Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

H920 never listed in reviews of Pro level multirotors

Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Age
67
I just passed my 107 yesterday and I am considering adding an H920 to do commercial work, I am wondering why after many different searches for pro level drone reviews the H920 is never listed. Does anyone have any idea why?
I have a typhoon and I am very happy with it. The changes in the plus 920 seem all good. Anyone using the 920 for commercial work ?
comments appreciated.
 
As an H owner I have been following the 920 with interest but await the 920+ reviews before pulling the trigger on one. From forum participation it would be easy think there must be no more than half a dozen 920 owners out there. Perhaps they are too busy making money to spend time whinging on a forum. Perhaps there is nothing serious to whinge about?
I think the 920+ with the Panasonic CG04 camera will be good at the price suggested. Redundancy combined with updated flight software and the ST16+ should bring this machine to the fore and easily fulfill CAA safety needs.
I have avoided the main competitor's professional quad machine because I do not like the idea of smart batteries that seem to have a never ending firmware upgrade path - this is why I went with the H.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bullhorn1976
I've been looking at the 920+ as well and now that Yuneec's using the ST16 I'm wondering if they will sell a 'Bind and Fly' version without the ST16 to get the cost down.
 
I wish they would add redundancy to the electronics like their quad competitor. That added to the motor redundancy would make it the safest craft in the sky and I'd jump on one. I know the FAA is considering allow 107 pilots with the right equipment fly over crowds , but I don't know what that equipment is
 
I wish they would add redundancy to the electronics like their quad competitor. That added to the motor redundancy would make it the safest craft in the sky and I'd jump on one. I know the FAA is considering allow 107 pilots with the right equipment fly over crowds , but I don't know what that equipment is

This. You can have as many propellers as you like, but you're pretty stuffed if your IMU fails with no backup. It's frustrating for sure as DJI (integrated packages anyway) have no motor/ESC redundancy, and other manufacturers have no GPS/Compass/IMU redundancy.
I would imagine the only system with enough redundancy currently to minimise risk to ALARP would be the S1000 with the A3 Pro FC and three GPS pucks/IMU's.
 
Hi there, i have a 920 that i use professionally, and love it! I use a GH4 on the gb603 gimbal with 12-60mm lens. Just a note, they dont plan to use the 603 with the 920+ so i wont be upgrading. I really like flying with the st12 anyway, and dont need all the features of watch me etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bullhorn1976
I wish they would add redundancy to the electronics like their quad competitor. That added to the motor redundancy would make it the safest craft in the sky and I'd jump on one. I know the FAA is considering allow 107 pilots with the right equipment fly over crowds , but I don't know what that equipment is

The competitor went to redundant systems because they had to. With as many FC and compass/GPS failures as they have had they needed to carry two or three to have one that was always working...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RiverRunner
The competitor went to redundant systems because they had to. With as many FC and compass/GPS failures as they have had they needed to carry two or three to have one that was always working...

So why did Pixhawk do it too then and first then expanded on it with the 2.1 ?

It’s simply better to have more sensors, you can then use filtering and priority to make flight safer.

The competition just followed how the industry was going and the fact regulation is heading that way to make it a requirement.
 
Last edited:
APM provided for optional use of dual GPS for those desiring the additional functionality it provided. They didn't incorporate it as part of the standard equipment list as it was not necessary. You brought up a good point though, APM was way ahead of the competition.
 
I wish they would add redundancy to the electronics like their quad competitor. That added to the motor redundancy would make it the safest craft in the sky and I'd jump on one. I know the FAA is considering allow 107 pilots with the right equipment fly over crowds , but I don't know what that equipment is
I wish they would add redundancy to the electronics like their quad competitor. That added to the motor redundancy would make it the safest craft in the sky and I'd jump on one. I know the FAA is considering allow 107 pilots with the right equipment fly over crowds , but I don't know what that equipment is

CNN Vantage Robotics' Snap Drone
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,954
Messages
241,584
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval