969 Meters (appx 3200 feet) high, above the clouds!
- Thread starter Fanti
- Start date
Fanti said:Hi guys,
it was in a sort of no fly zone in South Africa, where aviation is forbidden. So I could go that high.
The whole trip up and down took about 12 minutes.
Wifi is not the problem, TX range is. When I fly away though, I hardly have 200 m range. Odd
No mods to any systems, all stock.
I interrupted the going home process.
Yes, straight up from the beginning.
Next project: to exceed 1000 meters..And then 2000 ;-)
Why don't you all try ho high you can go and we share the results here.
Even if you loose TX and/or wifi, nothing will happen,worst case it will auto come home.
Most people live in areas where 400ft is an unofficial limit on heights. Also, I wouldn't rely on RTH! If you have some type of GPS error, it could drift off and from that height you'd have a hard time tracking where it goes!
Other than that, nice effort! I'm still worried once I go past about 100ft lol
ToddSmi said:Fanti said:
I can think of a couple more worst case scenarios, but I admire your courage
Boy Howdy! My confidence in RTH is less than solid. +1 on the kudos for courage!
Dave Pitman said:ToddSmi said:Fanti said:
I can think of a couple more worst case scenarios, but I admire your courage
Boy Howdy! My confidence in RTH is less than solid. +1 on the kudos for courage!
Yup... same here... cojones of steel... :shock:
-slinger
Fanti said:
A word to the wise (and a warning) - For anyone in the US, be advised that attempting anything like this nearly anywhere in the country is a bad idea, for the following reasons:
1) "Controlled airspace" in the US normally starts at 1,200' above the ground (AGL), sometimes lower (700') near some airports. However, "controlled airspace" is irrelevant, since real aircraft fly in uncontrolled airspace too.
2) It's common for light aircraft to motor along at 1,000' AGL or even lower in uncongested areas.
3) "No fly zones" are few and far between in the US, and tend to be at places like nuclear reactors, the White House, and similar. If you're not a real pilot, you probably won't even know they exist, but you would not want to fly a Phantom at any of these places.
The bottom line is that in the US, there is substantially more aviation activity everywhere than in South Africa, and much of it takes place at relatively low altitudes. Attempts at altitude records with any kind of RC aircraft in the US is risky at best, and could ruin your day if your RC aircraft is involved in a mid-air with a real airplane.
Driffill said:
That's exactly right. The reality of all this bravado is that once anything as small as a Phantom gets more than several hundred feet away, it's difficult to impossible to see, and is essentially out of the "pilot's" control in terms of visually avoiding hitting anything. At that point, about all that's left is RTH, and you better hope it works. According to some reports here and elsewhere, it doesn't always.
I would have reiterate Racklefratz's warning on altitude record attempts, as much fun as it would be. Most folks in the aviation biz. are lobbying hard against UAV integration, however, no matter how much money they throw at this issue, they'll never stop this wave. The opportunity for companies to remove the burdens of their flight dept. off their books & opt for drones is something they can't wait to do. Some have already purchased UAV's in anticipation of the FAA's roadmap.
General & corporate aviation has really taken a beating in the years of this recession & unfortunately UAV integration will be another shot in the gut. I can see a flood of small aircraft coming on the market for sale & a flooded job market of mechanics, pilots, even available leases for aviation facilities in most major cities. For those in aviation, this will be to them just as like the introduction to the cellphone was to the baby Bell Co.'s (PacBell, Southwestern Bell, etc...)!!! It will be very exciting, that much is for sure.
You may not give two sh*ts about what I just said but, I bet you'll care about this....keep reading!
The price difference between a Fram oil filter for your car & one for an airplane is about $25-30 difference. The difference in price is a result from insurance costs, product traceability, & product liability. Those are things the UAV industry has been able to dodge up until now. I fully expect the FAA to lay out a comprehensive map specific to the UAV's/hobbyist ranging from product design, certification, production, installation, & product utilization. This continues on for everything you purchase related to your drone. Additionally, the people who maintain, fly, store, rent, or whatever else is done with your UAV will be done by folks who have some sort of certification, privilege license, or FAA recognized authorization to perform a specific task related to your UAV. What I've just described is a relaxed version of the FAA's current structure relating to traditional aviation. Okay maybe I'm an extremist so let's assume for a second that I'm only half way right & let use the oil filter as an example. A Fram oil filter costs $5 at Wally World & I said the aviation equiv. is $25-30 more, so let's take the middle of that range & half it ($27.50+$5.00=$32.50/2=$16.25 for a stupid oil filter. This is a price increase of 350% so imagine a Phantom 2 Vision costing $4200.00?!??
I can not predict the future but right now I'd make sure I'm getting all the goodie I can out of this hobby while I can, cause it's about to get expensive. How expensive it gets, might have something to do with anyone making the news attempting to make an altitude record because a bunch of folks are doing it on the forums & taking pictures of it!!?! Holy crap, I sure hope no one does this in the US & posts a picture of it! That, in itself, would be a calling to ground ALL unmanned air-borne craft.
The FAA is a dictatorship, her employee's have no sense of humor, their personalities were removed surgically when they began working for her. No one gets away with so much as smoking a cigarette behind a hangar & they will not allow any uncertified personnel, fly any uncertified aircraft, into US airspace. That much I can predict... Claiming ignorance won't help you, being a child, a minority, illiterate, dumb, nothing will excuse you, they will show up with suits on wearing RayBan's, & have little microphones hanging from their cuffs. If they'll lock someone up for 10 years for shining a laser pointer at an airplane, think about what they'd do with this? You ever wonder how they could find someone in the middle of a city at night who shined a laser for only a brief moment at a passing airplane? This guy didn't have to take a picture of what he did!!
So stay low & fly fast....
Steve
General & corporate aviation has really taken a beating in the years of this recession & unfortunately UAV integration will be another shot in the gut. I can see a flood of small aircraft coming on the market for sale & a flooded job market of mechanics, pilots, even available leases for aviation facilities in most major cities. For those in aviation, this will be to them just as like the introduction to the cellphone was to the baby Bell Co.'s (PacBell, Southwestern Bell, etc...)!!! It will be very exciting, that much is for sure.
You may not give two sh*ts about what I just said but, I bet you'll care about this....keep reading!
The price difference between a Fram oil filter for your car & one for an airplane is about $25-30 difference. The difference in price is a result from insurance costs, product traceability, & product liability. Those are things the UAV industry has been able to dodge up until now. I fully expect the FAA to lay out a comprehensive map specific to the UAV's/hobbyist ranging from product design, certification, production, installation, & product utilization. This continues on for everything you purchase related to your drone. Additionally, the people who maintain, fly, store, rent, or whatever else is done with your UAV will be done by folks who have some sort of certification, privilege license, or FAA recognized authorization to perform a specific task related to your UAV. What I've just described is a relaxed version of the FAA's current structure relating to traditional aviation. Okay maybe I'm an extremist so let's assume for a second that I'm only half way right & let use the oil filter as an example. A Fram oil filter costs $5 at Wally World & I said the aviation equiv. is $25-30 more, so let's take the middle of that range & half it ($27.50+$5.00=$32.50/2=$16.25 for a stupid oil filter. This is a price increase of 350% so imagine a Phantom 2 Vision costing $4200.00?!??
I can not predict the future but right now I'd make sure I'm getting all the goodie I can out of this hobby while I can, cause it's about to get expensive. How expensive it gets, might have something to do with anyone making the news attempting to make an altitude record because a bunch of folks are doing it on the forums & taking pictures of it!!?! Holy crap, I sure hope no one does this in the US & posts a picture of it! That, in itself, would be a calling to ground ALL unmanned air-borne craft.
The FAA is a dictatorship, her employee's have no sense of humor, their personalities were removed surgically when they began working for her. No one gets away with so much as smoking a cigarette behind a hangar & they will not allow any uncertified personnel, fly any uncertified aircraft, into US airspace. That much I can predict... Claiming ignorance won't help you, being a child, a minority, illiterate, dumb, nothing will excuse you, they will show up with suits on wearing RayBan's, & have little microphones hanging from their cuffs. If they'll lock someone up for 10 years for shining a laser pointer at an airplane, think about what they'd do with this? You ever wonder how they could find someone in the middle of a city at night who shined a laser for only a brief moment at a passing airplane? This guy didn't have to take a picture of what he did!!
So stay low & fly fast....
Steve
I'm afraid all that was said about regulations coming into place is the truth. I got my Vision about a week ago and have been flying around the Tiergarten and surrounding area in Berlin, Germany. Truth be told - I have not seen anyone else doing it. I did check out the regulations about that online - all that applies to Germany at least - and as far as I could manage to understand the only rule is "100 meters away from government buildings". And so - I've flown around Siegessaule because it's about 110m from the presidential office and close to the House of the Cultures of the World - that's about 100m from the Kanzleramt. As I said - I haven't seen anyone else doing it and so maybe I'm just the only person with a Vision around or possibly there are some regulations that I do not know about. But this is definitely coming and it would be a good idea to keep an eye out - not to end up arrested for 48hrs pending clarification ;-)
Anyone with any specific knowledge about German regulations out there? ;->
P.S. Attached picture from today - House of the Cultures of the World seen in the foreground, Kanzleramt in the background to the right.
Anyone with any specific knowledge about German regulations out there? ;->
P.S. Attached picture from today - House of the Cultures of the World seen in the foreground, Kanzleramt in the background to the right.
Attachments
Wormwood said:
Tell me about it!
I've still got a box of 12 brand new spark plugs I failed to liquidate when I sold my Comanche. Cost me nearly $300 as I recall. 
They're higher now. Since most Phantom owners don't have any experience with the cost of conventional flying, these price examples might not be very meaningful to them - they certainly are to me. But the point is, it will be a rude awakening if/when an RC model gets involved in a major accident, and FAA steps in to take charge of the UAV scene and takes RC flying with it. And with all the uproar about Phantom "altitude records", it's only a matter of time.
There are lots of videos on YouTube of people bragging about their RC altitude attempts....LOTS of them. They're not all flying Phantoms, but it doesn't matter. The issue is the same. These people are taking their little RC machines several thousand feet AGL, well into the flight regime of conventional aircraft. The problem is made worse by the fact that, even with FPV, their ability to see and avoid other aircraft is just about nil anywhere but straight ahead, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE GETTING INTO CLOUDS. Doing that in a real airplane requires an FAA-issued pilot's license, an instrument rating, and an airplane equipped for it, but these people are just blasting up through the clouds with their RC airplanes, essentially in the blind. You have no way of knowing what's up there, and it's an invitation to a mid-air.
It may be that the consensus of people flying RC aircraft is that attempting "altitude records" can't become a problem for "real aircraft" because "real aircraft" stay up at 30,000' or more. If that were true, they'd be right. Unfortunately, what that fails to consider is the far more numerous small private aircraft flying everywhere at much lower altitudes, well below where commercial jets fly. It's very common for these airplanes to be bumping along to go get a $100 hamburger at 1,000' AGL, or even less, and being perfectly legal. The Phantom "altitude record" flights discussed here are well above those altitudes.
Several months ago when I saw this subject being discussed here and people were similarly excited about how high their Phantoms might fly, some even posting videos which included altitude read-outs to substantiate their claims. I posted warnings about the risks involved then. I have no interest in raining on anyone's parade - I simply want to make people aware that what they're doing is full of opportunities for something very bad to happen, and when it does, the genie will be out of the bottle.
All it will take for FAA to get involved in a big way very quickly is for someone to bash their little RC craft through the windshield of somebody's real airplane, or hit one anywhere, for that matter, during one of these ill-advised "record altitude attempts". Even a near-miss would probably trigger some FAA action. After that, it's completely conceivable that in a short period of time, just going outside to fly a Phantom could become a federal crime, carrying a heavy fine or prison time.
We know FAA is going to get into the business of regulating UAVs soon. Whether they decide to come down hard on the RC hobby or not will depend on how much attention the RC community attracts. Even a near-miss with a conventional aircraft will be enough to get very swift attention, IMO, and not the kind we want.
Act accordingly, people.
justsomeguy said:
Yeah. OK. Just as I expected, here comes the "expert", who's got it all figured out - "often wrong, but never in doubt".
Y'know what? I think it's people like you, who disregard warnings from those of us who've been in aviation and know the risks , who will be the ones that screw up the RC hobby for the rest of us, due to your cavalier attitude and denial of the facts.
Quote: "Plane Finder works by picking up ADS-B plane feeds used by commercial and private planes to transmit their name, position, callsign, status and lots more."
That's pointless and unworkable.
Understand this clearly: The majority of the civil aircraft I referenced in my several warnings about all these mindless high altitude RC flights don't even have ADS-B capability, so there won't be any "live local plane info" to monitor. Further, anyone trying to even use it wouldn't have the real-time data out in the field flying their Phantoms. We're talking about what's overhead NOW, not what some internet website said was there a hour ago. You're grasping for straws, straws you don't understand.
When you get a little knowledge of the US National Airspace System and some real-world information on the aircraft that fly in it, come back and we'll talk. Preventing mid-air collisions is a little more involved than spending a few minutes on the internet.
Oh, SWEET! And, the ones it fails to "weed out"? Any more good ideas? Or don't they matter (to you)?
You've distinguished yourself now as the poster child for all the arrogant, uninformed people out there who think they know better than everyone else, and who will likely get RC flying regulated out of existence. Think about it.
justsomeguy said:
No conjecture about it. Forget "planefinder". The FACT is, the majority of light aircraft flying at low altitudes DON'T HAVE ADS-B - are we communicating yet? Doesn't matter if it's an hour old or current - it's NOT THERE. Address that with your genius grand scheme.
At the end of the day, your idea that all people have to do is get on the internet for a few minutes, then go out and blast their Phantoms up thousands of feet through overcasts, clouds, whatever....doesn't matter, long as they've got a "clearance" from "planefinder.net"....jeez. You need a reality check. And the results could be disastrous.
What is this? Is our forum turning into Fox News? I can appreciate not wanting to ruin the fun & enjoyment of R/C but must agree this kind of disproportionate postulation & sensationalism does us a great disservice.
Educating those new to the hobby & helping them hookup with their local R/C group or learning safe R/C'ing practices from experienced hobbyists here on the forum (and there are plenty of 'em) might be more beneficial & effective as opposed to publishing an entire dark doomsday diatribe suggesting modern R/C'ers pose threat to aviation... truth be told: everything poses a threat to aviation from the runway, to the weather, to ocean & land mass thermals, to flying fowl in the skies. R/C hobby (model airplanes, heli's, quad's, multi-rotors, jets, & rockets) has uneventfully & successfully coexisted with private & commercial aviation for almost 75 years. Please, let's not get carried away.
What would you imagine is left of a Phantom after dead-dropping from 10m and hitting the ground? How about hovering it stationary while a car rams it into it's windshield @80Mph? Okay how about 200Mph? Exactly.
For grins, have a read of the following:
How high do birds fly?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html
Most birds fly below 500 feet except during migration. There is no reason to expend the energy to go higher -- and there may be dangers, such as exposure to higher winds or to the sharp vision of hawks. When migrating, however, birds often do climb to relatively great heights, possibly to avoid dehydration in the warmer air near the ground. Migrating birds in the Caribbean are mostly observed around 10,000 feet, although some are found half and some twice that high. Generally long-distance migrants seem to start out at about 5,000 feet and then progressively climb to around 20,000 feet. Just like jet aircraft, the optimum cruise altitude of migrants increases as their "fuel" is used up and their weight declines. Vultures sometimes rise over 10,000 feet in order to scan larger areas for food (and to watch the behavior of distant vultures for clues to the location of a feast). Perhaps the most impressive altitude record is that of a flock of Whooper Swans which was seen on radar arriving over Northern Ireland on migration and was visually identified by an airline pilot at 29,000 feet. Birds can fly at altitudes that would be impossible for bats, since bird lungs can extract a larger fraction of oxygen from the air than can mammal lungs.
Bird Strikes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike
I'm not saying fly as high as you can and aviation be damned. I'm saying don't be stupid & irresponsible, be aware of your location & airspace, be respectful of it, and have a great time enjoying the day with your family & friends flying R/C's. After all, you -do- want your expensive R/C to come back safely in one piece so you can take it out again for another day of fun, no?
iDrone
Educating those new to the hobby & helping them hookup with their local R/C group or learning safe R/C'ing practices from experienced hobbyists here on the forum (and there are plenty of 'em) might be more beneficial & effective as opposed to publishing an entire dark doomsday diatribe suggesting modern R/C'ers pose threat to aviation... truth be told: everything poses a threat to aviation from the runway, to the weather, to ocean & land mass thermals, to flying fowl in the skies. R/C hobby (model airplanes, heli's, quad's, multi-rotors, jets, & rockets) has uneventfully & successfully coexisted with private & commercial aviation for almost 75 years. Please, let's not get carried away.
What would you imagine is left of a Phantom after dead-dropping from 10m and hitting the ground? How about hovering it stationary while a car rams it into it's windshield @80Mph? Okay how about 200Mph? Exactly.
For grins, have a read of the following:
How high do birds fly?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html
Most birds fly below 500 feet except during migration. There is no reason to expend the energy to go higher -- and there may be dangers, such as exposure to higher winds or to the sharp vision of hawks. When migrating, however, birds often do climb to relatively great heights, possibly to avoid dehydration in the warmer air near the ground. Migrating birds in the Caribbean are mostly observed around 10,000 feet, although some are found half and some twice that high. Generally long-distance migrants seem to start out at about 5,000 feet and then progressively climb to around 20,000 feet. Just like jet aircraft, the optimum cruise altitude of migrants increases as their "fuel" is used up and their weight declines. Vultures sometimes rise over 10,000 feet in order to scan larger areas for food (and to watch the behavior of distant vultures for clues to the location of a feast). Perhaps the most impressive altitude record is that of a flock of Whooper Swans which was seen on radar arriving over Northern Ireland on migration and was visually identified by an airline pilot at 29,000 feet. Birds can fly at altitudes that would be impossible for bats, since bird lungs can extract a larger fraction of oxygen from the air than can mammal lungs.
Bird Strikes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike
I'm not saying fly as high as you can and aviation be damned. I'm saying don't be stupid & irresponsible, be aware of your location & airspace, be respectful of it, and have a great time enjoying the day with your family & friends flying R/C's. After all, you -do- want your expensive R/C to come back safely in one piece so you can take it out again for another day of fun, no?
iDrone
I'm in no way condoning these height records... However the this thread is by a guy in South Africa -- which is out of the FAA area of influence - although I doubt the rules there are much different.
We get low flying RAF stuff in Scotland - we get jets through at 100 feet sometimes. sure is no warning of that!
I also have a suspicion that a lot of these so called records are faked - takes 5 mins to tweak a screenshot in Photoshop...
We get low flying RAF stuff in Scotland - we get jets through at 100 feet sometimes. sure is no warning of that!
I also have a suspicion that a lot of these so called records are faked - takes 5 mins to tweak a screenshot in Photoshop...
Similar threads
