2 Blade vs 3 Blade Drone Propellers - 3.5" Propeller Testing of the HQProp T3.5x2.5x3 vs T3.5x2.2x2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- In this video we will be conducting detailed variable controlled comparative testing on the 3 blade HQProp T3.5x2.5x3 propeller against the newer 2 blade HQProp T3.5x2.2x2 propeller and analyze the findings on both the bench, and in the air.
Relevant Links
--------------------------------------
Testing Methodology: • Recursion Labs - Fully...
Reference Charts: intofpv.com/t-...
Aircraft used for flight testing - Recursion Scythe 3.5" HD Build: • Perfecting the Best Su...
Motor engineer here, the problem lies in inertia, i don't know about these smaller motors,but on 5 inches about 50% of the power train inertia is in the motor bell, so the 2 blade doesn't spin up much faster at low regimes, where majority of the power goes into acceleration of the inertial mass instead of air motion.
2 blades shine more on smaller motors (relative to build size)
Finally! A video I didn’t have to speed up! Great concise presentation. You got my sub!
You are so underrated and your data is awesome! I would love to see your thought process for PID tuning for this build, given that you have so much data. I feel like doing that would help a lot of your viewers understand the importance of running these tests and how that data can be applied. You're doing some amazing work man!
Thanks bud, that's really nice to hear someone say. I'd like to think I'm decent at it, but there are probably better resources for PID tuning than me. This data is really good however to help adjust a good tune when changing props if you know how they perform comparatively. I know I use it for that.
What I'd really like to attempt to convey is the importance of balance between thrust/efficiency, with battery size (to be able to properly drive the motor), and weight. The goal (mine anyway) is really to get the highest thrust/weight ratio possible, while keeping the weight as low as possible (more agile) while also meeting the durability requirements (which is also impacted by weight). Without this data its pretty much guess work when choosing and matching up components, which is why I'm doing tests and publishing them for everyone to be able to reference.
@@RecursionLabs You really are doing a service for the sub 250g community. I don't see a lot of people building around this weight too often, or at least promoting it as as often. My last build was built off of your data and this little thing is a monster. I was not expecting the amount of thrust that it put off and I nearly crashed on my maiden just from the take off 😂. Like I said you're doing a great job and I love seeing your videos just because they're so informative and not enough individuals are doing motor/prop tests like you are!
these videos are outstanding. the combination of excellent science and real-world testing is amazing.
This content is amazing for me, trying to build a sub 250 3.5" right now, thanks!
Very cool data! Loved the graphs and info, but still tied in real world "feel"
Thanks bud!
Great comparison. You should post more videos, I really like your content.
Thanks bud. I've got a few finish tests I'm going to try and get published. It's been busy the past few months.
Keep up the great work! Loving the videos
Awesome video as usual. Thanks for the data!
Awewsome mate, keep the testing vids up! That is exactly what we need. Short video, facts only, no yada yada. Love it! 5/5 Stars!
I'm currently in the market for a new copter after not flying for years, just ordered a new Transmitter, figuring out the rest on the way. Looking for about 10mins of flight time and some capability in freestyle and racing. Nothing fancy so to speak, but I want to max out the flight time with the minimum bat size. Considering 1s LIION and 3" pick or 4" 3S LIPO/LIION setup. Unsure still, but likely going with 2blades now.
as always no nonsense great video !
One thing you forgot to test battery life and flight time....I would say the best one would be the one that enables the most flight time.
The charts show efficiency per gram of thrust, which is measurement of battery power output requirements.
friend~ very perfect channel- 😇
What about 4 blades?
Thank you 4:36 for your data driven analysis.
Do you have the equipment to test decibels & pitch frequency?
You would then have the ability to test: thrust, amps,rpm against “Noise” for a given blade configuration (diameter, pitch & number of blades).
For some flyers, Noise is a large concern in a neighborhood setting, & may limit flying location availability.
Thank you.
Good review ❤😊
awesome! Wondered how I missed this, had to resub, Was considering these guys but I'm glad you did this! I have a tmotor 1304 65000kv that I'd like you to put through your tests sometime
1204 you mean?!
@@chrisbee5481 nope 1304 ;)
Nice testing! It’s interesting that HQ went with a lower pitch on the 2 blade. I guess it would target someone wanting to drop down to a smaller lighter motor that would struggle with the triblade?
That's my guess too. On smaller motors they would likely do better, like 4" 2 blades do on 1404.
it's the 2blade higher pitch variant of the t3.5x2x3
Was wondering about that, too. If I had this nice of a testing rig, I'd also be interested in 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 Blade but all other parameters (diameter AND pitch AND voltage AND motor) being the same. And perform that test with a motors which has three different KV versions available, so you get 3x3 charts out of it.
my average throttle is 26% for an acro flight for probably 80% of the flight only really need the full throttle for a few seconds for power loops and pulling out of dives. for a long range your going to be climbing the mountain by wattage etc so quite low throttle... the thin air at the top of the mountain is going to force higher throttle to keep the lift for that same weight... so would the extra blade help it would help with lift but at the cost of a minor weight increase of the extra blade and the extra power needed to spin it.... this will be dependant on the weight of the quad to tell if it would be worth it... light long range would benefit using 3 blades... heavy long rang ???? (most motors will be over propped for long range as they will be more efficient this way as they don't need to react fast hence the need to use 2 blade)
You should check T-motor P1604!
Thanks for sharing. I like the locked in feel of the 3 blade more. Also the lower noise. What I dont understand is, why two blade just seems to fly faster? Like the thrust stand test always show more top end thrust for 3 blade, but in reality two blade hast more top speed. It could be less air resistance.
Just guessing.
I moved some of my 3 inch builds to a 3.5 inch bi blade. Fly good.
I think its only fair to compare a 3.5 inch tri blade to a slightly bigger 4 inch bi blade. Then the bi blade might win again.
Interesting observation. Which motors are you running them on? It''s possible the 3 blade are overloading them.
@@RecursionLabs coming back to this: I have several 3.5 inch builds.
Also tested all 3.5 inch props on 1404, 1804 and 2004 motors.
No bench test data , but just subjective feel.
The hglrc 1804 3500kv on 4S are awesome on all props, but best for the emax 3528. I also tested them on the new emax 3630. Very nice too, but really suck the current Limits on an 750~850mah 4s lipo and xt30 plug. Up to about 70~80A on full throttle incl voltage sag. The performance is insane and makes you smile.
All tested on a naked vista twig 140 build. Dry weight 120g with 1804s.
On 2004 2100kv motors and 3538 props on 6S ,it flew well, but not really as good as or better than the 1804's. The kv are too low.
Now I'm building with 2600kv hglrc 2004 motors (made by rcinpower. Awesome quality) on 650mah 6s tattu lipos. The emax 3630 are my prefered props for this build. The amp draw should also be approximatly 60A pushing the limit.
The new hq t3.5x2.2 bi blade outperforms all the typical 3" props like gemfan 3018, 3016, 3020 and 3028 on 1204 or 1303.5 motors. The top speed and acceleration is insane. 1204 or 1303.5 is probably the sweet spot for this t3.5x2.2 prop.
I'll be doing more testing.
Keep up the good work.
By the way: that bi blades are faster is just a proven fact. That's my observation and also so many people I've seen talk about this, also claim they are faster. Just the cornering grip lacks and they are freaking loud when on a powertrain setup. All speed records were accieved on bi blades too.
Of course it depends on what exact bi blade prop.
On 1102 10,000 kv and 1103 10,000kv I have noticed the same with bi-blades being faster, but my best matched comparison pits the HQ T65 against the GF2512. The higher-pitched bi-blade has better top-end with high-kv. My theory is that the higher pitch is made feasible on given stator size by having one fewer blade. Perhaps only high kv motors can reap this benefit?
@yohfpv I've been building high speed racing quads lately.
On all of my speed runs, the bi blade props have had a about 20% higher top speed.
My theory is that the third blade adds more resistance spinning through the air.
For example take a boat.
Hold two identical sticks into the water. Feel the resistance.
Now add a third stick.
Guess what?
More resistance right?
So thats why.
Also an aerodynamic expert said the prop tips make air turbulances that become even more by every blade added.
What motor would you use for 3.5 inch props 2s Lion build thanks
maybe time for tmotor p1604 check?
And 1804 motor too
I'll be testing the P1604 for sure. I'm personally very curious how it compares.
I like it
Informative as always! 3:15 thank you! Personally I would use the two blade props for slightly smaller motors (ex. 1603 or 1106). Could you compare 3.5" triblade on 4S vs 4" two blade on 3S with the same motor (1408 3800kv)?
I think the two blade is well suited for the hglrc 1303.5 5000kv on 3s as a light build. Maybe 4500kv on 4S. Motors are on the way 😆. On 1204 8000kv 2s these blades were awesome. Now I just need a little more low end control and more Power from 3S and 1303.5
@@chrisbee5481 Why not 1105 then? It's bigger and lighter than 1303.5 but anyway let me now how they goes :)
@@samuelepaganoni9741 I've studied 1106 motor thrust test charts and compared them to 1304. 1106 is lighter. The motor stator volume is more or less the same. 1106 is just slightly bigger. Even though it's slightly bigger stator volume, the 1304 beats it in max thrust and overall efficiency. You need tourque to spin larger heavier props. Wider stators provied more tourque. The test data is all out there. You just have to find it and research. If you intend to spin larger and more pitch props, always step up the motor seize in width and not hight. So from 1204 to 1404 and not 1206.
@@chrisbee5481 in efficiency at lower throttle yes because is smaller, in torque and thrust i don't think so, where did you see It?
Soooooooooooo, could you do 3 Blade vs. 4 Blade? :)
Have you ever burn a 1404 on your thrust bench in 4s?. Did you tes multiwire small motor?
No, but someone wanted me to test 5000kv RCInpower 1207 motors on 4s and at about the 80% throttle test the wires smoked. Not surprised because the kv is suited for 3s.
@@RecursionLabs which props did you test this on?
Are the 1404 3800kv still the best choice for the tri blades?
If you're referring to the motor in this video, then yes, by a lot (that I have tested so far anyway).
@@RecursionLabs I guess I’m more referring to best combo for 3.5 inch props with the crux35 frame or similar
@@bread12678 Yes, so far it's the T-Motor F1404.
What about 2 blade 3.5" on 1303.5 5500kV?
(got Rekon35 from HGLRC with 3520 gemfan, but not sure how would 2 blade act)
I don't know since I have not tested it. It's possible the motor might struggle on the 3 blade and not the 2 blade though in that situation.
@@RecursionLabs I think that 3.5" gives a lot opportunity for sub250 builds, so testing motors such as 1303.5 would be cool. Btw, Dave_C FPV (designer of Rekon quads) also developed 1603 motor, which he claims is better than 1404 for LR endurance 4".
The hglrc 1303.5 will work perfect on this bi blade. It's just a question if 4500kv on 4S or 5000kv on 3S. I'll be testing soo
@@chrisbee5481 Do you think bi-blade 3.5" would be less responsive with 1303.5 5500kV motor?
@@brezovprut4431 I've tested the t3.5x2.2 on 8000kv 1204 with 2S. It defenatly takes 0.x of a second longer to respond vs 3".
Also it feels less more floaty. Altough my setup is ultra crazy light at 52g dry and 82 all up weight. It was actually intended on 1S, but 2S was a blast. 1303.5 on 3S should be more responsive at the bottom.
❤🎄✨🎁