Posted by Michael Donat on October 5, 2009 at 11:52pm
Im looking to start a UAV project based on the Dynam Hawk Sky which I had posted a day or so back. I got a lot of comments on the radio system saying its junk, and cannot be used because it does not have a 5th or AUX channel for the AutoPilot. As an 18 year old working at RadioShack, I cant really afford a new radio system let alone the components for AutoPilot, but I figure if I put a little money away every check or so I could have myself a UAV built up before Christmas. (An early Christmas present for myself if you will. c=) So I will be using the stock radio gear. Though its advertised as 35mhz, I got a confirmation from a recent buyer of the plane that it is 72mhz as presumed by others in my last post.My question is:Could i Sacrifice my Rudder's channel on the RX for use in the AutoPiolot beings that the plane im using has ailerons?and maybe even mod my TX to disconnect the rudder's control input, drill a small hole and wire it to a simple toggle switch?Any help would be appreciated.-Mike
I've had one of these from R2hobbies (same set, different stickers) for almost a year with receivers in 3 planes. I ground tested it out to 600m although TX antenna orientation is important past 500m. It looks like they've added some features since I bought one. The PC software is very basic but works for channels 1-4. I briefly tried to use ch5 and ch6 and couldn't get them working; probably didn't try hard enough. I bought some HobbyKing receivers which work perfectly with the R2Hobbies TX (They have longer antennas).
Construction quality is about the same as Dynam (reasonably robust); internally, Similar quality to a year old Futaba 6 or 7 channel TX I repaired recently.
These don't work with 2.4G video; range much reduced. I checked it out with a spectrum analyzer. The RC picks a 2.4G frequency when turned on and stays there. Even when it's at the opposite end of the band to the video they still interfere. I tested with a 10mW VTX on the plane and 8dbi RX patch.
the tx looks pretty cheapy, but i guess its better than the stock gear. $32 for a reviver and transmitter, what a deal. but at 2.4Ghz im going to have to find a new camera system. any recommendations?
The HawkSky flys well without rudder. I think I've only used rudder a few times in the last year; by mistake :). I probably should learn to use it.
The receiver supplied is 5-channel but it's only a park range receiver at best. The transmitter is 4-channel but I think actually transmits 5 channels. There's a connection on the pcb in the TX labeled CH5 but it doesn't work. It looks like the chip pin is programmed as an output as it sinks current when connected through a resistor to +5V (don't short the CH5 connector).
If you do get the HawkSky you will need a better receiver and servos before long. The Corona RP8D1 receiver works well with Dynam transmitters at a good price and the cheap HXT900 servos are OK. You could get a 6-channel transmitter or a second-hand set as mentioned. I've used a Turborix 6-channel TX with Corona receivers on 72MHz with no problems to 1Km+. Turborix from R2Hobbies is the same as WFLY from HobbyKing.
Well good luck and I feel your pain at not being able to afford everything at once!!
Best not to try an mod the TX, you can, but its a mission and it might just end up not working.
A cheap airframe and radio setup is a great way to learn to fly, but might not be the most cost efficient way of getting a UAS together. All the compromises will add up to hours of headaches and poor performance.
I think a good radio is more important than the airframe sometimes.
You will get the switch selections you need and quite importantly range.
Maybe start visiting your local RC field and see if somebody there has some 72Mhz gear second hand that you could pick up for a decent price.
Horror of horrors, you would also get yourself a better airframe by building a kit!! Or opting for a high wing trainer. More room better load carrying, of course less able to survive crashes.
The radio buying decision is more important than a cheap foam airframe.
Comments
Construction quality is about the same as Dynam (reasonably robust); internally, Similar quality to a year old Futaba 6 or 7 channel TX I repaired recently.
These don't work with 2.4G video; range much reduced. I checked it out with a spectrum analyzer. The RC picks a 2.4G frequency when turned on and stays there. Even when it's at the opposite end of the band to the video they still interfere. I tested with a 10mW VTX on the plane and 8dbi RX patch.
The receiver supplied is 5-channel but it's only a park range receiver at best. The transmitter is 4-channel but I think actually transmits 5 channels. There's a connection on the pcb in the TX labeled CH5 but it doesn't work. It looks like the chip pin is programmed as an output as it sinks current when connected through a resistor to +5V (don't short the CH5 connector).
If you do get the HawkSky you will need a better receiver and servos before long. The Corona RP8D1 receiver works well with Dynam transmitters at a good price and the cheap HXT900 servos are OK. You could get a 6-channel transmitter or a second-hand set as mentioned. I've used a Turborix 6-channel TX with Corona receivers on 72MHz with no problems to 1Km+. Turborix from R2Hobbies is the same as WFLY from HobbyKing.
Paul
Best not to try an mod the TX, you can, but its a mission and it might just end up not working.
A cheap airframe and radio setup is a great way to learn to fly, but might not be the most cost efficient way of getting a UAS together. All the compromises will add up to hours of headaches and poor performance.
I think a good radio is more important than the airframe sometimes.
You will get the switch selections you need and quite importantly range.
Maybe start visiting your local RC field and see if somebody there has some 72Mhz gear second hand that you could pick up for a decent price.
Horror of horrors, you would also get yourself a better airframe by building a kit!! Or opting for a high wing trainer. More room better load carrying, of course less able to survive crashes.
The radio buying decision is more important than a cheap foam airframe.