P-Mode vs Sport for Greater Distance on battery

[VouilEz]

So i was pondering this.
If you were planning a Round Trip and wanted to maximise distance for Battery...

Altering specific Paremeters and also Wind, aside for a sec. And also Wind

Would you choose sport mode to get there & back quickly?

or use P-mode to conserve Battery and possibly get more distance at a slower rate?

Which do you think would get you the most distance

 

[Moose1967]

ATTI mode for sure IMO !!

 

[sar104]

Most experiments have indicated that faster is better. Theory supports that up to a point:

I thought I had plenty of reserve to return...and the forced landing warning was inducing panic

I think it's an entrance to an underwater tunnel?It is. Out on a bridge then into a tunnel and out to another bridge, I think.

mavicpilots.com

The conclusion from those calculations is that a pitch angle of between 30° and 35° is going to give maximum distance (though significantly reduced flight time), which is only achievable in sport mode.

 

[johnmeyer]

You might want to have a look at the several different "distance challenge" competitions posted in this forum and then carefully look at the settings used to achieve maximum distance. Here's one:

Official Mavic 2 Range Leaderboard

Looking at the leader in the "stock" (unmodified) category, I see that the speeds were right around 30 mph, so not much faster than what you get in P-mode, and far slower than sport mode. This makes sense, since wind resistance goes up as the square of the speed (more or less).

While I have no interest in joining the competition, I found the data very valuable and concluded, that in my 1 - 1.5 mile (distance from origin) flights, it makes no sense to switch to sport mode for the return, something I was doing prior to my research. I am quite glad to quit doing that since it keeps engaged all the of the various anti-collisions sensors.

 

[sar104]

Note also that the Mavic 2 specs quote the maximum range achievable as 18 km at 50 km/hr (11 miles at 31 mph). I'd need to check what pitch angle that corresponds to.

 

[VouilEz]

Most experiments have indicated that faster is better. Theory supports that up to a point:

I thought I had plenty of reserve to return...and the forced landing warning was inducing panic

I think it's an entrance to an underwater tunnel?It is. Out on a bridge then into a tunnel and out to another bridge, I think.

mavicpilots.com

The conclusion from those calculations is that a pitch angle of between 30° and 35° is going to give maximum distance (though significantly reduced flight time), which is only achievable in sport mode.

thanks Sar104. in terms of custom parameters
Are the upwards parameters (Acc_up/Vel_up) still the most relevant for forward/Horizontal motion (never descending)?

fighting gravity I have found Acceleraton of about 5-6m/s and a velocity of 7m/s to be optimal.
The pitch angle wasnt relevant in this situation. Mine is about 33 in one mode, so that seems sorted at least

 

[sar104]

thanks Sar104. in terms of custom parameters
Are the upwards parameters (Acc_up/Vel_up) still the most relevant for forward/Horizontal motion (never descending)?

fighting gravity I have found Acceleraton of about 5-6m/s and a velocity of 7m/s to be optimal.
The pitch angle wasnt relevant in this situation. Mine is about 33 in one mode, so that seems sorted at least

I don't think either vertical acceleration or velocity have any influence on horizontal motion. In level flight, airspeed is purely determined by pitch angle since the vertical component of thrust is approximately the weight of the aircraft, and only a very weak function of airspeed. So the maximum airspeed might be reached because maximum pitch is reached, or (in a P mode) because the maximum set ground speed is reached.

 

[VouilEz]

Ok Thanks.
When i talk about vel/acc in the up dimension (parameters wise), I simply assume that is them turning CW, and producing thrust.
So I assumed when a Mavic is tilted over, achieving forward motion would mostly be CW propellor motion (hence 'up' parameters)
A combination of CW thrust, perhaps lower forward thrust on the bottom motors, but CCW thrust doesnt really enter into it.
Thats why i added 'never descending'

Is this not accurate?

 

[sar104]

Ok Thanks.
When i talk about vel/acc in the up dimension (parameters wise), I simply assume that is them turning CW, and producing thrust.
So I assumed when a Mavic is tilted over, achieving forward motion would mostly be CW propellor motion (hence 'up' parameters)
A combination of CW thrust, perhaps lower forward thrust on the bottom motors, but CCW thrust doesnt really enter into it.
Thats why i added 'never descending'

Is this not accurate?

The CW and CCW propellers all produce thrust in the same direction (upwards) because they are physically mirror images of each other.

 

[VouilEz]

yes agreed, Thrust is up, and reverse thrust is down. Thats all im getting at in regards
to adjusting parameters (outside the valuesof standard P and Sport Modes), relevant to the conversation
This is for a Mavic 1, btw

 

[sar104]

yes agreed, Thrust is up, and reverse thrust is down. Thats all im getting at in regards
to adjusting parameters (outside the valuesof standard P and Sport Modes), relevant to the conversation
This is for a Mavic 1, btw

But there is no such thing as "reverse thrust". The motors never run backwards.

 

[Lekke]

Interesting thread, and something else I’d thought about IF you ever got into a low battery situation in needing to return to home. It would be logical to assume that the aircraft is not using its sensors and thereby no associated computational power in sport mode, but does the speed performance and heat outweigh those power savings?

 

[sar104]

Interesting thread, and something else I’d thought about IF you ever got into a low battery situation in needing to return to home. It would be logical to assume that the aircraft is not using its sensors and thereby no associated computational power in sport mode, but does the speed performance and heat outweigh those power savings?

The computational energy use is insignificant compared to the motors.

 

[Lekke]

The computational energy use is insignificant compared to the motors.

For sure, but as I said, all the sensor cameras are power consumers in this equation.

 

[sar104]

For sure, but as I said, all the sensor cameras are power consumers in this equation.

Everything on board is insignificant compared to the motors.