So who makes a better carbon fiber prop? Looking for advice. I had the t motor and returned them and now I’m having second thoughts that perhaps I should get some that fold for convenience. Any advice appreciated.
Xoar vs t motor
- Thread starter dmvara
- Start date
I'm using non folding tmotor props on my inspire. They are great!
Last year I accidentally cut out a 1cm branch when flying in a forest and the prop didn't shatter and I was able to do a few more batteries and finnish the job. Of course I replaced the prop later as it was having slight damage, but overal those props are very durable.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 992
- Age
- 61
My personal experience with carbon props is that the stiffer prop provides a stiffer flight. The softer plastic props flex more, which acts like suspension, which is desirable for the type of flying I do. For this reason, I gave up on carbon fiber props. Has anybody else observed this?
D
D
Absolutelly agree with that. It depends on the type of work. My intention is equipment safety on first place. If there's a bird or other mild collision the drone will still be in the air with the cf props, otherwise falling on the ground will destroy the pricy camera. Second is again safety for the people that I'm flying over, shooting for film almost allways include flying over crew. For example my story when I cut the branch in the wood if the drone went falling it could hit the actress. Of course I'm doing all my best to avoid such accidents but who knows what will happen
I2 and Matrices are using carbon enhanced props (without fibers) and I have seen in a few videos how simply a drone vs seagull is resulting to a broken prop where the seagull leaves the scene intact while the drone is totaled. There are also a few reports for m600 totaled by broken prop. With cf props this is the last thing that will break on the drone.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 992
- Age
- 61
Absolutelly agree with that. It depends on the type of work. My intention is equipment safety on first place. If there's a bird or other mild collision the drone will still be in the air with the cf props, otherwise falling on the ground will destroy the pricy camera. Second is again safety for the people that I'm flying over, shooting for film almost allways include flying over crew. For example my story when I cut the branch in the wood if the drone went falling it could hit the actress. Of course I'm doing all my best to avoid such accidents but who knows what will happen
I2 and Matrices are using carbon enhanced props (without fibers) and I have seen in a few videos how simply a drone vs seagull is resulting to a broken prop where the seagull leaves the scene intact while the drone is totaled. There are also a few reports for m600 totaled by broken prop. With cf props this is the last thing that will break on the drone.
Interesting. My observation with CF props were that they were more "brittle." Where the plastic prop was more likely to get cut in it, the CF prop would either break or "feather" leaving small shards of fiber to act as little parachutes along the rotor edge. But I confess my CF prop experience is very limited, as I decided I didn't like them years ago.
I would be interesting to see prop impact tests comparing the two.
D
Check this out. The plastic prop broke on the first wood stick while the cf prop successfuly cut a few sticks before get broken.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 992
- Age
- 61
Disappointing test. I would've examined each prop after each strike. I also would've barely touched the stick to the prop simulating a gentle push into a tree. This is why I think throwing a stick at the props is not very scientific. The guy went through all the trouble of setting up a controlled experiment, but then induced chaos at the most important part; the actual strike. And then he should've repeated the experiment at least twice if not 2 or 3 times. All that said...
What we garner from this guy's experiment is that both props fail at the hub. Unfortunately, I've had props rotors receive damage without catastrophic failure. This was the case scenario I was most interested in. Hearkening back to my earlier comment, what I garner from my personal experience is that the plastic props CAN sustain MINOR damage and still function. Conversely, if the CF props receive ANY damage, they fail. I was hoping this guy's experiment would flush that out, but alas, it didn't. Disappointing.
D
Donnie, when you say stiffer, are you saying the footage isn't quite as stable looking? Do plastic props usually result in a more cinematic look to the footage?
I don't think that the cinematic look is related to the dampening system, theoretically and in practice better dampening results to no vibrations or jello in the picture.
Cinematic look comes from lighting, composition and camera movement plus color correction at the end.
Yes, the test is not perfect but gives an idea. Also the quality of the pros he is testing is questionable.
Anyway my experience is prooving what I'm saying, I still keep the damaged prop for memento
Check out the video I did showing what happened to the propeller after cutting the branch.
The inspire flew very well without any visible deffects in the picture. You can see two of the shots we did with this damaged prop in our showreel, the two shots in the forest at 1:08
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 992
- Age
- 61
Yes. But this was really more apropos in the "old days" of the Phantom 1.
Back before really good gimbal isolation, there was a real different with the CF props. In addition, I meticulously balanced all my props, which all but eliminated the jello effect in the GoPro cameras. I could not balance the CF props. I could watch the drone hover in the breeze and it was pretty easy to see that drone had more movement to it. I liken this to a "stiff ride" in a car. Nowadaze, with gimbals being as good as they are, it's probably no longer an issue. But back then it made a difference.
D
Last edited:
I’ve been using T-Motor folding CF props for a few weeks now. My observations are: yes the performance is noticeably crisper and looking through my flight logs I find I’m getting 1 - 2 minutes longer flight time since the install. No science here, just my observations.
I have no experience with T-Motor, but Xoar is hard to beat. They have been the leader in RC props for years now. I've had quite a few Xoar props: CF, wood, and laminated wood. All of them were excellent products and out-performed all the rest; Master Airscrew, HK, Zinger, APC, Menz, Vess, Graupner.
Balancing your props is critical to vibration free flight. Props seldom come pre-balanced and in the injection molding process weights and densities can vary greatly. The same with carbon fiber props. It is okay to use clear nail polish on the back of a prop to balance it although it may effect the aesthetics.
I'm not even sure how you would balance a folding prop statically.. Anyone have any experience with this ?
Here's a link for an example of a simple hand balancer for props with a centered hole in the hub:
Simple Prop Balancer
Balancing your props is critical to vibration free flight. Props seldom come pre-balanced and in the injection molding process weights and densities can vary greatly. The same with carbon fiber props. It is okay to use clear nail polish on the back of a prop to balance it although it may effect the aesthetics.
I'm not even sure how you would balance a folding prop statically.. Anyone have any experience with this ?
Here's a link for an example of a simple hand balancer for props with a centered hole in the hub:
Simple Prop Balancer
Similar threads
