Mavic Pro 2 - 905 grams???

[RPSM]

I’m America you are not supposed to fly over people. I don’t see how it’s unsellable?

I appreciate what you're saying, and we've all seen the illegal videos of drones in America being flown over people (and cars), but in the EU they do prosecute (admittedly to different lengths in different countries - in the UK you'd have to kill someone, and not just "anyone" before they'd get up off the bench). More importantly, however, the drone fails to qualify flying over people by 5g. That's insane.

 

[RPSM]

It depends on a country regulations. In Poland for example drones below 600g are considered more like a toy and has less restrictions.

This is only true right now (I haven't checked though), as the new regulations are EU wide, and Poland will have to comply within 2 years.

 

[m15Alien]

If my gross calculations are correct, a drone/object should weight less than 115gr to free less than 80J of energy on the ground (falling from a 70m height). A 900 gr UAV that falls freely from 70m should release 617J (vertical impact), a disaster!

 

[KONY]

In France any drone over 900 g need to be offficially registered if you want to fly it...and in addition the drone owner will need to pass some kind of online exam (free).

that is new legislation in place since last summer... so bad luck for us...given than i like to fly in the Paris area (All urban area is NOT OK to fly unless in the far countryside outskirts), i cannot register my M2P because i guess it would be like accepting the police to have a permanent eye on me...

 

[m15Alien]

In France any drone over 900 g need to be offficially registered if you want to fly it...and in addition the drone owner will need to pass some kind of online exam (free).

that is new legislation in place since last summer... so bad luck for us...given than i like to fly in the Paris area (All urban area is NOT OK to fly unless in the far countryside outskirts), i cannot register my M2P because i guess it would be like accepting the police to have a permanent eye on me...

In Italy, the Enac (Ente Nazionale Aviazione Civile) is thinking to ask a fee to register Uav, is it in France the same?

 

[KONY]

as far as i know there is no fee involved to register and if they put one it may be low

 

[m15Alien]

This is only true right now (I haven't checked though), as the new regulations are EU wide, and Poland will have to comply within 2 years.

However I expect the manufacturer will soon declare (for the EU market) in which class will be associated each UAV product. I do not want to buy a 1400 euro UAV that after a month or two will become illegal!

 

[gnirtS]

If my gross calculations are correct, a drone/object should weight less than 115gr to free less than 80J of energy on the ground (falling from a 70m height). A 900 gr UAV that falls freely from 70m should release 617J (vertical impact), a disaster!

Your calculations are miles off. You're forgetting completely terminal velocity and drag.
The original mavic was around 70J. Its terminal velocity using a brick falling edgeways is roughly 60km/h.

This stuff is not hard to test at all, you dont need wind tunnels or anything else. The same design systems you use for airflow predictions (which DJI will clearly have) will produce a drag coefficient and from there be able to calculate terminal velocity and impact energy very easily indeed. There's no way DJI wouldn't have this data just as part of its normal R&D process. It's also CE certified and most likely declared in that.
The also have a permanent representation on the EASA panel at the EU. There's no way they didn't think this through. Its 907g in weight. If they'd wanted to free up 7g by changing the battery capacity or dropping a sensor somewhat they could and would have not to lose a market. The fact they didn't hints they know its at or under 80J.

 

[m15Alien]

Your calculations are miles off. You're forgetting completely terminal velocity and drag.
The original mavic was around 70J. Its terminal velocity using a brick falling edgeways is roughly 60km/h.

This stuff is not hard to test at all, you dont need wind tunnels or anything else. The same design systems you use for airflow predictions (which DJI will clearly have) will produce a drag coefficient and from there be able to calculate terminal velocity and impact energy very easily indeed. There's no way DJI wouldn't have this data just as part of its normal R&D process. It's also CE certified and most likely declared in that.
The also have a permanent representation on the EASA panel at the EU. There's no way they didn't think this through. Its 907g in weight. If they'd wanted to free up 7g by changing the battery capacity or dropping a sensor somewhat they could and would have not to lose a market. The fact they didn't hints they know its at or under 80J.

Thanks for the explanation, yes my calculation is very raw.... However I think DJI should declare the right UAV class over the CE compliancy.

 

[gnirtS]

Thanks for the explanation, yes my calculation is very raw.... However I think DJI should declare the right UAV class over the CE compliancy.

Well they can't yet as there is no EU compliant. It is still in the technical discussion stage as a proposal. Next it'll be knocked to some unelected, unqualified politicians to talk about and maybe change, sent back, maybe amended, process repeated a few times before eventually getting accepted in 2-3 years time. There is every chance things will be changed by then. And you can't claim compliance to a standard that doesn't actually exist.

 

[m15Alien]

Well they can't yet as there is no EU compliant. It is still in the technical discussion stage as a proposal. Next it'll be knocked to some unelected, unqualified politicians to talk about and maybe change, sent back, maybe amended, process repeated a few times before eventually getting accepted in 2-3 years time. There is every chance things will be changed by then. And you can't claim compliance to a standard that doesn't actually exist.

Yeah you are right, but the EU UAV regulation timeframe seems to be very close, let's see, fly and wait then!

 

[gnirtS]

Legally you cant claim compliance to something unless it exists in law. Nothing DJI can do until its actually codified.
Its 2-3 years down the line by which time Mavic 3 will be out (and hopefully the UK will be out of the EU rulings anyway for me !).

 

[RPSM]

Well they can't yet as there is no EU compliant. It is still in the technical discussion stage as a proposal. Next it'll be knocked to some unelected, unqualified politicians to talk about and maybe change, sent back, maybe amended, process repeated a few times before eventually getting accepted in 2-3 years time. There is every chance things will be changed by then. And you can't claim compliance to a standard that doesn't actually exist.

Why do you have to do that? A lot of what you say makes sense, makes me want to listen and respect you. Then you go and bring in Brexit. Why? Can we have a discussion among friends who share a hobby without making a political comment?

 

[RPSM]

Legally you cant claim compliance to something unless it exists in law. Nothing DJI can do until its actually codified.
Its 2-3 years down the line by which time Mavic 3 will be out (and hopefully the UK will be out of the EU rulings anyway for me !).

While I'd rather ignore your political comments, it's extremely unlikely that the UK would leave EASA. If they do it's because the EU kicks them out, not because the UK wants to leave (Govt to stay in EU air safety body in blurring of Brexit red line)

 

[gnirtS]

Why do you have to do that? A lot of what you say makes sense, makes me want to listen and respect you. Then you go and bring in Brexit. Why? Can we have a discussion among friends who share a hobby without making a political comment?

Because its relevant and explains how it works. You have a technical committee (who do know what they're talking about). Its then passed to an unqualified committee to talk about it and suggest changes. Then it gets passed back (maybe multiple times) then eventually adopted. It puts a time frame on the whole thing.
None of this is secret, its all in the EASA document where the timeline is quite clearly printed.
Its also relevant because by the time it gets implemented (in whatever form) chances are the UK wont be following it anyway.

 

[RPSM]

Your calculations are miles off. You're forgetting completely terminal velocity and drag.
The original mavic was around 70J. Its terminal velocity using a brick falling edgeways is roughly 60km/h.

This stuff is not hard to test at all, you dont need wind tunnels or anything else. The same design systems you use for airflow predictions (which DJI will clearly have) will produce a drag coefficient and from there be able to calculate terminal velocity and impact energy very easily indeed. There's no way DJI wouldn't have this data just as part of its normal R&D process. It's also CE certified and most likely declared in that.
The also have a permanent representation on the EASA panel at the EU. There's no way they didn't think this through. Its 907g in weight. If they'd wanted to free up 7g by changing the battery capacity or dropping a sensor somewhat they could and would have not to lose a market. The fact they didn't hints they know its at or under 80J.

Admittedly I only spent a few hours investigating after your last post, but... this is not correct. The Jules impact would have to be calculated on the worst case for the drag co-efficient, that is, the drone falling head on towards a person. This is very unlikely to be what DJI calculate when they are designing the drone, as their objective is to create a shape that is efficient moving forwards, sideways, etc. Your comparison to a brick is also incorrect, as the drone falling head first will be significantly more efficient, and hence accelerate faster than a brick. Then you need to count the air resistance at the altitude the drone is flying at, and not the height the drone is flying at off the ground, and the heat of the air where you're flying.

You're right though, someone messed up for 5 grams.

 

[RPSM]

I just received a reply from DJI Sales support as follows:

Dear XXX，

Mavic Pro 2 in fact is 907g,

For its over the 900g limit for class C1 drones in the EU,

we suggest you fly the drones under the new regulations.

Enjoy it,

Thanks.


Best regards,
DJI

I guess that's that then...

 

[gnirtS]

I guess the sales bot doesn't understand the question or it's not on the script.
You really need the engineering it certification department to reply to that.

I just received a reply from DJI Sales support as follows:


I guess that's that then...

 

[lmel2005]

It's a serious issue for EU buyers, and unfortunately can only be corrected with a special EU version, or (most possibly) with next Mavic version.

 

[m15Alien]

I just received a reply from DJI Sales support as follows:


I guess that's that then...

I think most European users who use hobby UAVs do not care about EU restrictions at the moment, but if there is a confirmation of this law in the coming months, DJI will risk losing a lot of business in the EU. Are there more users using drones for hobby or work?