i think we can safely say at this juncture,that if you have a bad case of flatulence, then dont fly your MM behind you
You're missing my intent. I'm just being general/theoretical. Intuitively one would think "it's small and light so it's not possible to handle wind". Not necessarily so. After all, one would not think a 250g drone could handle 20mph wind. But it can! It has the necessary power and means to transfer that power against the wind.
And have the consideration to remain downwind so that others don't need to suffer.i think we can safely say at this juncture,that if you have a bad case of flatulence, then dont fly your MM behind you
If your drone is being buffeted by a 20 knot wind, it doesn't matter whether it's a gust or the average for the hour.Does the 18mph include gusts?
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the point under discussion was your suggestion that there is no physical reason for small drones to be less wind resistant than large ones. And my point is that there absolutely is such a reason because of the basic relationship between mass and surface area.
You're back to that. Earlier you were pointing out designed mass to power ratio.
Power remaining static, lower mass and surface area would improve ability to cut through wind. Because we're using props, I will concede you need bigger props or better attack angle to propel the AC through the air, but higher RPM can also do that.
Again my point is that a casual bystander would think it impossible for a drone the size and weight of the MM couldn't possibly fight the winds it can handle. Yesteryear's technology couldn't provide the power in such a small, lightweight package. Today's technology can. Tomorrow's technology will be able to provide even more power in the same package to fight against even heavier wind.
When it comes to constant winds, it's not the weight or size but the propulsion power.
Now weight does play a part in buffeting changes in wind, since then we're dealing with inertia resisting changes in force, which is related to weight.
No amount of repetition, generalisation, false equivalence or appeal to what might be possible with future technological advances might serve to rehabilitate your argument to the point it is relevant to the original proposition as framed by the OP or to defy the laws of physics as we know them. Assuming you had a propulsion system available to provide a house brick with the same power to weight ratio as a cotton wool bud- which would perform better in windy conditions?Technological advances do allow more power in smaller space and weight. I've given examples. More powerful gasoline engines becoming smaller and lighter. Battery technology making more power and energy in smaller spaces. Because of this I'm referring to theory where it's power that matters. Size and weight to achieve the needed power is incidental and subject to improvement.
Heck the Mini itself proves it. It would be inconceivable a decade ago. Technology then would have required more weight/size to achieve the needed power that the Mini now delivers. But it's still the power that's needed to combat the wind. If you can achieve the needed propulsion power to combat heavy wind in the space and weight of a flea, it will work. I know we currently can't achieve propulsion power needed to combat 50mph winds in the space of a flea, but someday we will.
My first flight was during rather strong wind (about 25mph) but the mini had no problems with the wind. It was shaken and the shot looked quite good!Not surprising being only 249g
What would you suggest it’s max wind level?
The only point your approaching here might be to bring those who are versed in the laws of physics close to tears of frustration."Assuming you had a propulsion system available to provide a house brick with the same power to weight ratio as a cotton wool bud- which would perform better in windy conditions?"
With power to weight ratio, brick of course as you have more absolute power.
But absolute propulsion power being equal among the two, in constant wind it would be equal.
Actually you're right, there is a mass to power constant in physics. It's the speed of light squared. Well energy really but since that energy can be release nearly instantly, we can also call it power.
I know that's extreme but I use it to get my point that there is no defined mass to power ratio constant in physics. It's only in the available and applied technology.
As a retired Commercial Pilot, I can whole heartedly aggree with that.its main enemy, is finding itself in a situation it cant handle,because its pilot put it there ,whenever our mavs have issues of any sort its mostly down to pilot error,as @sar104 will attest to when he checks the Datt files,yes they do go wrong but not that often, its all down to how they are maintained and flown
Looking at different forums on this drone it seems the wind isn't the only issue - as I said before, this product is for the "California Sunshine Brigade" to get under the weight limit so no registration. Even there, the number of flyaway is ridiculous. I can't help thinking its just a sophisticated toy - unsafe in "variable" conditions and therefore a total waste of money for the UK or anywhere where there is more than a summer breeze ( but I wouldn't want to fly it even in a "breeze" ). It also looks like its weight has already become irrelevant as new US FAA "suggestions for the future" are geared to ALL drones having to be registered and effectively chipped. The Mavic Air is a far better bet in my humble opinion.
I don’t agree, I’ve been flying this in Yorkshire for over a month now, flown it in winds well beyond its specification. Yes, you have to be mindful and understand how RTH works, consequences of loss of WiFi etc. it’s still very capable for its size if you respect it.Looking at different forums on this drone it seems the wind isn't the only issue - as I said before, this product is for the "California Sunshine Brigade" to get under the weight limit so no registration. Even there, the number of flyaway is ridiculous. I can't help thinking its just a sophisticated toy - unsafe in "variable" conditions and therefore a total waste of money for the UK or anywhere where there is more than a summer breeze ( but I wouldn't want to fly it even in a "breeze" ). It also looks like its weight has already become irrelevant as new US FAA "suggestions for the future" are geared to ALL drones having to be registered and effectively chipped. The Mavic Air is a far better bet in my humble opinion.