I am currently flying T-Motor 6143 and HQ 6x3.5x3. I like the Tmotor little more. I love K2 props but I don't have proper frame for them (always too much vibes). Gemfam 6042x3 was also my daily driver for a long time.
You forgot two very good 6" props: T-motor T6143 and Gemfan 6032 From my back to back testing of all 6" props, I liked the T6143 most. It also had the highest top speed in practial test flights with gps. Also keep an eye out for the new Gemfan 6045 that just released. Chris, if you want, I'll send you where to get these props.
I have one complaint in your testing and it could be me that's wrong. When you are talking about responsiveness, it is in terms of RPM per second, however with the larger props that have more thrust and also have more weight for inertial changes, that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't adjust the quads position any slower than the smaller props that show more responsiveness. Because the bigger prop is throwing around more thrust and inertia, I think you would get the same change in the quad for less RPM per second.
New pilot running K2 on Nazgûl F6D … flying cruisy mid range semi freestyle style. Really happy with durability, flight feel and sound 🤌🏽 also biblades mean a smaller packed footprint. Thanks for your time testing 🙌🏽
Chris, you've chosen quite a big trust for comparing efficiency of props. 1 kg per prop this trust could only be achieved during harsh manoeuvring where the efficiency matters less than responsiveness and the trust itself. But there is also long range flying which are lightweight and thus operate at relatively low trust levels, like 50-100 grams per prop. For instance, my 6" long range build (which hovers for 1 hour and flies even longer) weights only 300 grams. That's where should we look to compare the efficiency. Or, at least, you could show two areas of your efficiency graph: one for low trusts, and one for medium-high.
Interesting observation made many years ago. I had a plane with a 6/4/2 prop that was very under powered and close to stall ecven at full throttle. It went into farm land at full power. No damage to the aircraft but the leading edge of the prop was badly scratched up. It looked more like a saw blade than a prop. I flew it again with that same prop and was surprised at how dramatic the speed of the aircraft improved. I never followed up to test this further but was sure interesting. And unexplainable.
I'm surprised about the statement of Ethix k2 being low in vibration. They might be well-balanced, but that doesn't really help in real world flying. I've tried so hard getting Biblades to work properly but in the end the PID Controller was always kind of freaking out. I suspect the more intense pressure waves on the arms being the issue. The noise plots look way different between 2- and 3- blades, 2-blades almost impossible to filter properly. I would love to see a video focusing exactly on that issue, maybe you figure out what needs to be done to get Biblades filtered and tuned as well as Triblades.!
With a weaker motor will the efficiency change? I.e. improved efficiency with flatter profile props.. (dji mini drones have 6inch props and 1505 motors and flies for over 30 minutes) long range builds
Hey Chris, awesome information. However, I wonder: Wouldn't it make sense to factor in the thrust of the props in the responsiveness rating? Afterall, if a prop is heavy but generates a lot of thrust then it doesn't need the same rpm as a lighter prop with less thrust to arrive at the same thrust. And since it is thrust that makes the quad maneuver and not prop rpm, your responsiveness rating seems unfair for the heavier but high thrust props. Or am I missing something?
I live in the foothills of the Rockies, outside of Denver Colorado. I have around 12 deferent 5" freestyle and 3, 7" quads. For my 5" freestyle, What props should I be using with this extremally thin air and High altitude ? any help would be much appreciated...... Thanks, Taylor
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Chris. One questions I have is, are we no longer balancing props anymore? I remember painstakingly balancing 2 blade props and then gave up when the 3 blades started showing up. I'm sure balancing these props would skew all these characteristics. Cheers!
Honestly anything smaller than a 7" prop isn't really needed. It's anything bigger than 7" you might want to balance them, especially something like a 13" tri blade for an XClass rig or 13" cinematic X8 for instance.
There seems to be some counter intuitive stuff going on there in the data, the master airscrew 6x4.5x2 is less efficient than the master airscrew 6x4.5x3, you would have thought that the 2 blade prop would be more efficient then the 3 blade, perhaps it is because you chose that specific thrust, (1000 grams) on the test that the data came out like that, any thoughts?
Great video Chris! I would love to know which 5/5.1 inch prop matches the Supernova best in the thrust/rpm graph. I have reached around 220 km/h with HQ 5.1x4.6x3 on a swichback frame with GPS, but am convinced I can get a higher top speed with another prop (and bigger battery).
@6.24 you say the Master Airscrew 6x4.5x3 is best matched to the supernove 2207 but looking carefully at the colours, I wanted to ask whether you actually meant to say the Gemfan Hurrican 5536-3 (ie the slightly darker colour of red line?)
Hi Chris, I wanted to ask what you think about the topic of voltage sag. In particular, I am in an association in my university that is building a model airplane for competitions and we started to run some tests on the propulsion system with different batteries, acquiring data as voltage, current, rpm of the motor.
We have seen that batteries behave differently (the voltage sag is different) with different propellers. This can give us insights on how a specific battery can be used with specific propellers, maximizing the power delivered for our scopes. Do you think this could be something interesting and useful to study in a serious way? I can't find anything similar that has been done on the internet.
I’ve been flying 6inch since I started the Hobby. I really appreciate the grip and efficiency of the larger disk area. My Problem always was the frame choice, the market did not offer any lightweight options that had sensible desings for my use case. So I recently decided to buy the AOS5.5 with 2 sets of HQ 5.5X3.5X3 V2 and a set of velox veloce 2207.5 v2 1750kv. Is There a Way I can use 6” props on the AOS5.5? Because i would like to try all my different 6” props with the improved resonance performance. If not, would it be possible to design 6” arms for the frame?
Interesting comparison between the Azure 6145 and the HQ DP... During your 5" testing, I recall that model had higher than average vibration. In this case, it wasn't too bad? By the way, The 6" Azures also come in a carbon fiber version that cost a bit more. It would be cool to see how it compares to PC props in your tests.
What about props exploding? I’ve had both the azure and the ethix 2 blade props explode in mid air for no apparent reason for me. No crashes or no damage to the props before take off? This was on my f6D iflight Evoque
I am currently flying T-Motor 6143 and HQ 6x3.5x3. I like the Tmotor little more. I love K2 props but I don't have proper frame for them (always too much vibes). Gemfam 6042x3 was also my daily driver for a long time.
You forgot two very good 6" props:
T-motor T6143 and Gemfan 6032
From my back to back testing of all 6" props, I liked the T6143 most.
It also had the highest top speed in practial test flights with gps.
Also keep an eye out for the new Gemfan 6045 that just released.
Chris, if you want, I'll send you where to get these props.
The video I've been waiting for!
I have one complaint in your testing and it could be me that's wrong. When you are talking about responsiveness, it is in terms of RPM per second, however with the larger props that have more thrust and also have more weight for inertial changes, that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't adjust the quads position any slower than the smaller props that show more responsiveness. Because the bigger prop is throwing around more thrust and inertia, I think you would get the same change in the quad for less RPM per second.
New pilot running K2 on Nazgûl F6D … flying cruisy mid range semi freestyle style. Really happy with durability, flight feel and sound 🤌🏽 also biblades mean a smaller packed footprint. Thanks for your time testing 🙌🏽
Chris, you've chosen quite a big trust for comparing efficiency of props. 1 kg per prop this trust could only be achieved during harsh manoeuvring where the efficiency matters less than responsiveness and the trust itself. But there is also long range flying which are lightweight and thus operate at relatively low trust levels, like 50-100 grams per prop. For instance, my 6" long range build (which hovers for 1 hour and flies even longer) weights only 300 grams. That's where should we look to compare the efficiency. Or, at least, you could show two areas of your efficiency graph: one for low trusts, and one for medium-high.
oooh the quadblade looks nice, surprisingly efficient and quad-blades feel great in the air.
Interesting observation made many years ago. I had a plane with a 6/4/2 prop that was very under powered and close to stall ecven at full throttle. It went into farm land at full power. No damage to the aircraft but the leading edge of the prop was badly scratched up. It looked more like a saw blade than a prop. I flew it again with that same prop and was surprised at how dramatic the speed of the aircraft improved. I never followed up to test this further but was sure interesting. And unexplainable.
F5B and F5D competition electric planes use props with sawtooth leading edges to prevent stalling the high pitch blades at low airspeed.
Azure Power tri blade 6" props on my 7" Mr Croc drone are my favorite so far.
I’ve been waiting for you to do 7” motor and prop testing, I thought for sure that would come before 6”
Why don't you normalize responsiveness to thrust? It makes no sense at all to just look at RPM/s
Oh boy finally!! I've been waiting for this ❤
I'm surprised about the statement of Ethix k2 being low in vibration. They might be well-balanced, but that doesn't really help in real world flying. I've tried so hard getting Biblades to work properly but in the end the PID Controller was always kind of freaking out.
I suspect the more intense pressure waves on the arms being the issue. The noise plots look way different between 2- and 3- blades, 2-blades almost impossible to filter properly.
I would love to see a video focusing exactly on that issue, maybe you figure out what needs to be done to get Biblades filtered and tuned as well as Triblades.!
With a weaker motor will the efficiency change? I.e. improved efficiency with flatter profile props.. (dji mini drones have 6inch props and 1505 motors and flies for over 30 minutes) long range builds
Great stuff. You've answered my questions.
I have seen that same aerodynamic flutter on my 6s 2050kv quad running J40 props.
Hey Chris, awesome information.
However, I wonder: Wouldn't it make sense to factor in the thrust of the props in the responsiveness rating? Afterall, if a prop is heavy but generates a lot of thrust then it doesn't need the same rpm as a lighter prop with less thrust to arrive at the same thrust. And since it is thrust that makes the quad maneuver and not prop rpm, your responsiveness rating seems unfair for the heavier but high thrust props. Or am I missing something?
I totally just put out the same reply before realizing you beat me to it.
I live in the foothills of the Rockies, outside of Denver Colorado. I have around 12 deferent 5" freestyle and 3, 7" quads. For my 5" freestyle, What props should I be using with this extremally thin air and High altitude ? any help would be much appreciated...... Thanks, Taylor
Also in CO hr from Denver and from my understanding we want to use higher pitch props than others.
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Chris. One questions I have is, are we no longer balancing props anymore? I remember painstakingly balancing 2 blade props and then gave up when the 3 blades started showing up. I'm sure balancing these props would skew all these characteristics. Cheers!
Honestly anything smaller than a 7" prop isn't really needed. It's anything bigger than 7" you might want to balance them, especially something like a 13" tri blade for an XClass rig or 13" cinematic X8 for instance.
@@BikeGuyFPV yeah makes sense, I did not enjoy balancing props, I tried everything to minimize the vibs getting to the old naze 32 FC 🥴
Thanks a bunch for all the testing, Chris! Pretty interesting results! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
There seems to be some counter intuitive stuff going on there in the data, the master airscrew 6x4.5x2 is less efficient than the master airscrew 6x4.5x3, you would have thought that the 2 blade prop would be more efficient then the 3 blade, perhaps it is because you chose that specific thrust, (1000 grams) on the test that the data came out like that, any thoughts?
Great video Chris! I would love to know which 5/5.1 inch prop matches the Supernova best in the thrust/rpm graph. I have reached around 220 km/h with HQ 5.1x4.6x3 on a swichback frame with GPS, but am convinced I can get a higher top speed with another prop (and bigger battery).
@6.24 you say the Master Airscrew 6x4.5x3 is best matched to the supernove 2207 but looking carefully at the colours, I wanted to ask whether you actually meant to say the Gemfan Hurrican 5536-3 (ie the slightly darker colour of red line?)
Hi Chris,
I wanted to ask what you think about the topic of voltage sag.
In particular, I am in an association in my university that is building a model airplane for competitions and we started to run some tests on the propulsion system with different batteries, acquiring data as voltage, current, rpm of the motor.
We have seen that batteries behave differently (the voltage sag is different) with different propellers.
This can give us insights on how a specific battery can be used with specific propellers, maximizing the power delivered for our scopes.
Do you think this could be something interesting and useful to study in a serious way?
I can't find anything similar that has been done on the internet.
I’ve been flying 6inch since I started the Hobby. I really appreciate the grip and efficiency of the larger disk area. My Problem always was the frame choice, the market did not offer any lightweight options that had sensible desings for my use case. So I recently decided to buy the AOS5.5 with 2 sets of HQ 5.5X3.5X3 V2 and a set of velox veloce 2207.5 v2 1750kv. Is There a Way I can use 6” props on the AOS5.5? Because i would like to try all my different 6” props with the improved resonance performance. If not, would it be possible to design 6” arms for the frame?
Interesting comparison between the Azure 6145 and the HQ DP... During your 5" testing, I recall that model had higher than average vibration. In this case, it wasn't too bad? By the way, The 6" Azures also come in a carbon fiber version that cost a bit more. It would be cool to see how it compares to PC props in your tests.
Thanks for the detailed testing! Which Master Airscrew prop 6x4.5x3 did you test, RS or BN series?
I would have thought the RS, because the bullnose are always less efficient
I love the sound of GEMFAN Hurricane MCK 51466 V2 props sounds like a F1 car.
that's very relevant fact
Will the 2207 Supernovas work on a 6» frame with a GP 11 mini?
What about props exploding? I’ve had both the azure and the ethix 2 blade props explode in mid air for no apparent reason for me. No crashes or no damage to the props before take off? This was on my f6D iflight Evoque
K2? On my first set and no issues so far 🤞🏽
I also had the azure prop explode in mid air on the same nazgul f6
WE NEED A 7" PROP TEST ON A 2808 MOTOR
мне не нравится расположение тензодатчиков...
они все со смещением относительно осей
I run a 6042-3 flash
6s 1500mah 120c
2807 1700kv
To chase drift cars.
Hey mate, we wait 5.1 inch prop test
5.1" = 5"
You saved the world bro @@oddworld1328
First
1st