New Products Flash Sale
Thread Tools
Old Today, 12:49 AM
Saijin_Naib is online now
Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Registered User
Saijin_Naib's Avatar
Joined Jul 2015
313 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiXPaX View Post
I would have to assume that the closest to the 138mm stock props would be the 5040 bullnose props....
What do you think will produce more thrust: 5045 Bullnose or 5045x3?
I can't seem to find any head to head on those two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiXPaX View Post
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the stock EOX props other than being overpriced and very fragile!!!! They work great!!!!
Fragility and price are two things I find very wrong with them, but they certainly work great by my testing.

I guess I'll just have to never crash again. Easy
Saijin_Naib is online now Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Today, 01:09 AM
Thoemse is online now
Find More Posts by Thoemse
Registered User
Joined Aug 2015
30 Posts
I've read that three blade props are no valid option for such small quads on this forum. I think your problem lies with that.

I'll report back how my gemfan HQ's 6045 perform once i recieve them.
Thoemse is online now Find More Posts by Thoemse
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:00 AM
Saijin_Naib is online now
Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Registered User
Saijin_Naib's Avatar
Joined Jul 2015
313 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoemse View Post
I've read that three blade props are no valid option for such small quads on this forum. I think your problem lies with that.

I'll report back how my gemfan HQ's 6045 perform once i recieve them.
Sure, let me know. I have my RCL 150mm (6040) set installed now, and they work great so far. I just loathe the eventual shattering I'll do to them.

I've read the 3-blade provide about 20-30% more thrust than the equivalent size 2-blade propellers, and that makes intuitive sense, though I can't be fussed to do the math to verify.

I was hoping that a 5030x3 would be equivalent or slightly better than the RCL 138mm (5540) propellers, but it would appear that I have grossly underrated the thrust capabilities of the 138mm (5540) RCL propellers, hence why my 5030x3 could barely lift the burdened LadyBug.

I'm having a nightmare time finding thrust specs for the 5045x3 propellers, but at this point I think I'm just going to call a quits on trying to find any "undersize" propellers to replace the 138mm (5540) RCL propellers.

It looks like 5540 and above only from now on.
Saijin_Naib is online now Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:22 AM
Thoemse is online now
Find More Posts by Thoemse
Registered User
Joined Aug 2015
30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saijin_Naib View Post
Sure, let me know. I have my RCL 150mm (6040) set installed now, and they work great so far. I just loathe the eventual shattering I'll do to them.

I've read the 3-blade provide about 20-30% more thrust than the equivalent size 2-blade propellers, and that makes intuitive sense, though I can't be fussed to do the math to verify.

I was hoping that a 5030x3 would be equivalent or slightly better than the RCL 138mm (5540) propellers, but it would appear that I have grossly underrated the thrust capabilities of the 138mm (5540) RCL propellers, hence why my 5030x3 could barely lift the burdened LadyBug.

I'm having a nightmare time finding thrust specs for the 5045x3 propellers, but at this point I think I'm just going to call a quits on trying to find any "undersize" propellers to replace the 138mm (5540) RCL propellers.

It looks like 5540 and above only from now on.
From what i read the main problem with three blades is balancing them.
About thrust: People report that cheap carbon fiber 6045 have loads less thrust than the gemfan 6045's.
6045 is only a number - if the props are badly made they have no thrust.
Edit: That's why i ordered the gem HQ 6045. Lets hope they work as well as some report.
Thoemse is online now Find More Posts by Thoemse
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:34 AM
Saijin_Naib is online now
Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Registered User
Saijin_Naib's Avatar
Joined Jul 2015
313 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoemse View Post
From what i read the main problem with three blades is balancing them.
About thrust: People report that cheap carbon fiber 6045 have loads less thrust than the gemfan 6045's.
6045 is only a number - if the props are badly made they have no thrust.
Edit: That's why i ordered the gem HQ 6045. Lets hope they work as well as some report.
Balancing wasn't really a problem. It takes a bit more time and is more fiddly, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

No, 6045 is not simply just a number. It is blade length and blade pitch. The two can give you some basic insight into how the blade should perform, and if you can find thrust specs of a blade in a given size/pitch, you have a reference point for comparison to other blades you may be interested in.

The mistake I made was under-rating the 138mm (5540) RCL propellers and assuming that a 5030x3 would be equivalent. Perhaps a 5045x3 would have been a better bet, but since RCL does not disclose these data I have no way of knowing short of buying a thrust testing station and performing the tests for myself (If money was no object, I would have done that long ago).

But yes, terrible blades will perform terribly. These are supposedly real GemFan blades, so they should be of typical GemFan quality (which I gather to be quite good).

I may have a lead on a good quality aftermarket 5540 propeller, but I'm waiting for confirmation.

Edit: Added the propeller estimations I had used from Static Thrust Calculator
Saijin_Naib is online now Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Last edited by Saijin_Naib; Today at 03:09 AM. Reason: Added propeller performance estimation
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:44 AM
Thoemse is online now
Find More Posts by Thoemse
Registered User
Joined Aug 2015
30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saijin_Naib View Post
Balancing wasn't really a problem. It takes a bit more time and is more fiddly, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

No, 6045 is not simply just a number. It is blade length and blade pitch. The two can give you some basic insight into how the blade should perform, and if you can find thrust specs of a blade in a given size/pitch, you have a reference point for comparison to other blades you may be interested in.

The mistake I made was under-rating the 138mm (5540) RCL propellers and assuming that a 5030x3 would be equivalent. Perhaps a 5045x3 would have been a better bet, but since RCL does not disclose these data I have no way of knowing short of buying a thrust testing station and performing the tests for myself (If money was no object, I would have done that long ago).

But yes, terrible blades will perform terribly. These are supposedly real GemFan blades, so they should be of typical GemFan quality (which I gather to be quite good).

I may have a lead on a good quality aftermarket 5540 propeller, but I'm waiting for confirmation.
I know it is lengh and pitch. You are assuming you get the pitch that is printed on it though. These products are so cheaply made that you cannot trust the numbers.
As mentioned there are carbon props on the market that have a lot less thrust than the gemfans both having the same number.

Gemfan 6045 have a little bit more thrust than the HQ 6045 according to the thrust test i've read.
I think it is down to two factors:
1: flexibility of the material used
2: Pop pitch not being what's printed on the prop.

Another problem you mentioned allready is that we have no real data about the original RC Logger props (or motors).
Thoemse is online now Find More Posts by Thoemse
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:04 AM
Saijin_Naib is online now
Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Registered User
Saijin_Naib's Avatar
Joined Jul 2015
313 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoemse View Post
I know it is lengh and pitch. You are assuming you get the pitch that is printed on it though. These products are so cheaply made that you cannot trust the numbers.
As mentioned there are carbon props on the market that have a lot less thrust than the gemfans both having the same number
Yes, and since these are supposedly GemFans, I expected them to be as stated. Either they're not, or my assumptions I made in the static thrust calculator grossly underestimated the performance of the RCL 138mm (or grossly overestimated the performance of the GemFan 5030x3).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoemse View Post
Gemfan 6045 have a little bit more thrust than the HQ 6045 according to the thrust test i've read.
I think it is down to two factors:
1: flexibility of the material used
2: Pop pitch not being what's printed on the prop.
I gathered much the same. Stiffer prop = more thrust when compared to equivalent prop of softer material. This has been seen/tested since GemFan offers fiber blend and plastic propellers in the same exact specs/size, and the fiber blend (typically the black set) seem to have more thrust at the expense of being brittle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoemse View Post
Another problem you mentioned allready is that we have no real data about the original RC Logger props (or motors).
Yes. I'm hoping they ease up on this since they hinted that the EOX is approaching End-Of-Life status shortly, if it already isn't EOL'd.
We're going to need to know more about these things to keep them flying and to keep having fun with them once they get EOL'd.

See the chart I added to the post above to see what figures I fudged to decide upon the 5030x3. Any obvious/glaring mistakes?
Saijin_Naib is online now Find More Posts by Saijin_Naib
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product RC EYE One from RC Logger Adam.RCLogger Mini Multirotors 2090 Apr 24, 2015 06:32 PM
Article RC Logger RC EYE One Review Matt Gunn Multirotor Talk 125 Mar 07, 2014 08:41 AM
New Product RC EyE ONE from RC Logger Adam.RCLogger Multirotor Talk 25 May 13, 2013 07:33 AM
Discussion RC Logger Eye One, Hubsan X4, Heli-max 1 SQ, Walkera QR Infra X Torch8 Mini Multirotors 4 Feb 15, 2013 09:58 AM