Well Dustin did it again.

That is kinda mad!

BTW, it's Dustin, not Justin. Maybe autocorrect got ya?

Nicodema Posted at 11-26 03:20
That is kinda mad!

BTW, it's Dustin, not Justin. Maybe autocorrect got ya?

Thanks.  Must be auto correct.  

34,5 minutes
But that is to 0% (and somehow below)
So in real life somewhere around 30 minutes.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 03:40
34,5 minutes
But that is to 0% (and somehow below)
So in real life somewhere around 30 minutes.

I didn’t think he was going to make it back.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 03:56
I didn’t think he was going to make it back.

Well, when that forced landing started to kick in, I was fearing the same.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 03:56
I didn’t think he was going to make it back.

I think they should advertise with more realistic flight times.
34,5 is not even a very a realistic number (since he flew it down to 0%, which is not advised)
But they advertise with 46.....

Wow, Dustin is insane.  I would have bet against the drone making it back.  Hard to believe it let him fly to 0% or below.  

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 04:55
Well, when that forced landing started to kick in, I was fearing the same.

I was amazed how long he could cancel the auto landing with just a left stick up.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 04:56
I think they should advertise with more realistic flight times.
34,5 is not even a very a realistic number (since he flew it down to 0%, which is not advised)
But they advertise with 46.....

It doenst really add up,  maybe thats coming in the next firmware update.

DowntownRDB Posted at 11-26 05:31
Wow, Dustin is insane.  I would have bet against the drone making it back.  Hard to believe it let him fly to 0% or below.

I know,   I was amazed he got back.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 06:09
I was amazed how long he could cancel the auto landing with just a left stick up.

Yes, apparently the pilot still has some power to overrule the automatic behavior

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 06:09
It doenst really add up,  maybe thats coming in the next firmware update.

Did we ever see a FW update that improved the flight times?

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 06:30
Did we ever see a FW update that improved the flight times?

The early Mavic 3s that the reviewers got were barely doing 25 minutes,  but they got a firmware upgrade that increased to 35.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 06:30
Yes, apparently the pilot still has some power to overrule the automatic behavior

I would have thought at 1 or 0% it would just land for safety.   But then I did see on youtube a crash where it fell from the sky due to flat battery.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 06:43
The early Mavic 3s that the reviewers got were barely doing 25 minutes,  but they got a firmware upgrade that increased to 35.

Ah, I did not know that.
Interesting.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 06:44
I would have thought at 1 or 0% it would just land for safety.   But then I did see on youtube a crash where it fell from the sky due to flat battery.

So it is not a 100% guarantee.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 06:49
So it is not a 100% guarantee.

Not based on the top 5 mavic 3 crashes YT video I watched.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 06:49
Ah, I did not know that.
Interesting.

A couple of the early reviewer mentioned it.   One of them made a video of the mavic 3 flying from a camera in front of it.   he showed how it made it by clamping the drone to a poll and running around with it.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 07:00
Not based on the top 5 mavic 3 crashes YT video I watched.

But that means they all went to 0%?

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 07:01
A couple of the early reviewer mentioned it.   One of them made a video of the mavic 3 flying from a camera in front of it.   he showed how it made it by clamping the drone to a poll and running around with it.

So apparently they can make it more efficient.
That does make me wonder how.
I always thought the actual flying would be the most 'expensive' part of the whole operation.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 07:09
But that means they all went to 0%?

Certainly the one that fell out the sky ran out of juice.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 07:10
So apparently they can make it more efficient.
That does make me wonder how.
I always thought the actual flying would be the most 'expensive' part of the whole operation.

CPU's & radios can use a lot of energy if the code is not optimised,   but still I would agree with you,  the motors seem the logical place to use the most energy.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 07:16
Certainly the one that fell out the sky ran out of juice.

That sounds a bit like bad piloting skills.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 07:18
CPU's & radios can use a lot of energy if the code is not optimised,   but still I would agree with you,  the motors seem the logical place to use the most energy.

Apparently these do make a difference indeed.

Montfrooij Posted at 11-26 07:22
That sounds a bit like bad piloting skills.

Another range tester I think it was.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 07:30
Another range tester I think it was.

That would explain it.

Keep in mind. he was at a constant speed average of 34mph and still had over 30 mins of flight time. Realistically you wouldn't be at a steady speed of 34mph when filming or taking photo shots. I believe it could come close to the advertised length of flight.

Visual Air Posted at 11-26 07:48
Keep in mind. he was at a constant speed average of 34mph and still had over 30 mins of flight time. Realistically you wouldn't be at a steady speed of 34mph when filming or taking photo shots. I believe it could come close to the advertised length of flight.

But they always keep saying that hovering takes more energy, as does speed change, so flying at straight line at constant speed probably is the least juice consuming mode, no?

Visual Air Posted at 11-26 07:48
Keep in mind. he was at a constant speed average of 34mph and still had over 30 mins of flight time. Realistically you wouldn't be at a steady speed of 34mph when filming or taking photo shots. I believe it could come close to the advertised length of flight.

Ive not seen any evidence of anyone getting close to 46 minutes.   The review units could only do 25 before a firmware update.

DarthSLR Posted at 11-26 08:13
But they always keep saying that hovering takes more energy, as does speed change, so flying at straight line at constant speed probably is the least juice consuming mode, no?

I really dont understand how hovering takes more power than flying.   I dont doubt it,  it just doenst compute in my head.

When a helicopter or multirotor is hovering, it develops a column of air moving downwards. This reduces the amount of lift that the lifting fan(s) generate. However if you are moving, then the lifting fan(s) gain access to air which isn't moving downwards, which is noticeably more efficient to use for generating lift. When flying a dumb multirotor, you can see the craft lift when you start to translate, so you actually back off the throttle slightly to stay at the same altitude.

Hope that helps explain the loss of efficiency while hovering.

As an aside, in extremis the downdraft can recirculate to become a vortex ring, which can cause lift failure crashes. Descend very fast and try to "brake" too hard, with a dumb drone and you can provoke this quite easily.

DarthSLR Posted at 11-26 08:13
But they always keep saying that hovering takes more energy, as does speed change, so flying at straight line at constant speed probably is the least juice consuming mode, no?

No I agree with you. My point is I will use my M3 for videos and photos. Chances are I am never at full stick like he was the entire 28kms there and back like the video shows. For the record has there been any DJI drone that could achieve advertised flight time? I have owned many of them and yet to achieve the stated flight times.
I have flown my M3 once last night and I will say for sure i have more flight time than my Mavic Pro 2 or my Air 2S.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 10:04
I really dont understand how hovering takes more power than flying.   I dont doubt it,  it just doenst compute in my head.

I asked the same question before and apparently keeping in precise place takes a lot more effort than going in some direction. The nearest physical analogy I personally could come up with is trying to balance a stick as opposed to swinging it.

I watched this on YouTube yesterday, nail biting. This is probably the furthest the M3 flew on a return trip.

Suren Posted at 11-26 14:26
I watched this on YouTube yesterday, nail biting. This is probably the furthest the M3 flew on a return trip.

I think its the furthest Ive seen so far.   Although I have seen one that fell out the sky doing this test.

DAFlys Posted at 11-26 06:10
I know,   I was amazed he got back.

He was super lucky, especially with a brand new M3.

DowntownRDB Posted at 11-27 03:29
He was super lucky, especially with a brand new M3.

If they fix the flight time issues just imaging how far he could go.

DAFlys Posted at 11-27 01:11
I think its the furthest Ive seen so far.   Although I have seen one that fell out the sky doing this test.

I sa one video of a guy that tested the RC Pro and the standard RC and got around 25km but that was a one way trip.

Suren Posted at 11-27 12:21
I sa one video of a guy that tested the RC Pro and the standard RC and got around 25km but that was a one way trip.

Ive not seen that one,  do you have a link or remember the channel name?