HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Dec 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
kitesurfer
United Kingdom, Blackpool
Joined Dec 2005
1,571 Posts
Discussion
apc vs graupner vs xoar wood vs gemfan wood

has anyone compared these props yet?

if not, would any manufacturer like to supply me with some props so i can test them and post my conclusions online

ali
AliB is offline Find More Posts by AliB
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 22, 2012, 11:45 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliB View Post
has anyone compared these props yet?

if not, would any manufacturer like to supply me with some props so i can test them and post my conclusions online

ali
Good initiative - there are some tests made on motors but not really on props, especially not as much as from 4 manufacturers.
tritan is offline Find More Posts by tritan
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 03:13 PM
Registered User
Hawaii
Joined Feb 2003
5,952 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliB View Post
has anyone compared these props yet?

if not, would any manufacturer like to supply me with some props so i can test them and post my conclusions online

ali
What can be done to compare these props? The only thing that you can quantify is probably efficiency. I am more interested in both efficiency and stability.

Stability is the hardest thing to quantify in a multi rotor. What feels more stable? How is it more stable. Does it have a lot more small oscillation to keep the multi rotor locked in? Does it have a less amount of wave like movements? How are you going to put a number on that?

Comparing is one thing. Comparing and coming up with meaningful numbers for the average user to use is another.
SeismicCWave is offline Find More Posts by SeismicCWave
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 03:27 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeismicCWave View Post
What can be done to compare these props? The only thing that you can quantify is probably efficiency. I am more interested in both efficiency and stability.

Stability is the hardest thing to quantify in a multi rotor. What feels more stable? How is it more stable. Does it have a lot more small oscillation to keep the multi rotor locked in? Does it have a less amount of wave like movements? How are you going to put a number on that?

Comparing is one thing. Comparing and coming up with meaningful numbers for the average user to use is another.
Seismic,
why does it have to be quantified in numbers? Whats wrong with comparing efficiency and then compare how he feels the stability in the air? Tell me one multi user who has the exact same pieces on his multi as someone else and especialla as Ali.....what I meen is that if Ali test with motor (x) and ESC (y) and battery (z) and prop (q) and FC (t) almost no one will use the xact same stuff anyway so the results may differ.

EDIT: what I mean by this is even if no one has the exact same setup you can always get infromation from the test and how the props perform against each other. Then you can start with that info and choose the props for you setup

I think it is a good initiative by Ali to do this - otherwise maybe you should do the tests instead and take over his thread... i dont think it is fair to just complain about this and that before he even started testing or maybe you know more than I do, exactly how he will execute the testing procedures so that is why you are complaining?

Just my 2 euros....
tritan is offline Find More Posts by tritan
Last edited by tritan; Dec 23, 2012 at 02:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 03:53 PM
Registered User
Hawaii
Joined Feb 2003
5,952 Posts
>>why does it have to be quantified in numbers? Whats wrong with comparing efficiency and then compare how he feels the stability in the air?<<

LOL, you may go ahead and read that kind of comparison and use it. I sure am not. I think with your attitude you have just move scientific experiments back to the dark ages. I don't think any manufacturers will be interested in sending him props to test either.

To me this thread sounded like a guise to get free props from manufacturers.

Now before you get all huffy about my answer just think about the consequences if the whole world follows your thinking. Would you take a pill from a drug manufacturer that claims "I feel this pill will lower your blood pressure."?
SeismicCWave is offline Find More Posts by SeismicCWave
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 04:00 PM
Registered User
AlanGold's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
784 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tritan View Post
Tell me one multi user who has the exact same pieces on his multi as someone else...
Yes that is true but at this point any kind of comparison data is better than none for me just so I can get some understanding of what all the variables do. I am flying a TBS Discovery and wrote the company with my motor specs, battery, etc. to ask whether I should use 9 inch or 10 inch Graupners. I was told to go with 9 inch and why.

What would be of interest to me is some kind of listing of prop sizes and characteristics along with an explanation of why one might wish to choose a specific characteristic or another. So far I've tried out 4 types of props based on what I garnered from various opinions and the info was spotty at best when it came to my application. For instance some on the Scarab forum reported good smooth video results using GWS triple bladed 8040 props. On my Discovery which is not so different from their quads, I barely could fly the thing with those props and I tried numerous PID settings.

So If I just had more knowledge about what to look for in a prop it would have saved me some time and money. But now my plan is to just follow the manufacturers recommendations and maybe that of others flying similar setups. It seems that cheeping out did not work for me and hopefully the more expensive Graupners will. But if they do, I won't know why.
AlanGold is offline Find More Posts by AlanGold
Last edited by AlanGold; Dec 22, 2012 at 11:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 04:02 PM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
14,743 Posts
What APC you intend to use in this test, Electric or SF ? The APC Electric is closer to Graupner as behavior.
Also, will be fair to specify the frame AUW.
Why? because for lighter setups, under 1.5kg, any SF prop will won against all the above as efficiency, but SF props break on setups heavier than 2 kg.
renatoa is offline Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2012, 08:39 PM
Registered User
Hkubota's Avatar
Japan, Tokyo
Joined Mar 2012
269 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
because for lighter setups, under 1.5kg, any SF prop will won against all the above as efficiency, but SF props break on setups heavier than 2 kg.
That's a pretty generous generalization if I ever saw one.

Let's say instead that SF props are made for low speed and high torque. The breaking is more related to bad quality and using the props outside of their specs.

Harald
Hkubota is offline Find More Posts by Hkubota
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 02:08 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeismicCWave View Post
>>why does it have to be quantified in numbers? Whats wrong with comparing efficiency and then compare how he feels the stability in the air?<<

LOL, you may go ahead and read that kind of comparison and use it. I sure am not. I think with your attitude you have just move scientific experiments back to the dark ages. I don't think any manufacturers will be interested in sending him props to test either.

To me this thread sounded like a guise to get free props from manufacturers.

Now before you get all huffy about my answer just think about the consequences if the whole world follows your thinking. Would you take a pill from a drug manufacturer that claims "I feel this pill will lower your blood pressure."?

I dont like your attitude and ranting at all.

It sounds to me that you are thinking about yourself as the self claimed super expert of multicopters, well nice to know now that you wont be reading this thread anymore as you wont get the info you need.

I have almost 40 years experience from props in RC and real aircraft and I still want to learn more and more - thats what makes this so great, the new stuff that almost daily pops up, new information.

Any comparing of props is better than none. Thats the way the tests of motors fx started here at rcgroups and then evolved to more and more detailed and sophisticated tests with more people bringing their knowledge to push the knowledge further and further. Just beacuse you seems to know everything as you claim and " you wont read this thread if you dont get any numbers from scientific experiments" doesnt mean that other people can't learn something from a test like this.

So start you own thread and test and show what can be done by a multi super expert as you dont think this is good enough for you ......
tritan is offline Find More Posts by tritan
Last edited by tritan; Dec 23, 2012 at 02:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 02:27 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanGold View Post
Yes that is true but at this point any kind of comparison data is better than none for me just so I can get some understanding of what all the variables do. I am flying a TBS Discovery and wrote the company with my motor specs, battery, etc. to ask whether I should use 9 inch or 10 inch Graupners. I was told to go with 9 inch and why.

What would be of interest to me is some kind of listing of prop sizes and characteristics along with an explanation of why one might wish to choose a specific characteristic or another. So far I've tried out 4 types of props based on what I garnered from various opinions and the info was spotty at best when it came to my application. For instance some on the Scarab forum reported good smooth video results using GWS triple bladed 8040 props. On my Discovery which is not so different from their quads, I barely could fly the thing with those props and I tried numerous PID settings.

So If I just had more knowledge about what to look for in a prop it would have saved me some time and money. But now my plan is to just follow the manufacturers recommendations and maybe that of others flying similar setups. It seems that cheeping out did not work for me and hopefully the more expensive Graupners will. But if they do, I won't know why.
Hi Alan,
I absolutly agree with you so I edited my text as I can see taking out of its context it can be misunderstood - here is what I added:

EDIT: what I mean by this is even if no one has the exact same setup you can always get information from the test and how the props perform against each other. Then you can start with that info and choose the props for you setup
tritan is offline Find More Posts by tritan
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 03:28 AM
Registered User
Hawaii
Joined Feb 2003
5,952 Posts
>>I dont like your attitude and ranting at all. <<

Who cares if you like my attitude. I am just stating some very simple facts.

The simple fact remains you simply cannot do any comparison without some meaningful data. What the hell is so hard to understand and why is my attitude bad? Just look at some hard cold facts.

>>It sounds to me that you are thinking about yourself as the self claimed super expert of multicopters, well nice to know now that you wont be reading this thread anymore as you wont get the info you need.<<

Gee shiz, did I claim anything about myself? All you do is judging me from a simple disagreement with you. Why am I an expert of anything? Did I say that at all? You are reading into things that are not there!

I am still asking the simple question. How the hell are you going to compare stability when you cannot even put that into words? What? Do you want to read some one telling you prop A is more stable than prop B? What is more stable? Can you define stability to me if you want to be the expert?

>>I have almost 40 years experience from props in RC and real aircraft and I still want to learn more and more - thats what makes this so great, the new stuff that almost daily pops up, new information. <<

I didn't say I don't want to learn. I read and learn every second of my life. However reading garbage is NOT learning. Open your eyes! You are calling my attitude bad?

>>Any comparing of props is better than none.<<

No, that's where I beg to differ. Bad comparisons will always remain bad. It is never better. False information will always be false. Bias data will always be bias.

>>Just beacuse you seems to know everything as you claim and " you wont read this thread if you dont get any numbers from scientific experiments" doesnt mean that other people can't learn something from a test like this.<<

Where did I say anything about me knowing everything? You are assuming because I don't agree with you. You are putting words in my mouth because I don't write some gushing answers that you are expecting.

>>So start you own thread and test and show what can be done by a multi super expert as you dont think this is good enough for you ......<<

I won't because I don't want you or anyone to just believe what I say about certain props. I cannot quantify my "feel" for stability. My stability and your stability may be very different.
SeismicCWave is offline Find More Posts by SeismicCWave
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 03:50 AM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
14,743 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hkubota View Post
That's a pretty generous generalization if I ever saw one.

Let's say instead that SF props are made for low speed and high torque. The breaking is more related to bad quality and using the props outside of their specs.

Harald
Nope, the break is due to their lighter build at the root.
Do you have under belt more than 2 hours of flight with any SF prop at 2kg on a quad ? Did you watched how they begin to weaken near the root by turning plastic color into white ? In that moment if you try to manually lift the copter from the ground raising the tip of a blade from that prop, will break.
renatoa is offline Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 04:20 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeismicCWave View Post
>>I dont like your attitude and ranting at all. <<

Who cares if you like my attitude. I am just stating some very simple facts.

The simple fact remains you simply cannot do any comparison without some meaningful data. What the hell is so hard to understand and why is my attitude bad? Just look at some hard cold facts.

>>It sounds to me that you are thinking about yourself as the self claimed super expert of multicopters, well nice to know now that you wont be reading this thread anymore as you wont get the info you need.<<

Gee shiz, did I claim anything about myself? All you do is judging me from a simple disagreement with you. Why am I an expert of anything? Did I say that at all? You are reading into things that are not there!

I am still asking the simple question. How the hell are you going to compare stability when you cannot even put that into words? What? Do you want to read some one telling you prop A is more stable than prop B? What is more stable? Can you define stability to me if you want to be the expert?

>>I have almost 40 years experience from props in RC and real aircraft and I still want to learn more and more - thats what makes this so great, the new stuff that almost daily pops up, new information. <<

I didn't say I don't want to learn. I read and learn every second of my life. However reading garbage is NOT learning. Open your eyes! You are calling my attitude bad?

>>Any comparing of props is better than none.<<

No, that's where I beg to differ. Bad comparisons will always remain bad. It is never better. False information will always be false. Bias data will always be bias.

>>Just beacuse you seems to know everything as you claim and " you wont read this thread if you dont get any numbers from scientific experiments" doesnt mean that other people can't learn something from a test like this.<<

Where did I say anything about me knowing everything? You are assuming because I don't agree with you. You are putting words in my mouth because I don't write some gushing answers that you are expecting.

>>So start you own thread and test and show what can be done by a multi super expert as you dont think this is good enough for you ......<<

I won't because I don't want you or anyone to just believe what I say about certain props. I cannot quantify my "feel" for stability. My stability and your stability may be very different.
seismic
you need to calm down .....

Ali has started this thread to compare props but you wont let him do that - you are saying that he wont give you the data you need but you dont know that yet - can you just let the guy start his thread?
tritan is offline Find More Posts by tritan
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 04:35 AM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
14,743 Posts
quote to reply ratio should not exceed 1:1
renatoa is offline Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 07:01 AM
kitesurfer
United Kingdom, Blackpool
Joined Dec 2005
1,571 Posts
wow.. this thread got a little extreme.

basically i would like to find out the difference between these props.
and i have searched and i cant find anything around on the subject.
ive seen a few bench tests with different props on the dt750, but none of the higher end props included in it. these tests are very useful and helped me pick the props i have at the moment.

if i was to conduct some testing i would initially do bench testing to get thrust and amp draw with each prop. now i know that not everyone is using the same motors and setup, but as long as all the tests are the same (like the dt750 test) then the comparital data is very relevant.

stability wise, even getting some footage with the same heli, using different props would be invaluable data. i don't know anyone who has done this. ive tried to find comparison's of 2 of the above propellors but failed to come up with anything after multiple enquiries, nevermind all 4 of the props

also, having any sort of test not provided by the manufacturer would be awesom. because we all know that "X" brands new wood prop is the latest and greatest, but how does that compare to carbon prop "Z"

so do you see where i am coming from? i want to pick the best prop i can for my copter, to get the best video footage, even if it does cost a little bit more such as the xoar props,
but as a student i CANNOT afford to buy every prop to test them. I would love to put something back into this forum as i have learnt soo much from all the users here, but i cannot do this without the help of the manurfacturers.

with regards to APC slowfly props.. i have been using APC SF1238 on my 2.5kg copter and have run over 8 hours of flight through them with no problems and no signs of wear, but i do worry about their light build, hence i was looking at better props.
AliB is offline Find More Posts by AliB
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sold lot of props. xoar, apc, turnigy wood. Irg Aircraft - General - Miscellaneous (FS/W) 1 Sep 26, 2012 10:58 AM
Mini-Review Graupner e-prop VS APC SF bakchos Multirotor Talk 1 Sep 06, 2012 10:36 PM
For Sale Misc Electric Props for sale: Xoar 18x10, APC 19x10, APC 12x6 andy5508 Aircraft - Electric - Power Systems (FS/W) 2 Jun 03, 2012 05:52 PM
For Sale Misc Electric Props for sale: Xoar 18x10, APC 19x10, APC 12x6 andy5508 Aircraft - General - Miscellaneous (FS/W) 1 Jun 02, 2012 01:26 PM
Question Xoar Electric VS. APC SF props 3D-Flyer Kevin 3D Flying 10 Aug 07, 2007 12:53 AM