New or old motors phantom 3

[Ed209]

Right now, they are a sought out Classic by the long distance flyers! Later versions just crippled the range.

I don't know. I sought out a new motor version due to better efficiency/longer flight times. My P3P is old motor 323. My P3A is new motors W323A running fw 1.1.9. I think that is probably the most sought after combo. You can always add air side booster if the video feed drops out too much. I havent had any issues with FPVLR out to 5.5mi so far.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I don't know. I sought out a new motor version due to better efficiency/longer flight times. My P3P is old motor 323. My P3A is new motors W323A running fw 1.1.9. I think that is probably the most sought after combo. You can always add air side booster if the video feed drops out too much. I havent had any issues with FPVLR out to 5.5mi so far.

I should add a qualifier to the long range video feed: at very low elevations to the ground at long distance. W323A video feed is fine at 400-500 feet AGL at long distance, but with the W323, I can go down to 25-50 feet at 4 to 5 miles with complete stability. Big difference in the video capabilities low to the ground vs. 400 feet!

 

[JayS_CT]

I leave mine on all the time, on my unmodded RC, and just make sure the plane of the windsurfer always faces the aircraft, so forward to launch, and straight up if you are flying straight up therafter. It's awkward to put on and take off in flight, if you get the big tall one that locks into a vertical position.

The one I have allows for 45 degrees, etc.. It does keep both antenna parallel.. Will try the next time I fly.. so what do you do if it's out of site? Kinda point in the direction?

 

[JayS_CT]

I posted this in another thread here on Phantom Pilot. I'm not so sure that the reason behind DJI moving to what has been the standard motor on the "Standard" version was for efficiency (at least in the bird) as their prime motivation. They came right out and said it was to help streamline production, which makes sense.. They needed a new line to start ramping up for V4 motors.. So they had to choose, put Pro and Adv. motors on remaining P3 Standard production, or put P3 Standard motors on Adv. and Pro.. Since the Standard is the least expensive of the three models, and very rarely does a company retool to make things more expensive.... Just think there was an original reason why the motors on the Pro and Adv. were different. Keep in mind the Standard was never designed to be a distance flyer.. so lower RPM, perhaps less powerful motors made sense. I know DJI is saying more power, but I don't see getting more power with less RPM (see posts by others about the RPM piece). I think the housing and the bearing look sturdier on the original 2312 vs. the 2312A which is now what's coming. I mentioned this above, but also think the "dome" (so to speak) on top of the 2312 allow for better heat dissipation (as I mentioned above, but waiting on a reply from Chadwide on that).. I could have the whole thing 100% wrong, but thinking I'm glad I got the 2312 motors..

 

[GadgetGuy]

The one I have allows for 45 degrees, etc.. It does keep both antenna parallel.. Will try the next time I fly.. so what do you do if it's out of site? Kinda point in the direction?

Use the telemetry in DJI GO to keep the RC pointed at the aircraft (unock the map to allow it to rotate and always keep the green connecting line between you and the aircraft vertical). The antennas should always be vertical to the RC when the windsurfer is mounted on them. Then point the plane formed by their surface directly at the aircraft, being aware of the elevation of the craft relative to you and rotating until that connecting line is straight up and down on the map.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I posted this in another thread here on Phantom Pilot. I'm not so sure that the reason behind DJI moving to what has been the standard motor on the "Standard" version was for efficiency (at least in the bird) as their prime motivation. They came right out and said it was to help streamline production, which makes sense.. They needed a new line to start ramping up for V4 motors.. So they had to choose, put Pro and Adv. motors on remaining P3 Standard production, or put P3 Standard motors on Adv. and Pro.. Since the Standard is the least expensive of the three models, and very rarely does a company retool to make things more expensive.... Just think there was an original reason why the motors on the Pro and Adv. were different. Keep in mind the Standard was never designed to be a distance flyer.. so lower RPM, perhaps less powerful motors made sense. I know DJI is saying more power, but I don't see getting more power with less RPM (see posts by others about the RPM piece). I think the housing and the bearing look sturdier on the original 2312 vs. the 2312A which is now what's coming. I mentioned this above, but also think the "dome" (so to speak) on top of the 2312 allow for better heat dissipation (as I mentioned above, but waiting on a reply from Chadwide on that).. I could have the whole thing 100% wrong, but thinking I'm glad I got the 2312 motors..

There really was nothing wrong with the original motors. They are more powerful, and thus less efficient, and run a little hotter. Some had cracks to the shell around the motors, but they were easily reinforced if that happened. I never saw it on mine, and I put lots of mileage at full throttle on mine. DJI went with a new circuit board to cut costs, and the new more efficient motors and reduced video power were part of the deal. It's much harder to change out the ESC with the new motors, from what I've read. You have the original Porsche without the smog control and the tachometer throttling! Be happy and enjoy it!

 

[FredzMaxxUAV]

I once bought a P3 with old motors but with a new shell, so the model number was W323A but the motors were old. So the question then is: would this be one with good or bad distance?

 

[GadgetGuy]

I once bought a P3 with old motors but with a new shell, so the model number was W323A but the motors were old. So the question then is: would this be one with good or bad distance?

That's odd. If the shell was replaced on a W323 and no longer accurately represents the FCC ID# of the model inside, then the FCC ID# may not be accurate. Look up the FCC ID# on the side of the aircraft. That's what is supposed to specify the power output for video from the aircraft. If the true interior model number is the W323A, it is likely reduced by 18% over the W323, but still 18% more than the W323B which is only 0.52 Watts, which is 30% less than the original W323.
If it was sold as a W323 and just had the shell replaced, it should still be a W323 power output.
The shell is just a shell, so a W323A shell alone shouldn't change the W323 electronics inside.
YMMV.

W323 Phantom 3 Professional has a power output of 0.7460000 Watts
FCC ID: SS3-WM3231503
===========
W323A Phantom 3 Professional has a power output of 0.6120000 Watts
(82% of the W323, but still 18% more than W323B which is 0.5200000 Watts)
FCC ID: SS3-WM3231507

 

[JayS_CT]

There really was nothing wrong with the original motors. They are more powerful, and thus less efficient, and run a little hotter. Some had cracks to the shell around the motors, but they were easily reinforced if that happened. I never saw it on mine, and I put lots of mileage at full throttle on mine. DJI went with a new circuit board to cut costs, and the new more efficient motors and reduced video power were part of the deal. It's much harder to change out the ESC with the new motors, from what I've read. You have the original Porsche without the smog control and the tachometer throttling! Be happy and enjoy it!

I also know I have the updated shell with the improvements DJI made with some re-enforcing.. Only thing I've done is gone with the Carbon Fiber props vs. the plastic ones that were supplied.. Long term may go with a more "elegant" solution for distance than windsurfer.. That plus gave her a name (as the avatar pic shows). Mine says model 322? Is that because it's an Advanced and not Pro? Which video output scenario do I have? (so much to learn). Where do you find the output specs and such you quote.. would love to learn more..

 

[GadgetGuy]

Mine says model 322? Is that because it's an Advanced and not Pro? Which video output scenario do I have? (so much to learn). Where do you find the output specs and such you quote.. would love to learn more..

W322 is the Advanced, but with a P3P camera and gimbal replacement, after a P3P firmware update, it becomes a W323 P3P. The FCC ID#'s are all found on each piece of equipment below the model number. Enter that into Google and it will pull up the FCC ID# info. Here is the original W323 link, showing 0.7460000 Watts of power output for video.
FCC ID SS3-WM3231503 by SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD for Phantom 3 Professional

 

[JayS_CT]

I also know I have the updated shell with the improvements DJI made with some re-enforcing.. Only thing I've done is gone with the Carbon Fiber props vs. the plastic ones that were supplied.. Long term may go with a more "elegant" solution for distance than windsurfer.. That plus gave her a name (as the avatar pic shows).

W322 is the Advanced, but with a P3P camera and gimbal replacement, after a P3P firmware update, it becomes a W323 P3P. The FCC ID#'s are all found on each piece of equipment below the model number. Enter that into Google and it will pull up the FCC ID# info. Here is the original W323 link, showing 0.7460000 Watts of power output for video.
FCC ID SS3-WM3231503 by SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD for Phantom 3 Professional

Thanks.. Still debating the worth of 4k at this point (and I have an OLED 4K TV).. Most folks don't.. and when brought to 1920x1080 while there may be some difference it would be harder to tell.. Understand single still capture on 4K is better, but from 400ft high (or higher), not really a need to read the license plate on a car in a parking lot. Looking at some crashed cameras and if the price is right may try to repair.. or just go full boat if needed since DJI lowered the price on the 4K cameras to a reasonable level..

Thanks for the info on looking up the FCC #.. Will do that tonight..

 

[RAI NZ]

After reading threads on here about video link drop outs and other issues after firmware upgrades, I checked my FCC & ID numbers from the above list by GadgetGuy, pleased to see that I have the WM3231503 and GL300A , picked up a couple of weeks ago, previous owner had decided it wasnt what he required and listed it on our local ebay equivalent (Trade Me)
It has the latest firmware (May 2016) and so far no issues, very solid video link and stable flight.
P3P $986 USD still had the plastic wrapping on all the hardware!

 

[JayS_CT]

The recent rash of video drop outs is more related to the DJI GO app (2.8.2) on IOS devices. Some said there was a reduction in power going from firmware 1.7 to 1.8, but DJI has categorically said that it did not reduce power coming from RC or Aircraft.

 

[Andrea]

Hi guys, looks like a lot of opinions running around and nobody's doing the math on this. Since it'sFriday afternoon and I'm just killing time at the office, I thought I'd crunch the numbers. I have quite a bit of experience building my own quads, mostly based on the APM open-source platform, so motor/ESC and propeller matching is something I've done many times.

The new motors spin slower given the same voltage than the old motors (800 RPM per volt versus 960) but the craft still requires exactly the same amount of thrust to hover, and exactly the same amount of thrust to climb at the advertised 5 m/s rate. Because the propellers haven't changed, they'll have to spin at the same rpm to generate the same thrust.

Brushless motors use energy more efficiently as they approach their maximum speed. The RPM needed to make a 1280 gram craft hover with a 9.4” prop with a 5° pitch (DJI 9450 prop found on Phantom3) is 5393 rpm. Because the 800KV motor will be operating slightly closer to its maximum speed when at 5393 RPM, it will be running slightly more efficiently.

I calculate about 30 seconds of additional hover time with the 800KV motors, but in the real world where these motors are operating at a bunch of different RPM throughout a flight, I would expect the flight time difference to be imperceptible.

With the 960KV motors, motor temperatures at max should be about 51°C, but the new 800KV motors would run at about 39°C. At hover the temps are the equal between the two. It should be rare for either motor to get anywhere near max. The theoretical max climb of the 960kv motor is 13.3 M/S and the 800kv is 10.7m/s. Since the flight controller limits this to 5m/s the temps at full climb would be close to the same between both motors. The only place where the motor temp differences would be meaningful would be at full climb and full forward. This would put the rear two motors spinning somewhere towards their max RPM, but I don't have an easy way to calculate what the RPM/thrust would be.

The 800KV motors will make around 3456 grams of thrust at max, and the 960KV motors will make 4352g. If you ever see yourself adding payload to the craft, you might consider the older motors. The reality is, both crafts with the new and with the old motors are well powered.

The 960KV motors were carried over from the Phantom2, and a fully loaded Phantom2 with a gimbal, GoPro, LightBridge etc. can be 1700g. That use case is probably what the 960KV motors were designed for. They're actually probably a bit overkill for the phantom3's sub 1300g weight.

I bet what happened was that DJI was having production issues with the 960KV motor, and set about redesigning it to speed manufacturing. In the process, they figured they might as well reduce output a bit to make it a better fit for the phantom3. Because of the lower output motor would require a greater throttle input to reach the hover RPM, DJI would have had to adjust the target hover throttle rate in the flight controller. The 800KV motors require 49% throttle to hover, and the 960KV motors require 43% throttle to hover (this is because at 100% throttle the 960kV Motors make more thrust).

In order to keep a single firmware version for all the Phantom3 flight controllers, they probably changed the ESC's throttle input signal to output rpm scaling. That's why you need a different esc board.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I seriously doubt there is any flight time benefit, but the lower motor temps look nice…

All my calculations are done in the eCalc (eCalc - xcopterCalc - the most reliable RC Calculator on the Web) if you're interested in learning more about this type of tuning.

Great post!
I read it quite late but still... great post!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Great post!
I read it quite late but still... great post!

Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn from the eloquent analysis are flawed. Anyone who has flown both new and old motor birds will confirm that the new motor birds have roughly 10% more flight time, at the expense of about 20% of the FPV range (aircraft video power output was simultaneously reduced on the new motor birds). Adding external batteries and a transmitter mod makes the differences that much more impactful. 3 minutes more flight time on the new motors, but 2 miles further of solid FPV with the old motors. It's a trade off. Pick whichever is more important to you.

 

[Ed209]

Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn from the eloquent analysis are flawed. Anyone who has flown both new and old motor birds will confirm that the new motor birds have roughly 10% more flight time, at the expense of about 20% of the FPV range (aircraft video power output was simultaneously reduced on the new motor birds). Adding external batteries and a transmitter mod makes the differences that much more impactful. 3 minutes more flight time on the new motors, but 2 miles further of solid FPV with the old motors. It's a trade off. Pick whichever is more important to you.

True statements Gadget bur with r/c antenna mod that solves the issue. The higher gain makes up for the reduced output on the bird. I have both models and I choose to push the new motors further. It's just a hair better when using every last drop in the battery. But for normal flying with an unmodded r/c the old motors is better from a signal point of view.

 

[GadgetGuy]

True statements Gadget bur with r/c antenna mod that solves the issue. The higher gain makes up for the reduced output on the bird. I have both models and I choose to push the new motors further. It's just a hair better when using every last drop in the battery. But for normal flying with an unmodded r/c the old motors is better from a signal point of view.

Your experience is different than mine. With the old motor bird, using the same RC mod (boosted FPVLR on GL300A) on both versions, I consistently had rock solid FPV out to 5 miles. On the new motors bird, it got very sketchy over the same route, after just 3 miles. The RC mod cannot overcome the limited FPV power output from the aircraft on the new motor birds, when compared under identical conditions over the same route. I even tried two different new motor birds. No change. Only the original W323 bird has .74 watts for FPV output. You would need an additional birdside mod to overcome the deficiency, and those that tried it all regretted it.

 

[JayS_CT]

True statements Gadget bur with r/c antenna mod that solves the issue. The higher gain makes up for the reduced output on the bird. I have both models and I choose to push the new motors further. It's just a hair better when using every last drop in the battery. But for normal flying with an unmodded r/c the old motors is better from a signal point of view.

Tend to also agree that the only real gain would have to be on the birdside transmission.. RC boosters get the signal to the bird, aircraft boosters get the signal back. That or get larger and larger RC antennas to catch the signal (think of the size of the antennas used to grab the milliwatts coming from space probes). . There is a difference in RCs. I have a 300A set up for itelite db mod as well as a 300B. Bird is unmodded. I do see more distance and better signal with the 300A, but even with that, there is a limit as to how far it will go before the transmission signal (birdside) fails to make it back.

Also, I question (but am not an expert by any stretch) claims the new motors are cooler. Maybe design specs, but I look at the housings. The old motor have that "dome" (for lack of a better term) whereas the new motors are pretty flush.. I would think that having some space there above the windings would aid in heat dissipation. In the end though I don't think there are stark stark differences, so just get out and enjoy flying regardless of any motor you have.

 

[Blitz]

I do have a question back to the efficiency claim /longer flight times. I believe looking alone on how long you can hoover is just one KPI. Another one would be: What distance can I fly at which optimum (efficiency-wise) speed.

Example: If the 2312a rated with 800 will be utilized at 85% of their rpm when travelling, the copter with the 2312 should as well be utilized in the same way and therefore be 20% faster as it has 980.

But energy-wise: Will the one with th 800 now make more distance (read: milage, so not distance from the rc, we could let it fly in circles to figure it out). ? Or will it make the same distance, but needs longer flight time for it ?

What is the most energy-efficent flight-speed of each model when it comes to milage ?

 

[GadgetGuy]

I do have a question back to the efficiency claim /longer flight times. I believe looking alone on how long you can hoover is just one KPI. Another one would be: What distance can I fly at which optimum (efficiency-wise) speed.

Example: If the 2312a rated with 800 will be utilized at 85% of their rpm when travelling, the copter with the 2312 should as well be utilized in the same way and therefore be 20% faster as it has 980.

But energy-wise: Will the one with th 800 now make more distance (read: milage, so not distance from the rc, we could let it fly in circles to figure it out). ? Or will it make the same distance, but needs longer flight time for it ?

What is the most energy-efficent flight-speed of each model when it comes to milage ?

At this point, they are no longer efficiency claims/longer flight times that you can legitimately question. The P3P came out in March of 2015. 18 months of documented flights over the same terrain in back to back flights with multiple new and old motor birds have established the increased flight times of the new motor aircraft. The "why" is open for debate, but the flight time increase is not.