Just had this happen to our X5, after a very small crash landing (which was a drone malfunction rather than pilot error). Very worrying how easy the gimbal broke and definitely not living up to the "built to last" claim on the DJI site. First email was sent to DJI today and I will update here how they respond.
Warning to all X5 owners
- Thread starter Ruckusman
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 66
there's lots of complaints about the X5 gimbal being too weak. Check the X5 thread. Keep me posted as I had a damaged gimbal which DJI at first refused to repair only offering to sell me a replacement. After a lot of arguing they finally did repair for 340 euros, rather than the 2,099 euros originally quoted.
This is the main reason not to buy a x5!
Learned my lesson replacing the vision plus camera. 750 a bump now minimum 1600 no thanks keep that!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 66
theres a difference between crashing and a heavier than normal landing. Lots of these gimbals have been reported as being damaged with zero contact, just slightly higher G forces on landing. Obviously, falling out of the sky from 200 ft is going to hurt, but a heavy landing?
I guess I've never seen the need for a 'heavy landing'. Gimbals are a very sensitive piece of equipment, slamming it down seems to be a good reason for it to break.
DJI used that crappy magnesium pot metal like they do on all their cheap gimbals. Very brittle. For the cost, the X5/R should be made of billet aluminum.
Repairs and replacements are a supplementary income stream for DJI, however before I resigned my job, over 50% of the owners with broken gimbals had to purchase another one to be able to continue working whilst the repair was conducted.
Whether the weakness is deliberate or poor design and materials selection, the benefit all falls to DJI, either additional sales or high repair costs - they've refined this income stream beginning with the Vision Plus camera and it's just continuing...
Whether the weakness is deliberate or poor design and materials selection, the benefit all falls to DJI, either additional sales or high repair costs - they've refined this income stream beginning with the Vision Plus camera and it's just continuing...
The x5 is a consumer mouse trap with legal kickback's
I respect it but I want be the loyal fool. The weakness is obviously deliberate ain't hard for a Homie to see that
That would be true, but for the fact that the gimbal is suspended by 4 rubber vibration dampeners that absorb a reasonable shock and stretch out the deceleration over time,
so 10 g's would be a "heavy landing" indeed!
Not disputing the fact that the gimbal might be a little under-built, or could use a different more robust material. Yes, you're right, weight is critical, and every gram saved results in increased endurance. It's a trade-off, and now that WE KNOW THAT THE GIMBAL IS DELICATE, it's incumbent on the operators to try their best to get a smooth landing.
Another post complaining about the cost of the X5, which is priced so reasonably it isn't even funny.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 66
explain then why the X3 has suffered far fewer breaks than the X5 with a far larger % in use. Is it only X5 owners who are heavy handed?. Read the thread regarding materials being used.
It's a much lighter camera, and the inertial forces exerted on it by a careless pilot landing roughly will be far less significant. I did read the thread, and no one has explained to me why a 'heavy landing' is needed, and why the gimbal should be overbuilt to protect against them. The materials used are more than sufficient for non-abusive flight, and using stronger (heavier) materials would have resulted in an even shorter flight time.
Also, the only 'evidence' postulated here is that the gimbal arms are marginally thinner than those on the X3. No one here is a materials scientist (nevermind the fact that we don't know if DJI used a stronger combination of magnesium and aluminum alloys), or if DJI reconfigured the casts for the X5 enabling for increased strength with reduced thickness. Fact is, slamming your inspire to the ground, even from 2-3 feet, is likely to cause an issue. There's no need to do this.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,288
- Reaction score
- 599
Hmmmmm....... I wonder if these broken/damaged X3/X5/X5R gimbals are coming from bad piloting skills or people using that stupid auto land feature?
I own two Inspires and have had no reason ever to land at anything other than a gentle touchdown even in very windy conditions.
I have also NEVER used the auto take off or auto land gimmick nor do I ever intend to.
As stated by @seanmclean - gimbals are and always have been very delicate pieces of equipment.
Would people be bleating if they had a $5,000 gimbal and an Alexa with a $30,000 prime stuck on the front hanging from the bottom of their aircraft that didn't fair well in a crash/heavy landing? (Well they would probably be crying at the $$$ involved)
Guys, if you are using the daft auto land or landing at anything more than a very gentle controlled touchdown you are doing it wrong and you can expect some damage.
I own two Inspires and have had no reason ever to land at anything other than a gentle touchdown even in very windy conditions.
I have also NEVER used the auto take off or auto land gimmick nor do I ever intend to.
As stated by @seanmclean - gimbals are and always have been very delicate pieces of equipment.
Would people be bleating if they had a $5,000 gimbal and an Alexa with a $30,000 prime stuck on the front hanging from the bottom of their aircraft that didn't fair well in a crash/heavy landing? (Well they would probably be crying at the $$$ involved)
Guys, if you are using the daft auto land or landing at anything more than a very gentle controlled touchdown you are doing it wrong and you can expect some damage.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 66
I actually cannot take anyone's side here cause I haven't had a personal experience yet. What bothers me though in this discussion is how people expect from anyone claiming something to have a University degree related to that subject. My personal experiences proved many times I often have more knowledge on particular topics related to various areas I've never studied in the University than people graduated corresponding schools. For example, it has happened more than once I know a few thing about laws or accounting better than lawyers or accountants. I am convinced this is valid for many other areas, not to mention that often you don't even need anything more than just common sense to judge something better than so-called "experts" on a topic. Anyway, I don't know who's right and who's wrong here, I just don't think "you are not a material scientist or whatever" is a good argument.
Seriously this is such a nonsense argument:
When the necessary reinforcement &/or stronger heavier alloy would amount to at most 30 grams, 1% of the crafts total weight, that would amount to 1% of flight time accordingly - a grand total of 6 seconds per 10 minutes.
There is no increased strength with reduced thickness, weight has increased.
The brittle material is unsuitable, the number of broken gimbals from minor mishaps is testament to that
Something designed to be unable to withstand forseeable eventualities, is poorly designed.
Yeah, get back to me when you know the material composition, and structural design, of both the X3 and X5. I'll be patient. I'd also love to see the rigorous calculations that came to the conclusion that a mere 30g of additional material would significantly improve durability of the gimbal in situations where an incompetent pilot is at the controls.
