I know, I like the motor testing stuff too. ;( The other downside of motor testing is that it doesn't matter what/how I test, somebody *always* has a better way. It gets old...
Yep, I thought the 2-blade props were going to be on this quad out of the gate, but I'm going with the 3-blade setup to start. I'll try the Gemfans though. Thanks for checking-in.
I think this test applies across the board--it was meant to test 2 vs 3 bladed props and the one thing I took away is confirmation of why this channel exists in the first place--it's better to test and measure.
Thanks for the test; it's very helpful. It would be interesting to see how they compare when the thrust is the about the same and the power level is somewhere we actually use often for cruising like 30~50% range.
Very interesting. That noise at full throttle on the 2 blade is likely the blade flattening out and fluttering.. I think you would get far better results at full beans with a stiffer 2 blade.
@@RCVideoReviews could you do a test at a fixed amperage or fixed RPM? So for example if max current of the lower one is 30a for example, test them all at 15a. See which one gives the most thrust at a fixed lower amperage.
Normally if your running a 2 blade prop going to a 3 blade you would reduce the diameter by 1 inch so for instance if your was running a 12x7 2 blade you would run an 11x7 3 Blade same pitch but lower diameter to get roughly the same performance.
If you really want to do a good efficiency test you should run all the propellers at similar power points and then graph the g/W curve for each propeller
John once again excellent review Have a quick question I used an original 2 blade prop with my x-uav sky surfer & also tried a 3 blade prop , Is it true that the 2 blade prop will glide better during landing then a 3 blade prop What do u think about this For a beginner ??
I really don't think the prop will make a palpable difference in glide for a beginner. 2 blade prompts are a bit more efficient, but for pushers, a 3 blade can give you some extra torque and not hit the tail boom.
Love the Judge! Really appreciate this type of content, even if it doesn't get the views.
I know, I like the motor testing stuff too. ;( The other downside of motor testing is that it doesn't matter what/how I test, somebody *always* has a better way. It gets old...
I like the results of the three bladed props. You would have thought the two bladed prop would show better results than they did. Good job John!
Yep, I thought the 2-blade props were going to be on this quad out of the gate, but I'm going with the 3-blade setup to start. I'll try the Gemfans though. Thanks for checking-in.
I forgot you did these bench vids. its good to see something other then strictly quad... even though they are quad motors
I think this test applies across the board--it was meant to test 2 vs 3 bladed props and the one thing I took away is confirmation of why this channel exists in the first place--it's better to test and measure.
Thanks for the test; it's very helpful. It would be interesting to see how they compare when the thrust is the about the same and the power level is somewhere we actually use often for cruising like 30~50% range.
I tested 7" props, dual vs tri-blade and got more flight time with the three-bladed props. That was flying slowly in a parking garage..
Thanks for this excellent test. I love these gemfan props but never tried the Azures. Gonna order some now.
I also noticed a high-frequency pitch sound after about 3/4 throttle on both runs. Didn't see that on the Azure props.
Very interesting. That noise at full throttle on the 2 blade is likely the blade flattening out and fluttering.. I think you would get far better results at full beans with a stiffer 2 blade.
I was thinking cavitation. Such is the nature of static bench testing though.
@@RCVideoReviews could you do a test at a fixed amperage or fixed RPM? So for example if max current of the lower one is 30a for example, test them all at 15a. See which one gives the most thrust at a fixed lower amperage.
Normally if your running a 2 blade prop going to a 3 blade you would reduce the diameter by 1 inch so for instance if your was running a 12x7 2 blade you would run an 11x7 3 Blade same pitch but lower diameter to get roughly the same performance.
Correct
If you really want to do a good efficiency test you should run all the propellers at similar power points and then graph the g/W curve for each propeller
Right.
Yeah, you should document what current its pulling at the same thrust point.
Great video I really appreciate the information!!
Thanks for watching!
Your welcome!! Keep up the good work👍
John once again excellent review Have a quick question I used an original 2 blade prop with my x-uav sky surfer & also tried a 3 blade prop , Is it true that the 2 blade prop will glide better during landing then a 3 blade prop What do u think about this For a beginner ??
I really don't think the prop will make a palpable difference in glide for a beginner. 2 blade prompts are a bit more efficient, but for pushers, a 3 blade can give you some extra torque and not hit the tail boom.
You have somewhere all the data you measured written super nice what you do
Yes I do
@@RCVideoReviews any link for that
Great content , thank you. :)
My pleasure!
What will u recommend for higher speed 2 or 3 blade?
2 blades. More blades reduce efficiency but improve torque. For speed, you want 2 blades and more pitch.
@@RCVideoReviews thanks a lot brother is there no relationship between thrust and speed cause I saw three blade generated more thrust
I wonder how a 6in 2 blade compares to a 5in 3 blade
They’ll be pretty close in terms of current demand with the 2 blade being more efficient.
@@RCVideoReviews would a 2-blade 6 inch make a plane fly faster than a 3-blade 5 inch (assuming they both produce the same amount of thrust)?
@@pipoypipoy7796pitch would make the speed difference more I think.