Most AR owners have broken one or more central crosses. I would like to improve that, but I need your help. I own a small fabrication shop, and I am working to produce a replacement cross. In order to build and test prototypes, I need a supply of broken crosses. I would pay at least shipping costs and perhaps a few dollars more if you'd like to sell your broken cross to me.
It hard to recover much money from a broken central cross, but you can help me out and make a few bucks instead of just throwing it away.
My goal is to have a solution which can sell for less than the Sport Cross, be more flexible than the stock cross, and still be flight stable.
Send me a message if you can help. Thanks!
Replies
Damn I should've sent you mine! I just snapped it about a month ago. I was able to repair it myself pretty easy. Here's an article on how to repair your central cross if anyone is interested.
http://dronelifestyle.com/how-to-repair-parrot-ar-drone-2-0/
Thanks to all who responded. I did receive two broken crosses (Thank you R.) which was enough for me to try a couple different ideas:
1) Replace the carbon fiber with aluminum.
2) Replace the rigid center cross with a flexible frame.
Both tests were successful, in that they achieved the goal of crash survivability. Both however, also had problems.
1) The aluminum arm model was lighter than stock. Most crashes under 20 feet resulted in a bent arm which was easily straightened. Flight stability seemed to be very good, and unaffected. A more serious crash would break or crease one or more arms, which then required replacement. This replacement cost less than $1, but took about 20 minutes time. The worst problem was the radio signal interference cause which seemed to be caused by the aluminum. This made flying beyond 50m (with no boosters) a bit iffy.
2) The flexible frame model was slightly heavier than stock, but the design allowed me to completely eliminate the hull, which was a net weight savings. In all crash tests, I never succeeded in breaking the frame or any carbon fiber arm. The problem was unstable flight. The prop arms would get to vibrating, and even resonating, which resulted in jerky flight and very poor camera stability.
I am now working on a different frame, but for the most part my experiments are over. I learned several valuable lessons:
a) Parrot really created an excellent design. Yes, the cross breaks, but it is stable in flight, is very light, isolates the main and nav boards well, and optimizes several competing variables.
b) The Sport Cross is also well designed, and it is quite impressive that the retail price is as low as it is.
c) The announcement of the BeBop removes most of the motivation for further improvement. I think Parrot is on the right track to create an even smaller UAV Quad, for the reasons of public opinion, safety, economy, and strength.
Thanks to all who responded. It has been very interesting to try out some different ideas. I hope to get a chance to test the BeBop, and will maybe work on some mods for it when it is released.