Originally Posted by jgestner

Hi Matrix
If you really want to impress Horizon Hobby/E-flite /Blade staffers, you may want to add the f to your next elite comments.

And I hope your wait isn't too long. Brushless is cool, but the added weight and complexity makes it more prone to damage with any accidents. The near super lightness of the mQX and even more so with the latest super micro quads make them less prone to damage due to less mass at the crash. Easier on walls, windows, LCD Tv's, and baby quadcopters.

More mass and brand new quad pilots will not make a lot of friends for Horizon.

But that may just be my old 62 year old opinion kicking in again.

Yes I have had my issues with little baby brushed motors by Horizon and others, but I won't begrudge Horizon for not jumping headlong into a new failure rate issue.

Expert level equipment should probably not be pushed onto the largely beginner RC hobbyist. Even the mQX takes more than beginner skills to master.

Just some thoughts from an mQX pilot.

John in Merrill

In my opinion they will release a blade mqx with the tail motor of the new brushless mcpx it's 8mm the same diameter of the mqx motor.
They only need to change the motherboard.
Mcpx weight was increased of only 15 grams. The mqx will become great for outdoor flight and......for beginners,62 years old , and for who didn't want spend a little more money the brushed mqx will not be discontinued as happens for msr mcpx v2,etc.

To me this look like obvious. We need an outdoor powerful and crash proof quadcopter.

Originally Posted by matrixFLYER

In my opinion they will release a blade mqx with the tail motor of the new brushless mcpx it's 8mm the same diameter of the mqx motor.
They only need to change the motherboard.
Mcpx weight was increased of only 15 grams. The mqx will become great for outdoor flight and......for beginners,62 years old , and for who didn't want spend a little more money the brushed mqx will not be discontinued as happens for msr mcpx v2,etc.

To me this look like obvious. We need an outdoor powerful and crash proof quadcopter.

A mQX stacked with mCPX tail motors will not compete with the market.

1. The brushed mQX motors have 8.5mm Ø. Easy enough to make/produce new motor holder, though.
2. These brushless mCPX inrunner motors need 2s batts. They have to make a complete new PCB, it isn't done with some minor changes on a old design one.
3. A simple brushed mQX BNF still is about 100-120 USD shipped - I do not want to know how much the brushless version will cost - considering the price policy estimated 150-200 USD shipped (I'll bet closer to 200.).

For this price you can get some really good brushless BNF quads already that are a lot more versatile, much stronger and programmable.
The quad market has changed dramatically over the last 2 years, a fact that has been missed by HH/Blade.

-mike-

Originally Posted by turboparker

Unfortunately, it operates on 915 MHz - which is not an RC band in the USA. The 900 MHz ISM band is extremely crowded over here. Plus, there are a bunch of extremely high-powered paging systems that live in the 928-929 MHz band. They run 3500 watts, and they will knock a 915 MHz RC receiver right off the air due to front-end overload.

Joel

Joel,

In theory what you say would seem correct however, let me give a few observations.

I will be one of the first to say I was a critic of the quad being on the 915 Mhz band and not the 2.4 Ghz that we've all come to know and love. As a matter of fact when I got back into the hobby 4 years ago it was pushed so much that 2.4 was the only way to go, that I began to believe everything had to run on it or it just wasn't any good. Hence my original concerns of the EYE One.

However, I have now owned my 915 Mhz EYE One now for nearly two months and have flown it just about everywhere and have had ZERO issues with loss of signal or interference. I fly across the street at a huge field in the park and right next to that field are cell towers and quite a few other towers and none of these have caused a single interference or issue.

On top of that, there have now been a few thousand of these sold here in the US and on the few threads specifically for the EYE One here on the forums and the RC Logger's own personal forum there has not been one person that has had or expressed a single issue with loss of signal or interference. I talked with Adam of the RC Logger team this morning and specifically asked him about it and they haven't head one issue regarding this. RC Logger was just at CES last week and if there would be anywhere they would run into issues it would be there with the amount of technology being used and presented there, but all 3 days the EYE One and Xtreme were flown hours and hours on end without a single glitch or interference. So I Believe that speaks to the account that anything else that operates in the 900 Mhz is a moot point because we have yet to see one single person be effected by it.

Please know I'm in no way trying to bring contradiction or cause an argument with you Joel. I always have huge respect for your input and I hope my wording doesn't come across in an attacking form. I just don't want anyone to be turned away by the band this quad runs on, because it seems to not be effected at all by anything else running along that same band.

Regarding the ONE Link adapter that will be available soon (pretty set in stone to be released in March), it will allow the 915 Mhz version to be flown with a 2.4 radio. We have yet to have full details on what major brand radio's will be incorporated but it seems like Spektrum is at the top of the list, so it's a good chance you will be able to fly the EYE One and Xtreme with a Spektrum radio.

There will also be a 2.4 Ghz EYE One released eventually as well. However, I challenge anyone to buy the 915 Mhz EYE One and fly it all day long next to your 2.4 Ghz equipment and I guarantee you won't ever find a difference.

Jlcamp,

Flying on 915 MHz is a crap-shoot in the USA. Cell towers aren't the problem. They're low-power, and they're up in the GHz range. It's the high-powered 928/929 MHz paging systems that you need to worry about. I know. I built hundreds of 3500W 928/929 MHz paging sites on towers, skyscrapers, apartment buildings, and water towers across the country. We were the first wireless provider to be licensed for 3500W operation in the 900 MHz band. Due to the extremely high power, I had to investigate & solve thousands of RFI issues. Given that even the best commercial-grade 902 MHz receivers need external RF filters the size of 5-pound coffee cans to handle that much power at such a close frequency, I doubt that any 915 MHz RC receiver front-end would be able to handle a nearby 929 MHz paging transmitter without going into full front-end overload. If I were living where 900 MHz paging systems are rare - such as in a rural area or smaller town, I wouldn't be so concerned. But I built 79 929 MHz 3500W paging sites just within the greater metro area around here. And we weren't the only provider doing build-outs.

Joel

Can't argue with you there. Thanks for that I learned some new stuff from your post. I live in Cincinnati and fly in the city and don't have any issues, but also don't know what type of paging systems are set up in the area.

Thirty five hundred Watts?! That's not even safe to stand near... Surely it would shoot down a plane...

Originally Posted by turboparker

If you check the website, you will see that '3c charge' is printed right on the front of Eflite's new 500 mAh 25c battery. The original 500 mAh 12c battery's max charge is 2c - as stated in the manual on page 5.

Joel

Originally Posted by ChrisJ800

Yes it can , though I usually change down to .5 out of habit at charging anything at 1C.

okay cool thanks guys.

Originally Posted by jasmine2501

Thirty five hundred Watts?! That's not even safe to stand near... Surely it would shoot down a plane...

You're absolutely right! That much RF at 900 MHz can cause dangerous levels of tissue heating if you get too close. Due to the high levels of RF, my techs & I had to wear non-ionizing radiation suits while working on the rooftop sites, and my tower crews had to wear them when working on the tower sites. If you walked out onto the rooftop with a florescent lamp, it would light up brightly. If you wanted a warm lunch, you could just put it in the main lobe of a panel array. I once connected a 900 MHz stick to a Bird watt meter w/50-ohm dummy load, put the antenna on the roof of a major skyscraper in town, and measured 80 WATTS of aggregate RF coming in from all of the antennas on the rooftop. And that was with a very narrow-banded antenna. Also, the 'antennas from hell' (twin 100 kW FM vertical arrays) weren't even transmitting at the time.

There is a lot of RF flying around out there. Front-end overload is only one issue. The mathematical possibilities for inter-modulation are nearly endless. Hence, why I tend to stick with known performers with any RC aircraft that I care about.

Joel

Yesterday the cheap 2$ P799 canopy arrived.
It matches very well to the frame - even the holes for the + configuration are stamped out!

-mike-

Wow. That canopy color matches really well with the GWS props.

I think the color scheme looks even better than the original mQX canopy.

This canopy makes it look very "fast." Something about the graphics pattern connotes speed to me.

Thanks for sharing. Great price too!

Hey guys. I've been flying the mqx for about 30 batts now. FF is coming natural now fast banking turns are fun!
Anyway, I would like to fly some at night now and have been looking for a good LED setup. I have seen a lot of people putting single LEDs at the end of each boom but I would rather have a LED strip on the bottom of the booms. Any have this setup? Also, how is everyone powering their light rig?

Originally Posted by mikefromgermany

Yesterday the cheap 2$ P799 canopy arrived.
It matches very well to the frame - even the holes for the + configuration are stamped out!

-mike-

I got some of these canopies as well, I'm very pleased with them.

I do wonder where they "borrowed" the graphics scheme from, because originality doesn't seem to be a strong point.

Originally Posted by trout911

Hey guys. I've been flying the mqx for about 30 batts now. FF is coming natural now fast banking turns are fun!
Anyway, I would like to fly some at night now and have been looking for a good LED setup. I have seen a lot of people putting single LEDs at the end of each boom but I would rather have a LED strip on the bottom of the booms. Any have this setup? Also, how is everyone powering their light rig?

Get the V949 spare light strips at banggood - hook them up with fitting resistors and connect them directly to batt (just solder a second short wired plug to the pads)

You may also use the mQX running light connectors on the board.

-mike-

Originally Posted by trout911

Hey guys. I've been flying the mqx for about 30 batts now. FF is coming natural now fast banking turns are fun!
Anyway, I would like to fly some at night now and have been looking for a good LED setup. I have seen a lot of people putting single LEDs at the end of each boom but I would rather have a LED strip on the bottom of the booms. Any have this setup? Also, how is everyone powering their light rig?

LED strips are a problem because they need to run on 12V, and they are quite heavy as well. The mQX can carry some extra weight, but every gram you add reduces performance a bit. SO... the best way to do lights for the mQX is to make your own. That way you get the wires the exact right length, you can run from a 1S Lipo (or from the board itself), and you can easily keep the system light by using 3mm LEDs.

Here's a short video of my mQX LEDs - I have since made a better system with the battery on the bottom.

Blade mQX with LEDs (5 min 8 sec)

And here's a video about how to do LEDs yourself. It's well worth the time - when you get used to working with LEDs, you can make and install a kit like this in about an hour.

All About LEDs for RC Night Flying (23 min 52 sec)

The v949 light bar above is very small. 3mm on the short side.

And it has a resistor already.