1 Like
It looks like it’s still got stabilisation. When it flips it self levels.
Looks a bit like horizon mode on a racing quad.
I’m guessing it’s something to do with increasing tilt angle limit.
1 Like
I think that “stabilisation” is just the gimbal catching up with where it is in the world.
Had to remove the gimbal (or disconnect it and tape it in place) on the P2 for full manual … the H33D gimbal would have burnt out. LOL
Yeah think your right.
See the mode changing from position to manual and back as well. There must be a way to switch it on and off so if you lose control you can switch it back to position and it will self level.
It looks like it’s actually built into the Mavic. Must have to enable it with parameter mod.
Have absolutely no intention of trying this but curious how it’s done.
Off to Google.
1 Like
This guy has it in the description.
Still not trying it though. Lol
1 Like
Nope - I won’t be trying this!!!
Nope.
Not at all!
.
.
.
.
.
…. today! 
1 Like
I’m not brave enough to even try it 
I’ve flown my Phantom 2 in full manual … and even done flips … and even managed not to crash … by about 1cm! LOL
Chances are there’s a bit more intrinsic stability in the P2, the CoG being quite a bit below the props.
Perhaps I should embrace some @pingspike -itis, and scour eBay for some crashed MPs on the cheap and build a cheap one for manual mode.
How much stress is being placed on the props and airframe flying like that I wonder.
2 Likes
Not much, from my experience of flying the (considerably heavier) P2 in manual and doing flips.
Probably quite a lot.
I’d be most worried about gimbal and the arm end stops.
1 Like
Haha!
1 Like
The excess power to weight on the P2 meant it was more about rapid climbing before a manoeuvre to give you enough free-fall time to complete it, and slow down before reaching the ground.
So - max stress is a rapid climb for about 10-15 secs.
1 Like
You can use FPV view (?) setting to resolve that?
(Not that he had in the first vid.)
The P2 had a rigid frame as well. Mavic is only designed to take forces in certain directions hence the folding arms and flimsy end stops.
1 Like
The maximum stress the arms can be under is the max power of the props/motors … and they are obviously designed to take that.
Judging by some crash reports, they can take a LOT more … and impact forces will be far higher than the “gentle” force of full power.
1 Like
The props can only exert a force in the one direction - whichever orientation it’s in.
If it’s inverted, it just flies downward … faster … which was the cause of my near crash with the P2.
I did think about the rear arms, briefly, but realised it’s near impossible to have forces on them other than the normal force of the props.
Worst would be inverted and no power = free fall.
1 Like
Here’s just what I was thinking although I’m probably not explaining it well, not long up.
Was thinking more the force of gravity and newtons third law.
When your in a stable hover the force produced by props is equal to that of gravity and acting through the back leg tabs to hold up body.
When you invert, the props are working in line with gravity, you lose altitude and gain velocity.
When the quad rotates back to normal position the props and gravity are again opposing each other and quickly deccelerates.
The props are applying force to decelerate the mass of body but because the arms act as a lever, it is exerting extra forces on the rear leg tabs it’s probably not designed to handle.
Probably half the reason mavic is so slow at climbing and descending.
1 Like
But the force to decelerate can never be more than the decelerating force that the props/motors can provide … which cannot be any more than whacking in full upward throttle at any time, which is exactly what you’d be doing to decelerate the downward velocity and avoid the crash.
.
OK - there’s a bit of additional drag, but that will be minimal compared to the force of one rapidly spinning prop.
1 Like