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

More gimbal mount info (or confusion)

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
Greetings all. As a bit of background, I got bitten by the flying camera bug with the Blade 350. I’ve been chasing steady video through many GoPro and gimbal set ups with a Chroma. When Yuneec took over the quad line with the Q500, I stubbornly hung onto my Chroma and feiyu Tech gimbal and Dx9 and my own set up for tilt and pan. I bought my first 480 after nearly killing myself in a weird accident and realized life’s too short to wait for what you want to do. The 480 was a dream come true and delivers steady reliable shots 99% of the time. I now own three.

Recently, I took a shot to an extreme and ended up dragging the camera along a road for about 5 seconds. It rolled the whole camera up and around and completely reversed it in the gimbal. That tore wires to the side motors and now that gimbal is in for repairs with Vertigo Drones. I purchased a brand new CGO3+ from Vertigo and started testing it. I noticed a shake in my shots I have never experienced before. It’s like the gimbal is bouncing up and down so you see shake in the picture especially during hover holds.

I decided to swap cameras and sure enough, no problem. Now I decided to take both cameras and gimbals and compare them. And lo and behold, the mount on this new CGO is different then the original. I know there is the longer dampeners and set up sold for the CGO for the Q500 (camera more in nose and different flight characteristics allow for looser and longer dampeners but this in my experience causes jello on CGO3+ on a 480) which people have used on the 480 and that makes for two different mounting plates.

Well now, there is a third design and that’s the current OEM part sold as I bought a spare mount from Vertigo for field repairs. I checked that package and confirmed new design of top mount plate...it’s got double arrows now and they put a slight depression in the back to help ease the sliding into the hot shoe.. and it’s dampeners and two safety hold pins.

In comparing dampener stiffness, it did seem the old dampener was stiffer then these new ones and I still had a set of the original top plate and dampeners. So, I swapped them out thinking I had recreated the same set up I’ve always had that always worked and did another test flight but still saw that shake.

The only thing I did not change was the pins. The new ones use more of a plastic “Jesus” clip set up and the old ones had a smaller washer that pressed over a flared clip end. I put in two of the older original holding pins to make their set up 100% the same as what was on it originally - no new parts - just the ones I salvaged from my first major crash and camera destruction- and the images are back to being solid again.

I have experienced this before with trying different pins and observed that created camera shake. The pins for those longer dampeners for sure cause a problem when used with the shorter set up but I was surprised that the new pin design was the culprit but it is!!! I put in my old style smaller washer pins and the problem is gone.

When I get my third camera back, I’ll try the new set up but I’m not confident that it’s right and as solid as the old design. For sure the rubber dampener resistance is less on theses new ones. I’m very concerned Yuneec created a new problem with this redesign and change in manufacturing.

So, fellow forum members, especially those with newly purchased 480s, what Gimbal mount do you have? The easiest way to tell is the original had only one arrow in the center of the back of top plate for install indication and was flat all the way back while the new plate has two arrows on either side of center and a tapered back. The old set up has the two pins with the push on washer and the new is the clips.

If you are seeing shake with the new set up, try taking out those pins and see if it goes away. They are for assisting install of TH dampeners and keeping your camera attached on a bounce landing which if hard enough, breaks those mounting rails and leaves the camera on the ground. With a close flight for observation only, you’d be safe to take the pins out to test.

I have videoclips to back this up also as I’ve spent hours staring at monitors in HD and this is real.

Who else has observed this?
 
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
684
Age
64
Location
Melvin Michigan, In the thumb
Craig,
I can not say that I have observed this. I did replace my mount plate after my H took a fall off a table. The kit came with new dampers and everything.
I did replace all 4 dampers even though I had the originals ones to use. I will take a closer look at them as I hung onto the old ones.

You do realize everyone is going to be inspecting their mounts now!!!!!
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
Yes Bob I do.. hence the confusion part. I know how the dampeners affect smooth video. I’m hoping I don’t have to find the “correct” dampeners as the change seems obvious to me. What I will do when I get my third camera back is test that one with the new setup and try the pins in and out to see if this is a weird anomaly I’m only experiencing. But, having observed the wrong pins creating shake on other set ups, I’m hoping that they are the problem and not the new dampeners and mounting plate. I’m not touching this “fixed” camera as I’m doing more testing today to verify it’s as steady and reliable as before. Sorry to bring this up but I’ve seen other posts where people report camera shake they don’t understand and maybe it’s this simple?
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
383
Reaction score
124
Location
Bingo-UpState,NY
Hello Craig...
I posted a question a while back about the new dampeners I received to repair a gimbal mount.
Gimbal Dampers Question
I tried to use the new ones but I couldn't get the old pins to work with them, so I just left them alone.
I did not receive new pins with the new dampeners.
I ended up using my old rubber dampeners and the old pin mounts.
I have noticed no jello in my videos.
You did reply in that thread
 

Steve Carr

Missed Approach
Staff member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
7,164
Reaction score
3,528
Location
Bessemer, MI
Very interesting @CraigCam. I have seen a few people suggest using the dampers from the CGO3 rather than the new ones supplied with the CGO3+. I do have some jello issues with the OEM dampers but I haven't messed with them to verify the problem. Thanks for the information.
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
Hello Craig...
I posted a question a while back about the new dampeners I received to repair a gimbal mount.
Gimbal Dampers Question
I tried to use the new ones but I couldn't get the old pins to work with them, so I just left them alone.
I did not receive new pins with the new dampeners.
I ended up using my old rubber dampeners and the old pin mounts.
I have noticed no jello in my videos.
You did reply in that thread
I just did but it seems you are confirming my hypothesis… old OEM set up equals no problems. Vertigo drones stocks two different set ups and for sure there is one for the plus and its part number is YUNCGO3P105. I unfortunately threw away my old packaging from a spare set to compare part numbers. It'd be nice to know if its the same number and they changed the design or if the new design created new part number so I can search for the old one and buy some more spares.
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
Very interesting @CraigCam. I have seen a few people suggest using the dampers from the CGO3 rather than the new ones supplied with the CGO3+. I do have some jello issues with the OEM dampers but I haven't messed with them to verify the problem. Thanks for the information.
Thanks Steve. Maybe try dropping the pins and and see what it does? I used my lens flares to detect it but I'm so used to no movement that my first flight with the new camera freaked me out. I first I though SD card (the new one with the camera was a u3 so i figured why not..) was too slow and 4k was part of the problem. But on the table, the gimbal showed no movement so its a flying only anomaly.

Once I changed camera, I had no problem and eliminated this 480 as the potential source of the bounce. It was pretty nuts when I put the old pins back in and the problem went away. I for sure understood vibrations were transferring into the camera but I was stumped as to how. Im stoked to have both steady cameras back but obviously already thinking about the next time I need to repair the gimbal as its designed to fail. What I thought was a detriment (those flimsy rails) has saved my camera so now I get it.

I want reliable spare parts in my field kit I can trust. If the new set up has no problems without the pins then that might be the way I go. I'm surprised Yuneec would create a new problem and I'm wondering if this is a 520 thing as maybe they went with a new jobber on the dampener rubbers or changed the spec. For sure the OEM dampeners are stiffer and I still believe that the 480 needs that to work right. I really hate minor parts creating new problems and the techs at Yuneec don't fly enough and probably find the slight bounce in hover or descent as acceptable since motion is smooth. But I do a lot of hold shots for sunsets and sunrises here in AZ and again, my love of the 480 is its crazy steady and everyone who sees my shots are always amazed.
 
Last edited:

PatR

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
10,482
Reaction score
5,867
Location
N. California
The Blade Chroma is/was made by Yuneec. I suspect all the Blade quads that came prior were as well.
 

Steve Carr

Missed Approach
Staff member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
7,164
Reaction score
3,528
Location
Bessemer, MI
there is one for the plus and its part number is YUNCGO3P105.
The single lobe damper for the CGO3+ is YUNCGO3P102
The triple lobe for the CGO3 is YUNCGO3101

The YUNCGO3P105 includes the base plate and pins for the O3+.

I don't believe the pins will work with the 3 lobe dampers because they are longer. The work around is to remove the dust cover and then use loose wire ties for camera security.

So I got a bit lost in this discussion. I've seen posts which suggest the single lobe is stiffer and, therefor, causes more jello. The 3 lobe is softer and reduces jello. What's your take on this?
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
The Blade Chroma is/was made by Yuneec. I suspect all the Blade quads that came prior were as well.
Agreed. Thats why I went Yuneec and not DJI. The Yuneec GoPro gimbal works on my handi cam and Q500 and Chroma. I got the wifi module and cable now so my Chroma actually kicks *** now with the Gopro and is finally also reliable and steady. Im now seeing if I can get the yuneec receiver and change the Chroma to work with the ST10. As it is now, Im using a DX4 that came with Chroma and my phone networked to the wifi vi VLC to view. The ST 10 will see the GoPro and has a Chroma model available but obviously the Spektrum receiver needs to be changed out. I still FPV my 350s for fun and have OEM versions of my first flyer, The 180 and a full 350 with CGO1.
The single lobe damper for the CGO3+ is YUNCGO3P102
The triple lobe for the CGO3 is YUNCGO3101

The YUNCGO3P105 includes the base plate and pins for the O3+.

I don't believe the pins will work with the 3 lobe dampers because they are longer. The work around is to remove the dust cover and then use loose wire ties for camera security.

So I got a bit lost in this discussion. I've seen posts which suggest the single lobe is stiffer and, therefor, causes more jello. The 3 lobe is softer and reduces jello. What's your take on this?
My take is one of my first warranty repairs involved the mounting plate and Yuneec sending me the wrong one that would not work with the single lobe dampeners I had. That was my first go round in the murky world of confusion between Q500 hardware and 480 hardware for the CGO3 vs CGO3plus (which is now the CGO3+). Yuneec at the time insisted there was not two different top plates only to discover there is upon my prodding. My local sadly closed now hobby shop used to stock that mounting hardware and I snatched up two before they closed.

The second 480 I got was purchased used. I noticed immediately that it had the 3101 set up style dampeners - the three lobe. I believe that was due to a repair by Carolina Dronz as there was one of their lanyards in the accessories box and thats what they stocked at the time as the replacement set up for the CGO3+. For sure, I experienced jello during descent with this set up. I reasoned the longer dampeners were too loose for the 480 and the crosswinds actually moved it more . I changed over to the original factory plates, dampeners and pins I had purchased which were different then the currently available 3P105. Problem solved.

The new camera I just purchased came from Yuneec via Vertigo Drones with the 3P105 hardware. That created visible shake in hover and descent. I changed back to the unknown part number plate and dampeners (original 480 from 2016 set ups as mentioned before and my last spare of the true OEM set up) but not the pins. These were from the 3P105 set up as I did not register the design change existed. I still experienced shake in flight as before. I dug back through spare parts and found a set of the old pins. Installing those back into a fully original set up gets everything perfect again.

My theory is its the pin design with the newer clip thats the culprit. This is backed up by when I first handed my working set up (old hardware) and the new rig to my studio engineer. He shook them both a little, as we were comparing differences in dampener stiffness and said the new one rattled more. I dismissed that as it being the pins and being normal. But as we inspected more closely, we noticed the top plate design molding has changed and there is lighter color rubber with the new dampeners. Thats when we realized the clip design was also changed from the smaller push on retaining washer to the larger clip style retaining washer. Now that I've put old pins back, both sound the same with that rattle test. So maybe, vibrations are transferring somehow via the pins? The new washer design?

I get that the pins being there to save the gimbal wires on that hard landing (assuming gear down) and the mounting rails should break and the gimbal top and bottom plate stay together. Unfortunately, those two buggers pins have consumed a lot of time here and seem so insignificant yet could be everything in these jello stories I see many users post here.

I have now two full sets of 3P105 plates, dampeners, and pins that I'm not that confident in as they are not OEM replacement hardware set ups. I don't want to mess with my two reliable cameras now with the proven steady original hardware. I can experiment further when I get my recently damaged CGO3+ (gimbal actually) back from vertigo Drones. I'm thinking thats going to come back rebuilt with new parts and the 3P105 hardware. Of course I'll be testing everything again and making sure it meets my expectations. If video shakes, I'm just going to remove the pins only and try again. My point in this OCD ramble - yes there is one - the new pilots with more recently purchase 480s or cameras who see jello could consider trying a test flight minus the pins and see if it goes way. The best way to tell if you have the original OEM is the mounting plate has one arrow in the center rear only and no recessed tab.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Carr

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
Update...this new camera still has shown bounce. Now I’ve removed the dust cover and I got back stable video. I’m obviously chasing down a vibration transfer so I changed all props also. More tests today.
 

Steve Carr

Missed Approach
Staff member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
7,164
Reaction score
3,528
Location
Bessemer, MI
I hope you find a definitive cause. It will be instructional for all of us. Nice work! :)
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
I did a lot of testing yesterday. It’s looking increasingly like the dust cover is part of the problem. It’s very weird
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
312
Reaction score
137
Age
70
Location
London, ON Canada
Have you checked the props for out of balance? I balanced my props and 4 were perfect, but 2 needed a small amount of magic tape to balance. Just wondering where your vibration is originating. I have a newer H (March 2017) and never noticed any jello on my vids. BTW, What is this dust cover you speak of?
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
Have you checked the props for out of balance? I balanced my props and 4 were perfect, but 2 needed a small amount of magic tape to balance. Just wondering where your vibration is originating. I have a newer H (March 2017) and never noticed any jello on my vids. BTW, What is this dust cover you speak of?
It’s the part that wraps around the top mount and covers the tops of the dampeners.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
119
Reaction score
46
But didn't you have the dust cover all along?

I mean, from what I gather from this thread, you exchanged the dampeners and not the dust cover, so maybe the new dampeners just kind of don't work well with the cover, but seem to work OK without it? BTW the dampeners that are in the 3p105 set are different than the ones you get in the 3P102 - perhaps you should try those?

just pulling on threads here...
 

CraigCam

Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
653
Age
60
So I have a CGO3 on a Q 500. It’s got the longer dampeners and never had a dust cover I now realize. It’s pretty stable and reliable except in crosswinds during descent, the camera can shake a little. When I tried those longer dampeners on my second purchase used 480 (that is how original owner had it set up) I experienced similar shake in panning and descent when there were cross winds. Changing everything to the still unidentified and unknown part numbers of the original hardware fixed it. For sure the dampeners may look similar but the older ones were firmer. For what ever reason I still can’t figure out, I’ve got this new camera working right with no shake or jello ever and removing the cover is what fixed it.

One thing no ones mentioned is how the longer dampeners and the Q 500 set up has a gimbal protector that “squishes” the dampeners and takes the weight off them. I reason that the longer dampeners left to gravity will become looser as they stretch. The 480 and the CGO3+ protective cover (not a flight part and now not included with new cameras) do nothing to take weight off the dampeners and for this reason, I always remove my camera and let it rest in the case detached laying on the ball. I am pretty careful about launching and landing so I can manage the dust and I check my gimbal every time I pop out the SD card so by by dust cover on this new camera. What’s puzzling is why his camera and not the other as I can swap over my first camera with all the OEM parts to the second drone and see no problem. That’s how I eliminated drone mechanical shake in theory.

Bottom line, I don’t care what set up it is as long as it works. I’m not convinced the new+parts are doing the job. I have unfortunately run out of the stiffer dampeners (my last four are with camera being repaired which looks like it’s coming back with my OEM mount thankfully) and had to use the new short softer replacement dampeners. They showed shake and it took a pin change and dust cover removal to get this camera to be reliable .
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
17,495
Messages
205,119
Members
20,268
Latest member
strmchzr