Does this look familiar?
Go Discover FPV Plane, and in Australia store!! $150 bucks
.jpg)
The Go Discover was designed from the start to be a great FPV platform with a massive center bay, straight forward layout and superb, predictable, yet sporty, flight characteristics.
What makes the Go Discover stand out is the integrated pan and tilt system in the nose, giving an un-obstructed bird’s eye view of the world below. The pan and tilt system uses 2 gear driven engagements for a smooth solid camera platform. The pan and tilt system was designed to perfectly house a GoPro 1, 2, 3 or 3+ as well as any other board or cube FPV camera with an easy swappable back mounting plate, all housed behind a clear acrylic dome. The front dome provides a great view, while protecting your FPV gear.
Comments
It was quite windy today so I can't say for certain but I remember the RVJET being more stable at cruise speed. All in all I'd just say its a different plane. It handles better in some area's and worse in others. I don't think its really anymore of a ripoff than the FX61 Phantom is of the Skywalker X8. The X8 literally falls out of the sky like a leaf with very little warning if it stalls the FX61 carries less but also works a lot better.
I really think that the RVJET is more in that range though: it carries similar amounts to the X8 but was well designed.
I got to fly the RVJET a couple months ago and it basically reminded me of an X8 that didn't suck as a plane (great payload and handled well). I just received the Go Discover from the US warehouse and got to fly it for about 5 minutes before it started raining but my initial thoughts are:
Pros:
It seemed handle better than the RVJET in small form. Obviously in large form we're not really comparing the same thing.
The fences really seem to help a lot in low speed spins.
It's cheaper.
Cons:
The dome has more reflections and distorts your image more than I remember the RVJET doing. Although I think I flew with the clear RVJET dome and this only came with a reflective dome.
Carries far less than the RVJET in large form.
To be awarded or to uphold a registered design, the design does need to be new and distinctive. It sounds like from some of the comments that the Swedish designers may not have had a new and distinctive design.
Design registration and patents are different things Justin. I'm not sure whether they are available in the US, but certainly in Australia you can apply for a design registration which covers this exact scenario. I'm sure with the right wording in the application, then making something so similar like this case would prove expensive for both parties in court - that might be enough of a disincentive against blatant rip-offing.
Wow sorry for the spelling and gramatical errors. Posting from my phone proved a bit more interesting than anticipated.
Again, this is my personal opinion, and not at all in connection with the Albatross or its affiliates.
Quite frankly other than being a twin tail flying wing with a dome, there isn't much more in terms of similarities. It has more wing sweep, different taper, this instantly tells me they at least had to try when designing, unlike a copy which would have been much easier. Due to the larger amount of wing sweep I'm sure it had poor low speed characteristics, hence the addition of wing fences.
The pan and tilt mechanism is similar, but mot a copy, one uses gears, one uses pushrods.
So yes they are similar, but truthfully I could find just as many similarities between our Albatross and the Penguin. Is the Albatross intended to be a copy? No, but it was designed with similar goals and intentions... Unfortunately similar goals and mission in the aeronautical industry often means similar looking airframes.
Keep jin mind HK does have experience with both forward facing domes, and blended body flying wings (x8 and x5). That being said, this could very easily mean they could have put the pieces together without outside influence.
This being said, it is unfortunate but I do believe the Go-D is a product of its environment more than a direct knock off.... Take this as you will, but this is just my own personal opinion.
I wonder if the original designers of RVJET took out any registered design protection in any countries. In Australia there have been a few cases of Chinese rip offs being told they couldn't trade in Australia because they infringed on a registered design. The designers of RVJET should be protected, there may be many groups out there wanting to develop an innovative design but won't go ahead because Hobby King will just copy them and take their profits.
ugly as f***! I doubt that this plane flies nice as the rvjet does. This gimbal looks so weak also.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next