highest RC helicopter can go?

[paulw1283]

In terms of altitude, what is the highest that you think should be the limit for an RC aerial photography helicopter in terms of practicality/visibility/safety, etc...

obviously, the higher you go, the more impressive the pic. But it can be pretty hard to balance or keep it level when it's too small to see...

Is 500 ft possible?

[DebianDog]

If you can see it why not?

[AZ ChopperCam]

Is 500 ft possible?

yep. with an AP2000i flight stabilizer it's easy to go that high.

This is from 550' but higher is not always better. just depends on the subject.

http://azchoppercam.com/logocam/bofa2.jpg

[Brady Longmore]

that's a great shot! It's kind of ironic in a way that you can see a heli pad for full size helis on the roof. How high is the building in the foreground? There's a car parked on the roof that looks the same size as the ones below on the ground. Kinda wierd.

[AZ ChopperCam]

the parking garage is 5 floors. the bank building is 250'

[Ben H]

Love the picture DJ, the reflections in the mirrored glass make it look like you can see the road junction in the middle. was that lined up on purpose?

[chrisdeith]

What camera sysem did you use to get a pic of this quality??? Presumably it's some sort of video cam whereby you can see on the ground what you are shooting - or it is just luck and judgement???

Chris

[AZ ChopperCam]

the reflections in the mirrored glass make it look like you can see the road junction in the middle. was that lined up on purpose?

since the sides of the building are 90° to the roads, any angle at which you look at the building the roads will aways appear to converge in the center of the building. it's a really neat effect. Also when flying below the level of the building the reflection of the horizon will always match the horizon behind the building.

What camera system did you use to get a pic of this quality???

Canon A640 with live video downlink

[AZ ChopperCam]

here's a video that was shot from my Logo 10. about 400' agl

http://azchoppercam.com/logocam/logo_10_3a.wmv

[xfc3dcd]

This is an excellent question and the answers and opinions I am sure would vary. It needs to be talked about in light of recent events and talked about often, particularly for newbies.

I am glad you included safety considerations in your post as it must always be looked at first and very closely. In urban environments I sometimes think for weeks about a shot before I do it or even commit to do it. The altitude required for the shot plays prominently into this decision. I don't use stabilization and on a clear day could fly as high as 2000' agl if needed. Would I ever go that high to take a shot in a populated area? No. Not even with stabilization. The risk exceeds the reward and it would be foolish, (I am being kind - IT WOULD BE STUPID) and please consider that I have been flying helicopters since before most of you have probably been alive. Please don't take any of my comments as being boastful or condescending. This is why I don't post much on sites like this. Too much vital "in-person" info doesn't transfer in posted discussions (and usually I don't often have the time but I'm on vacation today).

For the last year I have been taking progress photos of construction at 2 large power stations to a max altitude of 1000' agl though. This is not an unsafe situation because should I have a problem, no persons or property are at risk due to where I select to position the helicopter on the property. I have spotters looking for full size aircraft and can autorotate down like a 35 lb. rock to avoid an aircraft in very short order, even at that altitude.

The avoidance of full size aircraft is important to consider. In urban settings there are often low flying police and hospital helicopters. If buildings and such block your spotters view of these approaching aircraft, you are asking for trouble going above say 200'. Standing on top of a building is better obviously for a nice clear 360 degree view.

People and property on the ground is just an important consideration. Never fly over crowds of people ever. I recently saw a video of an AP heli flying at a major league baseball game. You could never convince me that this was a smart idea.

Flying at high altitude over a residential area like shown in this thread is not the best of ideas. That shot could have been taken at an outlying area looking into the neighborhood and could have served the same purpose. The pilot is

Our video work is low altitude and almost always closed set shoots. We typically have police to keep spectators away from the flight zone. Each flight is storyboarded and safety and emergency plans are discussed with the crew and talent.

There is ample risk involved in everything we do. Experience and good judgment most often decide the outcomes. Much of this work tests my flying abilities on a regular basis. Consider that for over 20 years I averaged flying 50 - 80 gallons of fuel a year practicing being in precise control of a helicopter for competition.

Bottom line, fly smart and fly safe.

Wendell

[xfc3dcd]

Sorry, I didn't finish a sentence there. I was going to say that "the pilot is a capable one and the heli is a small electric. Realistically the risks here were pretty low but it should be pointed out that this is not recommended practice."

[AZ ChopperCam]

I don't use stabilization and on a clear day could fly as high as 2000' agl if needed

uhhhh...... that's something I would need to see to believe. unless you were talking about a fixed wing I find it very hard to believe that statement.

I agree with many of the things you are saying but there are aspects that I don't. I fly a Logo 10 over neighborhoods almost daily. hundreds of flights on this particular heli without one failure over neighborhoods.

It comes down to risk mitigation. treat the chopper like a fullsize and replace worn parts before they need it. service the machine before it breaks instead of running it until it does like the typical hobby pilot does.

but let me make clear that I would never, never fly a gasser over a neighborhood. 25lb worth of helicopter is going to do alot more damage than a light electric. ALOT MORE.

[xfc3dcd]

DJ,

Your call flying over neighborhoods with little kids playing in their back yards. I think it is unecessary risk, minimal but nonetheless uncessasary, even with an electric. I fly directly over my house up to about 50 feet sometimes when I don't have time to go elsewhere, but thats about it.

If you saw my helicopter you would understand why I would have no problems seeing it at 2000 ft. I have flown to 1000 ft. monthy for the last year and a half on the power plant project. It is out in the boondocks with no houses for miles.

Fly mart and fly safe,

Wendell

[AZ ChopperCam]

If you saw my helicopter you would understand

that's exactly what I said. I'd need to see it to believe it.

[xfc3dcd]

DJ,

Still have doubts?

[cbergen]

In case it's hard to tell, That's a Bergen Twin Observer, with slight modificatiions to allow for high altitude use (mostly visual mods).

I have seen the likes of Curtis do his famous high altitude autos which was measured by triangulation (probably not the most accurate way) at about 2000' ft.

It is possible, very difficult, but possible to do with the right equipment. If anyone is capable, I fully expect it is Wendell Adkins.

[AZ ChopperCam]

DJ,

Still have doubts?

not as much... no. that's a very large and visible machine.

I can see your point that you'd not want to fly something that weighs as much as that thing does over a neighborhood! That baby would do some serious damage.

what's the wire going from the camera to the rear of the boom? looks like it's dangling loosely.

[chris24g]

Good points made by all. I have just ventured into AP, using a 50 size electric and have thought about the risks involved. So much so that I bought a 50 ft mast. It cost more than my heli, but if it can handle most of the shots, then so be it. Lost a lot of the thrill factor, but none of the cool when I see the end result. I will use the heli when there is enough space, like for lots and bigger properties.

[quote]
what's the wire going from the camera to the rear of the boom? looks like it's dangling loosely.

I'm guessing it's a remote trigger for the camera or flash.

[xfc3dcd]

The wire hanging down was a long A/V cable. Flying in a big aluminum valley between the grandstands at Indy was wreaking havoc on the video downlink's signal. For one shot, as an experiment, I relocated the downlink Xmtr to the tail and ran a long cable up to the camera (it made matters worse). Finally got it figured out later. Only tried this cable routing on this shot which was only a hover. I still had it secured to the skids to avoid finding it way to the rotors.


Wendell

[Hyde]

is this that Wendell guy that created 500 fake accounts on RR and was a pain in everyone's ass???

[xfc3dcd]

Sorry but I think you have the wrong number (or wrong Wendell). Please hang up and try your call again.

[cbergen]

Hyde,

This Wendell Adkins is the man behind the XFC, Xtreme Flight Chamionships that was held this past weekend at AMA headquarters in Muncie In.

Hence his name XFC3DCD!!

[MarkWebber]

Sorry but I think you have the wrong number (or wrong Wendell). Please hang up and try your call again.

:lolol

[ehx]

How high can you go? As far as your fuel allows and/or the air gets too thin. Various stabilization systems and/or video feedback mean many thousands of feet are possible. Of course, this doesn't mean it's smart/safe to do.

Shots above 500 feet or so just look like they were done from full-scale aircraft. If you want high resolution or a unique perspective then you really don't want to get that high.

RC aircraft can replace fullsize aircraft for low-altitude photos in many instances though. Below is a picture from about 1000' AGL. It's a vertical, not at full resolution, showing wetland green-up. I've been taking pictures every five days or so for over a month. It takes about a hour of my time including travel. We used to rent small aircraft for this job, but an RC heli is much less expensive and more flexible.

As for safety, I always do a statistical analysis for every site I fly. Population density on the ground, air traffic, the height I will fly to, etc. all play a role and things vary widely depending on the exact location. There is one simple question I always ask myself though. It's what happens if I have no control of the aircraft. Not do I have a safe place to land - assuming some control, but what if I have no control. Or looked at another way the area below the aircraft needs to be clear of people who might not be aware of it. How big this areas needs to be gets complicated, but a starting rule of thumb is a circle of radius at least the height you are flying to.

Above 500 feet or so you have to think about fullsize aircraft. Lower near airports or areas with fullsize helicopter traffic. If you are going up that high you should be aware of general traffic conditions. If traffic is heavy you just don't do it without airtraffic control authority. Otherwise, "see and avoid" and, in our case, "hear and avoid". The fullscale traffic which could encounter my heli I can always hear at least 20 seconds before it gets near me. I can dump ~500 feet in that time without pushing it if need be. Even if, at that moment, I lost control of the heli it is a little bigger than a goose and more brightly colored. You can see it a long ways from a fullsize. Of course, failsafes are set to bring it down also.

Just some more food for thought.

[l8braker]

I'm not sure how high I go in this video but the Draganfly is quite capable/stable at high altitudes.

http://rcuvideos.com/item/S5HB6T80L4YTNZ0Y