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: 20968


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Still waiting for an explanation of by whom this has been determined to be a "World Record".

Great insight on efficiency and you are clearly correct.  If you can build light enough, drop the Kv low enough to spin a large prop, hence getting the current low, then the Li-Ions can work for flight.  When I get back from vacation in January, I'll start more tests on batteries, including some Li-Poly.

Excellent question on props.  Answer is both were true.  T-Motor makes great propellers too.  I asked if they wanted to sponsor me and didn't get a reply.  If so, I would have flown all Tiger, including the ESCs.  Prop tests showed little difference in the 15" category between this particular imitation prop and the T-Motor competition. Since I had eight of the imitation, I flew with them versus paying $800 for the T-Motor.  However, tests also showed that the T-Motor 16" prop may be the best in combination with that motor.  But the frame was built for 15" so went with the 15".  The T-Motor 17" prop takes too large of a jump in weight.  Their 18" prop shows promise.  Also just found another 15.6" imitation prop that looks promising. 

There is a lot of room for breaking this record.  I hope to learn from someone else.  They have until my summer, where I intend to fly the next build when the cold doesn't take so much out of the battery.  Flight competition is great for the evolution of technology.

Hi Forest,


Can you provide some link to the "15.6" imitation prop"?



Thank you, but the real thanks goes to the APM developers that created this amazing APM device.

Your questions are excellent Oliver.  International certification is an issue.  How does someone in Tanzania or India, or China certify their flight?  Just because they are not in Europe or the US, does that mean that they can't participate?  Being from the US, I don't think that is fair nor is it right.  Maybe you share that belief?

In the spirit of the Wright Brothers, some of us are proceeding ahead full steam to put the technology before ourselves.  Full disclosure after the experiment for anyone to repeat it.  Full disclosure of the logs.  A video record.  Use the foundation of the scientific method where anyone can recreate the experiment. This creates beatable community certified records that will advance design, the components and the ships.  Yes, your record won't last long, but that's the point.

The requirements for multi-copter flight were designed to minimize the following:

o Use of thermals (advantage varies)

o Use of ground affect.

o Use of altitude drop.

o Use of controlled environments.

o Use of non-rechargeable battery technology.

And then prove that the ship is capable of a mission:

o Altitude gain.

o Distance flight.

For those interested in "closed" design, an independent body to certify is critical because no one else has the information to recreate the flight.

For those of us only interested in advancing the technology, community certification is not only adequate, it is the foundation of all science, open, and fair to all people across the globe.

That's all well and good but does not meet any accepted criteria for labeling something  a "World Record."  We are in the middle of watching the chaos caused by people defining their own terms as they please and imposing them on others, in the Amazon/Bozo debacle. Likewise, to claim a "World Record" by what turns out to be the standards of an undefined, unrecognized group both dilutes the language and diminishes the accomplishment itself. You can define and set a "World Record" of some sort like that every day. I currently hold the "World Record" for transporting aspirin tablets on a quadcopter weighing less than 33 grams. You make yourself look like a fool with an ego the size of Brazil by playing that game, which nobody would care about if it wasn't associated with the rest of us by our presence in the same room. It's like having a doddering uncle who farts at the dinner table. At the least it's embarrassing. And incidentally more than one person suspects that the parameters were defined after the flight itself. All of this is a result of using an inappropriate term (and then standing on it) in describing your not inconsiderable accomplishment. Too bad. But at least my question is answered: There is no new world record.


 You make yourself look like a fool with an ego the size of Brazil by playing that game

Wow dude - I think you might be making the same mistake.  Please be a bit more kind in your life.


@Kevin Hester:

I stand by every word of what I wrote and would respond to your insult via a private message but this system won't allow that without my "befriending" you, which I don't care to do. So I'll keep it civil and just say that if brown-nosing poseurs is your thing, have at it, but kindly don't "dude" me and presume to tell me what to do, especially in regards to something about which you have not a clue.

Hi Oliver,

I didn't mean to offend (really!).  

I was just trying to convey: There are kinder ways of addressing the (reasonable) concern you have about what this 'record' means.  When I read Forrest's post I was like "wow - that is a long and super impressive flight, but yes the record aspect was a bit underspecified ;-)".  I presume it was just Forrest's way of saying "I think I now have a record length flight to report."

If you had said something like this I would had have no problem with it, but it just seemed like there was an awful lot of unhelpful hostility in your post.  We jointly create the sort of environment we want here and it seems like tossing extra crankiness into it was helping no one.


Hold on; where was the insult?

> There is no new world record


What is the current one for multi-rotors?

Good work Forrest.

Reply to Discussion


© 2020   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service