Thinking of Buying a 920

[Breizhdrone]

Hello,

A few conversations with Terrestrial Imaging about the 920 generated quite a bit of information about the system I'd like to share for those that are entertaining a purchase.

The CGO-4 camera does not generate geo position data in the EXIF files. When Yuneec adapted the sensor from the GH-4 they might have figured the GPS data from the auto pilot would be enough for the users, and so discarded the GPS hardware from the camera. Team mode is not an option when using the CGO-4 and the ST-16.
(...)
Mr Spotted Eagle, please take note. Yuneec needs all the platforms they currently have to maintain market viability. If Yuneec is serious about the commercial market putting a dev team on continued improvement of the 920 would be extremely beneficial to Yuneec's commercial market application interests. (...)

I think Pat presentation sums up the situation very well. Unfortunately, the H520, with a 1-inch sensor (like the DJI Phantom 4 Pro) and its features, it is a drone more made for the industry than for the professional photography, video and cinema, which is a shame. Indeed, the Tornado H920 is gaining interest under conditions to correct all the problems of the H920 which is produced poorly finished. Notably by changing the Yuneec GB603 gimbal and buying another ST24, because this product will disappear from the market and to cope with a possible failure of the original ST24, to also work with two operators (team mode: pilot and cameraman), which does not allow the Tornado H920 Plus (Only ST16 and without team mode).

That depend of your needs, but Yuneec CG04 camera (Light GH4 camera by Yuneec) is an outdated product since the release of the Panasonic Lumix GH5: Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review

Be carreful, it's impossible to use ST16 with the Tornado H920, only with the update or with the Tornado H920 Plus ! Technically this should not have been impossible to use ST16 with Tornado, but Yuneec does not care about his former customers who bought a poorly finished product, supposedly for professionals at around US $ 7000, at the time, which interests the most is to sell new products (H520) and overpriced extended services:
Yuneec Yes! Extended Service - Commercial UAV | Yuneec USA

Supplementary informations in my opinion and modification or change the Yuneec GB603 of the Tornado H920, with Gremsy gimbal, at the bottom of this page: Whats The Difference Between The Two?

I don't make the update for my Tornado H920 to change for Tornado H920 Plus. I prefere to keep today my Yuneec GB603 gimbal (with many limitations, few optics available and others problems) my Sony Alpha 7 camera, and to change in the future for the new Gremsy T3 gimbal.

You could find some ST24 new today, about 150 euros (US $ 170). Some shops are selling their stocks in anticipation of the scheduled end, it seems the Tornado H920 and probably the Tornado H920 Plus that the price is today -50% off from its selling price when it came out on the market.

I use TATTU Tornado batteries and Yuneec Tornado stock batteries. TATTU Tornado batteries are better in comparison.
Today, in Germany, you could find Yuneec Tornado stock batterie at discount price, at € 45 (US $ 53) ! It smells of the announced death of the Yuneec Tornado series. In my opinion a Yuneec big error, if it is the case.

 

[PatR]

I’d be all over the battery deals. The price for a two battery package here is over $200.00. Tattu does not sell their 920 batteries in the U.S.

 

[glider]

This is a bummer considering I'm in the market to go pro next year, unless the gubmint wrecks it for us by making it unaffordable through regulations etc.

It sounds like Yuneec is putting all their eggs in one basket with the 520 and letting the 920 die on the vine? It looks like a fabulous frame.

 

[H2O Aviators]

This is a bummer considering I'm in the market to go pro next year, unless the gubmint wrecks it for us by making it unaffordable through regulations etc.

It sounds like Yuneec is putting all their eggs in one basket with the 520 and letting the 920 die on the vine? It looks like a fabulous frame.

You are correct. If I could do it over again I would avoid Yuneec altogether. I have a H920 plus and a typhoon. Customer support is horrible at best and tech support lies to their customers. The cameras are just ok and should be much better.

 

[PatR]

More battery options are becoming apparent every day and of much less concern. There’s an 8000ma graphene that some are reporting 20 minute plus flight times, which is 5minutes or more better than obtained with 2, 4000ma Yuneec batteries. Zippy has three different batteries that will fit two in the battery well at 4k, 4.5k, and 5k ma. I’m currently communicating with a manufacturer about some new batteries for the U.S. market.

The airframe is indeed robust and simple to weatherize. The stock FC is very smooth and I’m getting good range even with the aircraft considerably lower than launch altitude.

Better lenses can be had for the -4 and you don’t need to send it out to swap a lens. I’m liking the manual focus quite a bit but you do need to spend some time learning how to make best use of the camera. Overall, it’s not an Alta but it delivers very close to all the performance objectives I had established before buying it. I wanted, and obtained, a system that would do what I needed now. Not one purchased with hopes the manufacturer would add a bunch of features to later. We’ve seen how makers fall short in that area, while others just obsolete the defective stuff only to release a new product you have to buy to get the corrected stuff.

I do agree that Yuneec has fallen far from the high level of customer support they previously provided. Enough that it raises concerns about their path going forward. They have held back a lot of information that would make system functions a lot more clear for the customer.

 

[madatme]

More battery options are becoming apparent every day and of much less concern. There’s an 8000ma graphene that some are reporting 20 minute plus flight times, which is 5minutes or more better than obtained with 2, 4000ma Yuneec batteries. Zippy has three different batteries that will fit two in the battery well at 4k, 4.5k, and 5k ma. I’m currently communicating with a manufacturer about some new batteries for the U.S. market.

The airframe is indeed robust and simple to weatherize. The stock FC is very smooth and I’m getting good range even with the aircraft considerably lower than launch altitude.

Better lenses can be had for the -4 and you don’t need to send it out to swap a lens. I’m liking the manual focus quite a bit but you do need to spend some time learning how to make best use of the camera. Overall, it’s not an Alta but it delivers very close to all the performance objectives I had established before buying it. I wanted, and obtained, a system that would do what I needed now. Not one purchased with hopes the manufacturer would add a bunch of features to later. We’ve seen how makers fall short in that area, while others just obsolete the defective stuff only to release a new product you have to buy to get the corrected stuff.

I do agree that Yuneec has fallen far from the high level of customer support they previously provided. Enough that it raises concerns about their path going forward. They have held back a lot of information that would make system functions a lot more clear for the customer.

Hello Pat, I see that you have purchased a 920, I have been looking as well, the things that bother me in this thread that yuneec may or already has dropped this product, if so where would you get replacement parts? or service, I do own a TyH so it's no new news to me, thanks for you output on this

 

[PatR]

The word I have received is that Yuneec will continue to support the 920 in parts and service. That has come from both Yuneec and one of their authorized service dealers, Terrestrial Imaging. This is something I researched heavily before buying my 920. I have no concerns about future upgrades. It could be a little better but as it already does what I need upgrades would have been nice but not a mandatory item. Parts and repairs are certainly important going forward and don’t look to be a problem.

BTW, there’s a single 8000ma graphene battery that’s providing ~21 minutes of flight time for the 920. That roughly equals what three of the 4000ma Yuneec batteries are providing. Better still is the graphene battery cost half what three Yuneec batteries do. I’ll be buying one shortly to try it out.

 

[madatme]

The word I have received is that Yuneec will continue to support the 920 in parts and service. That has come from both Yuneec and one of their authorized service dealers, Terrestrial Imaging. This is something I researched heavily before buying my 920. I have no concerns about future upgrades. It could be a little better but as it already does what I need upgrades would have been nice but not a mandatory item. Parts and repairs are certainly important going forward and don’t look to be a problem.

BTW, there’s a single 8000ma graphene battery that’s providing ~21 minutes of flight time for the 920. That roughly equals what three of the 4000ma Yuneec batteries are providing. Better still is the graphene battery cost half what three Yuneec batteries do. I’ll be buying one shortly to try it out.

Thanks Pat. Stay in touch with this

 

[PatR]

No doubt

 

[Dougcjohn]

Between the 920/ST24 & 920+/ST16. If you remained on the 920/ST24 platform, do you loose any camera options offered with the 920+/ST16? The more I read various threads, I'm unsure as to the gains of the 920+. I'm interested in the V18 camera for inspections and I see it's only functional with the 920/ST24. Also interested in cgo3+ and cgo3-ET IR Thermo. Are CGO3x cameras functional with the 920 or ST24? The CGO4 was indicated in other articles that it can use the Olym 45mm f/1.8 and 12mm f/2 lenses. Both of these are extremely sharpe & fast focusing on a normal body. Has anyone used these lenses on CGO4? I'm probably confused, but what was the major motivator to upgrade the 920 to a plus?

For about the same cost (low-mid $4K) a prev-owned "new" 920 with "many" extra components in the package is in the same cost bracket as an Inspire2 x4s with 4 Batteries (not convinced the value placed on the x5s). The rational side clearly sees the benefits of the modern Inspire2, but the enjoyment of the Hex, multiple camera/lenses, etc leans towards the 920. With the 920 fading into horizon, is it practical to even consider or compare to newer offerings? I realize, it's an awkward crazy comparison... but I've been bouncing between them.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Should anyone elect to buy a 920+, a couple suggestions to be acted on before flying it.

First is to balance the props. All of mine were out of balance a little to quite a lot and the imbalance would not have been good for vibration free images. I was tipped off to the possibility of out of balance props by Seabee and he was right on the money. To balance the props you must first remove the quick mount adapters. This is not difficult but attention to detail is important.

PatR, with these blades being carbon fiber, how did you balance? Sanding or tape. Do you perfer tip tape or under side. Did you retain the quick disconnects or remove? For the gimble vibration, could you expand on what you do to minimize vibration/shake with lens fully extended. Would adding a small counter weight to the back of camera help?

Any update on the battery options?

 

[PatR]

Doug,

I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can but having only the 920+ and not the original 920 my thoughts will be biased a little bit, and make for a loooong post, and done in two parts. Although I've closely followed the history of the 920 from its original release because I wanted one but was too busy to obtain one, the amount of information shared via the web for the 920 platform has been both limited and fragmented. I believe that's because few were sold and most that bought them did so for commercial applications, an endeavor where business people do not openly share their operational knowledge in order to maintain competitive advantage. You just don't want to be teaching people how to make better use of a tool that would help a competitor take business away from you. Correctly used the 920 in either version is a very capable machine.

I view the conversion from 920 to 920+ as more of a downgrade. A more accurate name for the current version should be 920 minus as the Plus version lest a few camera/lens controls and Team mode when they dispensed with the ST-24 for the ST-16. I don't know what various issues were being experienced with the original 920 aside for some focal length slider speed control issues but losing the focal length slider and focus knob on the ST-24 was a huge take away. Losing the different camera and gimbal options was also a tremendous loss. There is no way anyone can say a reduction of versatility can be an improvement. Sure, the ST-16 employs these controls as sliders depicted on the GUI but they are more difficult to use. Tapping the screen to make changes in focus takes the image from full screen to partial screen if your finger misses the focus control by just a little bit. The zoom feature is easier to use as it's a basic slider view but how you place your finger on the slider is important as doing it wrong will cause the lens to briefly zoom out when you wanted to zoom in. It requires practice to become proficient with the zoom control. Changing direction a bit, the camera control features present on the 920+ are not difficult to use but we have to get used to them as there are more than provided with either a Typhoon H or H-520. The CGO-4 is also better than a CGO-3 or E50, and may well be better than the E90 even being a 16Mpxl camera instead of a 20Mpxl camera. My best guess has the -4 the best camera Yuneec currently has on the market.

I have a theory for why the 920 was converted to the 920+ but it's not one Yuneec would find complimentary. My theory has Yuneec experiencing business issues with a vendor providing the ST-24, or parts of the ST-24, and unable to obtain more product from that vendor. Some Chinese press releases a ways back that roughly coincided with the conversion announcements provided unconfirmed indications of a vendor dispute. As the 920 was still a current production model at that time the only way to continue production might have been to change the RC controller. As ST-24 parts may no longer have been obtainable there would have been no means to service the previously sold ST-24's. As the RC controller communicates with the flight controller, changing the RC controller required changing the flight controller so a recall was issued to 920 owners to send them back for conversion to the 920+, which now employs the same ST-16 and flight controller as the one used in the Typhoon H. If you had a Typhoon H from the initial release and kept up with all the firmware upgrades you might have noticed one of the ST-16 updates contained one specific to the 920+.
There is also the corporate benefit of standardizing components used across the platforms, reducing inventory quantities and costs while reducing the types of service procedures technicians would have to employ. Engineering departments love a "one size fits all" design concept. It is easily sold to business management and marketing departments. The one size fits all thing frequently falls on its face in practice though. In any case, all the previous is just a theory, there are no official communiques that came from Yuneec to support it.

The original 920 cannot make use of CGO-3 and CGO-ET cameras. That functionality is reserved for the 920+, and only when the 920+ has been fitted with a CGO-3 adapter mount. Understand that when using a CGO-3 or ET camera the system's functions change to one identical to the Typhoon H. You do not have CGO-4 camera setting functions available, only those normally present when using a Typhoon H. This is something that should be understood by those considering a 920+ and having a desire to make use of the CGO-3/ET options. Your 920+ effectively becomes a Typhoon H, with all the functions normally present on the H when those cameras are used. On the flip side when using the CGO-4 camera you have most of the functionality you have with a Typhoon H that would not be available with the original 920. So with the 920+ you essentially have two aircraft models in one. Trade offs were made to do this but those trade offs can be both a hindrance or a benefit, depending on what your individual needs are.

 

[PatR]

Part 2

Propeller Balancing; Unless it's an airplane type, thick hub and blade propeller I never sand a propeller to balance them. Multirotor propellers are just too thin to be risking fiber layer sand through or hub dimension reduction so I use very thin clear packing tape applied in narrow strips across the blade chord on the concave side of the prop blade. Usually the tape is applied about 1/3 the distance from the tip. I don't know that location is more or less beneficial than any other but the closer it is to the hub the more mass you have to add to balance. Note: a well balanced prop will stop rotation at any position, not just blades level.

Quick Change Adapters; For the moment I have retained the quick change prop adapters but the reason for that might require some explanation. My background causes me to be absolutely anal with inspecting and maintaining an aircraft. 50+ years model aircraft, 40 years RC aircraft, 12+ years UAV ops, maintenance, R&D, training, tech document development, 4 years multirotors including design builds, 28 years full scale pilot, 3 years as an instructor, have established processes and procedures that work. Anything assembled by man has potential for being assembled with a deficiency, and aircraft must be as perfect as possible to remain safe. The assembly, inspection, operation, and maintenance of an aircraft requires detailed checklists that must be followed to assure everything is true and correct. Since nobody publishes their manufacturing procedures I develop my own with each aircraft type obtained, with some emphasis on fastener and electrical component security. I pretty much disassemble every new aircraft external component to verify fit, function, and fastener security. I try to avoid digging into the core components of the flight controller to avoid violating warranty.

For the 920+ I researched as much publicly published info as I could find, networked with a couple of owners, and asked a lot of questions of distributors. During that research it became apparent the quick change adapters had experienced a few problems, and reference to those problems was not widely distributed. The root cause of the problems appear to have originate at only a couple key points. The first was through the conversion process from 920 to 920+ via technician error. Seems a few came back from Yuneec and experienced propeller separation relatively soon after being put into operation. This particular fault branched out in two directions. One is improper fastener security at the time of adapter installation, with another being improper installation of the propeller on the motor adapter by the user.
Another factor is with with wear of the adapters, which is to be expected if props are frequently installed and removed. Plastic is softer than metal so we should expect wear of the plastic adapter during repeated couplings with the metal motor adapter. If you leave the props installed there's little wear taking place at the adapters. They are very tight initially but after the first flight a little "free play" becomes evident that does not seem to increase if the props are left on the aircraft. If props are subjected to a lot of installation and removal that free play will increase to a point where the adapters either need to be replaced or a decision made to fly with a fixed propeller by removing and dispensing with the adapters.
Checking every screw used to retain motors to booms, adapters to motors and adapters to props indicated very inconsistent break away torque levels. Some were relatively tight, some could not be considered tight at all. The locking patch used on the screw threads during original assembly was very brittle and flaked off easily. Correction was simple by re-installing all the screws using medium strength blue threadlock compound and torque to 6-10 in.lb. Note: screws used at the landing gear should be limited to a maximum of 6 in.lb. of torque. Seabee has experienced landing gear screw separation and loosening and his head's up added periodic checks of those screws to my checklists.
The manner the props are installed on the motors when using the adapters is pretty important. There's little or no mention of the disconnect pin on top of the adapters in the instructions but the position of that pin, and how it got there, is pretty darn important. The release pin MUST automatically elevate and remain at high position when the prop is installed. If it does not the adapter is not locked in place. It's possible to install a prop where the release pin fails to pop up. When that happens it's very easy to remove the propeller without first depressing the release pin. With an improperly locked release pin the prop can separate in flight, which would be a user error. Care must be exercised to assure the release pins pop up and remain elevated during the installation process to assure prop security. If they don't pop up, remove the prop and rotate it 180* to re-install. That usually allows the release pin to pop up by itself. Do not pull up the release pin manually as that does nothing to lock the adapter but does much to conceal a problem that can become very evident in flight with a propeller separation.

 

[PatR]

Part 3

You mentioned the Olympus/Zuiko lenses. Yes, they can be used, with the 14/42mm being marginally lighter than the stock 14/42. The 45mm fixed focal length would be an outstanding inspection camera and great for those doing real estate work. Both the Olympus lenses are superior in image and color quality to the stock 14/42mm lens. As for removing the small amount of upper image shimmer/jello when zoomed all the way out with the stock 14/42mm lens, I have not thus far done anything to correct it. Adding balance weight for a 42mm focal length may well mess with balance at a 14mm focal length. It might just be a gimbal damper issue where changing damper stiffness might correct it. I have read of others that have corrected this by changing from triple damper corners to a single stiff damper corner. I have not taken the time to delve into this yet. I have yet to encounter a gimbal that can offset vibration at all zoom levels when using a variable focal length lens though.

I'm still working on the battery thing but the more I look around the less concerns I have about problems obtaining batteries going forward. It's certain the stock 4000mA, 8C batteries are under designed for the load they have to provide so a higher C rated battery is necessary. I'm in process of creating a PDF document with a full text and photo description of battery requirements, battery bay dimensions, etc., for a battery manufacturer to use for development guidance. Because of language differences it is not reasonable to presume e-mail exchanges will remain correct when using language translators.
The use of multiple connectors if/when a single battery is used is essential. That is not a difficult thing to achieve. If using a single battery to power the 920 it should be at least of 7000ma/25C-30C capacity, preferably greater in mA capacity.

Your question of ;
"For about the same cost (low-mid $4K) a prev-owned "new" 920 with "many" extra components in the package is in the same cost bracket as an Inspire2 x4s with 4 Batteries (not convinced the value placed on the x5s). The rational side clearly sees the benefits of the modern Inspire2, but the enjoyment of the Hex, multiple camera/lenses, etc leans towards the 920. With the 920 fading into horizon, is it practical to even consider or compare to newer offerings? I realize, it's an awkward crazy comparison... but I've been bouncing between them."

is really hard for anyone to answer, and I don't know that it can be definitively answered. I know of a fairly "new" 920 package being sold right now in the Los Angeles area for $3100.00. If what you want and need to do fits within the scope of what a 920/920+ does and can do I can't see where shopping for something different, hoping for more has much benefit, especially if the cost increases appreciably. The functions don't really wear out I've seen used 920's as low as $2800.00 and if properly cared for they will be as good as when new. I can see the benefits of the original 920 and of the later 920+. The 920+ will have parts and service available for some time to come. Something I love about both the versions is the connectors used on the batteries. Because of what they are you will never be out of battery supply options, which is something that does happen with "smart" battery and proprietary shell battery design. This is a very big deal for me because I fly different types and makes of multirotors and being able to use one battery type across all of them simplifies the power supply requirements. It also makes things a lot cheaper. Another factor is ability to handle wind. I don't believe there are any consumer or prosumer drones that can match the 920 and 580 in high wind operations.

Not having updates can be a very good thing. A system that's stable is one that is reliable as new features and functions that may be unproven are not being introduced to the system and your work flow. Your system knowledge and flight proficiency increases faster and stable software allows you to better fine tune your operations as your skills increase or techniques change. Having a system that contains no flight restrictions, NFZ's, manufacture unlock requirements, etc., is a very good thing. Having a system that does not auto report everything you do, where and when you did it, personal identity, and anything you may have stored in your cell phone is simply outstanding. You cannot protect customer data with a system that can and does collect data for re-transmission to unidentified recipients, nor can you protect your personal identity or info. That has become a very large concern for insurance companies. A stable system is not subject to locking you out with a whimsical software update created by some corporate legal team you didn't want or don't agree with.
There are some that are comfortable with being told how, when, and where they can and should do everything they do. They don't mind seeing their personal property being changed day after day in a manner they did not request or need. People can make a choice to use such systems but they don't really receive system expansion upgrades very often. More often than not they end up having to buy a new product release that incorporated software updates that needed fixed in what they bought less than 6 months previously

If you can't tell, I still like my 920 very much. Seabee likes his so much I think he just bought another. If you know what you want or need to do and the 920 meets those requirements there's no reason not to have one. You do need to be secure in yourself though. If we buy into the hype that the next new thing is going to be substantially better that what we have today we will never be comfortable with a stable system. If we look back at all that has gone before we might see that all that media hype was greatly over blown, with much of what was promised either never delivered, delivered in very small increments, or delivered with inherent defects. We might find out we kept buying new stuff all the time that did not make us better operators or photographers, but did cost us a lot of money playing keeping up with the Jones', with the only people truly benefiting being the ones selling product. Know what you need, buy what you can/will use, and don't second guess yourself. Anything bought and not used is wasted. Look at how pro photographers set themselves up. They establish the products that work best for them and they stick with them for years, expanding their system knowledge and perfecting their techniques over that time. They wear stuff out before they replace, and replacements are often the same products they wore out. Constant upgrading requires a tremendous amount of time be spent learning a new product before making full use of it. That time will cost you money above and beyond the equipment costs.

If you haven't already found it, look through posts at the Facebook 920/920+ owners group. Wade through the grousing and sour grapes posts and extract the information that will help you qualify your decision.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Pat, Impressive, Informative & In-Depth... if you write a manual, guide or book on UAV subject matter, add me to the list to purchase. Your back ground is unquestionably qualified for the material. I would have enjoyed being one of your students in years past. Being raised by Engineer / Teacher Grandfathers, Innovative Medical Surgeon Father, I often received and lived by similar methodical practices & logical strengths.

I found a little humor and agreement in your procedures receiving new hardware; in youth I disassembled & assembled hardware just to examine how parts & components work; in the work place I disassemble newly received IT hardware to inspect quality & operation with an eye to correct a preventive failure. On the personal side; It's enjoyble to disassemble, feel and examine the fit of components that also provides more understanding in design.

Regarding Prop balancing, placement of counter weight and the gimble vibration: I'm naive on prop balance but for rotational mass, placement along the cord makes no difference with static balance; but the further weight is placed out on the radius, theoritcally the smoother the dynamic rotation isolations. Was curious if that was applied on props with any noticeable effect on gimbal. I recognize this doesn't address the gimble balance & flex when lens mass extends or retracts... tension to reduce flex vibration as you suggest would be effective.

I understand and agree with the position of hardware meeting one's specific requirements being a primary factor and newer technology doesn't always mean better; You reminded & reinforced several factors to consider! I enjoyed your 920 upgrade philosophical speculation, and would say most likely close to target. Why did you want the 920plus instead of the 920? You've touched on several factors why I've been leaning more towards a 920 / ST24. I continue to fail to see the benefit of the 920 upgrade other than newer controller and maybe longer time to obtain repair components.

Your insight on new technology, data collection, batteries and upgrades was thought provoking. With my newer quads: Mavic, Spark, Typhoon H: I use a dedicated systems: ST16, offline iPad or non-cellular Phone. But at the same time, I enjoy the technology introduced on new models that enhances flight, stability and extended operational features.

Which brings it back to subject: new models or 920 series. The main negatives for the 920: minimal User base, zero new product introduction, and EOL on components. Although other than EOL components, as you indicated... not all bad if meets your needs. New models advantages: access to aftermarket components, large User base, increased overall performance (design of components, signal range, balance of agility/stability, etc), large technical support base, and retained market value.

Personally, the logical practical side of decision supports newer Drones. The 920 has the preferred cameras, lenses, and feeds the intrigue, challenge, and uniqueness. Not in direct but similar comparison, I love older Trucks (30-50's) but I thoroughly enjoy the new technology of 2017. A 40's rig rebuilt/refreshed with new hardware is more appealing than a fully equipped 2018 model. The 920 has an appeal in similar emotion; the full carbon build, the Hex configuration, the physical size, the technology applied, etc.

As you can probably sense, I'm attempting to convince "myself" the 920 is the preferred option. The Inspire 2 is my logical practical option. The direction of Yuneec is disappointing, it pretty much directs the growth to DJI.

I'm not quite where you were a month or so ago... Getting closer and enjoying the collection of information.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Pat, Reguarding Lens options. Curious and question the lens options of 920 / ST24. I haven’t had physical examination of either bird, but documentation indicates the CGO3, CGO3+, CGO-ET aren’t available for 920. Although, the CGO4 is available for both 920 & 920+, and to my checking there’s only one CGO4 gimble for both indicating they share the same mount & electronic connectivity port.

Only remaining requirement is software for logical connectivity. Watching several YouTube’s on the introduction of 920 / ST24, within the Yuneec videos the Yuneec Tech navigates through setup of ST24’s camera options, lists all the above cameras and several others. The Tech indicates “as gimbles are developed and released” these cameras will be available options & those gimbles were never developed... thus not supported. But 2 years later, after the release of 920+ upgrade the annoucement of a gimble adapter mount for the 920+ was released. Based on the CGO4 gimble common between 920 and 920+, the adapter should fit the 920 too providing the same physical connectivity as the 920+. As you indicated, the ST16 removed various options and the ST24 software became static. The 920+/ST16 doesn’t support the V18 camera via software options so it’s limited to the 920 only, But with the gimble adapter and static ST24 software, I’m curious if the logical SW interface for the other cameras actually exists within the ST24.

 

[PatR]

Good question and one that only an actual 920 owner with a CGO-3 adapter mount could answer. Funny thing, the real nice looking gimbal adapter was only released to UK dealers. Our U.S. dealers, Terrestrial Imaging specifically, had to develop and produce their own. They don't look as sleek but function just fine.

You stated something above that my best guess will have profound applicability with the 520 in fairly short order as everything I see has the 520 following a path similar to the 920;

"Which brings it back to subject: new models or 920 series. The main negatives for the 920: minimal User base, zero new product introduction, and EOL on components. Although other than EOL components, as you indicated... not all bad if meets your needs. New models advantages: access to aftermarket components, large User base, increased overall performance (design of components, signal range, balance of agility/stability, etc), large technical support base, and retained market value."

I really can't argue the benefits of a newer model, although it might be possible to draw a comparison between a choice in dates. You have a choice between a 20 year old and a 35 year old for this weekend, The 20 year old looks a lot better but the 35 year old will provide more stimulating conversation and a better ride

 

[Dougcjohn]

Great comparison... better than mine! (Still chuckling)
I have a UK Yuneec adapter heading my way, several hobby shops in UK have them and willing to ship. I agree, much better appearance.

I may be betting on a dead horse, but I’m playing with the thought the CGO3+ and ET will work based on older videos of ST24 firmware. If wrong, I’ll have a few questionable spare parts.

 

[PatR]

Grab the ET while you still can...

 

[Dougcjohn]

Grab the ET while you still can...

Yep, already have it... New in Case, can use on H 480 if no-go on H920. Just arrrived yesterday. Prev discussion with several forum members on other thread convinced me to grab it.