XAircraft SuperX
- Thread starter envy
- Start date
Mike SF
Banned
I have three other small quads all using the Taranis and the X8R or X6R receivers and Naza. Never saw a motor not arm. Could still be a compatibility issue with the Taranis. But the receiver/Taranis is not really involved in the arming process, this should be between the FC and ESC only. So my money is on FC/ESC incompatibility issues.
Motopreserve
Drone Enthusiast
Agreed.
Mike SF
Banned
Hm, you might mean the mid settings. Mid is usually 1500 and top is 2000. I can see though that increasing the top endpoint beyond 2000 and doing the stick calibration might lower the end point used by the SuperX to arm the ESC (if this calibration is used to determine this low end point). It would be so easy to understand if xAircraft gives us some insight on how this works internally. I wonder if we can measure the pulse width used by the FC to arm the ESC.
Motopreserve
Drone Enthusiast
Agreed. I think you are looking at mid-point.
Mike: do you think it would be helpful to get a concise list of questions together for sending directly to xaircraft? If we limited it to consistent problems (perhaps on if it issue was experienced by x number of people) and were sending it as a "team," perhaps we would get a response/help???
just a thought.
Mike: do you think it would be helpful to get a concise list of questions together for sending directly to xaircraft? If we limited it to consistent problems (perhaps on if it issue was experienced by x number of people) and were sending it as a "team," perhaps we would get a response/help???
just a thought.
Motopreserve
Drone Enthusiast
Valid thought. Unfortunately I have done that cal first thing when I got the taranis. The same issue happened to me with the futaba 14SG. So although I don't doubt the Tx (and specifically taranis) could cause an issue, in my case I feel confident I ruled that out.
Mike SF
Banned
I wonder how this should effect the ESC arming. Like Moto, I have done this once and then forgot about it.
Mike SF
Banned
I'm sure that if a 'team' sends some question they would respond to it. But it might not make a real difference. My guess is that xaircraft is a small company, doing too many things (like the Stella gimbal) and not spending enough resources on the FC development. They figured the FC is good enough and now try to expand their product line. Just by looking at their two web sites, it's not even clear to me who is calling the shots. The web site says R&D is done in both China and Australia. The Chinese site is very small and totally outdated according to today's standards. The Australia web site looks more like a shop. I think this is a small company without a clear strategy to execute.
Motopreserve
Drone Enthusiast
You think we should do the taranis cal again??? I will of it might help.
Im im not sure the group email will get any progress going - but at this point I'm out of ideas...
mediaguru
Member
I don't think so. When I was having arming issues I did the stick cal numerous times.
Mike SF
Banned
Last week, I posted about the new quad I'm working on and that it wobbled quite a bit. In the meantime, I made a few changes and it's flying well now. At first, I thought the wobbles had to do with the FPV style layout because others have reported problems with this layout. But it was mostly the gains. Once I turned them down, the wobbles changed to twitches and then go away completely. They are now at 0.6, 0.6, 0.7, 0.7 with the gain knob at 20%. I also backed down the gains on my Y6 from 1.0 to 0.8 and I think it flies better now, smoother and less rigid. Better for taking video.
While the quad fly nicely, it still feels more docile than my Y6-SuperX or my smaller Naza quads. Not sure if this has to do with the 'bigger' 13" props, arm length, the motors, the ESCs, the AUW or a combination of these. I'm currently using T-motor MN3510-13 700kv and Tiger CF 13x4.4 inch props. It hovers below 60% with a current weight of 2.8kg (this includes some dead weight to simulate the camera). Final weight will be 3.6kg with a RX100 III, 3-axis gimbal and around 900g of battery. For this weight I will switch to KDE 3510 motors, 13-14" props and either KDE or Castle ESCs.
Here are a few pictures of this quad. It's a 690 size foldable frame from Germany, the Black Snapper (basically unknown in the US). The arms can be put into different positions for an asymmetric or a more symmetric configuration. My motors are now almost symmetrical. The lateral distance is 20 inches (same front and back). The distance between front and back is shorter by 5/4 inches. The nice thing about this frame is that you can neatly fold it for transport.
While the quad fly nicely, it still feels more docile than my Y6-SuperX or my smaller Naza quads. Not sure if this has to do with the 'bigger' 13" props, arm length, the motors, the ESCs, the AUW or a combination of these. I'm currently using T-motor MN3510-13 700kv and Tiger CF 13x4.4 inch props. It hovers below 60% with a current weight of 2.8kg (this includes some dead weight to simulate the camera). Final weight will be 3.6kg with a RX100 III, 3-axis gimbal and around 900g of battery. For this weight I will switch to KDE 3510 motors, 13-14" props and either KDE or Castle ESCs.
Here are a few pictures of this quad. It's a 690 size foldable frame from Germany, the Black Snapper (basically unknown in the US). The arms can be put into different positions for an asymmetric or a more symmetric configuration. My motors are now almost symmetrical. The lateral distance is 20 inches (same front and back). The distance between front and back is shorter by 5/4 inches. The nice thing about this frame is that you can neatly fold it for transport.
Attachments
mediaguru
Member
Agree. I'd like to see a side view in the folded position, and like to know what the folded dimensions are.
Mike SF
Banned
Picture #4 is the side view, folded. The legs are not the original ones, I added them on my own so I can adjust them to whatever the gimbal needs. But I hope it won't be any higher. Btw. arms are 20mm tubes. So far the folding mechanism looks solid to me. I have not seen anyone having problems with them during flight. Part of the reason, I chose the German frame over a Chinese knockoff.
Without props, it's 16x10.5", with 13" props the length is 17 3/4". Height without landing gear and gimbal is 4 3/4". Would be great with folding props, then the prop size does not increase the length.
For transportation I have two options. #1, just fold the arms. Then it takes up less space in my car and it is easy to carry around. #2, for traveling, I can take of the landing gear and gimbal and it will fit into a carry on case. That was my main intention when building this frame. With the RX100, it would be big step up from a GoPro copter (e.g. Phantom) but still in a small form factor.
Motopreserve
Drone Enthusiast
It seems like any updates about firmware and/or future options from xaircraft have gone "dark..."
Motopreserve
Drone Enthusiast
Don't know personally - but there have been some serious complaints over on ******** thread about the Xaircraft America customer service (or lack thereof).