1 hour 20 minutes
- APM 2.5 takes the world record for Multi-Copter Duration of Flight powered by a rechargeable battery. [note:  records also exist for hover that can occur indoors and take advantage of ground affect]

Flight Requirements:

- Distance > 1 kilometer

- Minimum elevation from ground the greater of 2 meters or two prop diameters (no ground affect)

- Lands within 50 meters of Launch

- Minimum of two way points > 0.25 km apart

- Altitude Climbs: Two climbs > 100 meters each

- Ends before voltage drops below recommended minimum level for recharging

- Flight over ground that does not vary more than + 20 meters in elevation

Actual Flight

- Distance: 1 - 2 km

- Min elevation 2 meters

- Ended at start

- Three way points with two 0.3 km apart

- Two climbs:  126 meters and 112 meters

- 13.06 volts left with 10 volt recommended minimum

- Ground + 10 meters

Time:  > 1hr and 20 minutes (81.43 minutes)


- Octa 2XQuad 6Up+2Dn (wanted to fly something novel that would show off the flexibility of APM 2.5)

- 3.18 kg AUW

- Li-Ion battery

Attached are the flight logs.  Later I'll provide:

o Video

o Earthview of flight

o Altitude gains

o Details of the copter (design and weights)

Views: 20839


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

John, I agree with everything you wrote, except for the concept that these machines could help you.  They haven't been shown to do anything except hover in one spot at low altitude and very low airspeeds, while lifting nothing that could be useful to you.  They exist simply to exist.

If they aren't lifting something on the order of 1lb of payload, then they aren't "advancing the breed" any more than F1 cars lead to better road cars.  Yes, there is some very minor amount of trickle-down, but effort spent here has very limited returns compared to the same efforts spent developing towards your actual end goals.

Heck, if having an eye in the sky is all that's important to you, then you would be much, much better off looking at a fixed wing UAV with a gimballed camera.  They have demonstrated ability to remain airborne for hours and hours.  And could actually move to another location easily for a closer inspection. 

Well done Gary.

A wee suggestion to make this fun and "fair".  Applicant for the following badges has to submit a log file showing:

o M60 - a 60 meter of elevation gain along with a 0.6km course run.

o M90 - a 90 meter of elevation gain along with a .9km course run.

o M120 - a total of 120 meters of elevation gains along with a 1.2km course run.

o etc.

Time recorded when the ship is > 2m above ground (no ground affect which adds 25% to times).  Easy to tell from the log.

The above will help minimize the use of artificial air lift around objects and heat sources and keep the rules simple.  What do you think?

What you're suggesting is that the entries require an average groundspeed of 0.16 m/s?  What is the point including that at all?  It seems meaningless to me?  It seems to me that the only reason to include this requirement is to exclude previous flight records who only bothered to hover in one place.  Such a glacial pace could be achieved by any machine.

If you want to put a minimum speed requirement on it, why not 5 m/s?

I'm going to try to rise to your challenge Gary.

My next ship will try for 90 minutes, fly more than 900 meters (back and forth), raise more than 90 meters, all while documenting the flight from a go-pro mounted to it's platform :-)

I promise to post the results success or fail.  Now if it will just get above -5C outside!

Emin Bu, I support your position in this matter 100%, and was a disciple of the EndofDays thread over on RcG as well.  Personally, I got no dog in this fight, but all this bantering about records detracts from accomplishments of those folks less financially empowered or technically skilled.  We all should be supportive and encourage one another and be inspired by those accomplishments of our fellows that exceed our own.

And now I read of all this "Badging" business .. Geese Louise .. starting to look like Lettering Junior Varsity, and we shouldn't even be going there mi amigos.  If Forrest or anyone else is inclined/inspired to exceed Ferdinand's record then perhaps just replicate Ferdinand's latest build, and fly at cruise for greatest efficiency with an attendant longer duration.  And I gotta tellya .. with 2,463"^2 swept area and 9.2" pitch, that puppy'll probably cruise at 30mph and cover some serious ground in 2 1/2 hours.

Yeah yeah .. Amazon Pizza Delivery .. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ  The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948



Dear John :-)...sometimes I wish my native is English to express myself just like u did,i also agree with u and Robert 100%...

Emin, i am glad that you finally resolve to constructive technical discussions after you have stirred this whole personal flaming game.

Back then to the technical hints you propose for efficiency:
-we had indeed identified the MN3510-360 as one of the best efficient and light motors (see posts on this topic of Forrest and I a few months ago). I bought one to have it tested on the bench of Forrest. Result is max props that can be used with this motor before failing is 15x5.5 . So 20 inch props are not useable on this model (wattage is just too high for this motor)
- for efficiency a flat octo is certainly better than an X8

That's interesting why do you say that Hugues? Make it simple terms so I can understand.

Yes. We did a few months ago extensive testing as you can read in this long blog post here :


Motors were tested by Frorest on his bench here :


If you have the courage to read it all, you will see how good these Rc tiger MN3510-360 motors are.

The issue for me was my craft being 7Kg needed a certain level of thrust to hover at 50%. This was only possible with these MN3510 using 6S batteries. When Forrest did the testing with 15x5 props, at high throttle the motor burned ! (exceeded the maximum wattage by far).

I think Forrest's conclusion was that the Sunnysky 400Kv was cheaper and practically as good as the tiger one.

-Why is a flat octo more efficient than an X8? first efficiency means here flight duration (not compactness where X8 is better of course). Because of the coax configuration, the upper prop blows turbulences on the lower prop. Some notice an efficiency drop up to 25% versus an undisturbed air flow. There was a good article of NASA (see attached) about this.


we all know flat octa is more efficient,but having 20 inch props wold make a craft of 1.5m diameter....


Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service