DAFlys Posted at 1-13 08:23
If you watched Ians video from 15mins to the end he explains very clearly the window to get a sub 250g drone without classification because what will change and why when its classified.  IE 250g weight vs 250g MTOM.

Ignore the clown with his outrageous language and keyboard where the key "!" always stuck. In my opinion, however, it is still not clear whether the EASA will not also declare the actual weight as MTOM (Maybe?) Also because no or hardly any manufacturer has given this value until now. If that should happen, it could be enough for DJI to release a Mini 3 WITHOUT propguards, certifying the weight of the bare drone (e.g. 240g) as take-off weight and 249g as MTOM. The scope for add-on parts would then be 10g.

jonny007 Posted at 1-13 09:51
Ignore the clown with his outrageous language and keyboard where the key "!" always stuck. In my opinion, however, it is still not clear whether the EASA will not also declare the actual weight as MTOM (Maybe?) Also because no or hardly any manufacturer has given this value until now. If that should happen, it could be enough for DJI to release a Mini 3 WITHOUT propguards, certifying the weight of the bare drone (e.g. 240g) as take-off weight and 249g as MTOM. The scope for add-on parts would then be 10g.

Thanks.  Judging by the many videos / articles it really seems to me the mtom will be higher than 250g if they put it in for classification.   I plan on ordering one next month to take advantage of the fly almost anywhere rules.  To me I’m not risking it getting classified with the mtom greater than 249g.

jonny007 Posted at 1-13 09:51
Ignore the clown with his outrageous language and keyboard where the key "!" always stuck. In my opinion, however, it is still not clear whether the EASA will not also declare the actual weight as MTOM (Maybe?) Also because no or hardly any manufacturer has given this value until now. If that should happen, it could be enough for DJI to release a Mini 3 WITHOUT propguards, certifying the weight of the bare drone (e.g. 240g) as take-off weight and 249g as MTOM. The scope for add-on parts would then be 10g.

Oh and I just realised he’s arguing this exact topic in other threads too.  

jonny007 Posted at 1-13 09:51
Ignore the clown with his outrageous language and keyboard where the key "!" always stuck. In my opinion, however, it is still not clear whether the EASA will not also declare the actual weight as MTOM (Maybe?) Also because no or hardly any manufacturer has given this value until now. If that should happen, it could be enough for DJI to release a Mini 3 WITHOUT propguards, certifying the weight of the bare drone (e.g. 240g) as take-off weight and 249g as MTOM. The scope for add-on parts would then be 10g.

well the only clown is the one that argues the facts...if you want to convince yourself you are right, go ahead. don't get the drone cause it has the mtom higher than 250. i hope you can sleep better that way. and to believe  that the new mini drone will have below 250 weight and be in C1 classification, well clown is not the word I would use let's say

DAFlys Posted at 1-13 10:32
Thanks.  Judging by the many videos / articles it really seems to me the mtom will be higher than 250g if they put it in for classification.   I plan on ordering one next month to take advantage of the fly almost anywhere rules.  To me I’m not risking it getting classified with the mtom greater than 249g.

Sure, and we all agree that MTOM is and must be higher. My car weighs 900kg. If the car's MTOM was also 900kg, I could only get in but not drive ;-) As I said, the only question is whether EASA STILL equates it. But currently it can't because MTOM is not specified by DJI. Perhaps it would also be enough that a warning appears when the payload is recognized and if you agree and fly that DJI's liability expires because the MTOM has been exceeded. With the addition that legal flying above MTOM is only possible for indoor flights (e.g. propguards). Or better wait for mini 3 ? ;-)

DAFlys Posted at 1-13 10:34
Oh and I just realised he’s arguing this exact topic in other threads too.

i am not arguing...i am just trying to tell you that you are speculation on things you don´t understand.. i don´t see dji classifying the mini in C1...it will be stupid. For the sake of the classification they will put explicitly mtom of 250 gr in the specification.

jonny007 Posted at 1-13 11:11
Sure, and we all agree that MTOM is and must be higher. My car weighs 900kg. If the car's MTOM was also 900kg, I could only get in but not drive ;-) As I said, the only question is whether EASA STILL equates it. But currently it can't because MTOM is not specified by DJI. Perhaps it would also be enough that a warning appears when the payload is recognized and if you agree and fly that DJI's liability expires because the MTOM has been exceeded. With the addition that legal flying above MTOM is only possible for indoor flights (e.g. propguards). Or better wait for mini 3 ? ;-)

It only needs to be specified when it’s put in for classification.  At that point it will be legally less capable than the unclassified version.   At that point the sticker makes a huge difference.  

sbonev Posted at 1-13 11:14
i am not arguing...i am just trying to tell you that you are speculation on things you don´t understand.. i don´t see dji classifying the mini in C1...it will be stupid. For the sake of the classification they will put explicitly mtom of 250 gr in the specification.

At 250g mtom it could barely takeoff let alone be wind resistent.

sbonev Posted at 1-13 11:14
i am not arguing...i am just trying to tell you that you are speculation on things you don´t understand.. i don´t see dji classifying the mini in C1...it will be stupid. For the sake of the classification they will put explicitly mtom of 250 gr in the specification.

Ps. I’m not the only one saying this.  Please watch YouTube like Ian. He’s qualified and saying this too.  

DAFlys Posted at 1-13 10:34
Oh and I just realised he’s arguing this exact topic in other threads too.

Unfortunately, you can't hide someone's contributions here, right? :-(
Another thing: To be honest, I don't think people will fly any differently whether the weight is given as 242, 270 or 320 g. Neither EVERYONE flies VLOS or always below 120 meters, just like in the city with a car always 50.0 km/h. Also 53 km/h are not allowed just because you have 3km/h tolerance from the radar measurement.

sbonev Posted at 1-13 11:14
i am not arguing...i am just trying to tell you that you are speculation on things you don´t understand.. i don´t see dji classifying the mini in C1...it will be stupid. For the sake of the classification they will put explicitly mtom of 250 gr in the specification.

I’m sure they could just lie about it’s Wright at mtom and theyll get the label they want.

jonny007 Posted at 1-13 11:22
Unfortunately, you can't hide someone's contributions here, right? :-(
Another thing: To be honest, I don't think people will fly any differently whether the weight is given as 242, 270 or 320 g. Neither EVERYONE flies VLOS or always below 120 meters, just like in the city with a car always 50.0 km/h. Also 53 km/h are not allowed just because you have 3km/h tolerance from the radar measurement.

I agree. But having the mini 2 to produce if there was a complaint is a good card to play.  Fly m2p from garden if some one complains show them the mini 2 and there’s no way they can tell the difference at a few hundred feet away.

jonny007 Posted at 1-13 11:11
Sure, and we all agree that MTOM is and must be higher. My car weighs 900kg. If the car's MTOM was also 900kg, I could only get in but not drive ;-) As I said, the only question is whether EASA STILL equates it. But currently it can't because MTOM is not specified by DJI. Perhaps it would also be enough that a warning appears when the payload is recognized and if you agree and fly that DJI's liability expires because the MTOM has been exceeded. With the addition that legal flying above MTOM is only possible for indoor flights (e.g. propguards). Or better wait for mini 3 ? ;-)

sorry but could you explain to me how a car and mtom  are in one sentence. unless your car flies your example is beyond ridiculous so there is no argument here, simply you have hard time starting up your brain activity...

Replace MTOM  with GVW and his point will make sense, or at least it should.I think it was a good analogy.

Man this is what rc companies do.. I know all too well about this and have 20 years experience on the topic, this goes for paintball, cars, electronics you name it they will find a way to market a base model that needs improving in almost every aspect (dji mini will come out, then mini 2, if they are still selling lots of original mini drones they will come out with dji mini 3 and when sales slow down on the base model the company says poof and the original mini gets discontinued pushing a new improved mini 3 pro max with thermal imaging and 45 minute flight times

then when you have purchased every release and you think it's all over they discontinue the mini all together and come out with the better new "micro" drones  that everyone has to have rendering most of the mini line obsolete so they can push "hard to find" accesories for an arm or a leg to unfortunate people like myself that gets stuck with the discontinued model that cost more than I can afford

djiuser_sscKFYI3NXiD Posted at 4-17 21:21
then when you have purchased every release and you think it's all over they discontinue the mini all together and come out with the better new "micro" drones  that everyone has to have rendering most of the mini line obsolete so they can push "hard to find" accesories for an arm or a leg to unfortunate people like myself that gets stuck with the discontinued model that cost more than I can afford

when you say discontinued model, do you mean the product you have at home stops working or do you mean there is a factory in china that stops mass producing your product?  if it's the latter, why should you care (in the short term)?