second battery charge..fly till it auto landed at 15%...watching it now on the st16s and it climbed back to 30%? Getting like 13 min flight times with the e90?
What's goin on?
What's goin on?
Battery life h520 and flight times
- Thread starter Captaincrusty
- Start date
I have had similar with mine getting just over half of the advertised flight time.
I know that these are based on a hover in sno wind but even carrying out a survey grid - not really putting much load on the motors should be getting maybe 20 minute flights!
I was told by the supplier of my H520 that the batteries need a few charge cycles to get up to their best. I do hope that this is the case as I am not happy with 13 minute flights not good enough.
Very misleading to say they will fly 25 minutes with E90.
We need real world data for this.
I know that these are based on a hover in sno wind but even carrying out a survey grid - not really putting much load on the motors should be getting maybe 20 minute flights!
I was told by the supplier of my H520 that the batteries need a few charge cycles to get up to their best. I do hope that this is the case as I am not happy with 13 minute flights not good enough.
Very misleading to say they will fly 25 minutes with E90.
We need real world data for this.
is anyone getting 25min flight times...i am hovering and watch the battery life and time and its 13min..no wind and just hover.
Crusty,
Have you tried flying rather than just hovering?
Not sure if my memory is correct as to the purpose of a video or discussion I encountered a week or so ago, but... it pointed out that a multicopter consumes more energy hovering than it does if it is in moderate motion. It did not mention a cut-off point as far as speed is concerned, when lateral motion exceeds hover as far as energy used.
My point is simply this: hovering may not be the least power consuming maneuver many think it is.
Jeff
Follow up: found the post per my reference above: Quadcopter Flight School: Flight School 5: Power Efficiency Hover vs. Forward Flight
Last edited:
I did...with a survey layout the other day...not much difference...hence the hover test to chk the flight time.
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
In this case, your memory has failed you
The least consumption occurs in stationary. As soon as a translation occurs, the consumption increases and if we add a change of direction, it increases much more.
As discussed in the forum, the flight time is about 20 minutes moving smoothly.
Captaincrusty checks the battery voltage with a voltmeter. Before and after flying. To see voltage store. In the ST16S you have two timers, one from when you start and the other from flight time. It's very rare that landing with 15% you get those times. I haven't flown yet with the last update where the battery parameters were changed but the flight times should not have been modified too much, they should have been slightly increased by landing with less energy.
In this case, your memory has failed you
The least consumption occurs in stationary. As soon as a translation occurs, the consumption increases and if we add a change of direction, it increases much more.
As discussed in the forum, the flight time is about 20 minutes moving smoothly.
Captaincrusty checks the battery voltage with a voltmeter. Before and after flying. To see voltage store. In the ST16S you have two timers, one from when you start and the other from flight time. It's very rare that landing with 15% you get those times. I haven't flown yet with the last update where the battery parameters were changed but the flight times should not have been modified too much, they should have been slightly increased by landing with less energy.
Arruntus,
Check out this article: Quadcopter Flight School: Flight School 5: Power Efficiency Hover vs. Forward Flight
Not arguing your point; just backing up my earlier comment with the article I had read, per my reference.
Jeff
P.S. my H520 arrived this past Friday. Will be doing my own flight time checks soon enough!
Last edited:
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
That's taken very fine. It is important to bear in mind that when you are stationary you only need a holding force. When you make a displacement, apart from the holding force, you also have to add a pulling force to it. However, it is true that when the airflow on the propellers is increased during translation, and for this reason it is said that making a slow movement of translation, without turning, consumes practically the same as in stationary or a little less. But we have the downside that also comes into play aerodynamic drag, which, although small because of the low speed, also affects the opposite direction and increases consumption.
Another thing to keep in mind is the load factor applied every time we make a turn on our aircraft that multiplies exponentially as the turning angle increases. Even if you're 20 minutes slowly moving forward at some point you have to turn around to get back and that's where disaster strikes, because consumption is high and it's not worth it either.
For that to be effective, many factors must be taken into account and the speed would be very low, so it is neglected.
You are right, but it is a trap because calculating at what speed the multirotor should be advanced so that this happens can be crazy and therefore it is not taken into account. Normally doing so will achieve just the opposite effect.
All manufacturers give the best results based on:
- Stationary flight: less consumption possible
- Windless flight: the drone does not have to correct the stationary so it spends less.
- At sea level: denser is the air less revolutions to achieve the same sustentation and therefore lower consumption.
Tell us what times you get, all information is little
My English is still very bad, I hope you understand everything
P.D.: I'm not an expert, but precisely on the subject of consumption I've been talking to a university professor who gives a master's degree in drones. The discussion was precisely, given autonomy times by the manufacturers and real tiemes on drone autonomy. I have omitted that there are still more forces involved in consumption, I believe that you have to be physical to understand everything, it is not my case
. Learning the basics is hard enough, going beyond.... 
Peggy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 376
I was getting 23 mins flight time with either 520 battery or 480 battery but since firmware 1.2.0 I now only get 11-13 mins flight time taking it down to 23%. When back home and putting batteries into storage via the A10 the batteries are actually at around 40%. Firmware 1.2.0 is seriously flawed when they fixed the battery readings to make them more accurate. Yuneec have actually ballsed this up. I’m am extremely unhappy with my purchase as also the jpg images are now all cloudy/dreamy as well. Have to always shoot with DNG and have curved horizons from the E90. Seriously considering sending mine back under UK law as not fit for purpose. I will be downgrading back to previous firmware first though. This long awaited BIG update seems to be never coming.
Well there are three of us getting around 13 minutes.
My times were measured on the flight time inticator on the ST16. Also doing grid survey mission.
I do think that Yuneec should add radius turns option on the survey grids, the stop and 90 degree turn is very jerky and also I think consumes more power as it has to stop then restart.
My times were measured on the flight time inticator on the ST16. Also doing grid survey mission.
I do think that Yuneec should add radius turns option on the survey grids, the stop and 90 degree turn is very jerky and also I think consumes more power as it has to stop then restart.
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
No, turns increase consumption significantly. Consumption is lower if it stops and rotates on itself 90 degrees. This is what I was saying in the other post since the load factor depending on the degrees of inclination even doubles the force in the opposite direction, thus increasing the consumption in a very large way. It's less elegant but more effective.
I asked the professor what NorWiscPilot said, he already answered me. My goodness, he has begun to explain to me the interference of the vortexes created by the propellers and how they quarrel with each other and a lot of terminology that I can't reach that I'm half crazy already. The conclusion is clear, except in very specific cases as it happens in helicopters with only one propeller, or in multirotors with propellers separated from each other if at least the distance of the propeller itself (it would increase the size of the drones much) there is no benefit in a slow translation with respect to being stationary.
How nice it is to learn something new every day, but when we get into such advanced topics that I don't arrive because of lack of knowledge is better to rely on what an expert tells you.....
Hi all!
I could wait no longer. My H520 maiden flight was uneventful, aside from stretching her legs just a wee bit. Did not know how soon the ceiling might drop (expecting another winter storm soon) so did my best to give you all my own flight time results.
I managed 21:20 (m:s) before getting the first voice in the cockpit telling me of low battery. Upon landing, I had 28% battery left and 22:05 total time.
As mentioned, conditions not ideal. 34 degress (F), winds south @ 8mph. Though I did get above the trees a few times, the H520 was sheltered from most of the wind.
Like I said, conditions were not the greatest, and I did a couple high speed passes plus some manual flight, just to see what she could do. So to me, 22 minutes is a great change from my H480's, considering first flight and all.
I have not had a chance to check on what the latest firmware levels are, but was told the latest had been installed before shipping from Vertigo. My revision levels are:
DataPilot: 1.1.34
Camera (E50): 0.4.0_A
Gimbal: 1.33.0
Flight Controller: 1.1.2
A note about this particular E50: the first flight had me stomach in a wee bit o' knot. While I have yet to see "jello" in any of my cameras, this was darn right nauseating. I could get smooth video if the H520 was moving, but let it hover for a bit and the image would simply shake. Yes, I had done the gimbal calibration at least a couple times, especially after the first power on had it buzzing. Not constant if I moved it, but it would return.
Once the first gimbal calibration was complete, the buzzing did not come back. Of course, when I saw the video in the ST16s, I thought the shaking had come back during flight. While the H520 is definitely quiet, I still don't think I could hear the E50 buzzing if it was.
Anyway, brought her back in, changed batteries, did another gimbal calibration and took her back out. The video was smooth and my stomach returned to normal.
By the way, the aforementioned observances were also present in the actual recorded video files, in case anyone was wondering.
That's it for now. My lovely bride is waiting for me to get moving (out the door) so will have to follow up with my firmware revision research later.
Jeff
I could wait no longer. My H520 maiden flight was uneventful, aside from stretching her legs just a wee bit. Did not know how soon the ceiling might drop (expecting another winter storm soon) so did my best to give you all my own flight time results.
I managed 21:20 (m:s) before getting the first voice in the cockpit telling me of low battery. Upon landing, I had 28% battery left and 22:05 total time.
As mentioned, conditions not ideal. 34 degress (F), winds south @ 8mph. Though I did get above the trees a few times, the H520 was sheltered from most of the wind.
Like I said, conditions were not the greatest, and I did a couple high speed passes plus some manual flight, just to see what she could do. So to me, 22 minutes is a great change from my H480's, considering first flight and all.
I have not had a chance to check on what the latest firmware levels are, but was told the latest had been installed before shipping from Vertigo. My revision levels are:
DataPilot: 1.1.34
Camera (E50): 0.4.0_A
Gimbal: 1.33.0
Flight Controller: 1.1.2
A note about this particular E50: the first flight had me stomach in a wee bit o' knot. While I have yet to see "jello" in any of my cameras, this was darn right nauseating. I could get smooth video if the H520 was moving, but let it hover for a bit and the image would simply shake. Yes, I had done the gimbal calibration at least a couple times, especially after the first power on had it buzzing. Not constant if I moved it, but it would return.
Once the first gimbal calibration was complete, the buzzing did not come back. Of course, when I saw the video in the ST16s, I thought the shaking had come back during flight. While the H520 is definitely quiet, I still don't think I could hear the E50 buzzing if it was.
Anyway, brought her back in, changed batteries, did another gimbal calibration and took her back out. The video was smooth and my stomach returned to normal.
By the way, the aforementioned observances were also present in the actual recorded video files, in case anyone was wondering.
That's it for now. My lovely bride is waiting for me to get moving (out the door) so will have to follow up with my firmware revision research later.
Jeff
Last edited:
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
Those times with the E50 are the expected ones, a little longer than with the E90.
Congratulations and long lasting
Congratulations and long lasting
For those who are stating they are getting only 13 minutes of flight time, specifically after a firmware update...
Any chance you can post the revision numbers for your kits? I posted mine above in my flight time post where I am showing at least 22 minutes of flight time. Posting here again. Would love to see what your numbers are.
(Reason I ask: I have seen many posted about updating, and instructions how to get the latest, but I have not seen what the latest revision codes actually are!)
My "current" revision levels:
DataPilot: 1.1.34
Camera (E50): 0.4.0_A
Gimbal: 1.33.0
Flight Controller: 1.1.2
Received kit on 1/5/18. Have not attempted any updates.
Thanks!
Jeff
Any chance you can post the revision numbers for your kits? I posted mine above in my flight time post where I am showing at least 22 minutes of flight time. Posting here again. Would love to see what your numbers are.
(Reason I ask: I have seen many posted about updating, and instructions how to get the latest, but I have not seen what the latest revision codes actually are!)
My "current" revision levels:
DataPilot: 1.1.34
Camera (E50): 0.4.0_A
Gimbal: 1.33.0
Flight Controller: 1.1.2
Received kit on 1/5/18. Have not attempted any updates.
Thanks!
Jeff
arruntus
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,851
- Reaction score
- 730
The numbers of the newer versions can be viewed in the update application itself. The official versions, which do not always coincide with those of the application, I imagine why they do not update them so quickly, in:
Downloads - Yuneec
Downloads - Yuneec
arruntus,
Thanks for the download link. I had been looking on the site itself (sporadically) and had not yet come across the actual H520 download page.
However, what I am asking is for H520 owners, specifically in this thread who are stating 13 minute flight times, to post "their" revision levels in order to be able to compare to what I have loaded in mine. The purpose is to evaluate, precisely, if there are indeed differences in revision levels. At the same time, we can see if there are multiple versions in play here, as well as letting us determine if anyone or no one is on what is actually considered the "latest" revisions.
Thanks, and looking forward to posts showing actual revisions installed in each kit.
Jeff
I will try some more flights and post..i did all the updates before my first flight with the app. so i think its the latest and "greatest"??
crusty
crusty
Similar threads
