New TBS Wing - Development sessions in Thailand

So we packed a bunch of prototype planes and went to Thailand to do a bit of flying. Much like our Road Trip series but a bit shorter, we'll be showing the ins and outs of modern airplane design - and the fun that can be had while being completely serious :)

Prototypes weigh around 450 - 600g, up to 40" wingspan. Please keep that in mind when watching some of the ... "stunts" :)

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • Is there some tracking issues? I see some motions left/right in many clips.

    nice flights

  • Moderator
    Well said Carl, I seem to have read that Wilber and orville wright had the same problem with uncreative disbelievers ,
    Good job they ignored the doubters, still a great video Trappy. Good job
  • There are two types of people those that are interesting creative and pushing the envelope and the  ones that are Well? Basically Jealous and  'Can't say"Good Job" and go out of their way to try and bring the creative people down ranting about "legalities" and such. At the end of the day? Tomorrow the interesting creative people will be off doing something new and the others will still be looking to get "Passafied !"

  • It's hilarious to read your comments Paul Mather. You know, for someone so vocal, you sure fail to even get the basics right (like who was flying). Last I checked the most irresponsible thing an FPVer ever did was fly over a metal statue, no? Is this the "most irresponsible thing" of the week? or ever? because I'm fairly certain you're forgetting the "Stunt Sheep" video ... that had to be the most irresponsible thing. No? Bwahahahaha. Grown men ... on the internet ... we should make an episode about that.

  • Moderator
    Hi jan you are correct, parasail not chute, I made a mistake in the Discussion and I'm big enough to admit it.
  • Spectacular Video! the fish looked like they were flying the water is so clear Thailand is a beautiful Country 

  • Comment by Paul Mather 1 hour ago

    I am a hater. I hate irresponsibility on public display.

    You're also incompetent.  It was made painfully odvious that Trappy was NOT even in Thailand!  He was not in the video, his flying wasn't in the video.  He didn't edit the video.  Why blame him just because he came here to share what his FRIENDS have done with their vacation?  Chill out...

  •  We do "foxhunts" with these things, where one member has to run and the others get to chase him. Great exercise, no pain whatsoever if you get one of these into the face

    And when will THAT video come out?  LOL!

  • Moderator


    I take place in safety tests every day, yes, I put myself at risk on occasions IF I believe the results justify the test, that is my decision and I live by it (or die)

    Trappy did not set this out as a test, but it still provides useful information, cars crash every day and they were tested by humans for years before dummies took over, I know this can never be considered a "valid" test but it does show the minor consequensces of the collision, That is still valid

    He stated that the plane is 500g and less than 40inch span, I have a UAV the same size and weight, YES it causes less damage than some birds, it has less mass, less inertia and less density = less damage to the hit object. He states that they (his friends? ) play foxhunt with them. no one is talking about a 5kg 72 in RC model witha 15cc motor up front.  these are small very light planes. I have several indoor electric planes that have more mass than this and I've been hit by them many times in a busy indoor arena.

    Yes, he takes his own risks, he's responsible if he has an accident. He goes to court not you or me. Remember he is an expert in this field and has more flying hours than most of this community put together, I dont think that a person of his ability and skills would recklessly endanger anyones life or property. We do not know all the circumstances of this flight, its possible the parachutist was aware of the plan,

    I suspect that the FAA will have plenty of objections to you if you want to do a series of "hundreds of tests" of RC models crashing into full size planes to asses the damage. That is a whole different issue than observing the result of a single incident in which, as usual the model came off worse.

    The truth is that you do not know how assess the risk or quantify the danger in these small models and YES , if Trappy wants to fly one of his small models at me as part of a test then I am happy to oblige him. Trappy, let me know next time you come to Canada.



    The evidence shows that no model has ever damaged a full size plane badly enough to cause a crash, no one wants that, human life is more valuable than any model. As I said before many accidents between RC models (large and small) have happened and the model always looses.  especialy one as small as Trappys.


  • As a safety engineer you should know that it is NOT a valid test.  To assess a probability of a serious damage to a manned vehicle you would need to run the same test hundreds of times and then review the results.  Would you volunteer to hang under the canopy while Trappy repeatedly runs his "toys" into you?

    Therefore this test proves nothing except that there are plenty of idiots out there who would not think twice before flying into a manned aircraft.  Which reinforces positions of the opponents of RC flying.  So I don't think FAA is going to watch this video and say: "  Well if you put it this way, then I guess it is ok!"

    NOT 1 full size man carrying  plane or helicopter has lost the battle

    It only takes one.  We know of instances of a single bird bringing down an aircraft.  Do you think an RC plane causes less damage than a bird?  As the number of RC aircraft is increased it is just a matter of time before the same happens with RC as well.

    Yes HE takes risk with his toys that you or I choose not to do

    That is not the issue.  He intentionally takes risks with OTHER PEOPLE'S lives and OTHER PEOPLE'S equipment.  Rationale is that the risk is negligible.  However in truth he has no idea what the actual risk is.

     This could be even be used by the community to help to show that the danger is not as bad as the FAA would like you to believe.

    I would like to hear your opinion when it is you who is dangling under the canopy.

This reply was deleted.