| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 132837 | 2013-05-23 01:42:00 | Quad copter "point of view" of crippled cruise ship | kingdragonfly (309) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1342671 | 2013-05-23 01:42:00 | Cool You Tube video with quad copter's "point of view" of crippled cruise ship. One quad copter is "chasing" another. Audio can be muted; just background music www.youtube.com |
kingdragonfly (309) | ||
| 1342672 | 2013-05-23 02:02:00 | Nice footage. I'm building an RC FPV plane at (albeit verrrrry slowly :p ) considered a quad (or hex copeter) but I prefer planes. Any footage I capture will be nice sweeping scenes anyway, and long distance "adventure" flight, not hovers and stuff like that. Got the engine sorted, just need to design the actual plane. |
The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1342673 | 2013-05-23 03:01:00 | ROFLMAO. Might pay to find out just what regulations may apply to your "long distance adventure flights" and what your insurance does and does not cover. Just at the moment there are a bunch of vigilantes about that consider they can judge you very firmly. Sadly, they, for some reason, assess other people's ability and principles by their own rather limited achievements. Actually, in rare instances they may be right, but not in statistically significant numbers. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1342674 | 2013-05-23 03:39:00 | Only insurance would have to cover the actual plane, and I doubt you could get that insured. AFAIK the only places I'd want to fly any further than LoS would be areas far far away from anything that I could crash into causing damage anyway. By "long distance" I mean 2.5km max, probably across farmland & rural areas. You'd be pretty dumb to fly anything around city/suburban areas. You'd the the cops and CAA up your arse as well as a bunch of paranoid tinfoil hat wearers convinced you're spying on them knocking on your door. As long as the aircraft weighs less than 25kg's then it's a recreational RC plane (no rules on what it does, only where it goes) , any more than that and it's a pilotless vehicle and all CAA rules apply + licensing of the aircraft and pilot. So for my intended plane, 5km from nearest controlled airspace and below 1000ft and you're golden. I'd have to look it up but AFAIK NZ's rules allow free flight to any altitude away from flight paths if the aircraft has a transponder or radio onboard. Would have to check that, but I honestly don't see why you'd want to go above 1000ft in an RC Plane unless you were getting really bad headwinds. Project is mostly for fun and to better understand some principals for flight, plus I want to use it to put an extra twist on some of my photography. If it can lift my DSLR safely I'll be stoked (and a very cautious pilot with that cargo onboard!) |
The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1342675 | 2013-05-23 05:47:00 | Consider 400 ft as a ceiling and you are getting closer. Go anywhere near an airport and it gets worse. The rules you quote are not the ones the gov't uses. Hit a farmers stock unit and it will be the highest producing beast in the district and worth zillions. No insurance? I doubt that is recognised as excusing you. Hit a house and the builder is not going to lay off the charge-out rate just because you tell him you're a bit broke. It is not quite as easy looking through the goggles as it is watching it on Google's YouTube. If the well-being of your camera is more likely to cause you to be cautious than the well-being of bystanders, there may be other problems if you have to do any explaining. This doesn't even consider the avaricious magnetic trees that lurk everywhere just waiting to suck in models. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1342676 | 2013-05-23 11:47:00 | I've flown a few before FPV and LoS, good times. Just got to watch yourself and not become a cocky bastard. Seen many a good plane go to waste because some larrykin decided to show off and climb to fast after take off, or pull a fantastically low manoeuvre that resulted in aircraft becoming lawnmower. I doubt I'll hit anything off the back of our place, other than the house there's nothing else to hit except magnetic trees. You are right though, good old murphy states that if you DO hit anything it will be the worst thing to hit for 100 miles. Any extra caution owing to payloads (such as cameras) would be applied depending on situation. You might smoke next to an empty barrel, but not if it was filled with petrol. In the same way I'd fly much slower with an extra 2kg of camera gear because that extra mass is going to cause a lot of slip and skid in tight turns, and reduce manoeuvrability. Not implying that I'd be less careful with gear on board, just a lot more considerate of how well I can react to a change in situation. Cameras and plane will cost more than just the plane. That being said, all considerations have been duly noted. Caution shall be applied and a hefty smack round the ears of "I told you so" may be applied in the future ;) |
The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1342677 | 2013-05-23 21:59:00 | More dangerous smoking next to an empty petrol/fuel container than next to a full one. | Whenu (9358) | ||
| 1 | |||||