Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ElGuano, Jul 13, 2014.
Tl;dr: New props being released that should help with those experiencing VRS/instability on descent!
Sweet, great news!! I'm sure you're hoping for a non-self-tightening version too.
The Y6 so far seems immune to VRS at non-insane descent speeds so I'll probably be OK, but I probably can't help but try them out on the top 3 motors
I'm curious why. What have you got against the self-tightening versions? I think they're convenient as hell... and don't really see any performance hit. But maybe I'm missing something.
I also wonder what this term "thurst" is in Dr. Turbo's quote. ;-)
Dronin' is serious business...if you're not working up a thirst you're not doing it right
To answer your question about the props, certain particular individuals here like to run less-conventional setups where the self-tightening props won't work...such as ElGuano's Y6 beast or any Phantom sold before DJI switched to the cross-threaded motors.
I'm also curious to see how the 9450's behave across the board, and why DJI stuck with 9.4" instead of just doing a 9x5.
OI....have you looked a P1 with P2V props on it....it they went any bigger they would hit not only each other but the top she'll also
A 9x5 prop is 9" with a 5" pitch, DJI has a 9.4" propeller with a 4.3" pitch (soon to be 5"). I was just wondering because 9x5 (or "9050") is a common size/pitch mix in general. In fact DJI seems to be one of the few if not only manufacturers that have in-between blade sizes (not just even inches).
Yep, I like the self-tightening props, the convenience and safety are fantastic (though I'll always have a place in my heart for straight-hubbed CF props that are oh-so-light). As OI described, you can't run these integrated-hub self-tightening props on coaxial configs (Y6/X8) so I'll always need an alternative for those situations.
I think DJI really tailor-made the 94xx to the 350mm frame. It came out well enough to include with the E300 generally, but it was purpose-built with the Phantom in mind (IMHO).
By that I assume you mean "It's as long as they could make it be without touching the body"
Yep! Or rather, contacting the tips of the other adjacent props! With the shell as domed as it is, I bet in flight the downdraft on those paper-thin 9443s would keep them from hitting the top even if they were much longer. In any case, you've got 15-20mm of length per side of the blade before you would hit the top shell (and you could just raise the hub 5mm if you wanted complete clearance off the shell).
But between the tips of each blade at closest distance, you have just 7.70mm to spare!
Sweet! Was just about to buy a bunch of props for my p2z. Looks like I will wait for these 9450's. I wonder how long before they hit the UK... heliguy has them listed but no stock yet.
Post up your experiences with them please when people start getting them.
This is great news--I'm curious to see how they perform for flight times compared to the 9443s.
It's unlikely to affect flight times, actually. The motors are still spinning the same speed and under the same load. The props will probably only affect stability, I'm guessing.
EDIT: alright, so now that I think about it, maybe it will affect flight time marginally because the motors will be compensating a bit less. I wouldn't expect increases by order of minutes, though.
My guess is the same flight times, or just marginally less. My completely baseless WAG is that the 9443s were purpose-designed to maximize lift and flight time. The 9450s build in additional stability, but impact on noise and flight time/efficiency are yet to be determined. Some folks got pinged by Dr. Turbo to get some test sets, so we'll probably be seeing pics and flight comparisons in the next week or so
I was also getting ready to order some replacement props. I was planning on getting 2 sets but now now with these coming out I will just get 1 set. Then wait for the new ones and try a set of them. Im not expecting them to be miles different...but if i like them I would buy another set. If i dont then they just become backups and go in my case.
Test props from DJI have arrived!
Big thanks out to Dr. Turbo @ DJI for the opportunity to test out the new 9450 props! My favorite part? They're called the "Thrust Boosted Version"
A few comparison pics and measurements against a standard retail set of E300 9443 whites (I still can't believe how many of these I have, and whether I'll be pushed to replace the whole lot):
Packaging - retail packages, so these must be hitting shelves IMMINENTLY.
Close-up of label:
Unwrapped (the 9450s are a tad yellower, probably due to plastic batches rather than intentional dying:
View of the profile - I may be holding them a bit askew, but the 9450s definitely have a bit more bite to the trailing edge:
Closeup to show the 9450s seem a bit thinner and more aggressively angled at the root:
Measurement at the root (note this isn't the actual width of the blade since the face is angled, it merely illustrates the difference in profile:
Measurement at the widest part of the plate (again, not the actual width since the 9450s are angled more steeply):
They're also thicker/stiffer than the 9443s: I'd say twice as stiff as the E300 grays, a bit stiffer than the E300 whites and the E300 non-self-tightening:
You can see right through the gray 9443s:
I haven't had a chance to fly them yet, but I'll try a test flight today, and hopefully try to get a back to back fast-descent test (manual mode descent?), and hover-time test before the weekend is through.
Ah, one of the lucky ones
Looks good. More of a change than I expected tbh. Interested to see how they fare and how soon I can get my hands on some!
What are you testing them on and what weight is it? Oh and what weight are the new and old props?
Testing will be on a stock P2V+ (1260g), and a highly modified Phantom 1 (1220-1310g depending on battery).
Thanks for the reminder to weigh them. I don't have a scale accurate to fractions of a gram, so I weighed four at a time:
4x E300 9443 gray: 47g
4x E300 9450 white: 50g
4x E300 9443 white: 55g
The weight difference definitely accounts for the paper-thin see-through grays (which I love).
Are the arrows pointing to an added facet on the leading edge, or just a trick of the light?
It's there, but I don't think it's part of the design. There's the slightest lip where you point, but on the cw-spinning ones the lip is on the 9443 and not on the 9450.
But where your left arrow points is probably the biggest outright difference and reason why the 9450s weigh less. The 9443s bulge out noticeably on the bottom face right by the hub, you can feel the lump as you run your hand over it. On the 9450s, it's a thin, flat profile. Definitely less material.
With the stiffer and thinner form, these definitely seem to have more characteristics I'd associate with carbon fiber props. That's great for me, as I'm probably the one in ten around here who actually like CF props
Without rolling a bench rig to measure actual thrust, all I could do on my first test flight with these is to fly around the yard in manual mode. The 9450s DEFINITELY take less throttle to hover - about 10% over center. The 9443s take about 20% over center (really rough guesstimates). I couldn't induce VRS in either set. More flights tomorrow.