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
The last few years i have been helping to educate model pilots and model instructors and we have noticed a definite change in the general level of understanding of modellers when it comes to how a aircraft actually works. My general comment is that a mini is similar to a volvo still stands, they both have wheels so it stands to reason that they must be the same, of course i get shot down! Take the fullsize world and glider towing or crop dusting. How many of those aircraft look similar? Most of them have a similar layout because they had the same design objectives, so it stands to reason that the final designs will be somewhat similar to look at from a distance and it is the trained eye up closer that picks the difference. For the majority to understand more about how their aircraft work would make things much safer in many areas! Alot of model instructors in australia 5 or so years ago wouldn't have been able to answer the question of what is the CAUSE of a wing to stall? Ok so how many said speed? I am guessing more than a few, answer is it does NOT depend on speed! If you exceed the critical angle of attack your wing will stall no matter how fast or slow you go!
The last 5 or so years there has been a big change in the way we educate instructors, most now at least have access to the right information. All of my students get a basic understanding of aerodynamics during their initial training period weather they like it or not. Funnily enough the next few years they keep coming back to ask questions and further their knowledge which i could not ask for more. I guess it must just be me seeing something wrong!!! Or maybe i need to go see my optometrist for better glasses so all my models can look the same!!!!
Personally i would go for the RVJET, for me it has a lot to offer, however for some cheaper "fun" the go discover certainly would be high on the list of candidates!
Again i didn't mean any disrespect to anyone! But it is an interesting debate for sure! So for gramma and spelling, doing this on the phone aint so easy!
@swift @Artem It flies pretty nice but I haven't put any equipment in yet. One of the first things I did probably inspired by the HK promo was to barrel roll it a few times on an assent. I think I might have even gotten it tighter than in the video. Definitely and fun wing to fly. Has pretty nice stall characteristics imho. Feels a little more solid in the air that the Phantom FX61 which I also fly a lot.
P.S. it is not always about how thing look.
@ Artem, no not at all. By my logic it is immediately recognizable as a "copy" of the RVJET - that's why we're having this debate. The A380 does have two wings and two levels, but beyond that and four engines it shares even fewer features with the 747 than all the other passenger airliners out there. You could make more of a case for the 777 and the A330, but so much design water has flown under the bridge before they were both designed, it's a debatable case even now.
Suggesting that the RVJET shares similarities with the X8 beyond being a flying wing design suggests you have some malfunction with your aesthetic judgement or your spectacle prescription.
@ Andrew
not slightly, the idea - definitely a copy, but implementation is their own, with your logic rvjet is an improved copy of x8. and a380 is a copy of b747-400 you see 2 stories, 2 wings...
Steve, you're amazing! Thanks for letting us know just how much!
Yes, it's (slightly) less than a direct copy. No, it's (much) less than a new, original design. Put it this way, if the RVJET didn't exist, then chances are neither would this thing...
Oh, one more thing,... For X8 owners,. if you want to use less reflex and improve performance and handeling try cutting off the "Camera Bump" on the bottom of the main body,... you will NEED to move your cg over 25mm forward AND tape the wing so the TOP surface of the wing is level with the BOTTOM surface of the body....
I removed the bump and promptly spun the old beast in on launch due to a VERY rearward cg!
How and why? the "BUMP" kinda looks like highly cambered wing, inverted and it is a long way forward of the centre of pressure (look it up, !!) therefore it tries to LIFT the nose DOWN,.. ( isay lift because aerodynamically that is what it is doing..lifting down....) and to stop it the designers used lots of reflex, over all this has a similar effect to dihedral on a wing. it increases trim stability, ie you use cg and thrust and the speed becomes quite stable and somewhat self regulating, nice for some aspects of flying (can be useful for fpv) but not alway and efficient way to do it..
Cheers
Steve
Seriously guys , those of you that think this is a knock off would say that a mini (car) is a knock-off of a Volvo,... cause it has wheels....
For those of you that think this is a knockoff it just shows how little aerodynamic knowledge you have.
I can see SIMILAR layout features. but NOTHING that is a direct copy
Having said that it WOULD appear that the design was certainly INSPIRED by another aircraft. What is wrong with that? Lets look at design criteria,...
FPV model...
Ideally forward facing camera = pusher configuration or motor on a pylon,.... Pusher is more efficient in so many ways so we will settle on that for the moment.
Layout, since we decided on a pusher it either means a deep fuse, a flying wing or a twin boom arrangement... Twin boom is complicated for structural design, time consuming to put together, expensive to manufacture (more parts..)
A deep fuse with motor on top of wing, works fine an allows a conventional tail group which = more expense for manufacture (more parts again..) and also a limit on what size prop we use which COULD effect the level of efficiency we can achieve.
Blended / Flying wing.. Limited no of parts (cheaper to manufacture) less servos required (possibly, could run 4 scontrols on the wings and 2 on the fins) Large area to house everything in the Centre panel of the wing without increasing drag too much,...
Can run as big a prop as we like, (with in reason.....) so we could swing a larger prop slower and gain some efficiency here (longer endurance for less weight = nicer to fly plane for longer)
See where I am going with this?? It is a blended flying wing, sure and if you squint from a distance it has similar looks to a RVJET,.. so what? Those that know the slightest bit about HOW a aircraft flies would not even consider the go discover against the RVJET,.. so why not have a "cheaper" (POSSIBLY lower performance) aircraft on the market to get started with?
I have worked in the modelling industry AND UAV industry for many years (nearly 2 decades) and am honestly sick with the later generations of "modellers" that think they know everything saying how this is a copy of that and how this looks the same as that.... Years ago when you actually had to (shock,..horror..) BUILD you model you usually gained a reasonable grasp of BASIC AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES..... These days you buy from hobby king, it arrives with minimum instructions, you throw a battery at it and go try fly at the local park...
Honestly guys,... WAKE UP< the ONLY similarity these two aircraft have is the GENERAL LAYOUT is similar.
Airfoils are VERY different, Fins are VERY different, (bet very few of you know why the fins are angled out on the RVJET ? hint,.. it aint for looks!!) Aerodynamics are not even in the same ball park, nor is the performance, And i can tell you that by a 5 second look at pics of the aircraft. Yes they are both blended body flying wings, THAT my friends is where the similarities end!
Sorry for the rant, just getting fed up with reading BS over and over again!!!!
This is not an attack on hobbyking, or those that support it, nor is it an attack on the later generation of "modellers", who incidentally i refer to as flyers,... not model pilots or modellers.
Oh, I do buy from hobby king,..... BUT i try and get what I want from my local shop first!
Best Regards
Steve
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next