Tornado 920 advise

[Karlb]

hi all
I’ve been a longtime reader of this forum and I’ve been thankful of the good information I fly a q500 and a typhoon h, my question is I’ve just been offered a very good deal on a h920 with cgo4, st24 and a st12 all the kit is there and it looks very cool indeed.
However ive noticed there is 920 plus, what is the difference and is the 920 still upto the job?
All advise appreciated

Thanks karl

 

[Steve Carr]

The original 920 uses a ST24 controller. The 920+ uses a ST16. Currently the downside of the plus is the team mode has been removed and it appears that Yuneec is putting the 920 out to pasture completely. It is unlikely to get any new firmware updates. I'm sure others will have a lot more input regarding the status of the 920.

 

[PatR]

As Steve mentioned, the ST-24 version of the 920 was phased out with older units changed over to the 920+ version by Yuneec. The Plus uses the ST-16, which I don't believe is any more than the same ST-16 controller provided for the Typhoon H Pro. All the firmware updates applicable to the ST-16 apply the the 920's ST-16, and all the functionality available to the Typhoon H aside from Team mode is available to the 920+ using the ST-16. Using the Plus version and the ST-16 the 920 can use the existing CGO-3 cameras, including the ET, when fitted with an adapter mount which can be obtained from Terrestrial Imaging for $200.00. Yes, Team mode was removed from the Plus version but it is returned when using a CGO-3+ camera. Team mode appears to be a feature that resides in the camera. The original 920/ST-24 has Team mode but obtaining another ST-24 to make use of it might be difficult. Due to numerous issues experienced by owners with Yuneec when converting the original 920 to the 920+ I would leave it as it is and not even think about upgrading the unit.

The 920 is a large machine. It would be at best a difficult item to carry around on a day hike and requires a fair amount of room in a vehicle when being transported. The camera and gimbal will not fit in the 920 travel case when installed on the aircraft . They have their own separate case. The 920 is truly a professional machine and has all the additional set up and take down labor involved that one usually encounters with large pro level rigs. It's not a toy by any stretch of the imagination.

The CGO-4 is an exceptional video camera with a 3 power zoom lens. That lens can be changed for better lenses if the owner desires. If your 920 is also accompanied with the hand held gimbal you'll find you have a variable zoom, not a "stepped" zoom, with the camera when using it in hand held mode. The basis of the camera is Panasonic/Lumix GH-4, employing their 1" sensor and a 16mgpl resolution at up to 100MB/s. The camera shoots several formats, including the Lumix RAW format for video and stills. Bear n mind the still format for 16 mpxl images is 4/3. If you select the 16/9 format the resloution falls to ~12mpxl. The quality of the product is the difference between a movie and a video clip. You must use a fast write SD card to shoot 4k video with the CGO-4. The CGO-4 does not provide geo reference in the EXIF data but when using a CGO-3+ that position data is again provided. When using a CGO-3+ and three batteries a mission's flight time can run up to about 35 minutes. Flight time is less when using the heavier CGO-4.

The 920 is likely to be phased out, if such has not already been done, but it is an extremely capable machine. It will have more weather and wind that a Typhoon H, which is saying quite a lot. It is extremely stable but not fast. The propeller pitch is too low to be a fast machine and changing to a different make of prop is difficult because the 920 props employ a prop screw pattern that is 4mm wider than industry standard. The biggest draw back at this time is flight batteries. There is only one supplier of them in the U.S. and that is Yuneec. I am looking into the possibility of adapting different batteries to overcome the power supply choke point. Regarding the phase out of the 920, this is a myopic act that will end up being a very foolish move on Yuneec's part. Instead of diversifying their commercial platforms to reach a broader market with two machines at very similar price points they will be putting all their eggs in a single H-520 basket, which I suspect is thus far is not coming close to achieving their expectations.

I just bought a 920+ because of what it can do, and that it does easily fits the features and functions my business requires. It will do most of what the 520 will do, including flight using waypoint flight plans. The machine is quite versatile and as time goes by can be adapted by those with reasonable electrical assembly skills. A change of motors and props would boost max speed considerably.

If the price is right the 920 could be a very good deal but you need to establish if, in it's current form, it will fit your mission requirements. I say current form because it's highly doubtful that Yuneec will devote any effort to continuing product improvements with either the 920 or 920+. Take it as it is or leave it.

 

[Karlb]

Thanks for the replies, I didn’t realise it’s such a unloved platform from yuneec, I think I will give it a miss

 

[PatR]

Glad to help whichever way you were going to go.

Just for general info, that sense of being "un-loved" is pretty much the way all multirotor outfits treat their older products. Once they decide to put new products on the market it's only a matter of time before the previous stuff loses active support. Yuneec is better in that respect than some others as they have generally continued to stock parts for older products. Others don't.

The primary reason for the 920's demise is price. At the original price point a buyer was going to be spending ~$7,000.00 for a complete system. That amount is far and away more than the average consumer has or wants to spend on these things. At that level only those running a business or with an active career in photography could justify the expense, but those that did were rewarded with superior results. Where consumer level buying is concerned nothing has changed, their price point still caps in the area of $1,500.00 or so and anything selling for more than that doesn't sell in high volume. When Yuneec cut the price of a 920+ system to $3,999.00 they made the 920 a tremendous value for those that are in a position to make use of the system. Still not a consumer level system and would not sell in volume but very competitive with other products that perform a similar level of work. The 520 is at a similar price point when electing to buy a package unit with an E-90, custom case and three batteries. What I've seen has the 520 at a higher price of ~$4,200.00 with that package configuration.

Regardless of their prices, neither the 920 or 520 fits within the consumer level pricing structure but neither are designed to be consumer level systems. Both are designed and intended for professionals with one targeting the first responder crowd. Both are easy to fly but they also require users to be much more involved with the system to make effective use of them.

 

[thoneter]

What as far as FC's is changed when getting the 920 upgraded to a +?

 

[PatR]

Aside from the flight control board assembly, firmware, and switch to the ST-16 along with loss of camera/ gimbal selections I haven’t observed anything else. It’s possible GPS and compass were changed though I doubt it.

Motors:same, motor mounts: same, props:same, landing gear: same, motor booms, same, batteries: same.

 

[OnTheRopes]

I wonder.... if the CGO3+ camera will fit the H920 with adaptor, whether the C23 which is said to be compatible with the H, will it fit the 920?

 

[thoneter]

Aside from the flight control board assembly, firmware, and switch to the ST-16 along with loss of camera/ gimbal selections I haven’t observed anything else. It’s possible GPS and compass were changed though I doubt it.

Motors:same, motor mounts: same, props:same, landing gear: same, motor booms, same, batteries: same.

So Pat what exactly do you mean by board assembly. I called and talked to Yuneec today and they literally said no one there except the engineers that do the conversions no what components are different.

 

[thoneter]

I wonder.... if the CGO3+ camera will fit the H920 with adaptor, whether the C23 which is said to be compatible with the H, will it fit the 920?

Everything that I've heard is that the cgo3+ will only work with the + which makes me believe that hardware components are changed in the 920.

 

[PatR]

So Pat what exactly do you mean by board assembly. I called and talked to Yuneec today and they literally said "no one there except the engineers that do the conversions no what components are different".

I don't believe that statement to be true. In fact, I think they are lying and aware they are doing it, saying only what they are allowed to say by upper management. There's certainly cause to think Yuneec has been deliberately misleading their customers for quite some time. BTW, It was not engineers that did the early conversions, it was technicians at the repair facilities. At least that was the case in the U.S. From conversations I've had with him at least one of those technicians is still employed in their C.S. department.

When you spend a lot of time talking with businesses that have had a long relationship with Yuneec products, including service of the various platforms, you are provided a lot of information they obtained from hands on experience operating and repairing the different platforms. Add in the system and performance changes between the 920 and 920 Plus and it becomes inconceivable the 'brains" of the two are not different. Further supporting that is the fact that Yuneec batteries that appear to still be working well with the original 920 do not hold up for crap when used with the 920 Plus. We'll ignore the obvious cell degradation that's established by new battery IR values for the moment. Toss in the fact the original 920 could not fly and control a Typhoon H, while the 920 Plus controller is fully compatible with the H, including shifting the ST-16 screen from a 920 screen to an H screen when a CGO-3 is mated to the aircraft, and one might believe there's ample reason to believe the flight control boards were changed. In essence the 920 Plus became a much larger Typhoon H, a better camera and gimbal, with a few more imagery functions available over whet a Typhoon H is provided. Of interest is the Typhoon H can make use of the 920 Plus waypoint flight menu when the H is bound to the system as a 920, but not the camera settings menu as the H cannot carry a CGO-4. Turning that around, the Plus, when carrying a CGO-4, cannot make use of the D Pad camera controls but certainly can when carrying a CGO-3.

I have not yet done so but it would not be difficult to review old posts on different forums where the original 920 FC board assembly was exposed for all to see and compare those images to what is inside the 920 Plus. Seabee has one of his open right now so it may be possible to obtain images of a 920 Plus board and visually compare it to a Typhoon H and original 920 board.

Sure, it's possible that nothing has changed between the two models aside from tossing the ST-24 and a change in firmware. I'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe it.

 

[thoneter]

I don't believe that statement to be true. In fact, I think they are lying and aware they are doing it, saying only what they are allowed to say by upper management. There's certainly cause to think Yuneec has been deliberately misleading their customers for quite some time. BTW, It was not engineers that did the early conversions, it was technicians at the repair facilities. At least that was the case in the U.S. From conversations I've had with him at least one of those technicians is still employed in their C.S. department.

When you spend a lot of time talking with businesses that have had a long relationship with Yuneec products, including service of the various platforms, you are provided a lot of information they obtained from hands on experience operating and repairing the different platforms. Add in the system and performance changes between the 920 and 920 Plus and it becomes inconceivable the 'brains" of the two are not different. Further supporting that is the fact that Yuneec batteries that appear to still be working well with the original 920 do not hold up for crap when used with the 920 Plus. We'll ignore the obvious cell degradation that's established by new battery IR values for the moment. Toss in the fact the original 920 could not fly and control a Typhoon H, while the 920 Plus controller is fully compatible with the H, including shifting the ST-16 screen from a 920 screen to an H screen when a CGO-3 is mated to the aircraft, and one might believe there's ample reason to believe the flight control boards were changed. In essence the 920 Plus became a much larger Typhoon H, a better camera and gimbal, with a few more imagery functions available over whet a Typhoon H is provided. Of interest is the Typhoon H can make use of the 920 Plus waypoint flight menu when the H is bound to the system as a 920, but not the camera settings menu as the H cannot carry a CGO-4. Turning that around, the Plus, when carrying a CGO-4, cannot make use of the D Pad camera controls but certainly can when carrying a CGO-3.

I have not yet done so but it would not be difficult to review old posts on different forums where the original 920 FC board assembly was exposed for all to see and compare those images to what is inside the 920 Plus. Seabee has one of his open right now so it may be possible to obtain images of a 920 Plus board and visually compare it to a Typhoon H and original 920 board.

Sure, it's possible that nothing has changed between the two models aside from tossing the ST-24 and a change in firmware. I'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe it.

I'm not as tech RC savvy as you guys but when any company doesn't can't tell you what they're doing and they are a tech company it is depressing.

 

[PatR]

There’s a difference between can’t and won’t[emoji6]. I don’t think either is applicable though. “Mushroomed” might better describe what’s been going on.

 

[Dougcjohn]

I wonder.... if the CGO3+ camera will fit the H920 with adaptor, whether the C23 which is said to be compatible with the H, will it fit the 920?

Have not physically verified yet, but within the ST24 camera profiles are listed the CGO3 & CGO3+, along with GoPro and Sony A7, GH4. Each require a different mount point and video transmission link. The CGO3 & CGO3+ are self contained and only require the adapter... EU for Yuneec’s adapter and Terrestrial Imaging for their custom made adapter. I personally picked up the Yuneec adapter from an RC shop in UK. Have not mounted up a CGO3+ yet, but optimistic will connect. Although, the 920+ ST16 lists the CGO-ET and the 920 ST24 does not.

 

[OnTheRopes]

Have not physically verified yet, but within the ST24 camera profiles are listed the CGO3 & CGO3+, along with GoPro and Sony A7, GH4. Each require a different mount point and video transmission link. The CGO3 & CGO3+ are self contained and only require the adapter... EU for Yuneec’s adapter and Terrestrial Imaging for their custom made adapter. I personally picked up the Yuneec adapter from an RC shop in UK. Have not mounted up a CGO3+ yet, but optimistic will connect. Although, the 920+ ST16 lists the CGO-ET and the 920 ST24 does not.

Be interesting to try it, do you have link to where you bought it, I have been searching and not found one as yet?

 

[Dougcjohn]

Be interesting to try it, do you have link to where you bought it, I have been searching and not found one as yet?

Sure can... got mine for $185, total $211 including shipping to USA. Currently showing out of stock, but reach out to Paul at [email protected] and reference part # YUNH920P104. He’ll respond generally in 1-2 days and will get more in and drop you a note.

Yuneec Tornado H920+ Camera Adapter Plate for CGO3+ / CGO-ET

 

[OnTheRopes]

Sure can... got mine for $185, total $211 including shipping to USA. Currently showing out of stock, but reach out to Paul at [email protected] and reference part # YUNH920P104. He’ll respond generally in 1-2 days and will get more in and drop you a note.

Yuneec Tornado H920+ Camera Adapter Plate for CGO3+ / CGO-ET

Thanks, email sent

 

[Dougcjohn]

Thanks, email sent

Thought I'd see if any more available, found several on German, Dutch, Chez but all the sites weren't too English friendly... luckily I have a Spouse form Ukraine that reads German, Russian & Cz

This shop has one, but not as friendly for English & USA Currency. Your credit card would convert but it's a little harder than UK site.
Kopter Dreams is a good site for parts, just not a friendly USA site.
Connecting Bracket (CGO3+/CGOET): H920

This Shop has one too... but again, you'd pretty much need to use Google Translate to read the sites content.
H920 Plus Camera Adapter for CGO-ET & CGO3+ (YUNH920P104) | Astra

And... a 3rd... non-translated site...
copter.eu - The YUNEEC Experts

 

[Dougcjohn]

By the way... not sure which thread... but it came up on discussion of Team Mode needing to use the ST24 RC with H920, I have a 2nd ST24 as a spare, but to add to options, the ST12 was the intended Team Mode RC for the H920. Those too are available, I found a basically new ST12 from a nice shop in Belgium that was converting over to Inspire. He had converted his H920 to a H920+ and felt they lost most of their desired features.

 

[Dougcjohn]

On the weight comparison of the CGO4 to the CGO3+ mounted to adapter... You do save a lot of weight...

Weight of CGO4 is 1301gr 2.86 lb, CGO33+ w Adapter 363 gr .80 lb,
indicating the CGO4 is 938 gr 2.06 lb heavier payload.