>> In other words, will they necessarily improve flight or is there any sort of downside?<<

I do not feel any difference in flight performance. However I am pretty insensitive to flight performance.

Greetings,

Well, I had hoped to have the UAP2 in the shop by the end of the weekend, but I didn't quite make it. The parts are cut (except for the tubes), and pictures are taken for most of the manual, but that's as far as I got. I also realized I need longer boxes than I have, and maybe a bigger mailbox

Bottom line is that the UAP2 is essentially a scaled up UAP1. The plates are 8.125" diameter, and there's no need for an FC mounting plate unless you have a huge FC board. There's tons of room for stuff, and the tubes are 21.5mm CF, or you can use Align Trex600/700 tubes.

The custom CF tubes are the only reason I have 16mm tubes in stock now since it didn't make sense to get one size and not the other. They're VERY nice tubes, with a wrap of 3k SF inside and outside. The plan is to make the 21.5mm tubes available in 13" and about 19.5" lengths, which in reality is 1/3m, and 1/2m, since they come in 1m lengths.

BTW, Ross already has a dome for it

I'll try to have it all sorted out by next weekend.

Cheers,
Rusty

Oh sick! Awesome Rusty. I am definitely going to try this out!

Forgot to ask, with the UAP-2 be compatible with your isolation kit and other stacking plates?

Originally Posted by 13brv3

Greetings,

Well, I had hoped to have the UAP2 in the shop by the end of the weekend, but I didn't quite make it. The parts are cut (except for the tubes), and pictures are taken for most of the manual, but that's as far as I got. I also realized I need longer boxes than I have, and maybe a bigger mailbox

Bottom line is that the UAP2 is essentially a scaled up UAP1. The plates are 8.125" diameter, and there's no need for an FC mounting plate unless you have a huge FC board. There's tons of room for stuff, and the tubes are 21.5mm CF, or you can use Align Trex600/700 tubes.

The custom CF tubes are the only reason I have 16mm tubes in stock now since it didn't make sense to get one size and not the other. They're VERY nice tubes, with a wrap of 3k SF inside and outside. The plan is to make the 21.5mm tubes available in 13" and about 19.5" lengths, which in reality is 1/3m, and 1/2m, since they come in 1m lengths.

BTW, Ross already has a dome for it

I'll try to have it all sorted out by next weekend.

Cheers,
Rusty

Rusty - I can't wait to see the UAP2! I've already got the listing for the UAP2 dome on www.BadgerFly.com. I am working on a removable GPS protection pocket for this dome and should have it by the weekend as well.

Ross

Originally Posted by jcmonty

Forgot to ask, with the UAP-2 be compatible with your isolation kit and other stacking plates?

The ring of holes used for mounting stuff is larger diameter on the UAP2, but I already have a version of the lower damper plate that will work for the UAP2. The new plate will actually work for the UAP1 and UAP2.

I'd like to make a UAP2 specific version that puts the dampers on a larger diameter circle to help with the swaying that some people are seeing, but that won't happen right away.

Rusty

Originally Posted by 13brv3

The ring of holes used for mounting stuff is larger diameter on the UAP2, but I already have a version of the lower damper plate that will work for the UAP2. The new plate will actually work for the UAP1 and UAP2.

I'd like to make a UAP2 specific version that puts the dampers on a larger diameter circle to help with the swaying that some people are seeing, but that won't happen right away.

Rusty

Perfect.

And just to clarify, the UAP2 will only take 21.5mm booms? Will you be making tube landing gear brackets and isolated motor mounts compatible with the UAP2 as well?

Originally Posted by dcoplan

Are the anti-vibration motor mounts something to be used only if I'm noticing vibration in my videos but otherwise don't bother or is there some benefit to using them regardless of the situation? In other words, will they necessarily improve flight or is there any sort of downside?

My video is pretty darn stable but I'm always game for improvements of any kind.

I have a Y6 which has a well isolated camera with no vibration but a sensitive FC which was causing some twitching that was visible in the video. Balancing the props didnt solve it so Im giving the motor isolators a try, well see if it works.

Originally Posted by jcmonty

Perfect.

And just to clarify, the UAP2 will only take 21.5mm booms? Will you be making tube landing gear brackets and isolated motor mounts compatible with the UAP2 as well?

The tube legs, and isolated motor mounts were simple. The 21.5mm blocks have an installed height that's very close to the 16mm blocks. It's close enough that the two can be used next to each other, even without shims. It will deform the plates a bit, but a 1/32" shim can be used if that bothers anyone. That means I was able to use the same tube leg plates, but drill one new row of holes for the wider blocks. The tube leg plates I've been cutting for the past month or so will fit either the UAP1 or UAP2. The leg block is always the 16mm size, but the arm blocks can either be 16mm or 21.5mm.

The motor mount plate just needed another set of holes drilled for the new 1" block hole spacing, so it was just a matter of adding two more holes 90 degrees to the UAP1 block holes.

There will initially be a double block mount with slots that are the same size as the current large slotted (and double block) mounts. I do foresee needing to add a larger mount for monster motors, but I need more information on just how large they need to be.

As for tube sizes for the UAP2, this is open to debate. My current plan is to leave the UAP1 pretty much as is, using only 16mm tubes, and have the UAP2 use only 21.5mm. I will likely repackage the UAP1 kit to remove one of the main plates once the UAP2 is out, since anyone needing that much plate space would certainly opt for the larger UAP2 plates rather than making a tall stack out of UAP1 plates.

I can certainly make 16mm blocks to fit the wider hole spacing on the UAP2 plates, but I would be reluctant to do that unless I discontinue the UAP1. If everyone seems to prefer the larger UAP2 plates, it might be worth doing that, but I'm thinking plenty of people will still stay with the UAP1 size plates. For weight and size, it's almost a wash, since two UAP2 plates are about the same weight and size as 3 UAP1 plates. The blocks are heavier, but you save weight by not needing the FC plate (except for HF Pro), so I don't think the UAP2 will end up being that much heavier for the same area of plates.

Cheers,
Rusty

Cool, thanks for the explanation.

I still think that the UAP1 will have merit especially for smaller quads. I think that my plan is to make my current UAP1 an FPV style quad with provisions for a BL gopro gimbal.

Then all of my Y6 electronics will go on the UAP2.. hmm the planning begins

Super exciting to see the UAP2 soon to be available!!

Will their be mounting holes for the Autoquad 6 FC? Really excited to hear you thoughts on testing of this new FC. Everything I see and read about it looks amazing. But feedback from you flying it on your frames would be great.

I plan on finally getting my AQ on a rusty frame in the next month or so. I had a setback with a PPM converter frying a chipset. Jussi was great and repaired it pro bono. Excited to try this thing out + add a BL gimbal to it

Originally Posted by jcmonty

I plan on finally getting my AQ on a rusty frame in the next month or so. I had a setback with a PPM converter frying a chipset. Jussi was great and repaired it pro bono. Excited to try this thing out + add a BL gimbal to it

Looking forward to your results as well then! Thanks.

The AQ is something I'm dying to test, and I may even end up being a dealer for them. I'm also very interested in their version of the BL gimbal controller. Jussi (and everyone else) has been great to deal with, and of course Steve fixed my "serial killer" issues. Calibrating and testing the AQ is number two on the to-do list, right after getting the kit items squared away.

The AQ mounting holes are simple, since they used the same spacing as the MK, and others. The only FC mounting issue I know of is the HoverFly Pro. It's a huge board, and it's mounting holes conflict with the inner blocks. In that case, the UAP1 FC plate will be able to be used to adapt to it.

Rusty

'Bout time Rusty...
Cheers,
Jim
Quadrocopter and Tricopter Info Mega Link Index

Originally Posted by 13brv3

The AQ is something I'm dying to test, and I may even end up being a dealer for them. I'm also very interested in their version of the BL gimbal controller. Jussi (and everyone else) has been great to deal with, and of course Steve fixed my "serial killer" issues. Calibrating and testing the AQ is number two on the to-do list, right after getting the kit items squared away.

The AQ mounting holes are simple, since they used the same spacing as the MK, and others. The only FC mounting issue I know of is the HoverFly Pro. It's a huge board, and it's mounting holes conflict with the inner blocks. In that case, the UAP1 FC plate will be able to be used to adapt to it.

Rusty