instead of the CGO4 is to be discarded. I changed the Typhoon H for a much better optics. It makes no sense to spend a lot more money than H for lower quality. Thanks again. Greetings.
Finally, the solution proposed to fly with a CGO3 mounted instead of the CGO4 is to be discarded. I changed the Typhoon H for a much better optics. It makes no sense to spend a lot more money than H for lower quality. Thanks again. Greetings.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Sorry, but the only info I had to go on from your initial post contained more displeasure than operations background info.
I truly understand your frustrations, especially with Yuneec's reply to your problem. No amount of software changes are likely to resolve the Yuneec battery issue as the system places more of an electrical demand on them than they are capable of delivering. I won't go into the particulars, allowing you the time to research electrical loads and battery C ratings at your leisure. However, be advised other battery alternatives are being looked at by many people and some strong possibilities may be available at far less cost and much better performance than Yuneec batteries. As you appear to be in the European area you might review the Tattu battery alternative for the 920. That would be a fast solution and may still be available. I am awaiting delivery of another battery for flight testing before I might say anything more.
Stay in touch and I believe solutions are forthcoming.
I truly understand your frustrations, especially with Yuneec's reply to your problem. No amount of software changes are likely to resolve the Yuneec battery issue as the system places more of an electrical demand on them than they are capable of delivering. I won't go into the particulars, allowing you the time to research electrical loads and battery C ratings at your leisure. However, be advised other battery alternatives are being looked at by many people and some strong possibilities may be available at far less cost and much better performance than Yuneec batteries. As you appear to be in the European area you might review the Tattu battery alternative for the 920. That would be a fast solution and may still be available. I am awaiting delivery of another battery for flight testing before I might say anything more.
Stay in touch and I believe solutions are forthcoming.
Thanks again for the answer. It's nice to see that Yuneec users have the skills and knowledge that their technicians demonstrate they do not have. It remains the bitterness of having verified the lack of seriousness of a company that should have recognized that the characteristics of its product do not correspond to those advertised, at least in my case it is so. All this with serious risk for people, apart from the loss of money from the end user. Do you think that the first time I was able to verify the anomaly, I was flying in good weather conditions, with no wind, with three batteries and I was flying over a stretch of sea with the drone directed on a small island at a distance of 800 meters . from me. It was not really pleasant. I was calm knowing that I was at the twelfth minute of the flight and that I had at least another ten minutes of autonomy. That message at that point of the flight sent me into a panic due to the fact that the obscuring of the video did not give me the chance to see the position of the drone on the monitor and with the drone that had side shots without stick movement. Context what you say about flight time not to be considered in absolute but taking into account the optimal conditions ("up to "X" flight time". "Up to" does not mean "will do". it means on the rare day that are the stars are in alignment, the moon is blue and full, and the stock market has hit 30,000 you might.) because the products marketed by the competition fully respect what was stated in the advertisement with a gap of 5% deriving from adverse weather conditions. To conclude, I would have expected a serious company to recognize the shortcomings of the product, solving them,
without forcing the end user, who believed in the product, to an endless odyssey, knowing that the problem is not solved only by traveling the disputed product, up and down from Italy to Germany.
without forcing the end user, who believed in the product, to an endless odyssey, knowing that the problem is not solved only by traveling the disputed product, up and down from Italy to Germany.
Giafogiafo,
As reference, USA is unable to get these but European theater has many sources for them.
I've provided a few links to examine.
Tattu 4000mAh LiPo 22.2v 15C
Tattu 4000mAh 22.2V 15C 6S1P Lipo Battery Pack - Other from Heliguy UK
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tattu-Rechargeable-Multicopter-Hexacopter-Helicopter/dp/B01LVY2RZZ
Tattu 4000mAh 22.2V 15C 6S1P Lipo Battery Pack for Yuneec H920
Unknown if you have access to an option being considered on USA side, but it would also work great and may be lower cost, but requires terminal convertors as specified in the other thread.
Turnigy nano-tech 4000mah 6S 25~50C Lipo Pack
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DXF14J...t=&hvlocphy=9017769&hvtargid=pla-368672256670
As reference, USA is unable to get these but European theater has many sources for them.
I've provided a few links to examine.
Tattu 4000mAh LiPo 22.2v 15C
Tattu 4000mAh 22.2V 15C 6S1P Lipo Battery Pack - Other from Heliguy UK
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tattu-Rechargeable-Multicopter-Hexacopter-Helicopter/dp/B01LVY2RZZ
Tattu 4000mAh 22.2V 15C 6S1P Lipo Battery Pack for Yuneec H920
Unknown if you have access to an option being considered on USA side, but it would also work great and may be lower cost, but requires terminal convertors as specified in the other thread.
Turnigy nano-tech 4000mah 6S 25~50C Lipo Pack
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DXF14J...t=&hvlocphy=9017769&hvtargid=pla-368672256670
Dougcjohn, my post has been sent to know if I'm the only one to have problems with the flight times of the Tornado H920 + and if there are other cases, as they have been solved. I know that the batteries supplied with the drone are the cause of flight times not in line with the characteristics listed by the house and I expected that the company (if serious) had withdrawn the five original batteries (shoddy) replacing them with four batteries able to guarantee the advertised flight times.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Giafogiafo,
You are not the only one, others will be found on Facebook's 920 Owner's Group pages. From my perspective there has been a total failure by Yuneec to acknowledge this issue, a problem that suddenly became apparent only after the original 920's were converted to the 920+. It appears the conversion process included a component changes that increased the current demand by the flight system on the batteries. Being only an 8C battery they are design limited in providing a maximum current load of 32A. For whatever reason Yuneec has failed completely in addressing the problem. It has required many months for Yuneec to provide even a cursory admission there is a problem.
Some casual testing on my end to research the possibility of using alternative batteries established the 920+ using a single battery power supply and weighted with the CGO-4 would demand at least 76A at take off. Since the test employed only a single 6s, 25C, 6000+mA battery using a split, two power plug battery lead the aircraft was tethered to prevent flight so I did not collect any in flight data for current loading. I was not sure of how the aircraft would respond to having only a single battery. That test also established that using a multi-plug power lead would be critical to changing to a single battery power supply as the EC3 connectors used in the 920 are limited to 30A each. In theory a 3 battery installation, with 3X - 6s, 4000mA, 8C batteries would provide an adequate current supply but as many have experienced, the low voltage warning (extremely disruptive/disturbing while in flight) can be triggered after only 10-12 minutes or so into a flight, indicating the Yuneec batteries may be of a lower C rating, lower quality than stated on the wrapper. We know that in the past Yuneec has mislabeled battery capacity descriptions for reasons unknown so possible misrepresentation of the 920 battery is not to be discounted. Perhaps the best software "fix" for this would be a reduction in warning quantity but such a fix will not be forthcoming so preventing the warning is the most viable solution.
FYI, I like some of Yuneec's products very much, and they have the added benefit of not being burdened with extensive flight restriction software, data collection with automatic dissemination to unknown recipients, or information distribution to law enforcement agencies. I do not approve of the way Yuneec management has been ignoring customer notifications of system design deficiencies or the path they are taking in product development and releases. The 920 Plus is, for me, a good platform that does not suffer the ailments resident in the Typhoon H despite the fact the 920+ shares the same flight control system. The 920+ most certainly has some issues that could be easily corrected by Yuneec if they had any desire to do so. Since they do not have the desire the corrections fall on the users to overcome them. No, that is not the way it should be but the Chinese business model is about taking and making foreign money in the fastest way possible and never looking back. Other multirotor manufacturers of similar origin practice the same policies slightly modified to generate a false appearance of continuous product improvement. For the most part the consumer/prosumer drone manufacturers are only interested in capturing as much revenue as possible from the initial release of a product, with little thought directed to a smaller, but continuous revenue stream generated by continuous improvement of existing product. They don't seem to care that customer perception equates to customer loyalty and that customer loyalty is what generates repeat customers, the most reliable source of continuous revenue obtainable.
There are many individuals that have the ability to diagnose system issues and develop solutions, the problem is distributing the information that would provide corrections that all involved could benefit from. It's places (forums) like this, Facebook, and others that can and should be used as a means to share experience, illuminate issues as they are found, and distribute solutions. The problem is in assuring that all are aware of forums such as this to provide them a means of problem identification, notification, and resolution. A secondary problem revolves around types of discussion and limiting the amount of complaining. Complaint threads always outnumber resolution threads by a very high ratio, which clutters any forum and inhibits problem resolution discussions.
We know that manufacturers will be either unresponsive to requests for corrections, extremely slow to respond, or release new products incorporating corrections that have to be bought to obtain rather than providing soft/firmware updates to owners. We have the ability to make hardware corrections that improve generally good products and turn them into great products, but only if we want to and work together. The 920 has, in my opinion, only a few things that hold it back. One is the lack of histogram. We will not see any firmware updates so we have to learn our cameras and overcome that through our knowledge and skills as photographers. Two is the voltage warning. This is actually easy to correct through the use of different batteries. Those batteries may or may not provide the flight times some may desire but they will eliminate errant low voltage warnings induced by excessive current draw. As there is no such things as "the perfect flight time" we must adjust our operations to the flight time available. A third is the factory 14/42mm lens. The image is not as sharp as it could be but the solution is replacing the lens with a better one that is available at camera dealers everywhere. Yuneec selected the kit lens using cost/profit margin decisions. DSLR camera makers do the same thing, providing lenses that are OK while selling much better lenses at additional cost. A fourth issue is with the gimbals inability to dampen 100% of vibration at a 42mm focal length. One solution is not to fully extend the lens as the upper image shimmer only seems to occur at a 42mm focal length. Another solution may be to change the gimbal dampers to ones a little stiffer. Some have stated the use of a single stiff damper ball instead of the three damper corner has resolved this problem. I'm thinking there's a possibility of adding a fourth damper to control vibration/balance at max focal length. Unfortunately I do not have the math skills and knowledge to perform calculations that would establish a quick solution.
Bottom line; we can work together to make a good platform better. We only need to "want to" to get it done. Personally, I'm looking forward to your input in sharing your experiences as doing so will expand the shared data that provides a path to solutions.
You are not the only one, others will be found on Facebook's 920 Owner's Group pages. From my perspective there has been a total failure by Yuneec to acknowledge this issue, a problem that suddenly became apparent only after the original 920's were converted to the 920+. It appears the conversion process included a component changes that increased the current demand by the flight system on the batteries. Being only an 8C battery they are design limited in providing a maximum current load of 32A. For whatever reason Yuneec has failed completely in addressing the problem. It has required many months for Yuneec to provide even a cursory admission there is a problem.
Some casual testing on my end to research the possibility of using alternative batteries established the 920+ using a single battery power supply and weighted with the CGO-4 would demand at least 76A at take off. Since the test employed only a single 6s, 25C, 6000+mA battery using a split, two power plug battery lead the aircraft was tethered to prevent flight so I did not collect any in flight data for current loading. I was not sure of how the aircraft would respond to having only a single battery. That test also established that using a multi-plug power lead would be critical to changing to a single battery power supply as the EC3 connectors used in the 920 are limited to 30A each. In theory a 3 battery installation, with 3X - 6s, 4000mA, 8C batteries would provide an adequate current supply but as many have experienced, the low voltage warning (extremely disruptive/disturbing while in flight) can be triggered after only 10-12 minutes or so into a flight, indicating the Yuneec batteries may be of a lower C rating, lower quality than stated on the wrapper. We know that in the past Yuneec has mislabeled battery capacity descriptions for reasons unknown so possible misrepresentation of the 920 battery is not to be discounted. Perhaps the best software "fix" for this would be a reduction in warning quantity but such a fix will not be forthcoming so preventing the warning is the most viable solution.
FYI, I like some of Yuneec's products very much, and they have the added benefit of not being burdened with extensive flight restriction software, data collection with automatic dissemination to unknown recipients, or information distribution to law enforcement agencies. I do not approve of the way Yuneec management has been ignoring customer notifications of system design deficiencies or the path they are taking in product development and releases. The 920 Plus is, for me, a good platform that does not suffer the ailments resident in the Typhoon H despite the fact the 920+ shares the same flight control system. The 920+ most certainly has some issues that could be easily corrected by Yuneec if they had any desire to do so. Since they do not have the desire the corrections fall on the users to overcome them. No, that is not the way it should be but the Chinese business model is about taking and making foreign money in the fastest way possible and never looking back. Other multirotor manufacturers of similar origin practice the same policies slightly modified to generate a false appearance of continuous product improvement. For the most part the consumer/prosumer drone manufacturers are only interested in capturing as much revenue as possible from the initial release of a product, with little thought directed to a smaller, but continuous revenue stream generated by continuous improvement of existing product. They don't seem to care that customer perception equates to customer loyalty and that customer loyalty is what generates repeat customers, the most reliable source of continuous revenue obtainable.
There are many individuals that have the ability to diagnose system issues and develop solutions, the problem is distributing the information that would provide corrections that all involved could benefit from. It's places (forums) like this, Facebook, and others that can and should be used as a means to share experience, illuminate issues as they are found, and distribute solutions. The problem is in assuring that all are aware of forums such as this to provide them a means of problem identification, notification, and resolution. A secondary problem revolves around types of discussion and limiting the amount of complaining. Complaint threads always outnumber resolution threads by a very high ratio, which clutters any forum and inhibits problem resolution discussions.
We know that manufacturers will be either unresponsive to requests for corrections, extremely slow to respond, or release new products incorporating corrections that have to be bought to obtain rather than providing soft/firmware updates to owners. We have the ability to make hardware corrections that improve generally good products and turn them into great products, but only if we want to and work together. The 920 has, in my opinion, only a few things that hold it back. One is the lack of histogram. We will not see any firmware updates so we have to learn our cameras and overcome that through our knowledge and skills as photographers. Two is the voltage warning. This is actually easy to correct through the use of different batteries. Those batteries may or may not provide the flight times some may desire but they will eliminate errant low voltage warnings induced by excessive current draw. As there is no such things as "the perfect flight time" we must adjust our operations to the flight time available. A third is the factory 14/42mm lens. The image is not as sharp as it could be but the solution is replacing the lens with a better one that is available at camera dealers everywhere. Yuneec selected the kit lens using cost/profit margin decisions. DSLR camera makers do the same thing, providing lenses that are OK while selling much better lenses at additional cost. A fourth issue is with the gimbals inability to dampen 100% of vibration at a 42mm focal length. One solution is not to fully extend the lens as the upper image shimmer only seems to occur at a 42mm focal length. Another solution may be to change the gimbal dampers to ones a little stiffer. Some have stated the use of a single stiff damper ball instead of the three damper corner has resolved this problem. I'm thinking there's a possibility of adding a fourth damper to control vibration/balance at max focal length. Unfortunately I do not have the math skills and knowledge to perform calculations that would establish a quick solution.
Bottom line; we can work together to make a good platform better. We only need to "want to" to get it done. Personally, I'm looking forward to your input in sharing your experiences as doing so will expand the shared data that provides a path to solutions.
Patr,
Thank you again for your qualified contribution to the discussion I have opened to publicize a problem related to the lack of professionalism and entrepreneurial honesty of Yuneec. I have carefully read everything you have been able to explain in your previous post in an exemplary manner and I share point by point what you said. Ivi including what you say in the final part of the post and between the lines of what you said in practice tells the audience of all those who unfortunately have had the unhappy idea of buying the 920+ "we took it in that place, now roll up our sleeves and solve the problems of a company that has done business on our skin at our expense ". How to tell those who bought Wolswagen cars with rigged software, arrange and solve your problems at your expense. I'm not there. I contacted consumer associations and I will make a big fuss. It is not right for a society to behave in this way on the skin of consumers, bearing in mind that the drone we are talking about is a professional device that could cause serious damage for its use. Thank you again for your intervention with which you have clarified in a professional way the dark sides of the problem and I invite all holders of a 920+ to intervene in the discussion.
Thank you again for your qualified contribution to the discussion I have opened to publicize a problem related to the lack of professionalism and entrepreneurial honesty of Yuneec. I have carefully read everything you have been able to explain in your previous post in an exemplary manner and I share point by point what you said. Ivi including what you say in the final part of the post and between the lines of what you said in practice tells the audience of all those who unfortunately have had the unhappy idea of buying the 920+ "we took it in that place, now roll up our sleeves and solve the problems of a company that has done business on our skin at our expense ". How to tell those who bought Wolswagen cars with rigged software, arrange and solve your problems at your expense. I'm not there. I contacted consumer associations and I will make a big fuss. It is not right for a society to behave in this way on the skin of consumers, bearing in mind that the drone we are talking about is a professional device that could cause serious damage for its use. Thank you again for your intervention with which you have clarified in a professional way the dark sides of the problem and I invite all holders of a 920+ to intervene in the discussion.
I'm mostly just a lurker here, but I'd like to also compliment PatR for his many informative posts which, sadly, are becoming more of a rarity on forums these days!
PatR
Premium Pilot
Thank you, but understand there have been a lot of people posting information at different forums, without which myself and others could not have learned from. They were, for me, instrumental in qualifying my 920+ purchase decision.
Because of their experiences I was able to determine the 920+ would be a good fit for my activities despite the issues Yuneec will never resolve. Others long before me bought a 920 or 920+ without such information, and I can easily understand where they would feel betrayed when basing a purchase decision on advertising from the manufacturer. For many of them it now comes down to obtaining the best they can get from what they have or giving up and wallowing in despair. The 920 was a great system but left unfinished. The 920+ is a good system as long as you understand the limitations going in the door. Understanding those limitations, and being able to overcome them, is where I've been trying to help as I can.
Because of their experiences I was able to determine the 920+ would be a good fit for my activities despite the issues Yuneec will never resolve. Others long before me bought a 920 or 920+ without such information, and I can easily understand where they would feel betrayed when basing a purchase decision on advertising from the manufacturer. For many of them it now comes down to obtaining the best they can get from what they have or giving up and wallowing in despair. The 920 was a great system but left unfinished. The 920+ is a good system as long as you understand the limitations going in the door. Understanding those limitations, and being able to overcome them, is where I've been trying to help as I can.
Hi PatR. Thanks again. From what you say, while considering the purchase of Tornado H920 + a rip off, you managed to solve problems with your search. Can you summarize based on your experience, with which batteries can you make flight times that you can not relate with the poor batteries that provides the Yuneec? I would ask you to list scientifically used batteries, weather conditions, overall flight times, flight time until the first message of low battery and the residual values of every single cell of each battery. I am sure that your qualified answer will be useful for those poor people who, like me, have had the unhappy idea of coming across good sellers in the art of cheating and the genius of commerce.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Thus far I’ve only tried one different battery, a Turnigy 15C, 6S, 8000mA Graphene. The complete test result from the first flight are found in the 920 Replacement Battery thread on the last pages. Until I have found and tried more batteries it is what I’ll be buying at least one more of to go foreword.
Hi PatR. What you do is commendable on one side and crazy on the other. But do you pay Yuneec to do all this? It is as if you had bought a car for which the house has guaranteed a path of 20 miles with a liter of fuel and after you realize that the car makes you only 10 miles with a liter, invest money to discover a fuel that will make you do more miles. I think instead that it is time for all those who have been ****** by Yuneec, with the purchase of the Tornado, do a class action to get back the money. I invite those who agree with me to contact me.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I understand why people that bought the original 920 and saw it diminished by the conversion to the 920 Plus would feel that way. There is no question they got screwed in the process and no longer have the system they were sold when they originally bought one. However, my situation is considerably different as I carefully researched the 920+ to establish it's capabilities and fit for my applications before I made a purchase. I knew pretty much exactly what it was and could do and was already aware of the battery situation. One of the "qualifiers" during the process was the 920 uses a standard power plug on the battery, greatly simplifying the process of selecting a different battery. No, I don't do this for Yuneec, I do it for me and others that choose to benefit from the efforts of me and the others that collaborate with me. I would seek out battery alternatives regardless of the quality of Yuneec batteries as it is something I do with any multirotor system I elect to own. I have 6 semi professional to professional grade multirotors and one thing I prefer is to be able to use batteries with standard plug types across all of them. Only the Typhoon H in my fleet use a proprietary battery type, something I abhor. Even with the H I researched and selected an alternative battery in order to obtain equal or higher quality at a better price. Both the H and the Tornado share a common malady, they use a common battery type sold t exorbitant prices simply because of an external proprietary outer case with one, and a proprietary dimensional characteristics with the other. There's nothing about them aside from those factors that justifies pricing any higher than a lipo battery that can be obtained from virtually any lipo vendor. The same applies to DJI, the batteries are grossly over priced, a price that cannot be justified, using designs that are absolutely unnecessary for the safe operation of a multirotor. Proprietary battery shells and features are done for one reason only, to generate an alternative but steady revenue stream for the multirotor brand manufacturer. If a user is too stupid or uneducated to monitor voltage and properly care for their batteries they should not be engaged in multirotor activities that require the use of a lipo battery. They lack the qualifications necessary to participate.
I do not believe the manufacturer advertising provided with any aerial platform, believing that all of them describe their systems while wearing rose colored glasses. Their purpose is to sell product and make money at our expense. They are not in business to care for us, they are in business to extract the contents of our wallets. Something else I make it a point to do is assure my selection of tools always aligns with the job they will be assigned to do. It does not matter that the activity be carpentry, electronics, carbon or metal fabrication, flying, or house cleaning, research and buy the right tool for the job. Unless it's a custom build or a product from a very high end manufacturer that does not serve the general consumer or target a wide photographer base I they will have unadvertised limitations and probability of undisclosed defects. Multirotors from all Chinese manufacturers are not and have never been fully tested and validated prior to their release. They all arrive with either a software or hardware defect, along with bugs in their cameras and gimbals. Therefore I expect some problem or another to become apparent after purchase and hope that my experience and ability will be up to the level necessary to resolve or work around any deficiency. I know what I'm getting into and am comfortable with the problem potential before ever making a purchase. I certainly would not agree to a blanket recall of a product I own for conversion to a different platform without first knowing everything that would be involved with the conversion and the impact on the product after the conversion. If there were no safety of flight issues that generated a recall for conversion I would not return it, and retain the system in original form.
Ultimately, I received and like what I paid for with my purchase of the 920+. It does EXACTLY what I anticipated it would do, in the manner anticipated. The only surprises were minor and related to software/GUI issues that nobody else had posted mention of. A lack of histogram, lack of description of the Union function in the camera controls, failure to depict firmware version in the System menu, were and are not anything more than a nuisance. With the exception of the histogram, none of them impact the 920+ system functionality. There's a massive difference between a 920 and a 920 Plus purchase. Those that bought a 920 and allowed them to be converted most assuredly got screwed and have every right to be angry and consider an international level corporate legal action that would likely be unsuccessful. I put the odds of success right up there with trying to sue DJI for denial of use or pirating personal and professionally generated data. Those looking at a 920+ have every opportunity to fully research the platform to establish viability for their operation prior to making a purchase. It has no significant issues than need to be ferreted out and overcome. It fits the applications you have for it or it does not. If it does not, don't buy one, just as we would not buy anything else that didn't do what was needed to be done.
I do not believe the manufacturer advertising provided with any aerial platform, believing that all of them describe their systems while wearing rose colored glasses. Their purpose is to sell product and make money at our expense. They are not in business to care for us, they are in business to extract the contents of our wallets. Something else I make it a point to do is assure my selection of tools always aligns with the job they will be assigned to do. It does not matter that the activity be carpentry, electronics, carbon or metal fabrication, flying, or house cleaning, research and buy the right tool for the job. Unless it's a custom build or a product from a very high end manufacturer that does not serve the general consumer or target a wide photographer base I they will have unadvertised limitations and probability of undisclosed defects. Multirotors from all Chinese manufacturers are not and have never been fully tested and validated prior to their release. They all arrive with either a software or hardware defect, along with bugs in their cameras and gimbals. Therefore I expect some problem or another to become apparent after purchase and hope that my experience and ability will be up to the level necessary to resolve or work around any deficiency. I know what I'm getting into and am comfortable with the problem potential before ever making a purchase. I certainly would not agree to a blanket recall of a product I own for conversion to a different platform without first knowing everything that would be involved with the conversion and the impact on the product after the conversion. If there were no safety of flight issues that generated a recall for conversion I would not return it, and retain the system in original form.
Ultimately, I received and like what I paid for with my purchase of the 920+. It does EXACTLY what I anticipated it would do, in the manner anticipated. The only surprises were minor and related to software/GUI issues that nobody else had posted mention of. A lack of histogram, lack of description of the Union function in the camera controls, failure to depict firmware version in the System menu, were and are not anything more than a nuisance. With the exception of the histogram, none of them impact the 920+ system functionality. There's a massive difference between a 920 and a 920 Plus purchase. Those that bought a 920 and allowed them to be converted most assuredly got screwed and have every right to be angry and consider an international level corporate legal action that would likely be unsuccessful. I put the odds of success right up there with trying to sue DJI for denial of use or pirating personal and professionally generated data. Those looking at a 920+ have every opportunity to fully research the platform to establish viability for their operation prior to making a purchase. It has no significant issues than need to be ferreted out and overcome. It fits the applications you have for it or it does not. If it does not, don't buy one, just as we would not buy anything else that didn't do what was needed to be done.
Curious, are there any 3rd party or Hack tools that provide a means to tweak / modify the firmware of Yuneec birds... specifically the H920 series? Other brands have several options provided by external utilities (Hackers). This is frowned upon normally to mention but with the dissatisfaction of Support and lack of development of updates, has this tangent been explored?
PatR
Premium Pilot
For the 920 none that I’m aware of.
PSA, a feature of the 920+ I’m growing quite fond of is the manual focus option. It’s nice to be able to set focus for a specific distance and leave it there, or alter the focus point a little to play depth of field. Not many systems in this price range allow the option of auto or manual focus with an adjustable focal length.
PSA, a feature of the 920+ I’m growing quite fond of is the manual focus option. It’s nice to be able to set focus for a specific distance and leave it there, or alter the focus point a little to play depth of field. Not many systems in this price range allow the option of auto or manual focus with an adjustable focal length.
More appropriate thread than batteries for 920 life cycle... Looking at the belly of 920, the mount plate hole pattern, the use of mounting plates, the wiring harness having more circuits than needed for current gimbal; IMO indicates some impressive design considerations.
Was it market driven that didn’t support the growth, or improperly marketed to stimulate the growth?
Your experience is vast in both UAV and Yuneec, you ever hear of some impressive things in design in early release?
The 920 seems to have declined in appeal very quickly, was that the overal 920 platform or did the 920+ fall short in expectations that accelerated the decline?
Some 920 Owners are very frustrated, angry, disappointed over the lack of development or failing Support... all understandable.
Sadly it’s really not even an out dated platform on the technology. Hardware is probably still in upper ranks.
Was it market driven that didn’t support the growth, or improperly marketed to stimulate the growth?
Your experience is vast in both UAV and Yuneec, you ever hear of some impressive things in design in early release?
The 920 seems to have declined in appeal very quickly, was that the overal 920 platform or did the 920+ fall short in expectations that accelerated the decline?
Some 920 Owners are very frustrated, angry, disappointed over the lack of development or failing Support... all understandable.
Sadly it’s really not even an out dated platform on the technology. Hardware is probably still in upper ranks.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Stop blowing smoke up my .....
But you did just open the door for my other theoy, which should be held suspect as it dovetails to well with my other theory. Then again, I don't believe in coincidence so...
We have to remember to all the things that were taking place when the 920 was first advertised and released to the U.S. market. Things were looking great for commercial aerial activities and quite a few small aerial businesses had landed some pretty good contracts. They were making pretty good money. But our FAA decided they needed to control sUAS and without legal authority to enforce they sent out letters to all the big outfits that were contracting out for aerial imagery. The threat of enforcement was enough for them to cancel their contracts with aerial vendors, pulling the rug out from under the aerial companies just as the 920 was being released. The marketing was good, and I believe the intent was sincere, but the timing with the FAA throwing their weight around was terrible and not foreseeable. Unless you had a Part 333 authorization, and only 6 companies had them, you were shut down until the court battle between the FAA and Mr.Brendan Schulman, who was representing a European guy named Trappy that had flown over, around, and through everything at an Eastern college, was settled. That went on for a year and a half.
Europe and the U.K. were still doing well for commercial aerial imagery but soon after the FAA started flexing their muscles the EU and UK started coming up wit more sUAS flight regs. The EU was getting real sticky with things like weight limits and parachute requirements. Not insurmountable but Yuneec was just about to release the Typhoon H. This is where I think the real problems came into play. Yuneec has a competitor, and that competitor has no reservations about what he will do to assure he retains his market share. before the H was released there was a campaign mounted to discredit it in every social media forum you can think of. The number of user names that were openly slamming the Typhoon H was absolutely incredible. The lies even more so. The H was supposed to release in March of 2016 and somehow every H had to be brought back for an emergency firmware upgrade. This was more than a little strange as every pre-production H had been extensively test flown to validate the system before the production run started. As soon as the production units started rolling off the line a series of major bugs were found in the Typhoon H flight control system. Almost like the FC suddenly caught a cold, if you understand what I'm saying.
So deliveries of the H were delayed until May of 2016, which caused a lot of people to cancel their pre-orders and place orders for the new Autel platform and a new Phantom version made by a company that just happened to cut their price structures at almost the same time the H was being released. BTW, something similar happened to the 3DR Solo with that same company as the Solo was being released, price cuts and all. Back to the H. So the H was now getting into the hands of the public but as it did so the the anti H slam campaign from DJI shills hit a fever pitch. Videos were made and posted on You Tube showing the H being deliberately run into walls, trees, flailing on take off and landing, and all sorts of stuff that tried to make it look bad. Close reviews of all those videos provided evidence all the "problems" were deliberately induced. We might call all of it an attempt to sabotage. Combine that with a few people that grabbed an H for their first multirotor making some serious operational mistakes and there was some unjustified negative publicity for the H. That hurt sales to some extent for sure. Adding fuel to the fire was Yuneec's taking everything back for any reason for free customer service repairs. That cost a lot of money. All of the above combines to put a pretty big hurt on a relatively small company at a time they had invested a lot of capital in two stellar platforms, the 920 and the Typhoon H. It all benefits DJI greatly but hurts Yuneec badly, as did the BK filing of an outfit in New York last year that owed Yuneec $10.3 million.
The 920 was and is a good design and I truly believe they had intended to grow the platform. But revenue issues caused them to cease improving it, and were likely the reason they chose to convert it to the 920+. Money is certainly the reason Yuneec chose to unload most of their U.S. management staff and a large portion of their service techs, a process that has yet to cease. The 920 and Typhoon H did not share common system components and likely had different supply chains. As there was an Asian press release that alluded heavily to Yuneec having financial issues with one or more suppliers they may not have been able to continue obtaining parts for the 920 but still had purchasing power with Typhoon H parts suppliers. Suddenly the 920 was using the same flight system as the Typhoon H and the 920 was renamed the 920 Plus, although it should have been named the 920 Minus.
When we look at the situation pragmatically, those that bought a 920 and kept it a 920 don't have all that much to complain about. Yes, the camera/gimbal integration was stopped halfway through the process, but those people still have what they paid for. Complaining about upgrades that never happened is like complaining next year's cars have features the ones from this year do not. Some of their reasoning suggests auto manufacturers should also be upgrading older models with each new model year release. It's the same logic. Those that bought 920's and sent them in for conversion "upgrades" have every right to be mad as ****. We can honestly say that some of what they originally paid for was stolen from them. The battery situation is certainly a problem but alternative solutions that provide flight time as good or better than what they had with their 920's is readily available at MUCH lower cost. Ultimately batteries are only a problem for people that want to complain about something. It would be to their benefit to shut up and buy a few better batteries, and write off the old ones as a business expense. They would have ended up doing that around the two year mark anyway as they don't last forever. Then again, some of the complainers may be working for the competition, doing the same as they have been continuously doing in publishing negative comments across social media venues. The guy in Australia that alleges he reported the 920 battery situation to CASA is definitely suspect. If he could get the Yuneec fleet grounded, who benefits? Certainly not the owners, or himself.
The 920 in either form is an excellent platform and in no way obsolete. In my view if Yuneec was serious about standing up their commercial division they would revisit the 920 and make a few minor code changes to improve resident functionality and contract with someone for new batteries. After that was done they could devote some effort to adding new operational features to expand capability, perhaps even integrate some new cameras from known quality camera manufacturers. Doing all that would provide an upper level platform for those not terribly interested in mapping. They have the 520 for that, and there's a lot of room for improvement on that end. Diversification is how you expand your customer base as one size has never fit all. You can build a base platform and provide numerous add on options for it but it runs out of room quickly. A better option is to split the product line in directions that align with known customer requirements. The big money is rapidly moving to commercial enterprise endeavors. Commercial provides for larger margins and better funding for R&D. The consumer market is saturated and wallets have been emptied by a continuous process of new product releases. The consumer side also has the liability of providing customer service to a "entitlement" population that cause most of their own problems, but are extremely vocal when they don't get coddled with free repair work. A consumer buys one system, a commercial enterprise might buy 10 or more larger systems. It makes a **** of a lot more sense to target the commercial sector and send out people to meet with potential customers and train them as part of the purchase contracts.
Again, congrats on your new system. I'm pretty sure you will like it, and like it even more as you get some time on it. I'm actually a bit envious of you obtaining an original 920. I didn't think there were any left. BTW, I don't believe the 920 as it was originally released declined in appeal but it was certainly over shadowed by saturation advertising of the Inspire and its camera selections. Yuneec has done themselves no favors with their perpetual silence.
But you did just open the door for my other theoy, which should be held suspect as it dovetails to well with my other theory. Then again, I don't believe in coincidence so...We have to remember to all the things that were taking place when the 920 was first advertised and released to the U.S. market. Things were looking great for commercial aerial activities and quite a few small aerial businesses had landed some pretty good contracts. They were making pretty good money. But our FAA decided they needed to control sUAS and without legal authority to enforce they sent out letters to all the big outfits that were contracting out for aerial imagery. The threat of enforcement was enough for them to cancel their contracts with aerial vendors, pulling the rug out from under the aerial companies just as the 920 was being released. The marketing was good, and I believe the intent was sincere, but the timing with the FAA throwing their weight around was terrible and not foreseeable. Unless you had a Part 333 authorization, and only 6 companies had them, you were shut down until the court battle between the FAA and Mr.Brendan Schulman, who was representing a European guy named Trappy that had flown over, around, and through everything at an Eastern college, was settled. That went on for a year and a half.
Europe and the U.K. were still doing well for commercial aerial imagery but soon after the FAA started flexing their muscles the EU and UK started coming up wit more sUAS flight regs. The EU was getting real sticky with things like weight limits and parachute requirements. Not insurmountable but Yuneec was just about to release the Typhoon H. This is where I think the real problems came into play. Yuneec has a competitor, and that competitor has no reservations about what he will do to assure he retains his market share. before the H was released there was a campaign mounted to discredit it in every social media forum you can think of. The number of user names that were openly slamming the Typhoon H was absolutely incredible. The lies even more so. The H was supposed to release in March of 2016 and somehow every H had to be brought back for an emergency firmware upgrade. This was more than a little strange as every pre-production H had been extensively test flown to validate the system before the production run started. As soon as the production units started rolling off the line a series of major bugs were found in the Typhoon H flight control system. Almost like the FC suddenly caught a cold, if you understand what I'm saying.
So deliveries of the H were delayed until May of 2016, which caused a lot of people to cancel their pre-orders and place orders for the new Autel platform and a new Phantom version made by a company that just happened to cut their price structures at almost the same time the H was being released. BTW, something similar happened to the 3DR Solo with that same company as the Solo was being released, price cuts and all. Back to the H. So the H was now getting into the hands of the public but as it did so the the anti H slam campaign from DJI shills hit a fever pitch. Videos were made and posted on You Tube showing the H being deliberately run into walls, trees, flailing on take off and landing, and all sorts of stuff that tried to make it look bad. Close reviews of all those videos provided evidence all the "problems" were deliberately induced. We might call all of it an attempt to sabotage. Combine that with a few people that grabbed an H for their first multirotor making some serious operational mistakes and there was some unjustified negative publicity for the H. That hurt sales to some extent for sure. Adding fuel to the fire was Yuneec's taking everything back for any reason for free customer service repairs. That cost a lot of money. All of the above combines to put a pretty big hurt on a relatively small company at a time they had invested a lot of capital in two stellar platforms, the 920 and the Typhoon H. It all benefits DJI greatly but hurts Yuneec badly, as did the BK filing of an outfit in New York last year that owed Yuneec $10.3 million.
The 920 was and is a good design and I truly believe they had intended to grow the platform. But revenue issues caused them to cease improving it, and were likely the reason they chose to convert it to the 920+. Money is certainly the reason Yuneec chose to unload most of their U.S. management staff and a large portion of their service techs, a process that has yet to cease. The 920 and Typhoon H did not share common system components and likely had different supply chains. As there was an Asian press release that alluded heavily to Yuneec having financial issues with one or more suppliers they may not have been able to continue obtaining parts for the 920 but still had purchasing power with Typhoon H parts suppliers. Suddenly the 920 was using the same flight system as the Typhoon H and the 920 was renamed the 920 Plus, although it should have been named the 920 Minus.
When we look at the situation pragmatically, those that bought a 920 and kept it a 920 don't have all that much to complain about. Yes, the camera/gimbal integration was stopped halfway through the process, but those people still have what they paid for. Complaining about upgrades that never happened is like complaining next year's cars have features the ones from this year do not. Some of their reasoning suggests auto manufacturers should also be upgrading older models with each new model year release. It's the same logic. Those that bought 920's and sent them in for conversion "upgrades" have every right to be mad as ****. We can honestly say that some of what they originally paid for was stolen from them. The battery situation is certainly a problem but alternative solutions that provide flight time as good or better than what they had with their 920's is readily available at MUCH lower cost. Ultimately batteries are only a problem for people that want to complain about something. It would be to their benefit to shut up and buy a few better batteries, and write off the old ones as a business expense. They would have ended up doing that around the two year mark anyway as they don't last forever. Then again, some of the complainers may be working for the competition, doing the same as they have been continuously doing in publishing negative comments across social media venues. The guy in Australia that alleges he reported the 920 battery situation to CASA is definitely suspect. If he could get the Yuneec fleet grounded, who benefits? Certainly not the owners, or himself.
The 920 in either form is an excellent platform and in no way obsolete. In my view if Yuneec was serious about standing up their commercial division they would revisit the 920 and make a few minor code changes to improve resident functionality and contract with someone for new batteries. After that was done they could devote some effort to adding new operational features to expand capability, perhaps even integrate some new cameras from known quality camera manufacturers. Doing all that would provide an upper level platform for those not terribly interested in mapping. They have the 520 for that, and there's a lot of room for improvement on that end. Diversification is how you expand your customer base as one size has never fit all. You can build a base platform and provide numerous add on options for it but it runs out of room quickly. A better option is to split the product line in directions that align with known customer requirements. The big money is rapidly moving to commercial enterprise endeavors. Commercial provides for larger margins and better funding for R&D. The consumer market is saturated and wallets have been emptied by a continuous process of new product releases. The consumer side also has the liability of providing customer service to a "entitlement" population that cause most of their own problems, but are extremely vocal when they don't get coddled with free repair work. A consumer buys one system, a commercial enterprise might buy 10 or more larger systems. It makes a **** of a lot more sense to target the commercial sector and send out people to meet with potential customers and train them as part of the purchase contracts.
Again, congrats on your new system. I'm pretty sure you will like it, and like it even more as you get some time on it. I'm actually a bit envious of you obtaining an original 920. I didn't think there were any left. BTW, I don't believe the 920 as it was originally released declined in appeal but it was certainly over shadowed by saturation advertising of the Inspire and its camera selections. Yuneec has done themselves no favors with their perpetual silence.
Last edited:
Similar threads
