• #1 by BillM-RC on 11 Feb 2018
  • Hi fellow pilots & rc enthusiasts

    TINY big WHOOP Eachine QX65 review of this micro fpv racer. With F3 Betaflight 3.2.2, 5.8G 48CH 700TVL Camera & F3 Built-in OSD, see for yourself. Frsky Taranis binding, Betaflight settings & under the hood peek included.

    You can get this here:

  • #2 by Bad Raven on 11 Feb 2018
  • I have one on its way to me.

    Question :-  Why do you title it a "big" whoop when its brushed 0615 motors and only 65mm, the same as standard Inductrix, E010, etc?

    I will be back to back comparing mine against E010, E010 with FPV, E013, Inductrix, Inductrix with FPV and upgraded motors, Inductrix with FPV, upgrade motors and BeeBrain FC, Inductrix with FOV, upgrade motors and BeeCore FC, and Tiny6. Also poss a reference to the larger Inductrix FPV+ and Tiny7.

    Given the above outdoor only review, I will restrict comment to flight in its more expected domain, Indoor Sports Hall and Indoor Home.

    Since I paid for it, and given its price, it'd better work a whole lot better than the E013 which is similarly priced but with extra add-ons inc a basic but usable Tx and Headset!

  • #3 by yama on 11 Feb 2018
  • highly recommend the Makerfire armor 90 with brushless motors.

    remove the prop guards and add gemfan 2040 hulkie props ~~ ~~ pop in some 3s lipo and you can fly it in any weather. (been flying in the snow this weekend)

    i haven't touched any of my large quads since its first flight. Its just nice to buzz around outside in a little adverse weather knowing that if it crashes or hits a tree due to the wind nothing bad is going to happen. Plus these little things are great for a bit of acro learning as you can push the envelope without worrying too much.
  • #4 by Bad Raven on 11 Feb 2018
  • I applaud your enthusiasm but there is a world of difference and intended use between a 65mm brushed on 1S and a 90mm Brushless on 3S.

    So much that IMO they are in no way practical way interchangeable.

    Do I have 65mm Brushed Quads, yes, over ten. Do I have 90mm brushed and brushless, yes, two and five

    Then four 150, etc.


  • #5 by yama on 11 Feb 2018
  • I've always found that the brushed 60mm range indutrix style quads were a little too floaty/laggy as in removing a bit of power and you had a huge height drop, even with upgraded motors like the unicorns.
    Though I'm not sure if it was due to the toy like transmitters supplied with them?

    I've been looking at one of those Jumper T8SG transmitters so that I can go back through all my old quads to see if not having to use a toy transmitter makes a difference.
  • #6 by Bad Raven on 11 Feb 2018
  • Ignore outdoors as 65mm quads are just not intended to fly there short of NO wind.

    Indoors, I can assure that an Eachine E010 (as sold with tiny Tx for sometimes as low as £9) is a much better beast once the 3D printed stick extensions are added.

    However, its a completely different thing entirely when flown with a multi-module from a Taranis or even more so a Horus. Then its a superb little thing with great accuracy and tracking ability.

    Also, there's something quite satisfying making a top of range Tx fly something THAT cheap!!   :azn
  • #7 by BillM-RC on 11 Feb 2018
  • Thank you for watching & for your comments. Sure, this cannot be compared to a brushless racer & is more suited to flying indoors. The FC with intergrated Betaflight 3.2.2 is good for this class. I try to push limits when testing to make my reviews more informative. Hope you get & enjoy yours soon Bad Raven :-)
  • #8 by Bad Raven on 12 Feb 2018
  • I've always found that the brushed 60mm range indutrix style quads were a little too floaty/laggy as in removing a bit of power and you had a huge height drop, even with upgraded motors like the unicorns.

    Hi Yama, I commented above on "better" Tx use, but re-reading don't want to give a false impression. The height drop on the tiny brushed quads is a function of their lack of reserve power. If they get in their own downwash, they struggle to maintain or recover height as you say, even with the hottest motors, as their power to weight ratio is marginal and they cannot punch out.

    Does a better Tx help?  Well it does in the sense you have finer resolution control and more set up toys like setting throttle curves, so can avoid the situation occurring in the first place better, but if it does, its going to bite you in the same way as always.

    This is where the 70mm 8.5mm motored but still lightweight brushed motor quads like the Inductrix FPV + and Tiny7 win, as the small size increase allows a better balance of power/weight ratio.
  • #9 by Bad Raven on 17 Feb 2018
  • OK, so my paid for Eachine QX65 was there awaiting my return last night, so I got a good flying session in today despite it fighting me in set up. I have the top cost version with two alternative canopy/frame/prop colour schemes, and two chargers. Although mostly I use FrSky, I bought this one on DSMX/2 for use with my DX9.

    Am I impressed?  Well, no not really.


    Well boxed.
    Betaflight (3.2.2 loaded) with OSD
    Strong looking twig antenna
    Plugged in motors allow easy motor changes
    Three colour schemes
    Good looking canopy
    HV LiPos supplied (Claimed 250mAh)
    Chargers have std and HV ability (manually switched).
    The six way charger has power socket (no mains wall unit provided) and XT60 inputs.
    Flexible frame should limit damage
     (I used a 4S LiPo as a supply)


    The three colour schemes are "subtle", i.e. are actually bland tints that hardly differ in appearance, so why bother.

    The canopy offers atrociously poor access to the video frequency change button, VERY poorly designed.

    The USB socket was extremely tight (with four differing leads) - had to use the prop remover tool provided to press against the socket shield while pulling the plug out as it otherwise it felt on force needed it would destroy itself.

    HV LiPos supplied do not actually offer better flight times than other non-HV 65mm quads have, the power may be more level across the discharge, but it still is limited to around 2.25 -2.5 mins and when LVC occurs it plummets.

    On mine the camera was fixed at a high angle which pushed its base hard into the PCB which in turn distorted the very flexible frame, so the two front motors were out of alignment quite markedly as supplied

    Uses the old std 150 - 200 mAh type connector, a known cause of HR losses and short life.

    Six way charger works OK and is cased (unlike web pics) but the case does not help battery alignment on the outer three sockets

    It was the least well set up of any DSMX/2 quad I have ever received, not even Rx binding was possible without recourse to the CLI. A beginner would really struggle with the badly incomplete "instructions".

    The frame motor struts oppose the prop direction!! Someone has duplicated the Inductrix frame layout, it looks adentical, but it does not use the inductrix motor/prop rotation direction.

    The motors are not the most powerful of any of my 65/68's. They do the job (just), but they just fail to impress in any way, esp as they are getting HV voltage.

    The camera gives an extremely grainy image under quite bright indoor light, probably the worst I have experienced since the very first Inductrix. It's OK in bright daylight, but that is NOT where this size quad operates!!


    If you do not have a 65mm quad and want one, this one is OK and for the money in "throw all the bits at you" form offers reasonable value if you need the chargers and alternate frames, etc.

    Does it offer anything over an E010/Inductrix with camera added? NO.

    Does it offer anything over a Eachine E013?  Definitely NOT. £10 more money, with no Transmitter (OK the E013 Tx isn't great but it does work OK) or Headset?  It might have done if it had performed and been significantly better made, sadly, it's not.   :thumbdown:


  • #10 by ched999uk on 17 Feb 2018
  • Good to know. Thanks for the review.
  • #11 by Bad Raven on 19 Feb 2018
  • And to turn it COMPLETELY on its head.................after a session with Configurator it is now flying superbly well (apart from the rubbish camera which still needs attention)

    What made the difference?

    Project Mockingbird!