Having used 320 resolution cameras I can say with absolute honesty I would never buy one unless I knew everything it would be used for was to be very, very close to the camera. At that low of a resolution the definition is quite bad, which makes zonal and shape identification extremely difficult if the camera is more than ~50' from the subject.
With the most recent 520 firmware upgrade the value of the system has increased tremendously., however, that value has yet to rise to the selling price of the system. As I have not compared the various camera controls and settings between the H Plus and the 520 I cannot reach a conclusion as to which would be better. On the surface, if they were equal the 520 would now have the advantage as with the firmware upgrade it could be just as effective, if not more so, for general imagery as the Plus. Adding the benefit of mapping makes the 520 superior to the Plus, but only if the massive price difference can be justified. I believe that a commercial rig should be capable of doing all a "Pro" model rig of the same type can do, and more, especially if there was a considerable pric delta between the two models. If 3rd parties were to initiate development of apps, and if Yuneec's code and policies would allow for easy incorporation of those apps, the 520 could become extremely useful, especially if payload adaptation and communication was possible. PX-4 will easily accommodate a great many control and communication functions but Yuneec's software must allow for such incorporation. The hardware must also provide for new plug in modules, something PX-4 was designed to accommodate.
Hardware expansion is where a redesign/revamp of the 920 makes absolute sense. Dimensionally, the 520 is still quite small, and it's size limits what can be done with it. The 920 provides considerably more space and lift capability that either the 520 or Plus will ever be able to handle, and the flight duration of both the 920 and 920+ are quite reasonable. If payload hardware changes so does the need for adding electrical modules to support those payloads, making available space and lift capability critical to the design of a multi-function aerial system. If the means to add or subtract different components is not provided in a system design that system is destined for a very short life cycle, which is something I find intolerable. Safety and efficiency are significantly compromised when flight operators are subjected to a constant cycle of learning new systems. That fails to mention the costs associated with constantly re-writing ops, maintenance, and training documentation required for submission to professional organizations. It's much better to maintain the basic platform, retaining the general operational characteristics and SOP's that would allow flight operators to become deeply familiar with general operation. That would allow flight training to devote the bulk of their efforts to new operator and currency/proficiency training. Payload modules would have a separate training syllabus and documentation package. In short, follow the lead set by commercial aircraft manufacturers in providing base models where equipment can be added or subtracted as options, retaining primary flight operation features and characteristics to reduce confusion and workload.
Couldn’t agree more on the H920 upgrade parameters. I’m actually more optimistic for a Yuneec large platform or revision of the H920 than 12 months ago. With the H520G model, and as you’ve indicated is a smaller low payload craft. It will serve Govt projects well for it’s scope, but if Yuneec gets a solid foot into Govt contracts I see a large platform of similar USA circuitry and Firmware as a strong possibility... I’d guess 900-1600 scale. The need for payloads in the 10-25 lb range: LiDAR, Laser, Multi Lens IR, or Starlight systems... and those can be hefty, Gen3 scope added almost 4 - 5 lbs. This would include delivery systems... dropping sequential marker flares, RTK bases, large light systems, or even troop supplies... medic resupply, various explosives supplies, etc.
Endless thoughts of possibilities... heck who saw a Chinock CH47 backing up & dropping Rr ramp on a mountain cliff allowing medics or scientist (or SOG
) to literally walk on / off Bird moving supplies... ramp touching edge while Pilot holds a hover almost perpendicular to cliff surface at an extreme altitude barely substanable or abtainable when the CH47 was designed... new avionics, fuel systems, Live AV systems ( glorified backup cameras) and hush secret blade & swash provide computer sync between the two blade systems. Point being, get into Govt Aerial contracts and the possibilities could be endless if Yuneec could respond fast enough.
The H520, I see the death of the standard H520 & ST16 RC being replaced by the 520G hardware design, I think the replaceable screen panel will become standard... if only to control inventory supplies. Govt version will demand a tough screen and probably at 2x -3x the iPad;s brightness,,, similar to the CrystalSky UB but as a screen only, without OS.
The camera platform and available cameras / lenses will be next on G model. From my perspective, this is all good news because all this will trickle down to the 520C or standard model.
Fully agree with need of platform remaining constant and familiar. Provide new payload technology while keeping platform familiar... that requires an adaptable and Supported platform... probably Yuneec’s weakest asset.
Reguarding the IR Thermo. The current 160 camera is very limited. The 320 if good electronics, can separate a human from surroundings... able to see and detect a human body through smoke, a small child walking in woods/corn... all at about 100 feet. At 200’ max, it’s a good vegetation analysis system but not SAR. The 640 adds much more detail, able to see fingers move, eyes blink or useable in more dense smoke or high moisture ground fog. For the additional $2-3k, if needing a high-end IR Thermo, the 640 is worth the extra.
Is the E10T a non-radiometric or true radiometric? If true radiometric it’s actually a great price and for inspectors or SAR, the 640-R makes it a worthwhile platform to invest.
If the H520 “series” is on the development path, it’ll be the preferred platform between the H-Plus & H520. Personally, unless it’s improved for extreme cold, battery warmers, rains and wind, redundant motor circuits, tandem battery for failsafe, etc. I don’t see how Yuneec can justify the price tag when it’s so similar to H-Plus hardware.
On the battery subject, I’m surprised the G model wasn’t required to have tandem batteries for redundancy specs.
