It’s been a while since I messed around with Taranis programming, but I know it’s possible to set up dual rates on a switch, and if you were to assign the same switch to both the dual rates and transition, you could have the higher surface deflections in vertical mode and lower deflections in forward flight mode. Just an idea. Great video though. I love this tailsitter twin tractor concept too. Looking forward to seeing more of your experiences with it.
Thank you! Yes, I know I can do this, I just have to read into it a bit more and see how I can do it exactly, because I've never done it before! Anyway... will get around to it at some point!
@@FirstLast-tx3yj Yeah, though I assume the PIDs will need a different tune, but the setup, etc., should all be the same, so long as there are only 2 motors! If you are adding more motors... then the Servo Output page will need to be handled differently and I assume the Q sub-tab in the Full Param List will need different values for frame type, etc.!
Maybe this was mentioned, but I think there is a gimbal output for Ardupilot using a servo output controlled by the flight controller but allowing manual pan as well. INav has this as well although I'm not sure they have a tail sitter.
Yes, in the optional hardware settings, there is camera settings, and you can select a servo output for camera tilt stabilization. Also for pan and roll, but not useful for this build. This could be handy, but in real use is quite annoying, because (if I'm correct) there is no possibility to sign a switch to activate or deactivate the stabilization, and during flight, many people (like me) think that you lose position awareness during FPV.
Yes, there is such an option, but it is working all the time... so it would make it a bit weird for flying! I have an issue with flying while looking from stabilised footage, like a gimballed camera... because it really freaks me out when the image does not do what I assume the plane should be when I give it a command! Really weird feeling!
Just stumbled across your video...Awesome stuff. Thanks for sharing. Look forward to see more. And YES...the Runcam camera REALLY needs Image Stabilization!!!!!!
Great detailed review. That vtol sounds like a lot of work. I've been watching the Foxtech H-Wing Pro. No hassle or build and outstanding range with evertything in the case.
Thanks! True about the H-Wing... but the price difference is also quite considerable! It all boils down to what you want it for, and how much work you are willing to put in! :)
For the camera tilting, i think it would be quite easy in fact. Making a mix kinda like a flying wing mix would look like. In the mixer tab, go to your camera channel, click ok, go one down, this should create another line for this same channel, edit this new line, in source chose the pot you want to use to adjust, and then you can chose by how much you want to adjust by decreasing the weight of it. in multiplex chose multiply (I guess) and this should be good to go! Excuse me if i said anything wrong I just tried to remember it without trzing it but this should be good
Fantastic! ; ) Progressive, clear, logical and (almost) all engulfing! (I guess an Engineer?) On Arduplane/Matek F765-W V2/3 do you have any experience with: a)DJI HD video? (is this Matek suitable?) b)airspeed sensors (digital/pitot?) c)dual cameras? (switching, recording OSD/HD VTX?)
Haha, I am not an engineer! :) I do not have any experience with DJI HD systems outside of the Phantom/Mavic line. The F7s support dual camera inputs, but not from an HD source.
@@Tonkabollocks I think there are some boards, which work with HD, but not sure if they take dual cameras, not heard of such! SIYI have another system to deal with such a situation but it is not compatible with DJI!
I had the servo that swings the camera connected to the receiver directly, and then I programmed the radio so that when I switch the modes switch from hover to forward flight it would rotate the camera accordingly!
Hi, I haven't really thought about this so it would be hard to say, but look for motors, which can deliver at least 2kgs per motor with the right props for the plane! I would say for twin motors at the front perhaps the props should be no more than 7" to 8", so you need motors that would be able to do 2kg thrust each! I don't see this plane having an AUW of 1kg as a VTOL... so you would need more thrust!
The PNP version provides 2 EMAX 2208 1500kv motors, that’s quite different from those you used (heavier, lower IV). For someone who needs to buy motors would you rather recommend those you used? Or these EMAX? Or something even better? (I’m looking to optimize endurance)
Well I used the ones I used... because those are the only ones I had at hand, but definitely not the best option! I would definitely go for a more powerful motor though... slightly larger, with a bit fewer Kv, but would use a larger prop, like 7" for instance, that should give it some nice endurance and an efficiency bump, as well as make it easier on the motors when hovering, because mine do heat up quick!
I like the idea of this plane! Seems like the landing is still an issue and the wobble during/after transition seems scary! BTW, as I noted in another of your videos (thanks, I enjoy them!) your RC antennas are not installed optimally running parallel, they should have 90deg between them (think V) and no, rotating one antenna does not make a difference!
@@ArxangelRC You might as well only have one antenna the way you install them, quite funny actually! A V makes sense because a plane is not always level, the moment it banks the one antenna becomes more vertical. The way you have it the moment you bank both antennas become less vertical and you become exposed to the nulls in the radiation pattern. You could also have one antenna vertical and the other horizontal or almost horizontal, still a V. Basic antenna 101 principals. Rudi de ZS6DX
@@RudixSA Yes... basic... IF you make high degree banking when you are far away! In my long range flights, which are probably 90% of my flying, plane is rarely banked more than 5-10 degrees, which hardly has an effect on anything! Also... most receivers come with two antennas... I can't just remove one just because it doesn't need to be mounted vertical! Especially with the FrSky antennas, this is how I've always done it, this is how I've gotten some pretty impressive range results from that system... results I've yet to see somebody beat, so unless my experience shows otherwise... I'd keep this antenna placement for the time being! More to the point... models with two antennas are very few for me now, because I am using more and more DragonLink, and their receivers have only 1 antenna, which does get mounted vertical!
@@ArxangelRC Sorry, I do not agree with you! I can see you are missing the basic principals of diversity the way you have one antenna rotated 90deg. Anyway, do what you want, but it is still inherently wrong and all RC manufacturers shows in their manuals how to mount antennas, and it is NOT the way you mount them. Have you seen what the radiation pattern on a dipole or monopole antenna looks like? If you look at that you will see why what you are doing is silly. Yes, if you only have 1 antenna mount it vertical, but you have 2 the whole idea behind diversity is to NOT mount them the same and NOT right next to each other! I also fly the FrSky system (and Crossfire, used to fly a homebrew 433MHz system long before they were commercially available), I was actually one of the FrSky beta testers on the R9 system. I have also been designing and implementing antennas for a variety of long range RC/UAV and networking solutions for a very long time (also a licensed ham for a long time). As far as FPV is concerned I first flew FPV (military) in 1982/83 and have been involved with the development of military and civilian systems for many years. I am just stating these facts to show that I do know what I am talking about and I am not just another school kid who is bored on the internet.
@@ArxangelRC BTW, well done to FrSky for producing a system that will still produce "impressive results" despite the user installing the antennas the way you do, but think what you could get out of the system if you followed instructions.......
Well... depends on the orientation towards the wind! :) Sideways it does better... takes an effort to stay in place when the flat part is facing the wind! :)
@@Chamorristaxd Not as stable, but I also haven't done any tuning! Also, the ArkBird has side fins, which this does not, which probably adds to the wobbly-ness in such conditions!
Well not really! Depending on FC and other gear used you will have to do some setup yourself - accelerometer calibration, compass calibration, radio calibration and then the tuning of the plane flight will largely depend on the servos you have installed, so not all can be copy/pasted and expected to work! I do have the param file for this one, you can send me a message on Facebook and I can send it to you!
Yeah, but that is only for the duration of the transition, and if something starts to go wrong, you can always switch back to manual mode, and should be able to get back control immediately!
Yeah... and go through all the effort and head banging involved in modding a plane that was not designed for this... sorry... but the few extra $ are well worth the spared effort!
That design looks like garbage. The kit looks like garbage too. The best of this type was the E-Flite X-Vert, followed by the Chinese clone... Eachine Mirage 500.
Well those are pretty tiny models! This one is not garbage... just could have been done better... but it does fly, and is usable, and pretty much the only purpose built KIT out there for something like this that doesn't involve a whole lot of DIY to make it so!
@@ArxangelRC Thanks for the review and input, but we'll just agree to disagree. Yes, it is larger, and the only tailsitting VTOL currently being sold on BangGood. But the design is horrible from aesthetics, to functionality, to durability, etc. Read your review and that thing is horrid. The "designer" must be 8 years old and only have access to a shoebox and a shoestring for design tools. It needs to have been done a whole lot better. There was no benefit that this was a kit, as the build process is not pleasant at all. And, there's little benefit over modding other existing wings. Two motor mounts on the leading edge and cut out a huge cube of foam in the nose to allow space for the camera servo.
@@TweakRacer Well... good or bad... I wanted to try it out! It works, regardless of aesthetics, which have rarely been a consideration for me! As for the functionality and durability... yes... not ideal, but I chose to work around those... and be careful on the landings and transitions so that durability doesn't get tested too much! :P
It’s been a while since I messed around with Taranis programming, but I know it’s possible to set up dual rates on a switch, and if you were to assign the same switch to both the dual rates and transition, you could have the higher surface deflections in vertical mode and lower deflections in forward flight mode. Just an idea. Great video though. I love this tailsitter twin tractor concept too. Looking forward to seeing more of your experiences with it.
Thank you! Yes, I know I can do this, I just have to read into it a bit more and see how I can do it exactly, because I've never done it before! Anyway... will get around to it at some point!
@@ArxangelRC will the programming part still applies when making a much larger model about 3 meter wing span?
@@FirstLast-tx3yj Yeah, though I assume the PIDs will need a different tune, but the setup, etc., should all be the same, so long as there are only 2 motors! If you are adding more motors... then the Servo Output page will need to be handled differently and I assume the Q sub-tab in the Full Param List will need different values for frame type, etc.!
Thank you soo much. This will be my next plane. I enjoy all your work.
Thank you! :) Good luck!
Maybe this was mentioned, but I think there is a gimbal output for Ardupilot using a servo output controlled by the flight controller but allowing manual pan as well. INav has this as well although I'm not sure they have a tail sitter.
Yes, in the optional hardware settings, there is camera settings, and you can select a servo output for camera tilt stabilization. Also for pan and roll, but not useful for this build.
This could be handy, but in real use is quite annoying, because (if I'm correct) there is no possibility to sign a switch to activate or deactivate the stabilization, and during flight, many people (like me) think that you lose position awareness during FPV.
Yes, there is such an option, but it is working all the time... so it would make it a bit weird for flying! I have an issue with flying while looking from stabilised footage, like a gimballed camera... because it really freaks me out when the image does not do what I assume the plane should be when I give it a command! Really weird feeling!
Just stumbled across your video...Awesome stuff. Thanks for sharing. Look forward to see more.
And YES...the Runcam camera REALLY needs Image Stabilization!!!!!!
Thanks mate, I am glad you like it!
Great detailed review. That vtol sounds like a lot of work. I've been watching the Foxtech H-Wing Pro. No hassle or build and outstanding range with evertything in the case.
Thanks! True about the H-Wing... but the price difference is also quite considerable! It all boils down to what you want it for, and how much work you are willing to put in! :)
Nice, looking forward to the next video. Hi ordered all the required stuf to start a similar project myself.
Awesome! Will publish the setup stuff tomorrow!
I love the philosophy. Keep It Simple.
I apply that to my life
No spar
Haha, yeah! :)
Nice, I can't wait for the VTOL setting up video ( Will you also share the settings ? )
Coming tomorrow!
For the camera tilting, i think it would be quite easy in fact. Making a mix kinda like a flying wing mix would look like.
In the mixer tab, go to your camera channel, click ok, go one down, this should create another line for this same channel, edit this new line, in source chose the pot you want to use to adjust, and then you can chose by how much you want to adjust by decreasing the weight of it. in multiplex chose multiply (I guess) and this should be good to go!
Excuse me if i said anything wrong I just tried to remember it without trzing it but this should be good
Thanks, might give it a try at some point, at a first glance it seems like it should work... but would need testing! :)
@@ArxangelRC keep me updated 🙂 btw now that i think about it i think you should use the add fonction instead of multiply
Hahahahaha, not making it simple, are you! :P
@@ArxangelRC im trying my best 😝 did it do the job?
Have not tried it yet! Might later on, dealing with the Airloader right now! :)
Great review, as always.
Thank you! :)
Спасибо большое, за проделанную работу. Сама тушка конечно топорная но как прототип пойдет. Спасибо.
Glad I can help! :)
@@ArxangelRC Ещё как 👍
Use special functions in opentx with override command to do that camera tilt thing . Great video again
Hahaha, exactly what I mean... no bloody idea how that is supposed to work! :) Thank you! :)
I wonder if it can hover stable in windy days.
Well... it hovers... does cope with some wind... its no miracle though! :)
Fantastic! ; ) Progressive, clear, logical and (almost) all engulfing! (I guess an Engineer?) On Arduplane/Matek F765-W V2/3 do you have any experience with: a)DJI HD video? (is this Matek suitable?) b)airspeed sensors (digital/pitot?) c)dual cameras? (switching, recording OSD/HD VTX?)
Haha, I am not an engineer! :) I do not have any experience with DJI HD systems outside of the Phantom/Mavic line. The F7s support dual camera inputs, but not from an HD source.
@@ArxangelRC Thanks for your help! ; ) If you know of any F7/H7 that will take dual HD I would love to hear about it! Happy Christmas!
@@Tonkabollocks I think there are some boards, which work with HD, but not sure if they take dual cameras, not heard of such! SIYI have another system to deal with such a situation but it is not compatible with DJI!
Invisible spar :p
Yeah... its a new age material... cutting edge stuff!
@@ArxangelRC 🤣🤣 I like your humor
@@arduav1 Haha, I am glad! :)
in tail-sitters, if you have persons in, you need to go rocket mode, tilt does not have to be so
prop guards
I literally have no idea what you said...
.... im a bit late to see this awesome video, but is the issue with the wing that it has no spar?
Yeah! Well not really an issue... depends on how you use it really! :)
@@ArxangelRC being a structural engineer myself i would consider it an issue 😉
@@beefybeef1326 Like I said, depends how you use it! :) If you don't do sharp manoeuvres, etc., it should be more than OK for a good while! :)
@@ArxangelRC fair play!. Has the k1 swan been back in the air... looking forward to the range test?😄
@@beefybeef1326 Yes it has, will be working on the video in the coming days so will be out soon!
How do you change the fpv camera angle between vertical and horizontal mode?
I had the servo that swings the camera connected to the receiver directly, and then I programmed the radio so that when I switch the modes switch from hover to forward flight it would rotate the camera accordingly!
@@ArxangelRCthanks
@@MauricioHernandez-de8is You are welcome! 😊
Hi Nicola, can you comment yet on endurance and expected range ?
Regards Albert
I mentioned that in the video! Have done 50mins... not sure on the range, but will note that next time I do an endurance or a long range test!
Hi I want to convert the arwing pro to a tail sitter wat motors and props do you propose Total White 2 kg Thanks and I admire your work keep going
Hi, I haven't really thought about this so it would be hard to say, but look for motors, which can deliver at least 2kgs per motor with the right props for the plane! I would say for twin motors at the front perhaps the props should be no more than 7" to 8", so you need motors that would be able to do 2kg thrust each! I don't see this plane having an AUW of 1kg as a VTOL... so you would need more thrust!
@@ArxangelRC Thanks for your quickly answer I'm thinking to be a patreon support
Thank you! :)
Is there a way we can install a spar?
Well... would take a good deal of digging in the foam... potentially could be a mess!
@@ArxangelRC I can imagine. I need a vtol, not enough space to launch my at wing pro safer these says. To buy or not to buy...
I see... well... as long as you will be going VTOL... might as well get something larger! :)
THIS IS SPAR-TA!!!!!! or the lack there of.🤣😂
Hahahahahaha, right on!
Why did you use the Matek Flight Control and not the Arkbird or Arkbird Mini?
Because I have no experience with those... and I already had an F765 ready and waiting, and have wanted to try the ARDU VTOL code for a while now!
No strengthening spars
Yup!
The PNP version provides 2 EMAX 2208 1500kv motors, that’s quite different from those you used (heavier, lower IV). For someone who needs to buy motors would you rather recommend those you used? Or these EMAX? Or something even better? (I’m looking to optimize endurance)
Well I used the ones I used... because those are the only ones I had at hand, but definitely not the best option! I would definitely go for a more powerful motor though... slightly larger, with a bit fewer Kv, but would use a larger prop, like 7" for instance, that should give it some nice endurance and an efficiency bump, as well as make it easier on the motors when hovering, because mine do heat up quick!
Thanks man! You’re very inspiring.
@@JulienStoeffler Thanks! :)
I like the idea of this plane! Seems like the landing is still an issue and the wobble during/after transition seems scary! BTW, as I noted in another of your videos (thanks, I enjoy them!) your RC antennas are not installed optimally running parallel, they should have 90deg between them (think V) and no, rotating one antenna does not make a difference!
And like I also replied to you... for my kind of use of these planes, this sort of orientation is perfectly good! V makes no sense for long range!
@@ArxangelRC You might as well only have one antenna the way you install them, quite funny actually! A V makes sense because a plane is not always level, the moment it banks the one antenna becomes more vertical. The way you have it the moment you bank both antennas become less vertical and you become exposed to the nulls in the radiation pattern.
You could also have one antenna vertical and the other horizontal or almost horizontal, still a V. Basic antenna 101 principals.
Rudi de ZS6DX
@@RudixSA Yes... basic... IF you make high degree banking when you are far away! In my long range flights, which are probably 90% of my flying, plane is rarely banked more than 5-10 degrees, which hardly has an effect on anything! Also... most receivers come with two antennas... I can't just remove one just because it doesn't need to be mounted vertical! Especially with the FrSky antennas, this is how I've always done it, this is how I've gotten some pretty impressive range results from that system... results I've yet to see somebody beat, so unless my experience shows otherwise... I'd keep this antenna placement for the time being! More to the point... models with two antennas are very few for me now, because I am using more and more DragonLink, and their receivers have only 1 antenna, which does get mounted vertical!
@@ArxangelRC Sorry, I do not agree with you! I can see you are missing the basic principals of diversity the way you have one antenna rotated 90deg. Anyway, do what you want, but it is still inherently wrong and all RC manufacturers shows in their manuals how to mount antennas, and it is NOT the way you mount them. Have you seen what the radiation pattern on a dipole or monopole antenna looks like? If you look at that you will see why what you are doing is silly. Yes, if you only have 1 antenna mount it vertical, but you have 2 the whole idea behind diversity is to NOT mount them the same and NOT right next to each other!
I also fly the FrSky system (and Crossfire, used to fly a homebrew 433MHz system long before they were commercially available), I was actually one of the FrSky beta testers on the R9 system. I have also been designing and implementing antennas for a variety of long range RC/UAV and networking solutions for a very long time (also a licensed ham for a long time). As far as FPV is concerned I first flew FPV (military) in 1982/83 and have been involved with the development of military and civilian systems for many years. I am just stating these facts to show that I do know what I am talking about and I am not just another school kid who is bored on the internet.
@@ArxangelRC BTW, well done to FrSky for producing a system that will still produce "impressive results" despite the user installing the antennas the way you do, but think what you could get out of the system if you followed instructions.......
Patiently watched the whole thing
You are probably the only one! :P
@@ArxangelRC Die hard fans hahahaha!
Indeed! :P
Hi, how does it handle wind?
Well... depends on the orientation towards the wind! :) Sideways it does better... takes an effort to stay in place when the flat part is facing the wind! :)
@@ArxangelRC Is the behaviour far away from this? ruclips.net/video/aTCK1GOAB-U/видео.html
Have you tried with PX4?
@@Chamorristaxd Not as stable, but I also haven't done any tuning! Also, the ArkBird has side fins, which this does not, which probably adds to the wobbly-ness in such conditions!
Sir you should also give save file of parameter in your video so that vs wala only run that file in arduino pilot and its software should be setup
Well not really! Depending on FC and other gear used you will have to do some setup yourself - accelerometer calibration, compass calibration, radio calibration and then the tuning of the plane flight will largely depend on the servos you have installed, so not all can be copy/pasted and expected to work! I do have the param file for this one, you can send me a message on Facebook and I can send it to you!
Great
Yeah
Would you build one of these for someone if they ask you and ship it to them?
Not really... :(
@@ArxangelRC ok
There is an RTF version
@@JulienStoeffler Really? Equipped with everything... or just with the electronics provided for you to install them?
I have planned get one ArcBird make my VTOL , Could you share PID parameters ? Brother.
Hi, send me a message on Facebook and I will send you the file!
@@ArxangelRC Could you share PID parameters for me too ?
@@marcosrangel1776 already did! :P
@@ArxangelRC you are brilliant!
@@marcosrangel1776 :)
The funny thing is that v1 of this drone has the spars.
YES!!! It does indeed! Such a weird choice for this one!
Scary no control transition?
Yeah, but that is only for the duration of the transition, and if something starts to go wrong, you can always switch back to manual mode, and should be able to get back control immediately!
No spar. Awesome vehicle though!
It is indeed! :)
No spars!!
Yup!
4:07 found It !!!!! No Carbon rod/spar/bar
Yeeeehaaaa
Yup! :)
Aha! At last
Yeah!
Ossummmmme VTOL
Thanks! :)
Hey I am building a VTOL Dual rotor quadplane will F765 work for me will it support VTOL functions and latest version of firmware please help me .
Well all of these questions would be answered if you'd actually watched the video!
No reinforcement
Yup! :)
There is no any carbon fiber reinforcement !
Correct! :)
no wing spar
Yup!
Can you make a vtol aircraft autopilot that dilvery item please please please you get paid by me instead of that
Not sure you are willing to pay what it will cost.
No spar.
Correct! :)
For that price better buy any SonicModel and put motors like in VTOL
Yeah... and go through all the effort and head banging involved in modding a plane that was not designed for this... sorry... but the few extra $ are well worth the spared effort!
no spar
Yup! :)
So cool. Shame basically illegal to fly it here
That is sad!
Where?
Spare the spar..
And they did!
Spare me the spar.
Yeah!
That design looks like garbage. The kit looks like garbage too. The best of this type was the E-Flite X-Vert, followed by the Chinese clone... Eachine Mirage 500.
Well those are pretty tiny models! This one is not garbage... just could have been done better... but it does fly, and is usable, and pretty much the only purpose built KIT out there for something like this that doesn't involve a whole lot of DIY to make it so!
@@ArxangelRC Thanks for the review and input, but we'll just agree to disagree. Yes, it is larger, and the only tailsitting VTOL currently being sold on BangGood.
But the design is horrible from aesthetics, to functionality, to durability, etc. Read your review and that thing is horrid. The "designer" must be 8 years old and only have access to a shoebox and a shoestring for design tools. It needs to have been done a whole lot better.
There was no benefit that this was a kit, as the build process is not pleasant at all. And, there's little benefit over modding other existing wings. Two motor mounts on the leading edge and cut out a huge cube of foam in the nose to allow space for the camera servo.
@@TweakRacer Well... good or bad... I wanted to try it out! It works, regardless of aesthetics, which have rarely been a consideration for me! As for the functionality and durability... yes... not ideal, but I chose to work around those... and be careful on the landings and transitions so that durability doesn't get tested too much! :P
@@ArxangelRC Glad you're enjoying it regardless. Recently found your channel and blog. Very well done! Keep up the great work and content. :)
@@TweakRacer Thanks mate, appreciate it! Will do! :)
No spar.
Indeed!
No spar
Exactly!
No spar
Yup!
No spar
Yes!
No spar
Yup!