1. Flight quality is totally like normal props. Good grip, propwash all stuff. Balance is acceptable, was flying on BF 4.4 default pids and filters 2. Low efficiency probably 50-70% efficiency of good regular props 3. Noise is pretty high, probably higher than regular tri blade, but the pitch is much lower. Maybe this will it less intrusive in the distance 4. Did not explode under around 70% throttle on a 6s 5" quad :) 5. www.thingiverse.com/thing:5833027
Lower frequencies travel longer distances and are much harder to absorb than higher frequencies. They also "mask" frequencies above them, a double whammy for sound recording.
As cool as they might look, I'm guessing if you windtunnel'd them you'd see that these are having none of the advantages of the triblade (MIT-style) ones, combined with all of the disadvantages.
Oh that's awesome, seems to fly alright! Guess this means I might have to try maybe more like MIT's teardrop shape next, see if that yields better results 😅.
@@Maxbl4 That's going to be difficult I think. @QEDFPV had the idea that a fair comparison of the tri-loop would be too like a five-blade, in terms of surface area and weight. At the 5" size, HQProp also make a six blade which is almost 10 grams which could be an appropriate comparison. I don't think I can drop the weight much more as others have already said that at the current thickness they're too flimsy 😐. Maybe we're already pushing the limits of what 3D printing can do in terms of rigidity and strength.
great research, keep them coming!
1. Flight quality is totally like normal props. Good grip, propwash all stuff. Balance is acceptable, was flying on BF 4.4 default pids and filters
2. Low efficiency probably 50-70% efficiency of good regular props
3. Noise is pretty high, probably higher than regular tri blade, but the pitch is much lower. Maybe this will it less intrusive in the distance
4. Did not explode under around 70% throttle on a 6s 5" quad :)
5. www.thingiverse.com/thing:5833027
Lower frequencies travel longer distances and are much harder to absorb than higher frequencies. They also "mask" frequencies above them, a double whammy for sound recording.
As cool as they might look, I'm guessing if you windtunnel'd them you'd see that these are having none of the advantages of the triblade (MIT-style) ones, combined with all of the disadvantages.
it is loud but the sound profile is much less annoying than the high pitch typical sound. thanks for testing!
Agreed. I'm also interested in these from a safety perspective. May not need prop guards, and not so terrible if it bumps in to someone
Oh that's awesome, seems to fly alright! Guess this means I might have to try maybe more like MIT's teardrop shape next, see if that yields better results 😅.
I would love to see lighter tri blade version. Around 5g per prop or less. You can test it yourself by slicing in cura
@@Maxbl4 That's going to be difficult I think. @QEDFPV had the idea that a fair comparison of the tri-loop would be too like a five-blade, in terms of surface area and weight. At the 5" size, HQProp also make a six blade which is almost 10 grams which could be an appropriate comparison.
I don't think I can drop the weight much more as others have already said that at the current thickness they're too flimsy 😐. Maybe we're already pushing the limits of what 3D printing can do in terms of rigidity and strength.
низко летит, к дождю:)
As loud as any other prop to me