Originally Posted by kstmark
Now we are talking! I have given this some thought and it boils down to what you want to achieve for recording purposes and how far up the aerobatic scale you want to go.
A lot of these FPV planes are capable of simple and sometimes even complex aerobatics but the more equipment that cram into them they become too heavy and under powered for the more complicated flying.
My Skywalker is pretty nimble and can do most basic aerobatics like loops, rolls and spins very well but I run a very light and basic setup with no frills. I think a lot of the Skywalkers out there are quite a bit heavier than mine and probably would be a hand full and/or break in a some aerobatic situations. Vid with rolls and aerobatic-ish flying with my SW:
The main reason I use a Skywalker is that it can carry a full size GoPro and other video equipment and primarily because the prop is in the back and out of the way of the camera. If you did not care about the prop then you can FPV with any aerobatic plane you felt comfortable putting FPV gear on. That 3D plane you mentioned would be a good option (i would prefer the actual Telink version versus the clone - http://www.telink.eu/
). As soon as I wipe out my Skywalker one of my 48" Extreme Flight planes is going FPV flying just for fun
I think the more you go up the aerobatics complication ladder the more head tracking/pan-tilt becomes important. I have had one crash where I was turning faster than my FOV could see what was coming around the corner. Pan-tilt/head tracking would have prevented that and would become doubly important in 3D!
However, because I still have a need for the video camera to be free from prop arcs I have looked at some of these as a next option:
The problem with the above IMO is that with the pointy nose birds you are going to significantly mess up the aerodynamics with big protruding cameras. None of them are particularly 3D. Twins are PITA IMO (added complication at least).