Another question about reliability that I am almost scared to ask

[ARDroneFlyer]

Because I really don’t want people to get into arguments but only because I am interested in safety. I am relatively new to this sport and am just trying to ascertain as much info as I can before continuing to fly. (At this point, I am scared of flying.) As my user name implies I did have an AR drone that experienced two fly aways, I did everything properly or at least I thought I did including following the manual, using the latest firmware, making sure I was not around wifi or cell towers, but they still that happened. The second time I grounded the thing permanently. It could have been catastrophic as it was headed for a major highway (a mile away) and thank goodness some wonderful tree caught it some 50 feet before the highway. It was one of the older versions so maybe that may have been corrected by now. I could have easily found myself in a horrible situation had it not been for that wonderful pine tree.


Now that I have a Phantom 2 V2 I made a written check list according to the DJI manual and use it prior to each flight to hopefully negate any bad things from happening. Since I am really only familiar with this Phantom, I have read about it dropping from the sky, Naza control problems, battery fires and the like.


I know unforeseen circumstances can happen with any device under RC control. But in a purely opinion based question, is there one system of the Phantom 2 size that would provide the most reliable operation? Should I stop using Naza for control?


I feel like I am asking a loaded question but really am not. I know there will be many differing answers. Again please let’s stick together and not get into a mine is better fight. There is already enough discord in the world right now. I just want to do the most I can to maintain the safety of the hobby. Thank you for your understanding. Seasons greetings to all.

 

[Old Man]

I'll get slammed by some for this but one brand of controllers have inherent software code issues that leave them as a poor choice when reliability is a determining factor. The proof of that statement has been demonstrated a great many times over and over with all their different FC's, having similarities that defy any possibility of calling them all user error. That same maker goes to great lengths to avoid admitting to and addressing those issues. OTOH, a great many "incidents" have also been caused due to users refusing or failing to read and follow printed or online instructions. These are waters each has to tread carefully and perform a lot of personal research to make informed decisions. Another factor that comes into play is the number of motors used on the aircraft. There is no redundant safety factor with a quad. If a motor or ESC fails, it WILL crash. Safety and reliability have to include the ability to continue controlled flight in the event a power unit fails. Airplanes can glide, helicopters can auto rotate, and there no reason a multirotor should be condemned to a high level of damage or destruction simply because one motor failed. There's more to the reliability thing than the brand or type of FC, but the FC does play large in those decisions.

Yes, there are controllers that have much greater reliability but few, if any, are simple enough for an inexperienced user that wants buy something where they just flip a switch to let the aircraft fly itself. Extremely complicated systems where over simplification is employed to make them function for everyone in all things opens many opportunities for very small errors to slip by checks for system quality. The vast majority of "consumer" grade systems are of a "hobby" grade in quality. Using the word "hobby" is just a glorification of the word "toy" where quality is concerned. The makers want to sell their products to as many people as possible and to do that products have to be made cheaply and quickly to make them "affordable" to hobbyists. Making something cheap and quick, things that make it affordable, are also things that reduce its quality and reliability.

I prefer Pixhawk and Eagle Tree FC's. There are some others that seem to perform with minimal issues. Currently I'm exploring the reliability of the Chroma/Yuneec FC but being only a test sample of one the results will not objective enough to make a broad spectrum statement.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking too it

 

[violetwolf]

Throw me in the Pix/Fixhawk camp. They're pretty reliable from my experience. But as Old Man warns its all in the careful setup and attention to the little things.

 

[hjls3]

just a thought...lots of reliability can come from knowledge - lots of knowledge can come from building - perhaps not give up on Naza (due to your familiarity with the assistant) and build a naza v2 450 sized ship -thats just a thought -

over the years i havent had too many issues with the DJI FCs - sure it gets a bit annoying with the fw updates and stuff but for the most part - been reliable for me on everything from 450 to 1200 sized octo - naza, v2 naza, wkm, a2 used em all - i do have some experience with pixhawk as well and liked it too - i am just more familiar with DJI so I stick with it - merry xmas.

 

[Old Man]

Something equally important to safety is learning to fly in the manual modes. Anything man made is subject to failure and having the ability to take over in a manual mode if and when automated flight fails is a skill all should have.