Concept for Different Approach to Platform Design

[PatR]

With all the multirotor companies beating themselves to death developing new products and platforms, along with their customer base either trying to keep up with new designs or waiting for extremely long periods for new products to be released, I'd like to propose that Yuneec take a different path by designing expandable platforms instead of completely new ones. Let's face it, few have the resources to be buying a new multirotor every 3 to 6 months. It doesn't take long for people to run out of money and become angry as the platform they bought only a couple months ago is superseded by something new with only one or a couple minor new capabilities or performance improvements over the previous product release. Customers become discouraged and start looking elsewhere for their next products if that happens often enough.

As one size cannot possibly handle everything people want or need to do there is plenty of justification for a manufacturer to design several different platform sizes to allow integration of varied payload dimensions and capabilities. Yuneec already has a bit of a start in this area with the 520 and H Plus. Both share the same base platform but are different in their capabilities. They also have the 920 in the background that could be used to handle larger items.

A company should recognize that 40-50Mpxl DSLR quality images cannot be obtained with glorified security cameras, and the new focus on photogrammetry would benefit significantly in using them. A small platform cannot be utilized to carry things like Lidar, high quality multi-spectral cameras, or high resolution FLIR, and security camera conversions also cannot be fitted with high quality lenses as those are not available, so a larger platform also needs to be available. Those differences are in and of themselves justification to manufacturer more than a single sized platform, especially if there is a desire to target the higher end of commercial applications. For this discussion the actual base models or sizes do not matter, it's the concept that holds priority. As we see Yuneec spending considerable resources and time in developing new products it would be far more cost effective to utilize a common range of components that could be spread across several platforms. Diversification of platform sizing would permit targeting several markets at stepped economic levels.

Starting with the flight controller, the right selection would be able to provide superior flight control functions. If that flight controller was "plug in" expandable the integration of new communications and system control modules would be fairly easy, and economical to incorporate. The flight controller needs to be generally stable in design while allowing code upgrades to accept the new plug in devices and FC performance improvements. Where Yuneec is concerned, they already have such an FC with PX4 and Pixhawk. Both will readily accept plug in components if the plug in coding is compatible with the FC code.

Small companies like Yuneec should not get bogged down with developing new accessory products. Too much time and money is spent attempting to "re-invent the wheel". Far more efficient is to network with companies that have already developed high performing products to find a means to modify and integrate them onto an existing but adaptable platform. It does not require as much effort to design a new mount or code to control a new accessory as it does to create a new accessory and everything associate with it. If you want to use a better camera, just install the camera and mounting adapter and follow that up by transferring control software from a disc that was included with the new camera. The concept is applicable to virtually everything as long as the base platform has the ability to carry it.

The same applies to our ground stations. As our systems become more complex the capabilities of our ground stations become more heavily taxed, slowing them down or causing them to lock up. As more features are added our screens become more cluttered and difficult to use. Make the ground station expandable, utilizing a data transfer protocol to link either via cable or wireless to another device. As capabilities expand there comes a point where a handheld ground station is no longer practical. Develop and advanced ground station for the professional operators that incorporates multiple screens and control devices. This would also allow easy integration of a second operator, something used by every LEA, fire department, emergency responder, and military agencies in surveillance activities. The same applies to infrastructure inspection teams. If they really want single pilot operations, while designing a larger ground station develop the means to control the aircraft through the camera controls. This can and has been done by using an advanced joystick that employs different buttons, hats,adjustable wheels, and triggers.

Ad things currently stand system developers are chasing rabbits, wasting time and money trying to create new stuff that already exists. They should realize having an attitude that anything not invented here is counter productive. There's no reason to task engineering teams with creating a new tire just because their car has a flat and they don't make one of their own to replace it with. There are already many to choose from readily available.

 

[arruntus]

The same concept used in DIY but taken to the commercial field. A very interesting idea.

 

[Tuna]

You could argue that Yuneec are already heading down that route with the PX4 base for the H520.

The big sticking point remains cameras - it costs a fortune to develop a camera that integrates well with a gimbal, and much though people say they want high end optics, when it comes to paying for them they all fade into the woodwork. The other problem is that the camera and gimbal have to be such an integral part of the whole drone (sharing telemetry, power, radio links and so on) that pretty much the only people who can make cameras that work with a particular make of drones are the manufacturers of that drone.

 

[RichA]

With all the multirotor companies beating themselves to death developing new products and platforms, along with their customer base either trying to keep up with new designs or waiting for extremely long periods for new products to be released, I'd like to propose that Yuneec take a different path by designing expandable platforms instead of completely new ones. Let's face it, few have the resources to be buying a new multirotor every 3 to 6 months. It doesn't take long for people to run out of money and become angry as the platform they bought only a couple months ago is superseded by something new with only one or a couple minor new capabilities or performance improvements over the previous product release. Customers become discouraged and start looking elsewhere for their next products if that happens often enough.

As one size cannot possibly handle everything people want or need to do there is plenty of justification for a manufacturer to design several different platform sizes to allow integration of varied payload dimensions and capabilities. Yuneec already has a bit of a start in this area with the 520 and H Plus. Both share the same base platform but are different in their capabilities. They also have the 920 in the background that could be used to handle larger items.

A company should recognize that 40-50Mpxl DSLR quality images cannot be obtained with glorified security cameras, and the new focus on photogrammetry would benefit significantly in using them. A small platform cannot be utilized to carry things like Lidar, high quality multi-spectral cameras, or high resolution FLIR, and security camera conversions also cannot be fitted with high quality lenses as those are not available, so a larger platform also needs to be available. Those differences are in and of themselves justification to manufacturer more than a single sized platform, especially if there is a desire to target the higher end of commercial applications. For this discussion the actual base models or sizes do not matter, it's the concept that holds priority. As we see Yuneec spending considerable resources and time in developing new products it would be far more cost effective to utilize a common range of components that could be spread across several platforms. Diversification of platform sizing would permit targeting several markets at stepped economic levels.

Starting with the flight controller, the right selection would be able to provide superior flight control functions. If that flight controller was "plug in" expandable the integration of new communications and system control modules would be fairly easy, and economical to incorporate. The flight controller needs to be generally stable in design while allowing code upgrades to accept the new plug in devices and FC performance improvements. Where Yuneec is concerned, they already have such an FC with PX4 and Pixhawk. Both will readily accept plug in components if the plug in coding is compatible with the FC code.

Small companies like Yuneec should not get bogged down with developing new accessory products. Too much time and money is spent attempting to "re-invent the wheel". Far more efficient is to network with companies that have already developed high performing products to find a means to modify and integrate them onto an existing but adaptable platform. It does not require as much effort to design a new mount or code to control a new accessory as it does to create a new accessory and everything associate with it. If you want to use a better camera, just install the camera and mounting adapter and follow that up by transferring control software from a disc that was included with the new camera. The concept is applicable to virtually everything as long as the base platform has the ability to carry it.

The same applies to our ground stations. As our systems become more complex the capabilities of our ground stations become more heavily taxed, slowing them down or causing them to lock up. As more features are added our screens become more cluttered and difficult to use. Make the ground station expandable, utilizing a data transfer protocol to link either via cable or wireless to another device. As capabilities expand there comes a point where a handheld ground station is no longer practical. Develop and advanced ground station for the professional operators that incorporates multiple screens and control devices. This would also allow easy integration of a second operator, something used by every LEA, fire department, emergency responder, and military agencies in surveillance activities. The same applies to infrastructure inspection teams. If they really want single pilot operations, while designing a larger ground station develop the means to control the aircraft through the camera controls. This can and has been done by using an advanced joystick that employs different buttons, hats,adjustable wheels, and triggers.

Ad things currently stand system developers are chasing rabbits, wasting time and money trying to create new stuff that already exists. They should realize having an attitude that anything not invented here is counter productive. There's no reason to task engineering teams with creating a new tire just because their car has a flat and they don't make one of their own to replace it with. There are already many to choose from readily available.

From your keyboard to Yuneec's commercial design team, PatR!

I've got a $6000 multi-spectral camera that I mount on my fixed wing bird. I'd like to find a multirotor craft that can carry it. I would buy an H520 today if I had some confidence that it could integrate with my camera AND permit telemetry about battery and GPS status.

A drone manufacturer can't anticipate every potential use of their product. If they want to appeal to the commercial market, they need a rock solid platform and the flexibility to accommodate 3rd party payloads.

The H520 is so **** close to achieving this. But putting the telemetry electronics & antenna into the camera gimbal really makes it difficult for those of us who aren't among the "typical" users.

 

[PatR]

Tuna, I agree but also disagree.

The mechanisms have been available for a long time to allow integration of cameras and gimbals onto flight platforms. What has been the stumbling point is system communications that allow them to be linked with the flight control system, or integration of peripheral system controls with the primary ground station. For what I call entry level commercial to upper level consumer systems, which include H, 520, H Plus, Phantom, Mavic and similar there are indeed difficulties associated with incorporating some things simply because those platforms are too small and weak to carry them. By catering to that level you restrict yourself to that level, an area where you are competing with every Tom, Dick, and Harry making general consumer products. You cannot grow because you may be trying to play catch up with someone that may already be well ahead of you in that market. You are playing a fool’s game, limited to picking up the few “crumbs” your competition failed to sell to.

To use that “entry level” market to attract general attention is not a bad thing but to depend on it for your survival means you will always be serving a less sophisticated, underfunded customer base. You can’t appreciably expand because your resources are being consumed trying to appease an extremely vocal, self entitled customer group that demands free improvements, or servicing a disproportionally large number of “customer service” issues induced by consumers that want their mistakes fixed for free.

Someone earlier mentioned that Yuneec may already be trying to diversify through the use of PX4. I disagree as I believe it’s a case of trying to play catch up. Nothing introduced with the 520 did anything new, nor does it do anything all that well. The ability to perform accurate and highly detailed thermography was on the market and included in flght platforms several years ago. DJI was not the first by a long shot. The ability to program and fly altitude adjustable/terrain following waypoint missions is bot even close to new, nor is higher levels of GPS accuracy. A 1” sensor camera, even one in micro 4/3, is three year old technology yet Yuneec spent how long in in creating their own when they could have adapted something sitting on a shelf? They have been waaay behind in this area.

Might it be better to provide some basic platforms where the buyers can peruse a diverse selection of payloads and functionality that permits them to obtain what they need rather than hope someone eventually includes that feature set on a new platform. Treat this stuff like cars where you buy a base model and pay extra for options. As your needs expand, buy more options. Use the secondary/accessory manufacturers to design and build new products using your customer inputs as the basis for establishing new areas of development. Use your facilities to design, construct, and improve the base models while networking your coding teams with the accessory manufacturers. Different codes only need a “translator” to become interactive. Create a dev team for that purpose. There’s a lot of people that have been building what they need for a long time. Most of them are far and away above the consumer level market, serving a customer base Yuneec can only dream of becoming involved with. Many of them would quickly flock to a platform that provided the means for them to “drop and swap” or provide a superior ground station with data transmission capability.

DJI recognized this and came up with the M series. Problem is, for the most part you get stuck with DJI hardware, along with very questionable business and data collection processes.

 

[arruntus]

DJI recognized this and came up with the M series. Problem is, for the most part you get stuck with DJI hardware, along with very questionable business and data collection processes.

And don't forget the prices. But isn't it a professional product? then the price is higher because it's better, all right. But when you put a product you can get on the other side (exactly the same) and you pay half? Then things change. The DJI M series is a clear example of what I have just said.

 

[PatR]

Very true, and the principle is why aerospace does not market to the consumer level. There's comparatively very little money in it. Selling to a limited budget market means you have to develop a product that is cheap enough for them to afford. To do that your margins are tighter and you have to sell thousands of units to generate a significant amount of revenue. By comparison, the more serious commercial and military market generates very large amounts of revenue through the sale of much fewer units. Targeting a single market limits you to the purchasing capabilities of that target group.

I'm pretty sure the initial sales volume of the 520 demonstrated that platform is well above what consumer level people are willing or capable of paying. I don't have any numbers but the volume of posts where the 520 is the topic has been very low across every forum where it would be discussed, indicating lack of interest. Such a lack of interest could be due to affordability, system performance, or some other reason. If a lack of interest is due to both the price and the performance there's a statement being made it's a bad fit for the intended market. If the intended commercial market doesn't have the interest, what would they be interested in? What is it they want or need to incite them to buy? Could the 520 carry them? If the system provided payload diversity would a more discerning customer pay a higher price? The last is easy to answer as they are and have been paying a considerably higher price already.

The 520 platform is certainly of a size where the consumer sector is still interested but the up sizing is approaching dimensions where consumers may start complaining about transport and portability. Even foldable, 600mm is pretty much as far as you can take a consumer level product. A 600mm system lacks the lift/duration combination capability to handle professional level payloads, unless the power system is better designed, which will end up costing the consumer level customers more for drive system components. There's market demographics that establish both sectors can be profitable but you have to effectively serve those markets, an area Yuneec hasn't been doing all that well with. Too much time is being taken to re-invent the wheel,putting them further behind in the marketplace with each "new" release. As they aren't doing anything new or different aside from employing a hex as the platform, what is the impetus for people to become Yuneec customers? If you want to target the commercial market, the side of commercial where people are making serious money and willing to spend serious money to maintain a competitive advantage. You don't try to sell them limited capability toys. If you do what you end up doing is insulting them.

 

[arruntus]

All this can change if the H520 finally proves to be a professional drone when DataPilot 2 comes out. This is the opportunity to differentiate oneself from the competition, being easy to use and giving capabilities that others cannot. Of course, giving also those that others give. Always talking about production aircraft. DIY is another league where the limit does not exist.

The question very simple and is the basis of the study that companies make when they think about a new product. How does my product have to be so that it is attractive and at what price do I have to put it to have good sales according to the target market?

If we extrapolate it to drones: My market is this and I want to reach this audience, what can my drone do, how much would a consumer want to pay to buy my drone with these characteristics?

The questions we consumers ask ourselves are different: How much money do I have? What am I looking for, with what characteristics? How much will it cost me to repay it? Is it worth spending a little more and taking another one a little higher?

 

[PatR]

Totally agree with you but we have the issue of producing a small unit with extremely limited payload capability. The audience for those is limited in scope.

I’m prohibited from providing specifics but one of the most successful and widely used drones that’s been in service for better than 12 years and well over a million mission hours has experienced very few changes to the airframe but has seen a great many payloads adapted to it. It remains a good seller in high demand because of that payload flexibility.

 

[PatR]

BTW, are we having fun yet? I hope so as this is intended as a discussion others can use to take away concept ideas.

 

[arruntus]

I’m prohibited from providing specifics but one of the most successful and widely used drones that’s been in service for better than 12 years and well over a million mission hours has experienced very few changes to the airframe but has seen a great many payloads adapted to it. It remains a good seller in high demand because of that payload flexibility.

From what you're saying, you're referring to the older brothers and manned. With the drones, no one company does. It brings out new models because it means changing everything and therefore generating more sales. I believe that this would only be applicable to DIY drones where with the passage of time and the evolution of the components you can upgrade and gain performance, for example in propellers and engines. It would not be the case of the H520 because they have changed the heart, but the case of the H PLUS yes that having the base of the H520 have taken another model.

The weight theme is curious, and one of the reasons why I bought it. Being under 2 kg limits a lot but adds advantages, not only when transporting it but also when making BVLOS flights. The counterpart is to be limited in payloads of high performance that usually weigh more and therefore would exceed the total "limit" of 2 kg.

We went from category, up to 5 kg which is where the H920 is located things change. The features that an aircraft can have allow more payload and more possibilities but the big problem begins. Autonomy is starting to fall because the performance of engines, propellers and energy source are not as efficient. Batteries are becoming a problem because of the weight ratio and their capacity. Still, I think it's one of the most balanced categories.

The following categories would be up to 25Kg and we would start talking about bigger words. Typical flight times usually go down to 15 minutes or less. To overcome this, drones that have no choice but to opt for a hybrid system, a combination of an electric system and explosion engines. Back to gasoline. For now it is the only way to maintain such a high weight in the air with good autonomy. We are talking about around 2 hours and this is limited to the smaller size of the gasoline engines that are currently in use, although it is true that the performance also decreases. Flights in stationary and translational and little else, it's not exactly a racing drone. It is a spectacle to see how the compasses are calibrated in these aircrafts, it is done exactly the same as with the small ones but it takes at least two people due to the weight and the wingspan of the aircrafts.

With this small overview of the different categories in which the drones are currently present, we can analyze a little more, in this case how Yuneec is organizing his drones. Everyone in the category under 2kg except the H920 that I imagine will upgrade to PX4 as well? The "professional" limit will stay on the H520 for now? Are they gonna have a new professional category?

For now no large consumer drone company has ventured into drones of that range because the market is very small in comparison. I think that DJI, Yuneec, Walkera, etc., will remain for a long time in the drones under 5Kg and some may dare to release a bigger model but I don't believe it.

Right now Yuneec can be different from the others because he has opted for aircrafts with some features, retractable train, 360 camera rotation and hexacopter as a very good base that can give a lot. But he has to give a good hit on the table and make himself noticeable, otherwise he will follow the tail even if he makes good products.

 

[10-8]

You could argue that Yuneec are already heading down that route with the PX4 base for the H520.

The big sticking point remains cameras - it costs a fortune to develop a camera that integrates well with a gimbal, and much though people say they want high end optics, when it comes to paying for them they all fade into the woodwork. The other problem is that the camera and gimbal have to be such an integral part of the whole drone (sharing telemetry, power, radio links and so on) that pretty much the only people who can make cameras that work with a particular make of drones are the manufacturers of that drone.

Had they gone with Pixhawk 2.1/Arducopter instead of a PX4 base, I believe it would be a very different discussion today. The GS software available for that platform are some of the most diverse and powerful anywhere and used in consumer, commercial and government applications. GS software like Tower, Solex and MissionPlanner are all incredibly powerful.

There is a strong community of builders that have started stripping the guts from the 3DR Solo and building larger versions. Killed by poor marketing, the HW design was ahead of it's time. Using an iMx6 computer in line with both the FC and another in the controller allowed for great onboard capabilities. Like DJI & Yuneec, the HD video feed, telemetry and control are all incorporated. Below is my build based on this hardware. It carries a Sony a6300 and I have full control of the Start/Stop recording, take pictures, Zoom and power. It will carry that camera for about a 25min flight.

Total parts including gimbal is less than $2000. It uses the 21x7 props from the DJI m600. RCT 135kv motors & 2 6s batteries. I believe there are those that are working on a manufactured version in a hex version. But it can use any of the GS software I mentioned. It could of course be built to just about any size and payload requirements and configured as quad, hex or octo. Had the 520 been built for this over PX4, you could have readily put Tower or Solex on the tablet and been miles ahead.

 

[PatR]

Arruntus,

For the sake of discussion, please permit me to rebut some of your previous post. I'll copy and paste applicable portions of your post to allow selectivity rather than use the quote function. I'll also color highlight your text. I have to break this post into 3 parts to comply with post size limits.

Part 1

From what you're saying, you're referring to the older brothers and manned. With the drones, no one company does. It brings out new models because it means changing everything and therefore generating more sales. I believe that this would only be applicable to DIY drones where with the passage of time and the evolution of the components you can upgrade and gain performance, for example in propellers and engines. It would not be the case of the H520 because they have changed the heart, but the case of the H PLUS yes that having the base of the H520 have taken another model.

I was referring to a company that started out as a drone design and manufacturing company that has remained a drone design and manufacturing company. They also initiated design, manufacturing, and sales of ultra large heavy lift multirotors several years ago with some of their technology efforts being adopted by their parent company for even greater lift multirotor platforms. Their successful drone platforms have been very stable in airframe design and have done so simply because the airframe employs a flight control system that is expandable via code updates and plug in expansion. The customers that employ such drones do so because of payload , footprint, and mission duration. The manufacturer understands there is no reason for the drone other than the payload as the payload is the most critical component for data collection. The airframe is nothing more than a means of moving the payload to the location of use. They chose to make a good airframe as a means of transport and devote the majority of R&D dollars afterwards to development of additional payloads of diverse capability, which has expanded system versatility and the customer base exponentially. Their customer base is quite discerning and would not employ a payload that failed to deliver extremely good product. Company size is roughly that of DJI, with their annual revenue much greater than DJI, while annual unit sales are in the hundreds instead of the thousands required for makers like DJI or Yuneec require to survive.

The weight theme is curious, and one of the reasons why I bought it. Being under 2 kg limits a lot but adds advantages, not only when transporting it but also when making BVLOS flights. The counterpart is to be limited in payloads of high performance that usually weigh more and therefore would exceed the total "limit" of 2 kg.

Here in the United States we have a maximum sUAS weight limit of, realistically, 54.999999lbs. I understand Europe imposes a weight limit on drones that, once exceeded, requires the implementation of parachute recovery systems. As the European drone population increases, how long will it be before EU regulatory agencies force even smaller commercial drones that are flown close to people to employ parachute recovery systems? Although BVLOS operations are still illegal in most countries for all but the most deep pocket government agencies, it will eventually be implemented for small private companies using government certified equipment. Part of that certification will include the ground station. However, the weight of systems used for BVLOS operations has no significant bearing on BVLOS operations. The system needs only be reliable and equipped with a power system capable of providing propulsion and control for the intended distance and duration of the missions. As certification is implemented it is reasonable to presume the weight of certified systems will increase considerably due to system component requirements. We might hope required components are miniaturized to offset their weight but we cannot depend on that. Smaller is not better. In fact, smaller may be much less efficient, or capable, because of system design limitations. We should remember the commercial customer is buying the delivered product, not the airframe that gathers the product. Most customers want the best product their money can buy.

 

[PatR]

Arruntus Reply, Part 2

We went from category, up to 5 kg which is where the H920 is located things change. The features that an aircraft can have allow more payload and more possibilities but the big problem begins. Autonomy is starting to fall because the performance of engines, propellers and energy source are not as efficient. Batteries are becoming a problem because of the weight ratio and their capacity. Still, I think it's one of the most balanced categories.

Since I have one, let's use the 920, and the one of similar size in 10-8's post as an example. What your translator calls "autonomy" I call flight time or mission duration. Autonomy has a different definition when I use the word so I'll add a Wiki link that references autonomy as applicable to robotics for clarification. Autonomy - Wikipedia Using the Wiki reference as a definition, the 920 of 10-8's aircraft are no less autonomous than something like the 520. In fact, due to their increased size and weight carrying capability they could easily have a much greater level of autonomy because they can, and often do, employ additional plug in's that allow a greater range of autonomy.

As for "flight time", my 920 obtains almost exactly the same flight time the original 520 release did. The 920+ obtains just over 25 minutes (0:25:39) when flown very aggressively, longer when flown in a manner more appropriate to image and data collection. To obtain that flight time I use two batteries that weigh and cost less that the three battery installation Yuneec employs to generate 25 minutes of flight time. Rounding to the nearest dollar, full set of three Yuneec batteries costs $420.00. The batteries I am using to obtain the same flight time cost $118.00 for a pair. So I have the same flight time for far less money, employ a better battery, and have to deal with far fewer batteries for a day's operations. I am able to use alternative batteries only because Yuneec chose to employ batteries using a standard, widely available EC3 connector instead of a proprietary shell fitted with inefficient and dangerous end pin connections. Because of Yuneec's "error" in selecting the EC3 connector I am able to research batteries and select those that are lighter, cheaper, have greater energy density, and safer to use. Those same batteries can be used in any other 6s system I own because they are not proprietary in design. My battery research is not complete so I expect to find at least one more battery manufacturer that has larger capacity batteries that will fit the 920 battery bay and provide even more flight time. This ultimately reduces my operational costs, and reduces battery maintenance and safety issues, things very desirable to a commercial operation. We should recognize that batteries are a significant part of our operational costs. Any time we can employ a single battery type to operate different platforms we save money. Where one system may be capable of operating with just one battery a larger system may require more capacity, and simply adding one or more batteries of the same size and type in parallel standardizes our systems and reduces operational cost. All of this is possible only because of system design. People stuck with proprietary battery designs are getting hosed. A smaller system is also limited in flight time by battery size and weight. A smaller system is less capable of carrying large batteries because they lack the power to do so. A well designed system uses good engineering to obtain maximum flight time for the battery size and type it can carry, regardless of system dimensions.

Where propeller efficiencies are concerned, larger is better. As propellers increase in size their efficiency increases, as does the lift capability of the multirotor. A larger propeller can also be less noisy than a smaller propeller as it does not have to spin as fast as a smaller propeller to generate the same amount of lift. Of course tip speed has to be considered as higher tip speeds induced by a larger diameter prop can end up exceeding the tip speed of a smaller prop, but due to their larger size propeller blade and tip shapes are easier to optimize to minimize sound generation.

The downside of my reference to the 920 is that as far as Yuneec is concerned it's a "dead" system. Yuneec has for all intents and purposes discontinued the 920. They have only failed to make a public announcement declaring it. There will be no further product improvements, firmware upgrades, or or accessory products developed for the 920 or 920+. Even the relatively simple act of cleaning up the software, which would provide considerable system improvements for the 920, will not be forthcoming. The sad part of this is 920 owners that desire to expand their capability will gravitate to a platform that will allow them to do so as Yuneec offers absolutely nothing that will fulfill those needs. The Inspire 2 and Matrice products will likely be the systems of choice as both already allow much more advanced functionality and payload options. Both are already selling in large numbers to corporate and private commercial enterprises, and DJI appears to offer higher end customers relief from their nanny software. The Inspire 2 is priced roughly the same as the original 920, while the Matrice is quite a bit more, which is not a problem for those with a more discerning end product customer. If your fee structure is handled correctly the cost of the end product factors in the cost of your equipment.

Bear in mind the phase out of the 920 has followed the same path taken with the Chroma, Q-500, and Typhoon 4k. No formal cessation announcement but anyone looking for a new kit will only find them at locations that still have new "old" stock sitting on the shelves. Production of them ceased quite some time ago. Realistically we should assume the same is or has already happened with the H-480. What's currently out there is all that will ever be out there as it's time has passed. My 920+ is one that was of old stock as they have not made new 920's for some time.

 

[PatR]

Arruntus, Part 3

For now no large consumer drone company has ventured into drones of that range because the market is very small in comparison. I think that DJI, Yuneec, Walkera, etc., will remain for a long time in the drones under 5Kg and some may dare to release a bigger model but I don't believe it.

For this discussion we should leave Walkera out of it. Although they are now making a much larger multirotor their history of poor reliability and customer service effectively takes them off the table for anyone that performs product research prior to making a purchase. That leaves DJI, Yuneec, and Autel as "large" companies to serve the market. Understand the market you are referring to falls squarely in the "consumer" level. At that level everyone participating is trying to do essentially the same thing, even at the commercial level. So the small unit users are rapidly increasing in number, all using essentially the same equipment to produce very similar end product, to sell to a limited number of buyers. Being part of this group makes a statement that you are willing to work for the lowest common pricing obtainable as your competition ultimately has only one means to be competitive. If all become proficient in their use of post processing programs all that's left with which to compete is price. That makes for a lot of dogs to fight over a small piece of meat. To obtain a higher fee you'll have to provide a much better product, and the smaller sized systems lack the ability to carry the equipment needed to provide that higher quality. It might well be necessary to carry more than one payload in order to capture additional but different data sets during a mission in order to serve more than one type customer during a single flight. This is already commonly done with larger systems where imagery is captured with one payload while chemical, radiological, or signals data is captured with another. Again, the smaller payload that lacks payload diversity cannot participate unless and until highly advanced payloads are further miniaturized.

There are currently a rather large number of multirotor system manufacturers catering to the customer base that requires payload diversity, ultra high resolution imagery, multispectral agricultural applications, Lidar land mapping, and many other specialties. One thing common is the use of Pixhawk flight control systems. The reason for this is totally due to system versatility and reliability. The vast majority of these systems are much larger than the Phantom and 520 classes of multirotors. The smallest is closer to an Inspire in overall size and weight. These systems sell for considerably more than a 520 or 920 but their customer support is phenomenal, as is the collected product.

Just for giggles, take a look at a city wide survey done with larger scale multirotors. Take a look at the company stats for the outfit the missions were flown for. The image is 3d, can be rotated to alter the view, and very large in size so you may need to allow some time for your computer to cache the data before you obtain the best resolution. I know the people that did the aerial work and how they designed their systems. They start out as a medium lift system with payload versatility. They take that a step further by deigning their medium lift rigs to be capable of being converted to a heavy lift system that requires roughly 15 minutes to accomplish on site by dropping and swapping a few parts. acute3d
For a more current example of why larger systems need to be part of a well designed commercial marketing program here: SSE Chooses Martek Aviation to Inspect 683 Wind Turbines - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

 

[arruntus]

Hi PatR

My online translator shakes her legs every time she reads your name . Call it an exchange of views, rather than discussion

It would be nice if you could put that company's name. I would like to see the products they offer. I suppose it's in military scope?. You can always learn things by looking at what others offer, thinking about implementing it in the drones I build.

On the subject of weights, that is why I am cautious and I do not want to give for certain things that change from one country to another since we are people from all over the world. When I comment I speak specifically about Spain, which is what I know, and I know that in the subject of weights something similar happens in the surrounding countries. For now, each country specifies its own regulations, some more advanced or developed than others. In 2019 or 2020 we are supposed to have a common European regulation, which is not yet the case. In fact, in Spain in December the new regulations came out and added new things. As the subject of weights is still the same, I comment it and we see among all the differences, so that you understand what I mean. Sometimes I assume things and it's a mistake on my part. The maximum weight of drones not registered by civil aviation is the same, 25 kg (55 lbs.) but divided into 3 categories, from 0 to 5 kg, 5 to 15 kg and 15 to 25 kg. If they are drones of more than 25 kg and up to 150 kg, the drone must be registered in civil aviation, like any manned aircraft and also requires a second level medical certificate and advanced Drone Pilot Licence (we have to pass exactly the same medical examination as manned craft personnel).

The use of parachutes is one of the possible new conditions that we have to meet in order to be able to make flights in urban nucleus, apart from asking for many permits. BVLOS operations can be carried out in uncontrolled airspace and the only condition is that the aircraft weighs less than 2 kg, otherwise it must be carried out in segregated airspace. This is the limit I have mentioned. The limit is imposed for security reasons.

Autonomy, flight autonomy, flight time as you wish. This is also called flight autonomy, the important thing is that we understand each other. In order to avoid confusion due to the difference of language I will try flight time . The issue of batteries, I almost do not want to speak because of the disproportionate price that Yuneec has put to their batteries, and as you well say the the system proprietary connection.. It's not a "error"at all, it's a deliberate move to extract money in an abusive way, in this case, it must be said very clearly.

The size of the propeller if we pursue increase the flight time yes should be larger but accompanying it with a motor of less KV, increasing the voltage for the motors and therefore increases the size and weight of the battery. apart from many other factors.............., it is a very complex issue. In the last drone I build I spent about 3 months looking for the perfect combination. Now, that combination is old even if she keeps giving me 35 minutes. At the last fair I saw drones created by small companies that gave 45-50 minutes in a standard electric drone system. It evolves everything at an incredible speed

I think the H920 is or was a drone with good features, for a commercial drone. That's why I think they're thinking of someone else right now. Although it comes to mind that a lot of new drones want to come out at once. He who tries so hard to embrace, does not squeeze. Little by little and doing things well is better.

In fact, for lack of information, money or whatever it is, drones of less than 5kg are chosen. Going with drones of more than 5 kg is going to levels where the demand for services, although much more specialized, is also much lower. Determining your market niche is something that should be considered initially by anyone who wants to get involved in professional drone work. Bearing in mind also that the vast majority will only record video images or photos. Due to minituarization of sensors such as thermal or multispectral cameras also enter this sector. If we talk about lidar, the last thing I look at I think it was a minimum of 1.5 kg, you need a much larger aircraft than an H520, even an H920 I think it would stay out of the equation. For me Pixhawk and Ardupilot are undoubtedly the kings.

It is clear that for projects of the magnitude of Acute3D, other equipment is needed. Just the example of Marseille, that's 19000 images, almost nothing . I like to see the examples, I'd like to do some projects of this size . The link you have put points to the other new. I put the correct one by redirecting directly to the examples available online. Acute3d examples. Thanks for sharing it

I'm not going to say what it took me to read it all and answer as best I could.............. It doesn't matter, a pleasure

 

[PatR]

As always, I enjoy your replies. Although at times offering a small difference in viewpoint they also contain differences pertaining to geographic locations that are applicable and require consideration. I do apologize for overwhelming your translator

You brought up a very good point. People contemplating entry to the commercial market must first identify their market niche. Failure to do that makes poor purchase decisions easy to do, especially if the selected platform is design limited.

 

[arruntus]

You brought up a very good point. People contemplating entry to the commercial market must first identify their market niche. Failure to do that makes poor purchase decisions easy to do, especially if the selected platform is design limited.

And I would add one more point that I have been told by a university professor who gives a postgraduate course on drones. People are coming to call him and ask him to fix drones of more than 40.000€ because not only do they not comply with the manufacturer's technical specifications, in some cases after 2 minutes the ESCs or some other components burned. They find themselves with a brick, which costs like a car and they don't know what to do. Without counting that they can't work and have to pay the credit they have asked for to be able to buy the drone.

When we talk about large drones, manufacturers have appeared like mushrooms in autumn. And in many cases, because of people's ignorance, they are deceived.

Drones based on Pixhawk or DJI's A3, the big professional market we can call it?, which for parts you get less than 10000€ sell them for 40,000,60,000 or 80,000€. And most of all, they don't live up to expectations. The same is happening with hybrids. 2 or 3 hours of flight time promise and sometimes they are not even able to fly stationary. We have to be very careful with this.


Tip: Like any purchase, the Internet is your ally, search for opinions, forums, anything before you buy the drone. Opinions of real users, not what the shift manufacturer says. If you don't find information, sometimes it's hard because that market is small, try to find a professional to advise you before you make a very expensive mistake. Many people are in a very complicated situation for this reason.

I have deviated a little from the thread theme but I think it is worth commenting on.

 

[JoKeR]

The same concept used in DIY but taken to the commercial field. A very interesting idea.

3DR tried it but got carried away. If they had followed Pat R's ideas they would've survived and surely excelled.

 

[arruntus]

I think the 3DR problem was different. He got drunk with success and bet too hard.

From being one of the companies with the greatest projection worldwide to practically disappear. With the same speed they reached the top and then fell. A real shame. At least survives, but it's no longer the 3DR we knew.