I've currently got the AR Parrot Drone 1.0 and looking to pickup the 2.0 soon, and maybe a hobbyist grade quad-copter later this year or next. They're way too much geeky fun!!
Highly recommend anyone on here who hasn't played with a drone/quad-copter to have a go at it. You won't regret it.
My "450" sized quadcopter (4x 10" rotors) gets about 13-15 minutes with about 150g payload on top of the 3.3Ah 3S battery. I carry a GoPro Hero HD camera sans waterproof case combined with a video transmitter and 15 minutes of first-person flying can be quite rewarding and almost tiring at times, especially in exciting environments (between trees, etc.).
I'd strongly recommend picking up a MultiWii board and a cheap transmitter and parts from HobbyKing and trying it out - learning to fly isn't too difficult since they stabilize themselves, and starting out will cost less than $500.
Watch out though - it's addictive!
I bought my AR 1.0 used, but like-new, for $200 with the factory battery which lasts about 10 minutes or so, as well as a MaxAmps upgraded battery for extended flight time. I get about 20-25 minutes out of the aftermarket battery under normal wind conditions. It's plenty of time to have a lot of fun with, but I'd highly suggest having at least one spare battery to follow-up with for max flight time. On the flip-side, you don't want to run your equipment for too long without giving it some time for cool-down, so it's kinda a silver lining in regards to longevity.
If you're on the fence, I'd say spring for it and go for the AR Drone first, it's a great starting platform for people new to quadcopters and RC flying. If it's something you can see yourself getting more into, then debate pursuing more of a hobby-grade setup as you go.
There are a ton of nuances to the RC hobby alone, flying doesn't make it much easier for newcomers unfortunately. Start with something polished and make your life a lot easier, you'll no doubt be hooked. Either way, it's so worth it!!
Oh, really? Mr Limdbergh begs to differ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh
He got some training in the military but he then beats them later.
Technology has been historically been pushed as much by civilian industry as the military, or more. If only you let civilians spend their money and you don't steal all their money in taxes like you do in war times.
Internet and other tech are widely attributed to the military by their supporters but that is not entirely correct. Ethernet and laser all those amazing tech was created by private companies and computer networks were created by enthusiast before DARPA.
But would we ever have actually had the Internet before DARPA? It took over 30 years before the Internet actually became a mainstream and profitable thing. If the net had been developed by private companies then they would have done it in such a way that would have let them become profitable within a year or two, so it's unlikely that the net would be anything like what it is today. And for all it's flaws, it's hard to imagine it being better if it were developed by private industry.
And there are many examples of private companies pioneering something new even if it takes huge upfront resources and years of planning.
Here's a fun video shot by a guy who built a first-person-view Hexacopter: http://vimeo.com/18873955
All of the RCExplorer videos are awesome, and they're shot with a very low-tech drone (a tricopter with only roll/yaw rate stabilization - just piezo gyros and no attitude stabilization at all).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78
if you don't have the time/patience to watch the whole 3-ish minutes, try this but:
which model is he talking about? i got curious and went looking, and the best i could find was $50
Pricing isn't public yet but you can get an idea by looking at the 6-axis products.
A few years back when there was really only one prominent open source UAV system (Paparazzi), nearly everyone was focused on turning (fixed-wing) radio-controlled planes into hobby UAVs. Back then we didn't have gyros or accelerometers, we used thermopiles to detect the heat difference between warm ground and the cold atmosphere on four axis. This worked well until it became night time or started raining, and required a baseline calibration before most flights.
When projects like OpenPilot and Ardupilot (aka. DIYDrones/3DRobotics) first started to appear they were focused on building UAV systems for planes with this same technology, multi-rotor vehicles where only just on the radar at that stage. They were expensive and to be frank, not very good at flying stable. Then game consoles like the Wii came along and over the next few years gyros and accelerometers started to become much cheaper.
OpenPilot and DIYDrones/3DRobotics initially started out developing with these new gyros and accelerometers in planes, but it wasn't really the right platform as planes tend to me more costly and fragile in a crash, which is inevitable when developing with these new technologies. OpenPilot initially started to adapt their system to multi-rotors (aka. quadcopters) as a way of quickly testing new code and new algorithms for planes. Unlike planes we could even now test code indoors.
Quad-copters started out as a utility, to lift heavy items or as a test-bed for fixed-win UAV algorithms. From there they have now become the first class citizen in the world of open source and hobby UAV projects.
I think this is all really just starting to ramp up. The hardware we need to build these systems is pretty much all there, it can get faster, smaller and cheaper but innovation there is nearing a plateau. On the other hand, I think software is still very much in it's infancy. There is still a long way to go in making these systems reliable and repeatable, and most importantly user friendly. We have progressed from having to re-compile under linux to change one PID setting value, but the barrier to entry is still quite high on the technical side of things.
Disclaimer: Co-Founder of the OpenPilot project.
