The future of RC aircraft

[3rdof5]

I find it interesting to watch the evolution of all the RC aircraft. Dji has been a leader and at the forefront of innovation in the last decade. Their aircraft are in a league of their own with both cameras and flight capabilities. Are they at the limit of what can be improved? I currently have 3 of their models and love them all for different reasons. But honestly, I really don't forsee any new features that will make me want to upgrade or add to my fleet (see my fleet in my signature). I'm currently adding a flywing helicopter, no camera, no obstacle avoidance, but yes it does have GPS and the sticks behave exactly as they do with a Dji quad. I'm purchasing it for fun flying. It sounds and looks so cool. It has about a 15 minute flight time and a 1 mile range. Far lower specs than any of my Dji drones but I don't care. This will be a blast to fly! It's got to the point where the specs are less important than the enjoyment of flight. Gotta love technology

 

[Riptide]

I find it interesting to watch the evolution of all the RC aircraft. Dji has been a leader and at the forefront of innovation in the last decade. Their aircraft are in a league of their own with both cameras and flight capabilities. Are they at the limit of what can be improved? I currently have 3 of their models and love them all for different reasons. But honestly, I really don't forsee any new features that will make me want to upgrade or add to my fleet (see my fleet in my signature). I'm currently adding a flywing helicopter, no camera, no obstacle avoidance, but yes it does have GPS and the sticks behave exactly as they do with a Dji quad. I'm purchasing it for fun flying. It sounds and looks so cool. It has about a 15 minute flight time and a 1 mile range. Far lower specs than any of my Dji drones but I don't care. This will be a blast to fly! It's got to the point where the specs are less important than the enjoyment of flight. Gotta love technology

It really depends on what you're using them for. If you're into photography than either a Mavic 3 or 4 pro would be a nice upgrade over your Mavic 3 Classic; however, if you're just flying for fun then I can see fewer reasons to upgrade your fleet.

 

[3rdof5]

It really depends on what you're using them for. If you're into photography than either a Mavic 3 or 4 pro would be a nice upgrade over your Mavic 3 Classic; however, if you're just flying for fun then I can see fewer reasons to upgrade your fleet.

Ya I'm not a professional photographer but I do like quality video and pics and all my quads provide that. My Mavic 3 is my flagship and flies all the long distant photo missions with zero issues. The mini 4 pro is awesome and the fact that both of them have obstacle avoidance and are compatible with my Goggles2/mc2 is perfect for my needs. And the NEO is, well, probably the best idea Dji ever had. I love that little bird. Now I have a beast of a heli, something cool and fun just for that reason. Lol

 

[mavic3usa]

I see a lot of room for improvement for DJI. Where shall I begin:

1. Beacon for tracking.
2. They need to improve their OA to Skydio level
3. One day we get 2, 3 or 4 hour batteries (to support BVLOS) will make our current drones more like toys.
4. Completely stealth or near stealth with so little prop noise, you can't hear it over 50 feet away.
5. Cine/Regular/Sport mode, add Hyper mode and let's get speeds up to 90 mph to take advantage of long range and battery life.
6. 5G integration
7. We need some serious improvement on aircraft detection and avoidance to stay safe in the sky.
8. Kevlar or unbreakable lightweight materials so minor crashes or collisions are irrelevant.
9. complete AI intergration
10. SDK

 

[3rdof5]

I see a lot of room for improvement for DJI. Where shall I begin:

1. Beacon for tracking.
2. They need to improve their OA to Skydio level
3. One day we get 2, 3 or 4 hour batteries (to support BVLOS) will make our current drones more like toys.
4. Completely stealth or near stealth with so little prop noise, you can't hear it over 50 feet away.
5. Cine/Regular/Sport mode, add Hyper mode and let's get speeds up to 90 mph to take advantage of long range and battery life.
6. 5G integration
7. We need some serious improvement on aircraft detection and avoidance to stay safe in the sky.
8. Kevlar or unbreakable lightweight materials so minor crashes or collisions are irrelevant.
9. complete AI intergration
10. SDK

Agreed on all points! I stand corrected, there is definitely room for improvement!

 

[AeroJ]

9. complete AI intergration

No !!! Have you not seen Terminator ?!

 

[Rchawks]

That was a scary movie. Funny so many things back in the day that seemed to be fantasy turn out to come true. **** Tracy watch, AI, Jetsons, Max Headroom, Tasers. Beam me up Scotty! Ok maybe we’re not quite there yet and things that could go wrong ( have you seen the movie The Fly?).

 

[Cafguy]

I have many DJI Drones, The best thing DJI could do is make the cameras and gimbals on their drones.. removable ..
That way you could "practice" without worry of destroying the most expensive part!

 

[AeroJ]

I have many DJI Drones, The best thing DJI could do is make the cameras and gimbals on their drones.. removable ..
That way you could "practice" without worry of destroying the most expensive part!

They do give us a very good flight simulator, which is almost as good !

But I still remember my Yuneec Hex with its detachable cams and whatnot, very helpful initially.

 

[Droning on and on...]

That was a scary movie. Funny so many things back in the day that seemed to be fantasy turn out to come true. **** Tracy watch, AI, Jetsons, Max Headroom, Tasers. Beam me up Scotty! Ok maybe we’re not quite there yet and things that could go wrong ( have you seen the movie The Fly?).

"D i c k" is a perfectly normal, unoffensive first name, and shouldn't be censored by the site filters.

 

[wclugston]

"D i c k" is a perfectly normal, unoffensive first name, and shouldn't be censored by the site filters.

Wonder how many of us remember the "D_i_c_k Tracy" comic strip?

 

[mavic3usa]

I see a lot of room for improvement for DJI. Where shall I begin:

1. Beacon for tracking.
2. They need to improve their OA to Skydio level
3. One day we get 2, 3 or 4 hour batteries (to support BVLOS) will make our current drones more like toys.
4. Completely stealth or near stealth with so little prop noise, you can't hear it over 50 feet away.
5. Cine/Regular/Sport mode, add Hyper mode and let's get speeds up to 90 mph to take advantage of long range and battery life.
6. 5G integration
7. We need some serious improvement on aircraft detection and avoidance to stay safe in the sky.
8. Kevlar or unbreakable lightweight materials so minor crashes or collisions are irrelevant.
9. complete AI intergration
10. SDK

One more item:

As Fall colors begin the wrap up, there are so many large areas of colorful trees the long-life battery of the Mavic 3 Pro is ideal to cover as much ground as possible without having to swap batteries and go back to pickup where you left off. But what good is it if after 20 minutes or still 70% battery left you've basically hit the limit because the O3 (or O3+) is so limited that you can barely get BVLOS even if you wanted to. Sure the M3P has the ability to go long range and the capability is there under ideal conditions but in practice, the signal fluctuates so much and the stupid warnings are so prevalent that you basically have to give up and find a new location before you trigger a RTH or have to wait to regain the signal (i.e. you can't see much on the display or pay attention to the subject on the display that it is stuttering and freezing). At one point, I hear a helicopter coming and I'm at 200 feet and pretty far out but I was afraid to dip down to 50 feet because that would have let to a disconnect for sure....

I don't know if O4 is the answer but we could use some O9, not exactly for the long range, but for a good solid connection to keep control, not so prone to interference and cutouts, and a more reliable video feed. So I'm changing #6 to:

• 5G integration and O9+ implementation

 

[GadgetGuy]

I have many DJI Drones, The best thing DJI could do is make the cameras and gimbals on their drones.. removable ..
That way you could "practice" without worry of destroying the most expensive part!

Actually, that's exactly what I did when I sent in my Mavic 2 Pro camera for replacement and kept the drone during the replacement. It was quite a different experience, needing to fly VLOS with no FPV screen! Pretty much worry free.

 

[GadgetGuy]

One more item:

As Fall colors begin the wrap up, there are so many large areas of colorful trees the long-life battery of the Mavic 3 Pro is ideal to cover as much ground as possible without having to swap batteries and go back to pickup where you left off. But what good is it if after 20 minutes or still 70% battery left you've basically hit the limit because the O3 (or O3+) is so limited that you can barely get BVLOS even if you wanted to. Sure the M3P has the ability to go long range and the capability is there under ideal conditions but in practice, the signal fluctuates so much and the stupid warnings are so prevalent that you basically have to give up and find a new location before you trigger a RTH or have to wait to regain the signal (i.e. you can't see much on the display or pay attention to the subject on the display that it is stuttering and freezing). At one point, I hear a helicopter coming and I'm at 200 feet and pretty far out but I was afraid to dip down to 50 feet because that would have let to a disconnect for sure....

I don't know if O4 is the answer but we could use some O9, not exactly for the long range, but for a good solid connection to keep control, not so prone to interference and cutouts, and a more reliable video feed. So I'm changing #6 to:

• 5G integration and O9+ implementation

That's what the cellular dongles are designed for.
Alas, we can't use them in the U.S.!
I'd even accept 4G!

 

[3rdof5]

One more item:

As Fall colors begin the wrap up, there are so many large areas of colorful trees the long-life battery of the Mavic 3 Pro is ideal to cover as much ground as possible without having to swap batteries and go back to pickup where you left off. But what good is it if after 20 minutes or still 70% battery left you've basically hit the limit because the O3 (or O3+) is so limited that you can barely get BVLOS even if you wanted to. Sure the M3P has the ability to go long range and the capability is there under ideal conditions but in practice, the signal fluctuates so much and the stupid warnings are so prevalent that you basically have to give up and find a new location before you trigger a RTH or have to wait to regain the signal (i.e. you can't see much on the display or pay attention to the subject on the display that it is stuttering and freezing). At one point, I hear a helicopter coming and I'm at 200 feet and pretty far out but I was afraid to dip down to 50 feet because that would have let to a disconnect for sure....

I don't know if O4 is the answer but we could use some O9, not exactly for the long range, but for a good solid connection to keep control, not so prone to interference and cutouts, and a more reliable video feed. So I'm changing #6 to:

• 5G integration and O9+ implementation

Ultimately satelite or cellular will be the only way to extend range to basically unlimited. The current "line of sight" protocol is great but will always be limited. But this opens up other considerations, safety being foremost. There is a very good reason VLOS rules exist. I'll admit freely I've flown many DJI aircraft BVLOS illegally. I'm in Canada and have easy access to many areas with little to no air traffic and no people to worry about so the safety issue is not a big issue but it is never a non issue. And I'm aware of that every time I fly. Bird strikes are always a possibility and I have dealt with birds after getting too close to their nests. I'm aware of the dangers that exist no matter what the capabilities of the aircraft are. Will any manufacturer ever build a "drone" that will always be safe BVLOS? No. Even manned aircraft is never 100% safe (see the movie Sully). For photography purposes, the range and capabilities of the Mavic 3 far exceed what is needed IMO.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Ultimately satelite or cellular will be the only way to extend range to basically unlimited. The current "line of sight" protocol is great but will always be limited. But this opens up other considerations, safety being foremost. There is a very good reason VLOS rules exist. I'll admit freely I've flown many DJI aircraft BVLOS illegally. I'm in Canada and have easy access to many areas with little to no air traffic and no people to worry about so the safety issue is not a big issue but it is never a non issue. And I'm aware of that every time I fly. Bird strikes are always a possibility and I have dealt with birds after getting too close to their nests. I'm aware of the dangers that exist no matter what the capabilities of the aircraft are. Will any manufacturer ever build a "drone" that will always be safe BVLOS? No. Even manned aircraft is never 100% safe (see the movie Sully). For photography purposes, the range and capabilities of the Mavic 3 far exceed what is needed IMO.

I would argue that the main reason for VLOS was to limit the search area for the pilot before RID. If it was about truly about safety, why are VLOS waivers being granted to law enforcement in urban areas to remotely fly drones out of boxes on rooftops from remote bunkers miles away even at night in the same airspace we can legally fly in? With current OA, Lidar, OA camera views, and IR, drones can even safely be flown in the dark. It's all about controlling who gets to use the airspace, not about safety, especially if maintaining LOS to optimize signal strength. VLOS is an unnecessary restriction. The manned aircraft you need to be aware of can physically be seen and heard from miles away. You don’t need to be able to physically see your drone with your naked eyes to know where it is in relation to hazards when you have FPV and also have ears and eyes that can see and hear the hazards.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I would argue that the main reason for VLOS was to limit the search area for the pilot before RID. If it was about truly about safety, why are VLOS waivers being granted to law enforcement in urban areas to remotely fly drones out of boxes on rooftops from remote bunkers miles away even at night in the same airspace we can legally fly in?

I can't agree.

If LE and other professionals were as careless, untrained, and idiotic as countless recreational flyers I've directly experienced, perhaps. But that simply isn't the case. The public officials you are referring to get their waivers as a condition of far more knowledge, training, and certification than the average idiot that thought drones looked like fun.

As one salient point, they're all 107 certified, as required.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I can't agree.

If LE and other professionals were as careless, untrained, and idiotic as countless recreational flyers I've directly experienced, perhaps. But that simply isn't the case. The public officials you are referring to get their waivers as a condition of far more knowledge, training, and certification than the average idiot that thought drones looked like fun.

As one salient point, they're all 107 certified, as required.

The main point is that VLOS doesn't truly make anything safer. Requiring a careless, idiotic recreational flyer to fly VLOS does not make them any safer, nor does VLOS enhance the safety of any skilled recreational pilot who maintains clear LOS

One million recreational drone flyers managed just fine without VLOS before the VLOS requirement, and all FPV drones are flown completely without VLOS. VLOS is a technical requirement that was imposed to restricts the search area for the pilot before RID.

The real safety requirement should be clear LOS, as it assures no loss of signal, and a direct view of any manned aircraft that one can easily see and hear, while occasionally looking up from the FPV screen, instead of vice versa.

Much like GEO that preceded RID, and is therefore no longer necessary, with RID, the VLOS requirement should also be eliminated and replaced with maintaining clear LOS.

 

[AeroJ]

The real safety requirement should be clear LOS, as it assures no loss of signal, and a direct view of any manned aircraft that one can easily see and hear, while occasionally looking up from the FPV screen, instead of vice versa.

Yep - that. Succinctly put.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The main point is that VLOS doesn't truly make anything safer. Requiring a careless, idiotic recreational flyer to fly VLOS does not make them any safer, nor does VLOS enhance the safety of any skilled recreational pilot who maintains clear LOS

One million recreational drone flyers managed just fine without VLOS before the VLOS requirement, and all FPV drones are flown completely without VLOS.

On this, if you've read my posts around here, you'll know I agree 100%. I'm solidly in the camp that VLOS and the FPV Observer Rule are meaningless over-reach, and the safety stats over time demonstrate that. Including the moron brigade of the recreational public.

Don't get how making this point necessitated taking a swipe at professional first responders, though, who are a completely different breed all being 107 certified.

The 400ft/120m rule on the other hand is very important, and it distresses me every time I read hear about someone deliberately violating that rule. Another example of the moron contingent.

VLOS is a technical requirement that was imposed to restricts the search area for the pilot before RID.

Here again we part ways. I've never seen anything, ever, to even hint that this was a motivator. Strikes me as paranoid conspiracy theory.

I think the motivations for the VLOS rule are exactly what the FAA say they are. Motivations don't have to be rooted in actual substance, but can be simply overly cautious, as are a lot of the sUAS rules, treating them like a threat equal to full-size aircraft in the danger they present. Not surprising given that's the starting point of the regulations.