Threeking carbon fiber props

[With The Birds]

They are on Amazon. “9450’s” pure cf. Noticeable improvement regardless of what the non-flying lurkers might
try to promulgate. Try them...you will like them!

There are many 9450 style so called CF props on amazon. None are pure CF. Better ones may in fact be a CF woven matt/resin construction- the genuine DJI are CF impregnated nylon. Telling us they are from amazon doesn’t aid clarity however it is arguably irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

The following graphs depict the actual measured rotation speed and generated thrust between standard and CF props on a 920kv motor driven by a DJI ESC (you can read the full article here http://s2is.org/Issues/v10/n3/papers/paper8.pdf).

Standard props win performance wise, as to the best looking alternative- purely subjective.

 

[Jetjockey6]

If it's so noticeable it shouldn't be very difficult to show some proof to back that up.
We'd all like to have a shot at anything that offers a real improvement.
Lots of people have claimed all kinds of improvements with CF props but they haven't been able to supply any proof.
Without evidence, your claims carry no weight.

Actually, my claim carries more weight than your denial. I was there...you weren’t. I can afford them...you can’t. I fly...you don’t. My P4P improved performance was witnessed by experienced droners...not by you. You are just a jealous lurker
afraid/unable to improve your flying...that’s your problem, dude. Buy them! Try them! You will like them!

 

[Meta4]

My P4P improved performance was witnessed by experienced droners...not by you. You are just a jealous lurker afraid/unable to improve your flying...that’s your problem, dude.

Not at all.
I'm a scientist who is skeptical when someone claims something not seen before and refuses to show any evidence.

 

[Jetjockey6]

There are many 9450 style so called CF props on amazon. None are pure CF. Better ones may in fact be a CF woven matt/resin construction- the genuine DJI are CF impregnated nylon. Telling us they are from amazon doesn’t aid clarity however it is arguably irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

The following graphs depict the actual measured rotation speed and generated thrust between standard and CF props on a 920kv motor driven by a DJI ESC (you can read the full article here http://s2is.org/Issues/v10/n3/papers/paper8.pdf).

View attachment 92072
View attachment 92073

Standard props win performance wise, as to the best looking alternative- purely subjective.

All you asked is the brand....duh! Pure CF ( these are) are much stiffer, cleaner aerodynamically, etc. I also bought 4 plastic props wrapped in cf. No joy...these pure cf props are better than factory props hands down. Fly them! You will like them!

 

[With The Birds]

All you asked is the brand....duh! Pure CF ( these are) are much stiffer, cleaner aerodynamically, etc. I also bought 4 plastic props wrapped in cf. No joy...these pure cf props are better than factory props hands down. Fly them! You will like them!

“Pure CF” brand? Are you able to post a link?

 

[Jetjockey6]

Not at all.
I'm a scientist who is skeptical when someone claims something not seen before and refuses to show any evidence.

Great! A “scientist”. Food science? Astronomer? Physical organic chem? Forensic science? Science Officer in Star Fleet? Gee..let’s see...if we have increased rotational speed ( shown in the graphs of specifically unknown materials) then at any positive AoA will we have increased asymmetrical disc loading....hmmm....does that lead to more drag due to the resulting requirement for yaw compensation...?
Buy ‘em! Fly’em! You will like them!

 

[Meta4]

Great! A “scientist”. Food science? Astronomer? Physical organic chem? Forensic science? Science Officer in Star Fleet? Gee..let’s see...if we have increased rotational speed ( shown in the graphs of specifically unknown materials) then at any positive AoA will we have increased asymmetrical disc loading....hmmm....does that lead to more drag due to the resulting requirement for yaw compensation...?
Buy ‘em! Fly’em! You will like them!

And I'm even more skeptical of someone so desperately keen to avoid providing anything to back up dubious claims.

 

[Jetjockey6]

I was there..,I saw it, you didn’t and never will. I saw the reduced battery usage, the faster acceleration, the excellent hover capability in winds above what the drone could previously handle. If you cannot afford the price of the props to test them yourself or don’t have the flying skills to handle them....well, enuf said there.
Buy them! Fly them! You will like them! (Probably not, given this “discussion”)

 

[Meta4]

I was there..,I saw it, you didn’t and never will. I saw the reduced battery usage, the faster acceleration, the excellent hover capability in winds above what the drone could previously handle. If you cannot afford the price of the props to test them yourself or don’t have the flying skills to handle them....well, enuf said there.
Buy them! Fly them! You will like them! (Probably not, given this “discussion”)

Spoken like a total conman.

 

[Jetjockey6]

Responded to as a complete idiot....[emoji122][emoji122]

 

[Meta4]

Responded to as a complete idiot....[emoji122][emoji122]

It's very simple.
If you come here insisting on claims that are highly dubious and refuse to show any evidence, you can expect no-one to believe you.
The silly way you refuse to back up your claims doesn't do anything to make you appear any more credible.

 

[With The Birds]

Great! A “scientist”. Food science? Astronomer? Physical organic chem? Forensic science? Science Officer in Star Fleet? Gee..let’s see...if we have increased rotational speed ( shown in the graphs of specifically unknown materials) then at any positive AoA will we have increased asymmetrical disc loading....hmmm....does that lead to more drag due to the resulting requirement for yaw compensation...?
Buy ‘em! Fly’em! You will like them!

You wont have any asymmetrical thrust issue if all props are producing similar thrust, regardless of speed. Any small variations will be addressed by the flight controller (to the extent any exist).

The lower speed depicted in the graph is likely simply a function of increased motor loading due to greater thrust being produced by the non CF props.