HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Dec 12, 2010, 08:22 AM
Did you check the FAQ already?
SoloProFan's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Jul 2010
12,675 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe View Post
Hi,



Pfft... really not sure anymore. But I guess, it was hard left turn with full (or high) speed.
It's only a "CLACK", no problem at all - if not heard, I even would not have recoginzed it.

Walter
That is the situation in which strikes occur with the Solo Pro, which uses the exact same head setup. And I just noticed the flybar can only strike the tail, not the canopy. And since the tail has a round profile, the flybar can't get caught behind it. With the square boom of the Solo Pro, I already once had the flybar getting stuck behind the tailboom in the air, jamming the main rotor, and making the heli drop straight down from quite a big height...


My stock battery still isn't that good. I get about 4 minutes from it, and then I have to land within half a minute. Voltage after flight was 3.65V, so really pushing it a little. If I discharge the 120 OEM on my Solo Pro till that same level I can fly 7 minutes...
SoloProFan is offline Find More Posts by SoloProFan
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by SoloProFan; Dec 12, 2010 at 08:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 12, 2010, 09:05 AM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Hi,
Took a look at the rx now.
It seems to be absolutelly equal to new Solo Pro rx (only additional wires for the light):



Shrink tubes on Solo Pro rx are not original.

Even the date is equal (this is my newest Solo Pro rx):



Now I have removed the rx from the Bravo SX, I will try to do the mod with the Zippy batteries and change the plugs.

Will tell later, how it worked.

Walter
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 10:42 AM
Did you check the FAQ already?
SoloProFan's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Jul 2010
12,675 Posts
Yes, I already knew the latest Solo Pros and Bravo SX both use RX-01. What I wonder is if older receivers would work as well. I suppose they would fly the Bravo as well, but perhaps the ESCs were upgraded on the RX-01 since the motors are bigger (main motor is bigger too, right?) and does the RX-06 also have a point where the leds could be attached?

Thanks for the nice pictures. If you don't mind, I will use one of them for the FAQ, so it is clear where the wires should go.
SoloProFan is offline Find More Posts by SoloProFan
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 12, 2010, 01:04 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
Yes, I already knew the latest Solo Pros and Bravo SX both use RX-01.
Pfff... if you knew already everything, why do you ask?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
"A few questions for those who have taken the canopy off. Can someone post a close up picture of the receiver, showing where all the wires go?

And has someone already tried a RX-06 receiver in the Bravo SX? So when you get a problem, and have a spare Solo Pro around, that receiver can be used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
What I wonder is if older receivers would work as well. I suppose they would fly the Bravo as well, but perhaps the ESCs were upgraded on the RX-01 since the motors are bigger (main motor is bigger too, right?) and does the RX-06 also have a point where the leds could be attached?
I have 6 Solo Pro receivers here (3 working, 3 gone), and 3 Bravo SX receivers and all of them but one do have the contacts for the wires. Only the eldest one (old servo system, RX-04, date October 2009) does not have these contacts. But I guess, those old ones are not sold any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
Thanks for the nice pictures. If you don't mind, I will use one of them for the FAQ, so it is clear where the wires should go.
Of course you can use the pics, if you observe the rules...

I checked again the batteries.
I need a little more than 50% throttle (trim in center) for hovering in the beginning with the original NE battery, but you are right, after very short time I also need about 60%. It is the same with the HK replacement battery, so your thunder power seems to be better.

Strange, I scaled the Original and the HK replacement batteries, the HK is a little heavier (4.60 h HK - 4.32 g NE)





I wanted better batteries, so I did the mod for the Zippy 240 mAh.



I used a replacement landing gear of a Bravo III:



I cut the battery mounting (did not work well with a fresh scalpel blade and a new razor blade, but worked well with a good iris scissor - but not good for the iris scissor ).




Little bit of filing - then it seemed ok. It should be as strong as the original landing skid, because the battery-mounting part is not fixed on the sides.

It is very light (1.25 g) compared to the landing skid of the Bravo SX (1.9 g).



Changed the plugs on the rx:



The Zippy 240 mAh has 5.28 g

It fits perfect between the canopy and landing skid:



First I thought, I would have to use rubber rings - but not necessary, the zippy is easily to put in, easily to pull out, and it fits quite well, so no additional fixture is necessary.

Heli without Zippy: 28.7 g:




The whole heli with Zippy battery has now 34 g (33.96 g) - compared to 33.4 g with stock skid and NE orig. battery (but I took too long wires, could easily cut 3 cm red and 3 cm black, then the weight would probably be the same)



But I guess, the results are not worth the effort.

Advantage: the Bravo SX is not that tail heavy any more (recognizable most when putting it on the ground - with stock batteriy the heli easily tips on its tail, much better with the zippy).
Flying:
I flew three Zippys - fully and freshly loaded. One for "seeing how it behaves", two for taking time (only hovering, as described).
I need a little more than 50% throttle for hovering. The heli is agil, flies well, do not feel any difference to stock batteries.
Time:
Zippy 1: 6:50 min
Zippy 2: 6:51 min (really nearly exactly the same time).
So this is about one min longer than with stock battery (I took 5:53 min) and HK replacement (5:20 min).

Disadvantage:
You have to change landing skids, if you wanna change battery types for flying, and thats not as easy as it is in the Solo Pro.
Only 1 min more of flight time, that is not much for the effort (it is quite difficult to take the Bravo SX apart).

Cheers,

Walter
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 01:11 PM
R.C. Aviation Fanatic
Razors edge 29's Avatar
Canada
Joined Aug 2009
20,775 Posts
the zippy 240's are not good batteries

avoid them
Razors edge 29 is online now Find More Posts by Razors edge 29
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 01:36 PM
Did you check the FAQ already?
SoloProFan's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Jul 2010
12,675 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe View Post
Hi,


Pfff... if you knew already everything, why do you ask?


Strange, I scaled the Original and the HK replacement batteries, the HK is a little heavier (4.60 h HK - 4.32 g NE)
Sorry if that reply offended you a bit. I knew the latest receiver for Solo Pro and Bravo SX is the RX-01. But I didn't know if the older receivers are also compatible with the Bravo SX, so that if you still have an older spare receiver lying around, and the receiver on your Bravo SX dies, you can use that instead of having to order a new one, or that the RX-01 is only backwards compatible with the Solo Pro. Guess we'll have to wait until someone fries his Bravo SX receiver to get that answer...


Btw, I am surprised to read that your stock NE 150 mAh battery is only 4.32g. Mine is a heavy 4.70g, which makes it heavier than the HK one. Is your stock battery a "NE-BA927"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Razors edge 29 View Post
the zippy 240's are not good batteries

avoid them
I agree with Razor here, for a real improved performance under this load, you might consider the Hyperion 240. 1 minutes extra flight time for 90 mAh extra capacity is quite bad...
SoloProFan is offline Find More Posts by SoloProFan
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 12, 2010, 02:18 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
Sorry if that reply offended you a bit.
No offend, no problem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
Btw, I am surprised to read that your stock NE 150 mAh battery is only 4.32g. Mine is a heavy 4.70g, which makes it heavier than the HK one. Is your stock battery a "NE-BA927"?
Checked it again now. I used an even better and more exact scale than before (see pic).
Checked two ones, both original Nine Eagles NE-BA927 - 4.32 and 4.33 g.
Either you have a very strange battery, or you use a wrong (cheap) scale. The weights I have measured are correct, without any doubt.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Razors edge 29 View Post
the zippy 240's are not good batteries

avoid them
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
I agree with Razor here, for a real improved performance under this load, you might consider the Hyperion 240. 1 minutes extra flight time for 90 mAh extra capacity is quite bad...
I am surprised - I like this (cheap) battery. It is i.e. in my Nine Eagles Twingo even better than most of the (bad, bad, ...) Walkera 400 mAh batteries. I like Zippy 450 and 600 even more...

I will try the Turnigy Nanotec 160 mAh later...

Cheers,

Walter
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 02:51 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Turnigy Nano-Tech 160 mAh: 4:55 min
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 02:58 PM
Did you check the FAQ already?
SoloProFan's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Jul 2010
12,675 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe View Post
Hi,



No offend, no problem...



Checked it again now. I used an even better and more exact scale than before (see pic).
Checked two ones, both original Nine Eagles NE-BA927 - 4.32 and 4.33 g.
Either you have a very strange battery, or you use a wrong (cheap) scale. The weights I have measured are correct, without any doubt.


I am surprised - I like this (cheap) battery. It is i.e. in my Nine Eagles Twingo even better than most of the (bad, bad, ...) Walkera 400 mAh batteries. I like Zippy 450 and 600 even more...

I will try the Turnigy Nanotec 160 mAh later...

Cheers,

Walter
I don't doubt your measurements, but I doubt it is my scale, since I do get 4.60g for the Hobby King 150 batteries, which is identical to what you found.


The 240 may be a nice battery in less current drawing applications, but the Bravo SX draws twice as much power as the Solo coaxes for instance, and I think that is where the Zippy 240 fails, and gives only a minute of extra time in the air.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe View Post
Turnigy Nano-Tech 160 mAh: 4:55 min

I think you should try the Thunder Power 160. It is only 4g, and has a high discharge rate, with little voltage sag. After 4 minutes I still needed about 60% throttle for hover, and when the battery was still fresh I only needed 50% throttle. I didn't push this battery too far on it's first flight in the cold outdoor conditions I was flying in. Still these results seem to indicate 6 minutes might be possible. Only drawback of these Thunder Power batteries is that they don't come with NE connector, so you have to mod one on yourself.
SoloProFan is offline Find More Posts by SoloProFan
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by SoloProFan; Dec 12, 2010 at 03:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 03:01 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Hmmm...
normally you cannot trust cheap scales in matters of /10 g (or g, if its a weight of some kg).

But strange, the same in the HK battery?
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 03:05 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Well,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
The 240 may be a nice battery in less current drawing applications, but the Bravo SX draws twice as much power as the Solo coaxes for instance, and I think that is where the Zippy 240 fails, and gives only a minute of extra time in the air.
guess, the Twingo, too - it is "two coaxes" and has 4 motors
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 03:56 PM
Did you check the FAQ already?
SoloProFan's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Jul 2010
12,675 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe View Post
Hmmm...
normally you cannot trust cheap scales in matters of /10 g (or g, if its a weight of some kg).

But strange, the same in the HK battery?
Yes, for the HK I get the exact same results as you. My scale has 0.01g accuracy, and I have tested it with verified weights, and it always comes in close to those, just like with the HK batteries. I guess NE has changed battery manufacturer while making these helis, or it got labeled wrong in the factory. It looks a lot in shape like the 150 that came with my Hobbyzone Champ plane, although it has a different connector naturally, and that battery was also disappointing. 4.7g makes the heli even more tail heavy.

I tested with the modified Thunder Power 160, and got almost 5 1/2 minutes from it, before the heli started a little spiral to the ground. Tail holding was excellent, I even had to trim full left since the tail was working harder than with the stock or Hobby King 150 battery, indicating voltage was better kept under load. The heli also responded better to throttle punches. Still 5 minutes with just a little time for a controlled landing was a little disappointing. Btw, also found that this modified battery had gained about 0.2g from putting the NE connector on instead of the micro JST it came with from the factory, so it is not 4.0g anymore, but 4.20g.

So come on, battery manufacturers, we want a 180 mAh cell weighing just 3.8g or so. That would be better suited for this heli.
SoloProFan is offline Find More Posts by SoloProFan
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 12, 2010, 04:34 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloPro View Post
I tested with the modified Thunder Power 160, and got almost 5 1/2 minutes from it, before the heli started a little spiral to the ground.
Well, I got nearly 6 min hovering with the stock battery and 5 1/2 with the HK (tested only one).
The Thunder Power is something about 8 US$ - I guess, best batteries will be the cheap HK replacements.

Quote:
... was a little disappointing.
Wont pay 5 times the price for 1 minute. All my small batteries fade away after some time...

BTW:
With 120 mAh HK replacement the heli is a little less tail heavy... of course shorter flight time - but who cares changing batteries if it is as easy as in the Nine Eagles helis. They are so cheap, I guess, everybody can afford 10 or 20...

Walter
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 04:47 PM
Did you check the FAQ already?
SoloProFan's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Jul 2010
12,675 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe View Post
Well, I got nearly 6 min hovering with the stock battery and 5 1/2 with the HK (tested only one).
The Thunder Power is something about 8 US$ - I guess, best batteries will be the cheap HK replacements.



Wont pay 5 times the price for 1 minute. All my small batteries fade away after some time...

BTW:
With 120 mAh HK replacement the heli is a little less tail heavy... of course shorter flight time - but who cares changing batteries if it is as easy as in the Nine Eagles helis. They are so cheap, I guess, everybody can afford 10 or 20...

Walter
I'll stick with the HK 150s for now as well. They offer good performance, especially for the money. I can get 4 or so shipped for the same money as a single Thunder Power. And if the HK150s live as long as the 120s, that should also not pose a problem. Only thing I find a little annoying about them is that the connector is not a perfect fit, it takes more strength to push them in and out again. A little work on the connector with a file helps to cure this, but it would be nicer if that wasn't needed at all.
SoloProFan is offline Find More Posts by SoloProFan
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 12, 2010, 05:15 PM
Vienna calling...
Donaldsneffe's Avatar
Österreich, Wien
Joined Aug 2010
1,407 Posts
Indeed,
this is a thing I do not like in the Nine Eagles batteries at all.
Now I have several different types of NE connectors (even the 150 mAh with crest from the planes).
I had to modify my first charger, now I have to modify most of the batteries...
Old type, new type, HK type (which is too big - but not the fault of Nine Eagles), I still use one "old version landing gear" for one of my Solo Pros. There it is easier to put the batteries in, because it is outside of the canopy (get a better grip).
In the Bravo SX this is more problem, because the canopy covers the battery mounting and you cannot clip it that firm with your fingers as it is possible in the Solo Pro.

Walter
Donaldsneffe is offline Find More Posts by Donaldsneffe
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools