I don't really want to take it out into nature environments. That seems obnoxious where it's even allowed.

I suppose I could find clubs that fiddle with the things but I don't really have the interest.

So, basically, I have trouble imagining how I'd use them for more than a couple days.

If you're in an open area. And if there is only one drone.

A couple of years ago I was in a serene canyon in Utah enjoying the peace and watching nature when three drones decided to scare away the bighorn sheep.

People don't hate drones because they hate drones. That's why many seem to like the idea of Amazon/UPS drone deliveries. They hate drones because of what the drone pilots do with them.

I don't mean to be a dick; I've been flying R/C for ~25 years and I know how difficult it can be to find fun places to fly and how frustrating when other people get in the way of that. But I also really appreciate quietness and because I live in a city it's a rare gift for me when I do get out into nature. Please have some consideration for others and don't unilaterally decide what noise level is acceptable for them unless there are already significant sources of noise present or you're really sure nobody else is around.

Last time I heard a drone fly overhead, I definitely felt anoyed. People tend to overlook the impact their toys have on other individuals

Really very loud then for the people around you in a nature environment.

This just started in the last year or so, where virtually every time there's a drone off in the distance.

I don't have great hearing either (especially in one ear), after playing some musical instruments that you hold close to one ear to play. Those things are just loud and stand out when the other noises are the wind in the trees, birds, and the rustle of small animals in the underbrush.

Fun enough for a few hours punctuated by recharging but not really something I see myself spending $500-$1000 on. I don't have kids. I can see them being fun toys. I spent many hours as a child playing with balsa wood gliders for example.

If people can spend thousands of hours playing flight simulators on the computer, surely there's a lot of replay value of doing the same thing with an RC quadcopter through a forest or around your home/neighborhood w/FPV.

Photography drone pilots will do all kinds of stupid shit that horrifies me, like fly near people, near obstacles, under trees, in crowded places, etc etc.

I blame it on the fact that a Mavic is super easy to get and requires no knowledge, whereas it took me two hours of reading just to figure out how to start my racing drone.

I havent bought one yet, but have flown a cool DJI/FPV setup around a local mountain. It was really fun

I bought a Taranis QX7 remote controller (~$100), which is amazing and I love it and you can use it with any other RC vehicle you want. I even hook up the receiver to my hardware projects so I can control them remotely.

You also need an FrSky XSR or R-XSR receiver (~$10), a Beitian BN-220 GPS (~$10), a motor and ESC (be careful, get a plane ESC, not a quad ESC, the plane one is larger and has better heat dissipation, ~$30). You need two small servos for the elevons, those cost about a dollar each. You also need a good soldering iron (the TS100 is $35 and is amazing.

For the controller, the Kakute F7 is fantastic and costs $45ish. It can fly in modes ranging from manual to completely autonomous (you get a Google Maps interface and mark where you want it to go and it just flies to those points). This may be a bit overkill, as it's the best board around, you can get a cheaper one (or maybe one that is made specifically for planes) no problem, but it's only $10 cheaper.

The FPV goggles can cost around $30 for some cheap ones, adjust those to taste.

I think that's it for components, although I should probably do a proper writeup if people are interested. There's much info out there already, but it might not be concentrated in one place. Let me know if you have any more questions!

I’ll stick to writing code.

The only cases where needing more time would be a big deal would be for filming something that lasts longer than the battery.

More or less, they said they had given up on putting money into drone R&D until battery technology caught up, as they had plenty of ideas that they believed in but were unfeasible due to battery life.

You're looking at a fixed wing aircraft though with one of those. What's made the quadcopter drone possible is the high torque and instantaneous throttle response of small electric motors, combined with fast control electronics. The conventional way to fly a small helicopter is just like a full sized helicopter, with a main rotor and a mechanical swash plate.

With the right control electronics, these can easily be made into drones, but people tend to not like them as much anymore because they're mechanically complex and finicky. The electric motors are simple, and when one goes bad you just drop in a new one.

I think that’s a more impossible goal than increasing power density in batteries is.

This guy tries to make gasoline powered generator for large drone.

This is hard to do with petrol engines, without costing a lot of extra weight or mechanical complexity, in a system where any single failure means a crash

There's differential based continous variable transmission that varies according to resistive torque on a control shaft: https://makezine.com/2012/08/10/lego-continuously-variable-t...

This might enable electronic control witout using any motors just one simple coil per propeller. Energy generated through this way of control could be stored to power onboard devices.

https://www.hobbytown.com/gas-rc-airplanes/c7574

Given the line of sight limitation for drones, gas power does not add much value. Batteries are usually sufficient to map/photograph the area within range of the operator. Given this legal limitation, it is often more economical to hire a small plane like a Cessna with an avionics package and a 400 mi range.

They exist, but they are expensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS0Hr2lw604

Now, that's for small scale drones flying 15 minutes. For, say, commercial airplanes that can fly 18 hours, energy density becomes a major factor.

They are noisy, however. Drone buzz now is simply from spinning fans. Adding a reciprocating motor to the mix is all the louder.

The alternative is lighter airframes and solar power. For quads / octos, probably not viable, but for a prop-driven fixed-wing craft, a very small amount of thrust to counter gravity could be quite effective. Expanded polystyrene or similarly light body, solar cells over all horizontal surfaces, and an ultra-lightweighted controls and imaging payload. That would allow for long-duration flights at least in daylight.

The low-energy use would also make battery-powered night flights more viable, certainly beyond 15 minutes.

The principle cost is loss of hover capabilities.

also I believe if you want to be pedantic, if it runs on combustion it's a engine. if electric then a motor.

I think that might be less general than you think: General Motors hasn't exactly been known for their electric motors the last few decades.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classificat...

However "reciprocating engine" has a clear usage preponderance over "reciprocating motor":

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=reciprocating%...

Build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yB49G756OI

Generator tests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zMPodObo-Y and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf78udpz3aI

Not sure how well it'll work in practice but fun build.

They exist and are used for long distance drones.

The main two types of flier before quadcopters were fixed-wing model airplanes, and helicopters. They are both riskier to use than quadcopters: fixed wings can't be stationary and need a large area to fly around, while helicopters have large dangerous blades. This is why either of these are less attractive to the mass market.

On the flip-side, I think converting a quadcopter to use an engine is expensive because controlling 4 blades at once is not as simple as with 4 electric motors. Either they need to have 4 gas engines (expensive, not as responsive as electrics) or they need to have a variable pitch mechanism (now you need an intricate/expensive mechanical system of levers and servos to transfer the control).

It's a scaled up version of his stingray.

The issue is that stability and control is easier to do with 4 blades rather than with one that has a swash plate.

I’m sure I would love them if I tried them, but I don’t want to be seen as the type of guy who owns a drone (like how I don’t want to be known as the guy who uses Linux or the village Libertarian, even though those words might describe me reasonably well).