Y6 vs X8 octa. Which is better for smooth video recording and redundancy?

[Vojec]

Search through forum and web about comparison Y6 and X8 and did not found any fresh info, so decide to start, because I'm planing in close future (1 month from now) buy new multicopter. Here you guys steps in with your recommendations. Want to build Y6 or octa for commercial video shooting. Will have Panasonic GH2 wit 3 different lens. Also already have DJI WKM with GSP.
So my question are:

1. Which have better redundancy
2. how about payload (maybe canon mark II in the future)
3. future support
4. which motor use for normal flying
5. how about ESC (30A or more?)
6. which cam gimbal you recommend?


Any help and tips are most welcome.

Regards,

Vojc

 

[Bartman]

Vojc,
I like the XY-8 but I'm a bit biased

Anyway, if you're going to fly a 5D Mark II then you need to build for that camera. If you want to fly a Sony NEX then that's an entirely different build. Somewhere in the middle we GH2/T2i size cameras and that could be a third build. Of course the one kopter built for the biggest camera could be used for much smaller cameras but the big heli will be a burden on your operation to tote around and keep tuned up so it's reeeeeeaaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyy helpful to have a more precise goal as to what you want to do with it. A kopter built for a T2i can do well enough with an NEX but it might be a strain for it to carry the Mark II if it even has room for the larger props you'd likely need.

The y-6 is great, the X-8 is too. More and more we're seeing examples of 6 and 8 rotor heli's that survive prop/motor failures to land under control and fly the next or same day. A quad can probably go its whole life without an inflight failure but when it happens that a motor locks up or prop flies off, it's sure nice to just land and go home without the worry of an expensive repair or damage to someone's property. You might lose some efficiency with the higher motor count but it pays you back in spades when it saves the kopter. I can tell you this from experience as I just had a motor failure on an 8 motor heli and I probably could have kept flying though I opted to land immediately.
Gimbals are another area where you can spend a lot to carry a Mark II but it will likely be overkill for the smaller cameras.

There'll be more opinions to consider but it definitely helps to say there's a camera you want to carry and then build to that payload.

Good luck with it.
Bart

 

[Vojec]

Thank you Bart to clear my head. Someone mention in other post that you build on some new mix mode Y6-8 frame or so?
Like you said somewhere in the middle for GH2/T2i cam. I really not have experience which motor is right for that and use that prop and so one. Which frame is more agile, easier to fly Y6 or X8 also when consider with 8x motors and 8x that at the end is more expesive?
Have around 2000$ to spend on helli without brain (like I said before have DJI WKM).

Thanks in advance.

Vojc

 

[DucktileMedia]

It's a little concerning that you have to ask if an x8 has better redundancy than a y6 or if it has more payload. But yes, if you have more motors you have better redundancy and more lift. If you are really doing this commercially then the octo is a no brainer. And Bart's XY8 seems to be the best of the octo configurations out there. You get a small footprint, redundancy, no props in the FOV, and it flies well in wind.

 

[Bartman]

vojc,
is this going to be your first multi-rotor helicopter? do you have any experience with other RC stuff at all?
bart

 

[Vojec]

Thanks both of you for involving in that debate. Have some airplane, just for fun, but in quad or mutiheli it will be the 2nd one. My first is GAUI 500X. Great for learning and hard landing without headache, lol. Have serious opportunity in close future to work for one of the TV stations and filming in some documentary. If you want do serious business must have appropriate equipment. Because of that I need help to put mutikopter together that can handle a task.

 

[Richk]

How aabout x-8 vs flat 8 does either have more redundancy and which is a more stable platform also which will handle wind better

 

[Bartman]

Rich,
In the hands of someone with experience flying helicopters, any configuration can be flown smoothly. As you might guess, it is relatively easy to get good aerial photos but it is an entirely different challenge to both develop the equipment to get good video and to then tailor it to your flying skills and media-gathering equipment to make the video useable. No helicopter/mount combination can compensate for lousy flying. If anyone tells you that then they're lying to you. The helicopters can change direction in an instant and it's simply beyond the ability of the current camera control systems to keep up so flying skills are an important part of the equation. However, with practice you can get very good video even while flying fairly aggressively.
If the perspective you seek is mostly down while drifting slowly across a field of view then there are many combinations that will be suitable. The AV-130 is a good place to start and any of the reputable frames will carry it easily. The customer service from Kim at Photo Higher is excellent and quality control is also top notch. The AV-130 will carry up to the Canon T2i with room for cables and such. I'm not sure what the limits are of the larger Photo Higher mount but you'll need a larger helicopter to make full use of it.
My equipment will be ready for its public debut in a week to ten days but I don't think I can offer a complete package minus electronics for $2000, sorry about that.
Keep tweaking your goals the equipment choices will be easier. Good luck with it.
Bart

 

[Richk]

Rich,
In the hands of someone with experience flying helicopters, any configuration can be flown smoothly. As you might guess, it is relatively easy to get good aerial photos but it is an entirely different challenge to both develop the equipment to get good video and to then tailor it to your flying skills and media-gathering equipment to make the video useable. No helicopter/mount combination can compensate for lousy flying. If anyone tells you that then they're lying to you. The helicopters can change direction in an instant and it's simply beyond the ability of the current camera control systems to keep up so flying skills are an important part of the equation. However, with practice you can get very good video even while flying fairly aggressively.
If the perspective you seek is mostly down while drifting slowly across a field of view then there are many combinations that will be suitable. The AV-130 is a good place to start and any of the reputable frames will carry it easily. The customer service from Kim at Photo Higher is excellent and quality control is also top notch. The AV-130 will carry up to the Canon T2i with room for cables and such. I'm not sure what the limits are of the larger Photo Higher mount but you'll need a larger helicopter to make full use of it.
My equipment will be ready for its public debut in a week to ten days but I don't think I can offer a complete package minus electronics for $2000, sorry about that.
Keep tweaking your goals the equipment choices will be easier. Good luck with it.
Bart

Hi Bart
I'm not the OP with the $2000, For me I've got a Canon 7D and I may pick up a gopro to mess around with. AS to my earlier post the camera is a real heavy weight for that, it's a Canon C300(about 3.5kg) and as for a gimbal I think the only one that would handle it is the Cinestar

 

[Bartman]

Sorry about that! I think the 7D and the 550 D have the same internals, no? The 7D has the aluminum body so it weighs more which impacts flight times plus it needs a larger gimbal because it's physically larger......not a deal breaker but it's a factor in the larger picture of getting something flying.
I'm not familiar with the C300 at this point but to return to your original question, about flats vs. coax's, I'm finding that my coaxial XY configuration is very stable in descending flight with 12x5 props on top and 12x7 props on the bottom. I suspect that reason is that the wobbles a lot of us have experienced don't have anything to do with descending into dirty air but the inability of the FC to maintain a firm grasp on controlling the helicopter when the props have been unloaded to allow a descent. I think that my higher pitch props are better able to grip the air even when descending which is leaving the FC with more control authority. I configured the props as they are to try for better efficiency (aka longer flight times) and so it was a pleasant surprise when I flew them and found that there are virtually no wobbles or rocking when I'm descending. If I come down too fast then all bets are off but I never saw this kind of stability with the flat 8's I was flying (all MK). This can be achieved with any coaxial kopter, not just my XY configuration.
Bart

 

[Richk]

Thanx Bart. The Canon C300 is Canon's Competition for the Red. It's very expensive and not mine so I don't want to drop it ...haha

 

[Richk]

Thanx Bart. The Canon C300 is Canon's Competition for the Red. It's very expensive and not mine so I don't want to drop it ...haha

The Canon shoots 4:2:2 compression and there are very few other camera that do. I just talked to the producer of the film and any of the camera that can match the compression don't match up in other ways so I'll have to keep my fingers crossed that we have a good flight, no I better not cross my finger and just keep them on th TX . Sorry for the thread hijack

 

[Bartman]

that's a pretty expensive camera!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839221-REG/Canon_5819B002_EOS_C300_PL_Cinema.html

do you already have the helicopter built for it?

 

[Richk]

that's a pretty expensive camera!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839221-REG/Canon_5819B002_EOS_C300_PL_Cinema.html

do you already have the helicopter built for it?

I'm weighing out my options on that one, but I want something that will bring the camera back in one piece even if I loose a motor or prop. I'm thinking of a hex-12

 

[swisser]

Personally I think redundancy through additional motors/props is sometimes overrated. For a start, the risk of a motor failing increases with the number of motors you have and unless you're 100% certain that the additional motors will me you can land safely if you lose one then you're increasing the risk not decreasing it. Secondly, there are so many important parts in common - the battery (possibly more than one if you're loading up with extra weight of a bigger copter, more motoros, props, ESCs, etc.), the power distribution mechanism (itself more complex with more motors), the wiring, the flight controller. Clearly redundancy has its place but it needs careful consideration as to whether you're really mitigating risks or not.

 

[MombasaFlash]

What is an XY-8?

 

[RCNut]

Comparing Y configurations, my understanding is that the Y6 is not as smooth for filming as a Tricopter (Y3) due to turbulance caused by the mixing of the upper and lower motor propwash. Can anyone confirm? I know David at rcexplorer built a Y6 after having flown several versions of Tricopter and gave the Y6 away because it wasn't as steady when filming. Based on that I would expect any multirotor with single layer motors would be smoother than one having two motors on each arm.

 

[Richk]

Bart you'd be the best one to answer that

 

[Mactadpole]

I have had a quad, tri, hexa, Y6, and X8. In my experience - my hexa was pretty light but was super smooth, I never flew anything bigger than a Canon SX200 on it. I then went to X8 and once I went with full MK electronics it flies incredible. It is twice as heavy as the hexa and flies just as smoothly with a GH2 on an AV130 gimbal, AUW is ~4.8 kg. The Y6 was also a heavy copter but had a much more 'floaty' feel to it. It was very smooth but not as quick at responding to stick input and I'm pretty sure it was tuned well. Quad and tri were no where near as stable as the those listed above. Again, in my experience, my coax copters have been plenty smooth. And the redundancy factor is very nice and has certainly saved me a complete loss on one occasion. I would probably be really happy with a flat octo but they are just so big!

My 2¢

Shawn

Comparing Y configurations, my understanding is that the Y6 is not as smooth for filming as a Tricopter (Y3) due to turbulance caused by the mixing of the upper and lower motor propwash. Can anyone confirm? I know David at rcexplorer built a Y6 after having flown several versions of Tricopter and gave the Y6 away because it wasn't as steady when filming. Based on that I would expect any multirotor with single layer motors would be smoother than one having two motors on each arm.

 

[Richk]

With all you have you could be the first in the counrty to set up a used multirotor lot,but you'd have to have a tacky sport coat ,smoke a cigar, and have a good sales pitch

I have had a quad, tri, hexa, Y6, and X8. In my experience - my hexa was pretty light but was super smooth, I never flew anything bigger than a Canon SX200 on it. I then went to X8 and once I went with full MK electronics it flies incredible. It is twice as heavy as the hexa and flies just as smoothly with a GH2 on an AV130 gimbal, AUW is ~4.8 kg. The Y6 was also a heavy copter but had a much more 'floaty' feel to it. It was very smooth but not as quick at responding to stick input and I'm pretty sure it was tuned well. Quad and tri were no where near as stable as the those listed above. Again, in my experience, my coax copters have been plenty smooth. And the redundancy factor is very nice and has certainly saved me a complete loss on one occasion. I would probably be really happy with a flat octo but they are just so big!

My 2¢

Shawn