Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe

???
Neverever - I have a Solo (and had also a second = first one which was blown away by the winds), flighttime is not more than probably 6 min (did not take time, and now the 110 are old).
Also on the Draco the flight time is about 6 min with the standard 110 mAh and I can also not feel much difference to the 120 mAh HK replacements.

BTW: I think, it is possible to make a canopy of the Solo/SoloPro/Draco/Twingo material scale like.
And the material does not answer the question of the way of mounting the canopy. The (toy like) Draco canopy consists of a front and back half, mounting is easy and fitting is as strong as on Solo Pro.

Then perhaps my Solo is very efficient. I timed my flights, and got close to 10 minutes on the coax with the 110 mAh battery that came with it. It should be able to fly much longer than the Solo Pro, which already can get over 6 minutes from the HK120s, since all motor power is going into lift on the coax, while on the Solo Pro part of the energy goes into countering torque, and is more or less lost. What throttle percentage do you need for hover on the Solo? With a 120 it is about 35% which is very low. I stop flying at about 50 to 55% throttle needed for hover, and that means 8 to over 10 minutes.

Perhaps the Draco has more powerful motors? Although I believe the part number is the same as the one for the Solo motors. The full canopy may add some weight.

I would have preferred a 2 part canopy on the Bravo SX as well, or just a seperate tail section. But perhaps the 2 halves touching each other would have caused some resonance, adding even more noise?

Hi,
I think the Bravo has the same technical equipment as the Solo.
I can check the flight time of the Solo when I'll be back home after Christmas, but I feel, this will never be 10 min.
The Draco has the same stupid flybar mounting as the Solo, so after each little crash the flybar gets lost. Dont know, why they did not change it. Everything else seems to be very ok, easy to fly and silent beginner 4ch heli.
Curious, if the Bravo III is also very loud, because of the canopy, or more silent, because of the coax motors. Cannot test it, have only a Bravo III canopy, but this does not fit on the Solo frame.

Walter

Originally Posted by SoloPro

But perhaps the 2 halves touching each other would have caused some resonance, adding even more noise?

From my technical knowledge of sound, tubes, resonance frequencies and so on it should rather be the other way.
But I guess, the "hard" canopy material (do not know the name) as in Bravo canopies should be louder than the "soft" material (as in the Draco, Solo, SP, most walkera, ...) helis.

Scale like canopies can also be made of the soft material. Of course you are right, the "hard one" mostly looks better. But I have i.e. the Twingo and the Walkera 4b120 with scale like canopies of the soft style. But the canopies of hard material (I have the Bravos and the small Walkera twin) indeed look better.

Walter

Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe

Hi,
I think the Bravo has the same technical equipment as the Solo.
I can check the flight time of the Solo when I'll be back home after Christmas, but I feel, this will never be 10 min.
The Draco has the same stupid flybar mounting as the Solo, so after each little crash the flybar gets lost. Dont know, why they did not change it. Everything else seems to be very ok, easy to fly and silent beginner 4ch heli.
Curious, if the Bravo III is also very loud, because of the canopy, or more silent, because of the coax motors. Cannot test it, have only a Bravo III canopy, but this does not fit on the Solo frame.

Walter

I think the flybar flipping out has been done intentionally, so avoid the CF from breaking. It's annoying, but I have never broken a flybar on the Solo coax during a crash. I did break one, but that was because I lost my cool putting it back on...

I was beginning to doubt my own memory as for Solo flight times, so did a little test. HK 120 lipo, has been charged a few weeks ago, and voltage had dropped around 0.04V due to self discharge when compared to freshly charged. Did some slow circles and hover, started at 40% throttle needed for hover, and stopped at 55% throttle needed for hover. Lipo was still cold after the flight, and indicated a healthy 3.68V which is common for well discharged, but not too deep. Landed after 9 minutes and 21 seconds. I little shorter than the 10 minutes I mentioned, but this battery is heavier than the 110 mAh battery, and the motors in my Solo are not new any more, have worn a little, and may even have suffered some crash damage, since this was my first 4 channel. Still, it shows my memory served me well, and close to 10 minutes are possible.

I am not saying it is wise to do so, you may wear out the motors much faster if pushing flights this far, but the bird can do it.

So I wonder at what throttle percentage you start a flight on your Solo. I started with 40%, which is very low, since most helis hover at mid stick, so 50%. It is already silent, but at this low throttle setting you can hardly hear it, and you think you can see the blades spinning, so slow as they are going...


As for the resonance thing, I was thinking at the point where the 2 halves would touch each other, that could cause some rattling of the edges against each other, adding another vibration induced sound source. Well, we can always hope for the Bravo SX V2 or so, with improved fuselage for better maintenance. Or perhaps a Solo Pro version of the Bravo, with just a half or full Draco like fuselage, so you get the looks, and the ease of maintenance, combined with longer flights because the heli is lighter. Still, I think the Bravo SX fuselage is easily the best in it's class as for looks, even on display it wouldn't look out of place, I think. I did perhaps mention it before, when flying it I can catch myself at staring at it, instead of flying it. Perhaps I should still get that one the LHS has with the apparently wrongly mixed blue color, so I focus more on flying in the future...

Hi,

Originally Posted by SoloPro

I think the flybar flipping out has been done intentionally, so avoid the CF from breaking. It's annoying, but I have never broken a flybar on the Solo coax during a crash.

I broke only one flybar in the Solo so far, but I guess, this was in a very hard crash. But I have lost numerous flybars, so I cannot see any advatage in this way of flybar mod.
Additionally I have the Eflite MCX S300 Schweizer, which has a a screw at the top of the rotor head / flybar mounting. This works much better. I guess, I have never broken in the S300. I have broken the rotor head 2 times. But I have broken the rotor head of the Solo at least 2 times, too - always clipping in the flybar makes the plastic weak. So this is much better in the MCX Additionally I flew my MCX S300 at least 2, maybe even 3 or 4 times as often as the Solo. The S300 is the much better heli. It is much more durable (had only few repairs in countless flights and crashes), it flies much better (more calm, more exact, more silent), it looks better, it is smaller, ... it is easier to fly and land (because it is not as high as the Solo). Only advantage of the Solo is, that it is faster - but I do not take my coax to fly fast (therefore I have other helis), but to fly and hover while sitting on my computer, for flying under chairs and tables, landing on whereever... the MCX S300 is the much better heli in my eyes.

Did some slow circles and hover, started at 40% throttle needed for hover, and stopped at 55% throttle needed for hover.

Checked the Draco right now (not for time, only for hovering) - need nearly exactly 50% throttle with the original NE 110 battery and also with the 120 mAh HK replacement (tried 1 NE and 2 HK).
The Draco is 2 g heavier than the Solo.

Lipo was still cold after the flight

That is the main difference between my Solo and my Solo Pros, too. Batteries keep cool after flying with the Solo, and are sometimes quite warm after fast Solo Pro flights.

Landed after 9 minutes and 21 seconds. I little shorter than the 10 minutes I mentioned

I will check this again, maybe you are right, but I would be quite surprised, if my flight times with the Solo are near to 10 min.

As for the resonance thing, I was thinking at the point where the 2 halves would touch each other, that could cause some rattling of the edges against each other

Not much sense discussing, but this should not be the fact, because the canopy half parts touch "a whole circle" and are fixed with a little pressure to each other.
Problems are rather the resonance frequencies of tubes - what could be the reason for the loud Bravo SX (tail tube and tail motor).
I will check this - could be done by switching off the tail motor.

Still, I think the Bravo SX fuselage is easily the best in it's class as for looks, even on display it wouldn't look out of place, I think.

I agree, the canopy looks very good. Have only few similar good looking canopy helis - the Walkera YS8001 (beside of the canopy look the worst heli ever, crab), and the little S026 twin (!!!) with beautiful canopy.

Walter

Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe

Hi,


I broke only one flybar in the Solo so far, but I guess, this was in a very hard crash. But I have lost numerous flybars, so I cannot see any advatage in this way of flybar mod.
Additionally I have the Eflite MCX S300 Schweizer, which has a a screw at the top of the rotor head / flybar mounting. This works much better. I guess, I have never broken in the S300. I have broken the rotor head 2 times. But I have broken the rotor head of the Solo at least 2 times, too - always clipping in the flybar makes the plastic weak. So this is much better in the MCX Additionally I flew my MCX S300 at least 2, maybe even 3 or 4 times as often as the Solo. The S300 is the much better heli. It is much more durable (had only few repairs in countless flights and crashes), it flies much better (more calm, more exact, more silent), it looks better, it is smaller, ... it is easier to fly and land (because it is not as high as the Solo). Only advantage of the Solo is, that it is faster - but I do not take my coax to fly fast (therefore I have other helis), but to fly and hover while sitting on my computer, for flying under chairs and tables, landing on whereever... the MCX S300 is the much better heli in my eyes.

I am not saying it's a very good way to prevent breaking the flybar. And I have also spent a few times looking for where it went. Now that I can handle the Solo well enough to avoid crashes, it's no issue any more. But I agree, there are better solutions. This one works, but just...

Checked the Draco right now (not for time, only for hovering) - need nearly exactly 50% throttle with the original NE 110 battery and also with the 120 mAh HK replacement (tried 1 NE and 2 HK).
The Draco is 2 g heavier than the Solo.

2g is a lot on these light helis. Just look at the Bravo SX, about 5g extra, and it needs a 150 mAh battery to still fly shorter than the Solo Pro on a 120 mAh battery. I think this 2g extra weight will already explain the 10% extra needed throttle.

That is the main difference between my Solo and my Solo Pros, too. Batteries keep cool after flying with the Solo, and are sometimes quite warm after fast Solo Pro flights.

I think that is what kills the stock batteries for the Solo Pro. They get quite hot at the end of the flight, and lipos don't like heat. The HK 120 stays much cooler than the stock 120 cell, and the Hyperion/Intellect 130 feels just like a Solo battery, even after almost full draining still quite cold.

I will check this again, maybe you are right, but I would be quite surprised, if my flight times with the Solo are near to 10 min.

I don't see it as a matter of "right" or "wrong". We know there is some variation in these cheaper products. And I also understand the newer Solo coaxials are being fitted with RX-01 as well, but with different ESC programming, and RX-01 is heavier than older RX designs, because of the rotary pots. I recall on the Solo Pro the RX-06 added 0.4g weight compared to RX-02 or RX-04.

Not much sense discussing, but this should not be the fact, because the canopy half parts touch "a whole circle" and are fixed with a little pressure to each other.
Problems are rather the resonance frequencies of tubes - what could be the reason for the loud Bravo SX (tail tube and tail motor).
I will check this - could be done by switching off the tail motor.

I thought if the 2 halves were not secured tightly enough, they could "flutter" against each other, but it's pure theoretical, and perhaps not even a sound theory. I know little of acoustics, although I like listening to music, and know a little of how to position stereo speakers for best effect.

The tail motor could very well be a big contributor to the noise. I got a message from someone that the tail rotor is very unbalanced, and that adressing this issue made even the Solo Pro more stable and quiet. I was offered to get a balanced tail rotor for testing, but haven't heard from that user again, probably due to christmas.

I agree, the canopy looks very good. Have only few similar good looking canopy helis - the Walkera YS8001 (beside of the canopy look the worst heli ever, crab), and the little S026 twin (!!!) with beautiful canopy.

Walter

Yeah, the Bravo SX is not perfect, but it does combine good looks with a very nice flying heli, especially considering the limitations this head setup theoretically has.

Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe

...
Additionally I have the Eflite MCX S300 Schweizer,
....
Only advantage of the Solo is, that it is faster - but I do not take my coax to fly fast (therefore I have other helis), but to fly and hover while sitting on my computer, for flying under chairs and tables, landing on whereever... the MCX S300 is the much better heli in my eyes.
...

Now you made me curious about MCX S300.

Originally Posted by SoloPro

...
Did some slow circles and hover, started at 40% throttle needed for hover, and stopped at 55% throttle needed for hover. Lipo was still cold after the flight, and indicated a healthy 3.68V which is common for well discharged, but not too deep. Landed after 9 minutes and 21 seconds. I little shorter than the 10 minutes I mentioned, but this battery is heavier than the 110 mAh battery, and the motors in my Solo are not new any more, have worn a little, and may even have suffered some crash damage, since this was my first 4 channel. Still, it shows my memory served me well, and close to 10 minutes are possible.

Pretty impressive marks. So a health battery should get 8 minutes flight times with no issues, right?

When you guys say hover that means at which altitude? 40% throttle sounds great!

Talking about weight, do you guys think it's possible to make SP lighter? What is the impact on total weight if we drill some holes in strategic places? I did use a Dremel to round the corners of the RX so it doesn't scratch or hit the fuse so badly. I realized that are some room on the board to remove material and still don't affect the board. Do you guys think it's worth or not?

Originally Posted by SoloPro

I think that is what kills the stock batteries for the Solo Pro. They get quite hot at the end of the flight, and lipos don't like heat. The HK 120 stays much cooler than the stock 120 cell, and the Hyperion/Intellect 130 feels just like a Solo battery, even after almost full draining still quite cold.

Yes, the stock SP's battery get pretty hot at the end if the flight. So what's the best deal (performance/price) on SP's batteries?
BRW, I only found the Hyperion with NE connector batteries at ClubHeli.

Originally Posted by HawkLS

Pretty impressive marks. So a health battery should get 8 minutes flight times with no issues, right?

When you guys say hover that means at which altitude? 40% throttle sounds great!

To avoid confusion, these percentages are from the Solo coaxial sub micro. 8 minutes with the Bravo SX takes a much bigger battery than the HK 120, as Donaldsneffe's results show. The Bravo SX typically hovers at 55% at the start of the flight.

With hover I mean holding altitude a around 1 meter, or a little higher.

Talking about weight, do you guys think it's possible to make SP lighter? What is the impact on total weight if we drill some holes in strategic places? I did use a Dremel to round the corners of the RX so it doesn't scratch or hit the fuse so badly. I realized that are some room on the board to remove material and still don't affect the board. Do you guys think it's worth or not?

The part where you seem to be able to save weight is the motor can, apart from that it is already pretty "airy". I did once see a picture where someone removed the black windshield, only leaving a small strut in the middle, and removing a triangular shape at the root of the blades.

Yes, the stock SP's battery get pretty hot at the end if the flight. So what's the best deal (performance/price) on SP's batteries?
BRW, I only found the Hyperion with NE connector batteries at ClubHeli.

I like the Hobby King 120 "replacement" battery. It performs well, last many cycles, and is dirt cheap. For maximum performance, the Hyperion is unmatched, unless you have the guts to take a Thunder Power 160 or Intellect 130, and remove the micro JST connector, to replace it with the NE connector. I also keep getting reports that the brandless Hobby King 150 also does well in the Solo Pro, but it lacks the extra lip to pull it out of the battery holder.

[QUOTE=SoloPro;16906620]Rick told me the main motor is the same size, but more powerful, yes. It also has thicker wires and a different part number.

Now don't go stocking up on those too much though, when the SP motors got popular there were none to be ordered anywhere, luckily no motor died in my helis yet, but I have no backup at the moment...



Thank you SP!

Sure hope this is true.

Can't make any 'non stocking up' promises.

Loving the performance and life span of the SP motors in our UM planes and my mSR. (NE4902002)




rc

Originally Posted by SoloPro

...
The part where you seem to be able to save weight is the motor can, apart from that it is already pretty "airy". I did once see a picture where someone removed the black windshield, only leaving a small strut in the middle, and removing a triangular shape at the root of the blades.
...

So removing material from RX board will not affect the total weight that much?

I used your FAQ's picture to show where we could take some material. The areas marked in red.



Even if it doesn't help on weight reduction, it sounds helpful to minimize the rubbing scratches on the fuse.

Originally Posted by SoloPro

I thought if the 2 halves were not secured tightly enough, they could "flutter" against each other, but it's pure theoretical, and perhaps not even a sound theory. I know little of acoustics, although I like listening to music, and know a little of how to position stereo speakers for best effect.

The tail motor could very well be a big contributor to the noise. I got a message from someone that the tail rotor is very unbalanced, and that adressing this issue made even the Solo Pro more stable and quiet. I was offered to get a balanced tail rotor for testing, but haven't heard from that user again, probably due to christmas.

That tail rotor balancing gives improvement in noise production is very unlikely in my eyes. But who knows - we can test it. Should also be possible to balance a tail rotor with my small blade balancer.

But I do not believe (better: I know), that two parts of the canopy rubbing each other should be a major source for sound (but of course a gear or rotor part touching the canopy is of course a big source for noise).

The whole thing with resonance frequencies and tubes is not that difficult (calculating in theory is of course more difficult).
Take a bottle or a pipe, and whistle with the bottle by blowing over the aperture.
Fill the bottle half or whatever with water (or beer or whatever) and do it again...
So maybe this way you can imagine, that the whole canopy or only the tail part have a "bad" resonance frequency, which sounds quite annoying.
Maybe it is possible to change this resonance frequency quite easily.
I tested wadding the tail, what did not work, as you know.
But maybe changing the length of the tube will improve the sound quality. So I could try put or better glue some wavebreakers into the tail - resonance frequency should change.

I will test it next week...

Walter

Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe

That tail rotor balancing gives improvement in noise production is very unlikely in my eyes. But who knows - we can test it. Should also be possible to balance a tail rotor with my small blade balancer.

But I do not believe (better: I know), that two parts of the canopy rubbing each other should be a major source for sound (but of course a gear or rotor part touching the canopy is of course a big source for noise).

I am willing to try it. The person that sent me a message about his test results sounded very convinced of the thing, so I am willing to put a perfectly balanced one on if I can still get one to try.


Perhaps I didn't put it right. Rubbing is not the correct word. Let's take another example to make clear what I mean. You have a hood on a car, covering where the motor is. Normally this hood is well secured when it is closed. Now let's assume that the hood doesn't close seamlessly, but has some play. It can move up and down a few mm. As soon as you rev up the engine, the hood could start to vibrate up and down, and cause a rattling sound. Solution would be to check the system that locks the hood in place and remove the play. So what I was trying to say is if at the place where the 2 canopy parts meet, if one part is lying on top of the other for a few mm, and there is play on that seam, a similar rattle could form. I am not saying it will, but in this situation this could occur.

On a single part canopy the only issue is indeed resonance, looking forward to your results with adding some dampening measures. Meanwhile, I did notice my noisiest (and currently only flyable) Bravo SX, has become a little less loud already. The gears running in do seem to reduce noise a bit, hope this process will continue for a while, like it did on my noisiest Solo Pro, which is now almost my most silent one. (and it still flies... )

Originally Posted by SoloPro

Let's take another example to make clear what I mean. ...
So what I was trying to say is if at the place where the 2 canopy parts meet, if one part is lying on top of the other for a few mm, and there is play on that seam, a similar rattle could form.

OK, I understand. I can only say, what I have seen in the Draco canopy, and in this that's not the case and no problem. Cannot test it again, this Draco takes a plane to Haiti Monday 7 a.m., and will probably never come back

On a single part canopy the only issue is indeed resonance, looking forward to your results with adding some dampening measures. Meanwhile, I did notice my noisiest (and currently only flyable) Bravo SX, has become a little less loud already.

I guess, mine have become little more silent, too.
But the main source of noise are not the motors, but the canopy. This can easily been seen on my Bravo SX MIA mod - this is by far not that loud, its similar to Solo Pros.
(Of course - to be extremely exact - the source of these canopy sounds are also motor rotations and vibrations, but I guess, you understand, what I mean).
Should not mix up motor noise, rotor noise, and canopy noise. They are somewhat linked, but I assume, the noise made by the sound waves inside the canopy will not decrease with time (when gears are smoother).

BTW: drilling some holes into the canopy could also be a solution.
Who wants to try this?

Walter

Originally Posted by Donaldsneffe

OK, I understand. I can only say, what I have seen in the Draco canopy, and in this that's not the case and no problem. Cannot test it again, this Draco takes a plane to Haiti Monday 7 a.m., and will probably never come back

Ah, I don't own a Draco, or seen it up close and personal, so I had to guess how the 2 halves are joined. That won't be an issue though.

And what did you do to that poor heli so that it decided to go away from you? You brute!

I guess, mine have become little more silent, too.
But the main source of noise are not the motors, but the canopy. This can easily been seen on my Bravo SX MIA mod - this is by far not that loud, its similar to Solo Pros.
(Of course - to be extremely exact - the source of these canopy sounds are also motor rotations and vibrations, but I guess, you understand, what I mean).
Should not mix up motor noise, rotor noise, and canopy noise. They are somewhat linked, but I assume, the noise made by the sound waves inside the canopy will not decrease with time (when gears are smoother).

BTW: drilling some holes into the canopy could also be a solution.
Who wants to try this?

Walter

You are the one with an unused Bravo canopy, after that MIA mod, so I know you will drill it.

But how about some foam where the tail boom enters the tail section, when seen from the front? So you seperate the long hollow tail from the egg-shaped main fuselage resonance chamber?

Or go to the source of the sound, try an old gear from a well used Solo Pro, perhaps it might make a difference since it has more clearance between the teeth?

Btw, now that it has toned down a little on my white orange one, I don't really mind it a lot. It does sound a little turbine like, with some imagination.

Originally Posted by SoloPro

And what did you do to that poor heli so that it decided to go away from you? You brute!

As already mentioned, it is not my Draco, was a Christmas present for my brother, who was only in Austria for a short break, and is already on the way back to Haiti (actually working there - NGO).

You are the one with an unused Bravo canopy, after that MIA mod, so I know you will drill it.

Hmm, maybe...

But how about some foam where the tail boom enters the tail section, when seen from the front?

I will try some open pored foam again - but in fact wadding was similar and showed no effect.

So you seperate the long hollow tail from the egg-shaped main fuselage resonance chamber?

Could work - but would look ugly...

Or go to the source of the sound, try an old gear from a well used Solo Pro, perhaps it might make a difference since it has more clearance between the teeth?

Do not think, that this will have a big effect in the Bravo SX (maybe little).

Btw, now that it has toned down a little on my white orange one, I don't really mind it a lot. It does sound a little turbine like, with some imagination.

I think it is quite annoying - of course more for "other" people.

Walter