And I feel he does not do the included bi-blades justice. They are very, if not most efficient, handle prop wash very well, and the „lack“ of maximum thrust is something that high kV motors can overcome. I would say on your typical battery limited tiny quad a 30kkV motor with a bi-blade will be on par with a 25kkv good triblade at maximum thrust at the same current draw and probably more efficient in the 40% throttle range
+1 for the gemfan 1210 biblade needs to be included. Also needs to be tested on 0702. But the biggest issue i see here is YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST be testing WITH A DUCT! The duct makes a huge difference in the way different props work, and absolutely nobody will be flying 31mm props without a duct. But, awesome content and i very much appreciate your hard work and time put into this! Thank you chris!
As others have said, most people run 0702 exclusively on 31mm props so it will change prop results and biblades need to be considered. 802s are more for 35mm and 40mm props.
Great work again Chris! It absolutely corresponds to my experiences as an experienced race pilot! I have flown all of these props and can confirm your test results from real life flights.
HQ ultralight might perform the best but they are also super fragile in comparison to Gemfan 1219S. As others have said I'd love to see the 1210 gemfan in the test data as well as it's also a very nice flying prop and would be great to see it's stats against the competition.
@@MikeDuranFPV I'd rather it on a 0702 since that's what we mostly use these props on, but 0802 is okay as well I guess. Either way these props perform different when actually in flight, thrust stand isn't everything.
Really think you should do your usability testing using a battery of 1/4 capacity or by running all 4 props at the same time (only testing 1). I don't think you are ascribing enough weight to efficiency or at least you can't be sure whether or not you are. It's possible that when the system is power limited more efficient motors/props could do better.
In the world of full scale aircraft, two bladed props are considered more efficient than three bladed props. Also, single bladed props are considered more efficient than two bladed props. Single bladed (with counter weight) are just weird looking so are not common. Also, props with more than two blades are mostly used to solve problems related to prop diameter constraints such as extremely powerful engines in airframes with limited ground clearance. I don't think it is accurate to state that one prop produces more thrust than another simply because it has more blades. Other factors must be at play. Great video however. Thanks for all your hard work....
@@MLeditsofficial it'll go fast or it'll get hot/burn. At your own risk. Try at 66% then up it 10% at a time and check for heat with a little motor pinch, if its too hot to hold back off. Running 96khz+ helps with heat.
Hi Chris, Unfortunately the methodology you were using is not applicable to the whoop drones. The results you have got in your simulations can be different in real environment. You eliminated the air dynamic, motor response to load and hardware features such as properties of the installed controller and the effect of the drone weight. Ideally, you should put all the props, connect the drone to the launch pad to to the tools and start measurements. Anyway, thanks for the test you have performed - very impressive!
Chris, if you feel like it - how does the efficiency look like when props work backwards? I always wanted to learn 3D flying and tinywhoop seems perfect platform to do that but the default props on air65 need about 70% of throttle to just hover, even more to stop the fall. I was about to order a bunch and try put the rear props backwards to get the equally bad efficiency in both directions (credit to Zoe) but maybe you can help find better props for 3D flying?
Hey cris. I want to building a 10 inch LR quad and i was considering AOS UL 10. Is there an official pid tune for this. I wanna run ardupilot on it. Thanks
I'm wondering why the peak RPMs are different between each prop. For example the HQ 31mm x4 peaked at about 63k RPM, while the HQ 31mm x2 peaked at about 73k RPM. Are all of the graph plots displaying zero to full throttle, or have some plots been cut off at the high end?
Very important issue for me especially when running without hoop prop guards is how well the props stay on in collisions and how well they maintain retention on the shaft after they have been shed and remounted a few times. I dislike the tendency to put hollow center mounts in these small props because durability is likely sacrificed in this regard. Making it solid at center should not effect performance much because the circumference is so small there.
my man not having gemfan 1210 biblades is a HUGE oversight
Came to say this. The 1210 bi’s are THE 65mm go-to props. Plus, I’d much rather see the results using a 0702 motor instead of 0802.
And I feel he does not do the included bi-blades justice. They are very, if not most efficient, handle prop wash very well, and the „lack“ of maximum thrust is something that high kV motors can overcome. I would say on your typical battery limited tiny quad a 30kkV motor with a bi-blade will be on par with a 25kkv good triblade at maximum thrust at the same current draw and probably more efficient in the 40% throttle range
bi-blade efficiency results look negligible but i found they can bring +30s flight time
@ Yeah, that’s definitely odd. +30s is significant.
@@sketchpv3080 wanted to see both motors bi tri and quad blades
+1 for the gemfan 1210 biblade needs to be included. Also needs to be tested on 0702. But the biggest issue i see here is YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST be testing WITH A DUCT! The duct makes a huge difference in the way different props work, and absolutely nobody will be flying 31mm props without a duct. But, awesome content and i very much appreciate your hard work and time put into this! Thank you chris!
That's another thing I didn't think about. But I must say you are 💯 % right.
As others have said, most people run 0702 exclusively on 31mm props so it will change prop results and biblades need to be considered. 802s are more for 35mm and 40mm props.
Bummer the gemfan bi-blade was not included.
I have that little guy on a couple of mi e also
what is bummer? never heared about it
@@АндрійАлєксєєв-п3з
bummer
noun INFORMAL
1.
a disappointing or unpleasant situation or experience.
"the party was a real bummer"
No gemfan 1210 😢
Yeah, that's what I'm saying too.
Great work again Chris! It absolutely corresponds to my experiences as an experienced race pilot! I have flown all of these props and can confirm your test results from real life flights.
I really like the GemFan 1219S in the Awesome Yellow! Thanks Chris!
Awesome work! Tanks for sharing!
These new ultralight props really shine in my experience.
HQ ultralight might perform the best but they are also super fragile in comparison to Gemfan 1219S. As others have said I'd love to see the 1210 gemfan in the test data as well as it's also a very nice flying prop and would be great to see it's stats against the competition.
Preach bro! ehehehhehe also... 0802?
@@MikeDuranFPV I'd rather it on a 0702 since that's what we mostly use these props on, but 0802 is okay as well I guess. Either way these props perform different when actually in flight, thrust stand isn't everything.
@le_tranq yea def 0702 cause bi blades small light. So shine more on a smaller motor vs 3 or 4 blades
Why are you testing with an 0802 when most 65 whoops use 0702 now days? Does motor size not not make a difference in test results?
yes it does...
Taking props off with pliers! You monster! Lol
How, just how was there no 1210 biblade. Dude.... Data!
Please hear me out Chris, You absolutely should be doing these tests with a normal 65mm setup with 0702 and ducts
More testing is needed 😂
No hq ul 1.2x0.9x3s, unfortunate.
Why don’t you have the new gemfan ultralight? 0.9 pitch? Also the new ultralight bi blade
Really think you should do your usability testing using a battery of 1/4 capacity or by running all 4 props at the same time (only testing 1). I don't think you are ascribing enough weight to efficiency or at least you can't be sure whether or not you are. It's possible that when the system is power limited more efficient motors/props could do better.
These are tiny, but is it possible/worthwhile to test vibration from balance?
In the world of full scale aircraft, two bladed props are considered more efficient than three bladed props. Also, single bladed props are considered more efficient than two bladed props. Single bladed (with counter weight) are just weird looking so are not common. Also, props with more than two blades are mostly used to solve problems related to prop diameter constraints such as extremely powerful engines in airframes with limited ground clearance. I don't think it is accurate to state that one prop produces more thrust than another simply because it has more blades. Other factors must be at play. Great video however. Thanks for all your hard work....
Can I use 8s on t motor velox v2808 because on website it says it’s rated for 6s but Joshua bardwell was using 8s on those motors
yep set motor output limit to 66% on pid tab in BF
But what if if I use it on 100% power
@@MLeditsofficial it'll go fast or it'll get hot/burn. At your own risk. Try at 66% then up it 10% at a time and check for heat with a little motor pinch, if its too hot to hold back off. Running 96khz+ helps with heat.
I love your content man and I'm happy to see more micro drone related content. Thank you so much for your work and I love that intro XD
I use bi blade but shape of 1219s on my mob6 2024 and its great albeit a bit of prop wash
gemfan 3 blades are the best for me. 4 blades are easier when you don't have enough space. Gemfans generally are better than any other whoop props
So this is how my girlfriend feels when she walks in on me doing drone stuff...
Hi Chris,
Unfortunately the methodology you were using is not applicable to the whoop drones. The results you have got in your simulations can be different in real environment. You eliminated the air dynamic, motor response to load and hardware features such as properties of the installed controller and the effect of the drone weight. Ideally, you should put all the props, connect the drone to the launch pad to to the tools and start measurements. Anyway, thanks for the test you have performed - very impressive!
what with nbd venoms props ?
Chris, if you feel like it - how does the efficiency look like when props work backwards?
I always wanted to learn 3D flying and tinywhoop seems perfect platform to do that but the default props on air65 need about 70% of throttle to just hover, even more to stop the fall. I was about to order a bunch and try put the rear props backwards to get the equally bad efficiency in both directions (credit to Zoe) but maybe you can help find better props for 3D flying?
This video comes on point 💪
Hey cris. I want to building a 10 inch LR quad and i was considering AOS UL 10. Is there an official pid tune for this. I wanna run ardupilot on it. Thanks
@ChrissRosser What is the dip in thrust at 35500rpm?
I'm wondering why the peak RPMs are different between each prop. For example the HQ 31mm x4 peaked at about 63k RPM, while the HQ 31mm x2 peaked at about 73k RPM. Are all of the graph plots displaying zero to full throttle, or have some plots been cut off at the high end?
R2D2 sounds pissed!
what prop remover are you using ?
Do you have any way to rate the durability of these small propellers? Some are made of hard plastic and shatter on impact.
What tiny whoop is that with an 03 in looking to buy a tiny whoop that can hold an 03 thanks for the review man 👍👍👍
Very important issue for me especially when running without hoop prop guards is how well the props stay on in collisions and how well they maintain retention on the shaft after they have been shed and remounted a few times. I dislike the tendency to put hollow center mounts in these small props because durability is likely sacrificed in this regard. Making it solid at center should not effect performance much because the circumference is so small there.
Nice test and analysis! Sure beats some of these tiny whoop RUclipsrs…. So called tiny whoop king …. Just spewing unverified blabber.
Maybe the best but too noisey😢