This week the Raptor 140 completed a 30km (18.6mi) fully autonomous flight! It only used 58% of it's 8.8Ah batteries, giving it a potential ability to cover 51.2km (31.8mi) on a single charge, the whole time flying at 75kph (47mph) for 40+ minutes! Impressive...

Some additional metrics to consider: is average amp draw was 12.8amps, or 21% of the 60amp esc, also it had a 5.8km/Ah (3.6mi/Ah) efficiency, meaning that if I added an additional amp hour of battery life, it could cover an additional 5.8km or 3.6mi. The original Raptor did an average of 5.5km/Ah.

Next week I'll start pushing the speed limit, seeing how fast and far the 140 can go. My end goal is to be able to cruise at 100kph (62mph) and still have a reasonable efficiency.

Also, I've been asked by dozens of people if I'd make a 140 for them, so I will! Starting in November I'll start selling Raptor 140 kits on my website: I plan on shipping worldwide and will have kits available starting at $89.99.

See you next week!




Raptor 140 Stats:
Weight: 1653g
Max Flight Time: 60min
Max Range: 50km
Stall Speed: 25kph
Cruise Speed: 75kph
Max Speed: 127kph
Radio Range: 1.5km


The equipment on it:
Autopilot: APM2.6
FPV/Onboard Camera:
Radio Tx: ParkeFlyer Turnigy 9x Tx:
Reciever: 6ch FlySky
Telemtry: 915mhz 100mW 3DR
Battery: 4.4Ah 30C Sky Lipo:
ESC: 60A Brushless
Motor: 3542 1450kv brushless
Prop: 10x6 Carbon Fiber Folding
Servos: 11g digital
UBEC (for FPV camera): 3A


Learn More:
Raptor Details:
USA Trip Details:


Follow the Show:
Skype: MyGeekShow


Filmed, Edited, Produced and Published by Trent in Arkansas, USA

Views: 7508

Comment by Gary Mortimer on October 26, 2013 at 4:26am

As ever thanks for posting Trent, I look forward to your videos on a Saturday now.

Comment by Trent at MyGeekShow on October 26, 2013 at 4:31am

Thanks Gary! Me too! Is it bad that I watch my own videos like 3 times after I post them? : )

Comment by AKRCGUY on October 26, 2013 at 5:32am
Congrats Trent! I've followed your progress since the beginning and this is truly an accomplishment.
Comment by Trent at MyGeekShow on October 26, 2013 at 5:50am

Thank you for your support Adam! I think the biggest accomplishment is this community, it had endlessly supported me throughout my many, many mistakes : )

Comment by R. D. Starwalt on October 26, 2013 at 7:10am

Great post and video Trent. Your editing has significantly improved and the pacing of the information is great.


Comment by vaqas afzal on October 26, 2013 at 9:11am

great!!!!!! u did it with 3dr radios??? 

Comment by Mark Bateson on October 26, 2013 at 9:33am

Trent, your video work has improved quite a bit and congratulations with your results. I need to point out a few safety issues though. You were flying at 180m (590') and with the heavy fog you had no visual eyes on the aircraft or even worse the airspace that you're operating in. As you know you need to stay below 400', maintain line-of-sight, and clearly watch/listen to your airspace or your intention of doing good, could potentially be detrimental to our hobby.

Your video is all the evidence the FAA would need to shut you and the rest of us down. In your next video please talk about safety and show everyone the right way to do this.

Comment by Trent at MyGeekShow on October 26, 2013 at 10:15am

RD: Thank you! It is a little different, I'm still deciding on whether or not I like it. Glad you do!

Vegas: Yes, 900mhz 3DR radios were used for the telemetry.

Comment by Trent at MyGeekShow on October 26, 2013 at 11:06am

Mark: Thank you for your comment. I too strongly believe safety is a priority, and am happy to see there are others out there as passionate about it as I am. A few things: 

  • I actually kept it ~100m AGL for most of the flight. My altimeter reads 180m as I took off in the low part of the valley, so I needed to increase the cruise altitude to remain at a safe distance from the ground.
  • I didn't know that the fog was that low or dense, and you are right, in hindsight I should have brought it back and flown another day. I've learned that lesson.
  • 99% of my flights stay within the recommendation of the FAA's AC 91-57 (which, as you many know only applies to RC aircraft that are within 3 miles of an airport, and I am 5.6 miles from a small airport). Outside of that, it simply doesn't apply. Watch the FAA/AMA meeting a year ago: and the FAA representatives say there isn't an altitude limit, but instead of rule of safety. I am not perfect, but I try my best to live to a law of safety, and am learning and improving each day.

Comment by frederic reblewski on October 26, 2013 at 11:22am

good work.

I am confused. you say the flight was 30 km @ 75 km/h but was 40+ minutes. @75km/h it should be around 24 minutes?

from 75km/h to 100km/h there should not be any significant change of the drag coefficient ( at "high speed" induced drag has a low impact on the total drag and @ 75km/h the reynolds number is already in the 300K range so the drag coefficient reduction of the airfoil will be minimum ). so to have a rough idea we can consider that neither the drag coefficient nor the prolusion efficiency will change significantly. in that case power consumed changes with the 3rd power of the speed change. here (100/75)^3 is around 2.4. so if your amp draw is 12.8A @ 75km/h you should see an amp draw of around 30A at 100km/h

from your numbers it seems that the overall efficiency is very low: an equivalent overall drag coeficient ( including propulsion efficiency ) of around 0.09 which seems very high. it is likely that the main area of optimization is the propulsion. a propeller with a larger diameter at lower rpm is usually a good first step


You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service