3DR Solo stock oem propellers

[BigTulsa]

These are the ones that MA markets as Solo replacements/alternatives:

3DR Solo Propeller Upgrade - Master Airscrew 10x4.5 MR Propeller

 

[BigTulsa]

Also, once the weather settles down a bit, I intend on making a direct comparison on a straight motor hover test from full battery to 20 percent and timing them on both sets of props...stock and MA...and seeing what the difference is. The problem is that being a QA analyst as profession, doing it between two different batteries wouldn't technically be a valid test, since batteries can have variations. Hopefully I can get this done by the weekend and have my results.

 

[Jubalr]

Also, once the weather settles down a bit, I intend on making a direct comparison on a straight motor hover test from full battery to 20 percent and timing them on both sets of props...stock and MA...and seeing what the difference is. The problem is that being a QA analyst as profession, doing it between two different batteries wouldn't technically be a valid test, since batteries can have variations. Hopefully I can get this done by the weekend and have my results.

You're right. Trying to time using different batts introduces more variables that would be tough to use as definitive. A better test would be to hover a couple minutes, land and switch props without powering down and hover again for a couple minutes. Load the log in MP and look at the average wattage used in the 2 hovers.

 

[BigTulsa]

You're right. Trying to time using different batts introduces more variables that would be tough to use as definitive. A better test would be to hover a couple minutes, land and switch props without powering down and hover again for a couple minutes. Load the log in MP and look at the average wattage used in the 2 hovers.

But even then, batteries drain differently at different discharge points. It's tough to test, however I intend on quick and dirty test with Solex by monitoring the A draw in a hover with stock vs the MA. Not exactly scientific, but for my purposes it will do as a starting point.

 

[Jubalr]

But even then, batteries drain differently at different discharge points. It's tough to test, however I intend on quick and dirty test with Solex by monitoring the A draw in a hover with stock vs the MA. Not exactly scientific, but for my purposes it will do as a starting point.

Yes, good starting point, but wattage would be easier to see a difference and be more accurate. Only 1 decimal in the amperage but with wattage you are talking around 200-300 watts with 4 decimal places. But either will give you an idea.

 

[MtnXfreeride]

It would be easier to use 2 different batteries for the test and run the test twice, switching the batteries for the second run and averaging times.

 

[Jubalr]

It would be easier to use 2 different batteries for the test and run the test twice, switching the batteries for the second run and averaging times.

And you are confident you could land at the exact voltage per cell? 4 times? OK

 

[MtnXfreeride]

And you are confident you could land at the exact voltage per cell? 4 times? OK

I would take off at 95 or so by the time it is ready and start hovering. I would start a timer from 90% to 25% while hovering the entire time. Take off and landing would not be counted and flipping the battery for round 2 would account for cell discharge rate variation.

 

[CS223]

There was a fairly involved test comparison by RolandS888 in this thread.

Motors Swapped to T-Motor 2216-12 800kV

 

[BigTulsa]

There was a fairly involved test comparison by RolandS888 in this thread.

Motors Swapped to T-Motor 2216-12 800kV

But we aren't talking about testing different motors. Different propellers here.

And on my first blush test using Solex and observing the Amp draw at hover, the savings is there but probably negligible. Stock props wound up drawing from 17.6 to 19.5 amps; MA props appeared to draw about 15.9 to 18.5 amps. Not a real scientific test but I think it proves it doesn't load the motors as much.

 

[Jubalr]

I would take off at 95 or so by the time it is ready and start hovering. I would start a timer from 90% to 25% while hovering the entire time. Take off and landing would not be counted and flipping the battery for round 2 would account for cell discharge rate variation.

That's fine. Like you said, it would give you something to look at. But you are starting with a 2% variable at best.

 

[andrew.baker.142]

I don't have them but if those prop guards are intended for use with the stock Solo propellers they should as the MA props are the exact same size.

I don't have the prop guards (they are only useful in catching trees IMHO), but I read somewhere that the aftermarket props do not work with the PP prop guards due to a vertical clearance issue. Remember, the OEM props have a hub which holds the props above the motor by a couple of mm. The aftermarket props sit right on top of the motors.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[speatuk]

I don't have the prop guards (they are only useful in catching trees IMHO), but I read somewhere that the aftermarket props do not work with the PP prop guards due to a vertical clearance issue. Remember, the OEM props have a hub which holds the props above the motor by a couple of mm. The aftermarket props sit right on top of the motors.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The MA props do not work with the prop guards.
They are a different profile.

You will see instantly when you put them together as a like for like comparison.


Keep flying safe everyone

 

[perplumblewintz]

It takes a couple of installs to get used to doing them, but once you get it, they work fine. Seat the nut on top of the prop, put on motor shaft and start turning and it should work.

Edit: easiest way to make sure they get on tight is to turn the nut/prop combo while holding the motor bell still.

Thanks! I'll have to give them a go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jameson]

But we aren't talking about testing different motors. Different propellers here.

And on my first blush test using Solex and observing the Amp draw at hover, the savings is there but probably negligible. Stock props wound up drawing from 17.6 to 19.5 amps; MA props appeared to draw about 15.9 to 18.5 amps. Not a real scientific test but I think it proves it doesn't load the motors as much.

Wow, not bad, 5-10% better efficiency. I thought it was less. Well done
As I said earlier "It is aviation, 5% counts, 15% is extraordinary."

 

[CS223]

But we aren't talking about testing different motors. Different propellers here.

I realize that from this discussion, but I believe @RolandS888 tested each prop across each motor option and collected efficiency data for each. His comment was that the stock configuration was a pretty well matched combination. Maybe he will chime in and post the data for each of the prop offerings on the stock motors.

 

[David Boulanger]

Yes, good starting point, but wattage would be easier to see a difference and be more accurate. Only 1 decimal in the amperage but with wattage you are talking around 200-300 watts with 4 decimal places. But either will give you an idea.

Graphing Wattage is the way to go. Amps depend on Voltage. Power is Watts and the amount of power to hover will not change with Voltage.

 

[yt lee]

Well the only info I found was here: MR - Drone Propellers – Master Airscrew
Not directly comparing with Solo or 10" props though

Almost misted them - you can download the full reports at the end of the page.

15% is too good to be true.

The stock props are made from plastic, many claim carbon fibre prop can improve flight efficiency. CF is more rigid and lighter. More rigid means less vibration and less weight means more lift, hence, it is the preferred material for prop improvement. However, no CF props ever proved 15% improvement in efficiency. That said, CF is brittle. Some crashes were caused by poorly made CF props shattered in mid air. Also poorly made CF props are unbalanced hence, instead of reduce vibration, it actually increases the vibration and adds stress to the motor assembly which found to attribute mid air crashes.

Manufacturer can make all kinds of claims but they still need to answer to physics.
It claims more lift. To have more lift, the prop either rotate faster or more pitch, that require more power. It may claim the improvement comes from better material . Some material that reduce vibration and some material reduce air friction no doubt will improve the efficiency but none can claim 15% increase.

 

[Jubalr]

15% is too good to be true.

The stock props are made from plastic, many claim carbon fibre prop can improve flight efficiency. CF is more rigid and lighter. More rigid means less vibration and less weight means more lift, hence, it is the preferred material for prop improvement. However, no CF props ever proved 15% improvement in efficiency. That said, CF is brittle. Some crashes were caused by poorly made CF props shattered in mid air. Also poorly made CF props are unbalanced hence, instead of reduce vibration, it actually increases the vibration and adds stress to the motor assembly which found to attribute mid air crashes.

Manufacturer can make all kinds of claims but they still need to answer to physics.
It claims more lift. To have more lift, the prop either rotate faster or more pitch, that require more power. It may claim the improvement comes from better material . Some material that reduce vibration and some material reduce air friction no doubt will improve the efficiency but none can claim 15% increase.

Not 15%, but they are more efficient. Check test done yesterday..

 

[yt lee]

Not 15%, but they are more efficient. Check test done yesterday..

My point is

15% is too good to be true.

Your test sustained it.