When I examine the aeronautical engineering of the Inspire, it doesn't make much sense to me.  Why would you choose to move the engine arms up and down rather than either moving the landing gear out of the way or even extending the camera on an arm?  The latter two options would take less power, less weight, no in-flight software stability mode changes, and probably cost less to build.  Why is the standard battery only a 4500 rather than a 5200, such that the flight time has been reduced?  What was wrong with the Phantom 2 flight engineering configuration?  You could have simply put the new camera on it with either retractable landing gear or an extensible camera mount and had a much better product, in my engineering opinion.

Why would you choose to move the engine arms up and down rather than either moving the landing gear out of the way or even extending the camera on an arm?

Because it gets not only the landing gear, but the props up and out of the way.  This is very important for images taken while moving forward quickly.  As high as they are on the Inspire 1 when they are in the raised position, I've still seen just a bit of them get in the frame on one video.  The arm suggestion would solve the prop issue, but provide a far less stable gimbal mount.  It would also increase frontal surface area, and therefore drag.  

DJI's design is truly brilliant.

The 4.5 Ah battery is 99.9 Wh, and therefore does not need to adhere to IATA regulations for Lithium Ion batteries 100 Wh and greater.

ultraturtle Posted at 2015-1-4 07:40
Because it gets not only the landing gear, but the props up and out of the way.  This is very impo ...

The 4.5 Ah battery is 99.9 Wh, and therefore does not need to adhere to IATA regulations for Lithium Ion batteries 100 Wh and greater

This is especially important to consider. I'd suggest that the Inspire is designed entirely around this battery.

The Phantom and the Inspire are two totally different animals. Going from the Phantom to the Inspire is a giant leap from a great Quad to an affordable Pro Quad. DJI has really done it for us that are ready to graduate to a pro version that is affordable! Don't stop now DJI  !!!!!!

redleader Posted at 2015-1-4 07:43
This is especially important to consider. I'd suggest that the Inspire is designed entirely arou ...

What are the differences between the Inspire and Phantom batteries besides the capacities and orientation?

rodger Posted at 2015-1-4 09:58
The Phantom and the Inspire are two totally different animals. Going from the Phantom to the Inspire ...

With respect to getting the props out of camera view, wouldn't dropping the camera down on an extension arm have the same effect as lifting the engines upward, as well as requiring less energy to do it?

bob@compucall.n Posted at 2015-1-4 11:31
What are the differences between the Inspire and Phantom batteries besides the capacities and orie ...

Firmware for the Smart lipo for one.  

35 years as rotory wing engineer I thing aesthetically and engineering wise this is a fantastic design and makes for a very stable platform for the Gimbal. On an engineering perspective in flight you would not want to configure it anyother way than with the arms up lowering the C of G for maximum stability.

With respect to getting the props out of camera view, wouldn't dropping the camera down on an extension arm have the same effect as lifting the engines upward, as well as requiring less energy to do it?

It would have the same effect as raising the props and landing gear, but any theoretical energy savings for the few seconds of gear/prop transition would be vastly negated by the greater frontal surface area, and therefore drag of your arm suggestion.   Frontal surface area of the Inspire 1 remains essentially unchanged as it transforms - not so with an extending arm solution.

Stability loss would also make the suggestion less than ideal.  Lowering the center of mass significantly below the center of lift is yet another example of the brilliance of the Inspire 1's design.  It makes for a very stable gimbal platform, particularly considering the gimbal attaches to the most massive part of the aircraft.  Dangling the gimbal on an arm extended into the airstream from an inherently less stable configuration would make engineering a gimbal platform as stable as the Inspire 1 a nearly impossible task.

ultraturtle Posted at 2015-1-4 21:39
It would have the same effect as raising the props and landing gear, but any theoretical energy sa ...

I think the mechanism for raising/lowering the props will be problematic in the medium term due to dust particles getting into it, but lets see.

Paras Posted at 2015-1-4 22:22
I think the mechanism for raising/lowering the props will be problematic in the medium term due to ...

That's why we clean and have maintenance especially with Exspencive equipment well I sure do!

Paras Posted at 2015-1-4 22:22
I think the mechanism for raising/lowering the props will be problematic in the medium term due to ...

That's why we clean and have maintenance especially with Exspencive equipment well I sure do!

Paras Posted at 2015-1-4 22:22
I think the mechanism for raising/lowering the props will be problematic in the medium term due to ...

If you look closely, there is a rubber boot covering the whole mechanism. Similar to the boots found on a truck's shock absorber. The more I look at it, the more I think that DJI really has done a very good job in designing the Inspire.

ultraturtle Posted at 2015-1-4 21:39
It would have the same effect as raising the props and landing gear, but any theoretical energy sa ...

Good points, but is all that worth more than doubling the cost?  I'm NOT interested in professional photography or reality TV shows. I'm interested in applications such as search and rescue, forest fire spotting and fighting, weather monitoring, etc., so I have somewhat different requirements.  I'd like to see dji just mount the Inspire camera on the Phantom 2 airframe, with or without an extension arm.  I could even reuse all of those extra batteries, props, carrying case, backpack that I have for my Phantom.  I vote with my pocketbook, and I would not buy the Inspire now just to get a steadier shot without a few spinning props in it occasionally.  I would like a high-def wide-screen non-fisheye camera with real-time wifi mounted on the Phantom 2 airframe.  The ability to optically zoom would be a real plus.  

bob@compucall.n Posted at 2015-1-5 02:59
Good points, but is all that worth more than doubling the cost?  I'm NOT interested in professiona ...

Well because I have one on order, I'll say that it's worth the cost. Once I crash it then I'll regret my purchase and say it's not.  Until then, the reason why I'm buying the Inspire is not only for the retractable legs (because that alone doesn't justify the doubling in price) but I like the aesthetic design and long list of features that it has to offer.  I probably couldn't have designed the craft from scratch if my life depended on it.

I do see your point though.  I hope DJI is taking notes from you for the Phantom 3.  

rodger Posted at 2015-1-4 09:58
The Phantom and the Inspire are two totally different animals. Going from the Phantom to the Inspire ...

That's exactly what Eric was saying the Phantom is almost indestructible the Inspire isn't gonna take any degree of crashing very well. Think we've already had one crash here on the forum if I'm not mistaken.

I personally think the phantom is the way to go for many the inspire will be a costly paper weight to many who haven't done their due diligence.
I bet 80 percent of phantom failures are due to operator error or in many cases not updating firmware out the box and calibrating both the transmitter and uav properly. Every time I hear fly away I ask how, and why, when There are guidelines to follow you do just launch with out checking many things foremost Sun activity and Gps signals environment...

On thing I like about the phantom it is field tested and built like a brick sh## house.

But it is time for the new so bring on the inspire 1

I like the design and of course this is a semi pro copter, cant be compared with the phantom. The mechanism will save weight and the best part is the props are far away from the lens. The more important question would be has the inspire higher quality electronics, like better motors, better ESCs, better compass and GPS etc.. better smart battery :p

craigarthurson@ Posted at 2015-1-4 20:48
35 years as rotory wing engineer I thing aesthetically and engineering wise this is a fantastic desi ...

Is that why modern aircraft lift the wings, engines, and landing gear above the fuselage in flight?  

ultraturtle Posted at 2015-1-4 21:39
It would have the same effect as raising the props and landing gear, but any theoretical energy sa ...

Then why don't modern aircraft  lower the fuselage from the wings, engines, and landing gear so the passengers could get an unobstructed view?