Unleashing X-Cell anti-vibration with new FPV Frames: AOS 4, UL5, UL5X V5 

True, but we still keep asking for more new stuff every day 🤣

I am not sure about the AUW of the 4” build, but would be interested as well : ) Only thing I found it the weight of the AOS4v5 is noted to be 75g on his website, maybe that already helps 😊 To the second question about the 3.5” size: I have two AOS3.5 with the T-Motor 1604 and am happy with them. I had a build with XNova 1804 and didn’t feel the need for the size. By contrast, the tests I did with 1404 motors felt underpowered. So in my opinion: Something like 1504, 1504.5, 1505, 1604 is the best fit

Send me an email using the contact form on the website and I can get a main plate with M2 20*20 for you

Depends on how you build them up. I would personally not see the AOS5 as a typical LR build. I am sure you will get a nice LR quad out of it as well with LiIon, but maybe some other 4inch frames would do the job at less weight (for LR a little more filtering isn’t too bad, as there should be less propwash etc). Especially the UL5v5 could be a great option, as it has no props in view and seems to offer a good mix between weight and durability. The UL5X could be ok as well, but I think it is more ment for true freestyle :) Regarding your question about the “LR3 5” I am not sure what you want to know, I guess you mean quads in the 3.5” class? If so, then they may offer some benefits, depending on what you are looking for. 4” and light 5” typically allow for more payload, such as a naked GoPro etc. By contrast, a 3.5” is less visible for others and maybe more silent (depending on weight & props). Does that help you?

​@@luis_gbs I have the first gen AOS 5 LR and I did 8.1km yesterday with only 2500mAh consumed.

Kind of disappointing that there’s no response to this comment.

According to his LinkedIn, he quit his job and does AOS RC in full time, that's probably why he's forced to innovate so quickly and drop new products. And he holds his parent for the X-cell. That alone costs a sh*t ton of money. But yes, his frames are indeed superior to others. Maybe it's time to build open source frames but using scientific methods

You can order any part you like for almost any AOS design present or past from CNCdrones. This might mean buying spares ahead of time and in bulk to get value for money with shipping costs, but it's an option you lack with many other manufacturers who simply stop making designs. Of course we would all like to able to buy arms locally, but these are niche parts after all.

@@earthsgrip true, but if you live outside the US, shipping costs are so high that it is worth buying a new frame. For me, the best source of AOS frames in the EU is Aliexpress, fortunately, parts for my older AOS7, 5.5 and 3.5 are still available, I think I bought a spare one.

@@earthsgrip That'd be prohibitively expensive for any country other than the US. In my country, the AOS kits were stocked, but once sold out were unavailable.

Thanks I'll check them out

Units were in metres rather than mm which might case a problem with some programs. Fixed.

From his website: UL5V5: 87g (5mm arms) 94g (6mm arms) including hardware and camera cage UL5X V5: 82g (5mm arms) 89g (6mm arms) including hardware and camera cage UL5 evo (the one very similar to V2): ~67g with steel hardware LR5 evo: ~68g with steel hardware => So in gerenal they seem to have gotten a bit heavier, maybe due to the metal camera cage?

87g 5mm vs 69 on previous LR5 hmmhmm acceptable

@@luis_gbs yeah the cage seems to be the main factor in that. Tpu design might help there for UL

​@@cinekenneth Yep, some gramms can be saved probably, but I am always surprised about the weight of TPU cam mounts that offer any protection at all... (but for UL/LR use they might still be fine). For me the classic carbon plates where perfectly fine though

The AOS LR5 which I have is already heavier than other UL5 frames, so no, no replacement

Yes, it is exactly that. The cut outs are placed at the points where usually vibrations/oscillations would influence the stack the strongest. By removing the material at exactly these places it is possible to disrupt this happening. In certain places the vobration modes do not result in critical movements and therefore it is okay to let some material there. This is what Chris calls XCell and on my AOS5v5 it works like a charm 😊

What would you need to be walksnail compatible? To me they all seam perfectly fine to be used with walksnail? The black O3-gummies are optional, and by simply installing the included carbon shim instead, the frame is ready to be flown with walksnail as well (if you want, take a look at the build video he posted 5min earlier for more info) 😊

Yes, just take your pick.

On the latest AOS3.5v5 or an older version like the V1, V2 or EVO models?

V2 I fix it with glue :) still flies . Evo recently hit the branch - leg broken :( branch ! Not concrete . But still I love em. Even v2 glued :)

@@steamvogue The Evo might have been bad luck or cracked from a crash before, but I agree, both V2 and Evo were (and still are) adorable frames. It's always the balance between weight and durability. For me in the 3.5" class, the priority is on the weight. I just like the frames to be ~40g and not 50-55g and I accept that I have to replace an arm from time to time (Chris knows that, I have been bagging for a ~40g 3.5" x-cell refresh ever since his first x-cell teaser🙈)

I have quadmula siren f35 and it’s lighter than full aos 3,5” Evo on same hardware . But I like both :)

Interesting, may I ask what you use them for / in which environment you fly them? For me the 3.5” class is still the largest I can/want to fly around places where people might come by. Anywhere else, I always was astonished how good the 5” formula flew, compared to my 4” drones. For me, the difference between 4” and 5” is more like: Additional weight headroom goes into motors and battery size, and I profit from the better flight performance. With 4”, I always feel as if the electronics (FC,ESC,VTX,Cam) are rather heavy compared to the overall weight I would want from a 4”, resulting in undersized LiPos. => I am truly interested in your experience/feeling : )

@@luis_gbs Empty fields, or car parks. Not at all near people. Feels like a 3.5, but more "gliding". ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-S65y5bOxVsE.htmlsi=khf5oVT7SuO6wgXH

@@luis_gbs At empty parking and car lot building. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eU6iYkeAk4Y.htmlsi=bTWmjiDhGD-UijD3

@@luis_gbs Small field (70 meter long) it is also a lot of run.... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CFv5sWx2HqU.htmlsi=nG0XCm_YV49yniyd

@@donphobos Nice, I understand :) As I said, for fields etc I just like my 5.2" quads, for schools or so I can not go higher than 3.5" max But I am happy that 4" flies great for you!

Not really. The importance of reduced filtering is to reduce the response time of the PID loop and therefore to increase propwash handling etc (flight characteristics in general)

The black camera-gummies are included, so normally no nead for TPU inserts for the camera. They are simply availible if you need to modify or print them yourself. Regarding antenna mounts etc: I am sure they will be included with the iFlight kits, I am not sure about the CNC-drones version

You can still get parts for the very first AOS V1 frame which is not something i see available for any other V1 frame for any other manufacturer, unless you can point to one that i'm unaware of?

Rather 1505, 1506 would be bigger than 1804. Also rcinpower already does 1505 for GEPRC.

​@@Kai-P It will probably be a 1506 or 1507 for his new aos cine line. Good steps would be 1404, 1604 and 1804. Since 15 is close to 14, I guess it's more like 1506

@@chrisbee5481 Oh right I didn't consider him going for different specializations, could make sense to have 2 with almost the same stator volume then.

Of course, everything is in the description