Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

2312 motors with 9450 props: 800g more carrying weight?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by VoicOfReason, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. VoicOfReason

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    129
    As advertised, the new 2312 motors with 9450 props (and V2.0 ESC's) can carry 200g more per axle. So, does that mean you can load on an EXTRA 800g of stuff without affecting battery life? So, should the recommended take-off weight be changed from <1300g to <2100g??
     
  2. miragecy

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Limassol, Cyprus
    I think I read per AXIS not AXLE

    Andy
     
  3. VoicOfReason

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    129
    Thanks for the correct. Per axis. So, anyone know the answer to this?
     
  4. macheung

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    Not 2100g, but probably 1600g
    It can generate 200g more thrust per axis (800g vs 600g of old motor with 9443). The 800g of extra thrust translate to about 400g of more lift capacity because you need 50% reserve for maneuvering and stabilization. This would give the total take off weight of 1600g vs 1200g before. The 1300g figure before was on the high side and DJI had to bump it up because they cannot market the p2 being overweight out of the box.

    That being said, flying with 1600g weight will definitely cost you in terms of battery life. The extra energy needed to lift those 400g will have to come from the battery. You'll just be able to do it and fly safety for a reduced amount of time. I would expect a 30% reduction in endurance compared to 1200g auw.
     
  5. IflyinWY

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,470
    Likes Received:
    939
    Location:
    Where the deer and the antelope play
    Hmm,
    Any thoughts as to how the FC40 could be affected by these motors? It's nice to see someone thinking these things through.

    I'm viewing my machine as an easily modifiable machine. I'm a visionary. :D
     
  6. VoicOfReason

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    129
    Thank you. That helps a little. But, this is confusing to me. Official description of the motors: "this new propulsion system allows you to load more equipment on your Phantom without sacrificing flight time, offering you a better flight experience." So, it appears it isn't just a matter of giving us lifting ability but also increasing flight time.
     
  7. macheung

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is very possible that the new motor will be more efficient and use less power at a given level of thrust. However, that efficency gain is likely not enough to offset the increase in weight if you do fully load it. So an increase in payload by 33% will likely translate into a endurance drop of a little less than that. The energy gotta come from somewhere.
     
  8. The Editor

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    7
    Marketing Hype.

    Unfortunately you cannot overcome the laws of physics and you can't get something for nothing!

    Are there proper specs posted for these motors anywhere? I glanced quickly at some advertising blurb but my eyes quickly glazed over after about 4 words. I noticed that they state the motors have a 25% output improvement..... measured how exactly?

    Can we see some loading(Amp)/thrust figures at various throttle levels on various voltages/lipo/prop combinations?
     
  9. Nathan Carter

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Forget about loading extra weight, what about with existing weight. Does it give a longer flight time? 25% increase should be more than 30 mins flight time, yet DJI has not changed that in their advertising/specification material on the web. It still says 25 min as before. Why?
     
  10. GerdS

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Germany, lake of Konstanz
    Just regard it from the efficiency side:
    The old motors are not that bad, so let's assume an efficiency of 90%, which means that 90% of electric energy will be converted into thrust and 10% into heat.
    If the new motors are much better let's assume an efficiency of 95%. That means that flight time per battery could increase for around 5% which is around 1:20 minutes in best case.

    Regrads, Gerd
     
  11. GhostMaster

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    36
    Agree with GerdS, if it gives 1min more is already awesome.
     
  12. Cloud9

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2014
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    As aggressive as DJI's marketing is, you would think they would mention "increased flight time" as a feature
     
  13. The Editor

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ahhh-Ha.... that's because there wont be any ! (Well, not worth mentioning in any case).

    Another thing of course is they are slightly heavier. Another factor to pull down flight time (albeit only a few grams).

    DJI should post proper spec for these motors like companies such as T-Motor do. Then individuals could make a educated decision as to whether they consider it worth while to buy the snake oil.... er sorry I mean super efficient magic motors.

    Of course there may well be a very good reason why DJI do not post specs and that's because the negligible advantage would mean they would not sell as many as they would by using phrases like 'pioneering stator' and 'increases slot wire embedding degree' :lol: