Thread Tools
May 27, 2014, 10:24 PM
Registered User
Discussion

SunnySky X2204S 2300KV Thrust Tests


My other thrust tests:
I got lucky to catch BuddyRC with some stock of the famous SunnySky X2204S motors, so I snatched them up with the intention of putting them on a CopterGeist CGX250 FPV mini quad frame. I had originally planned to put the EMAX MT1806 motors on the CGX250 build; but after such disappointing results out of the RCX 1804 motors, I pulled them off in favor of the MT1806s.

To recap how the test data is collected; I use the telemetry on my FrSKY Taranis bound to a X6R receiver which has a 40A FrSKY smart port current sensor on it. The Taranis data logs the information into a CSV file, which I then extra and make a little more user friendly. The static thrust is measured by a scratch built jig and the wife's kitchen scale set to grams, as seen in the MT1806 results thread, and I watch the readout and record the results.

Quick run down of the results - SunnySky X2204S 2300KV Brushless Motors:
GF 5030 Prop - 345 Grams pulling 7.1A @ 100% / 130 Grams pulling 2.0A @ 50%
HQ 5030 Prop - 285 Grams pulling 5.5A @ 100% / 120 Grams pulling 1.8A @ 50%
HQ 5040 Prop - 360 Grams pulling 8.9A @ 100% / 135 Grams pulling 2.2A @ 50%
HQ 6030 Prop - 395 Grams pulling 8.5A @ 100% / 120 Grams pulling 2.2A @ 50%
HQ 6045 Prop - 560 Grams pulling 16.1A @ 100% / 215 Grams pulling 4.0A @ 50%











There were two changes to variables with this test. One was the EMAX 12A ESC being swapped out to a Blue Series SimonK RapidESC because the motor was directly soldered to the ESC in lue of using 2mm bullets. The second was that the motor was spinning in a CW direction and was using a new set of R props, so not the same set of normal props used in prior tests. These two factors could lead to some unexpected results whem compared side by side to other test results on different days with different configurations. My apologies for not running tests as super scientific as possible.

What is consistent however, compared the MT1804 results, is that the HQ 5030 prop just flat out under performs compared to the GemFan 5030. I would have like to think the HQ should yield either more thrust with similar current or similar thrust with less current; and neither are the case. These HQ 5030s are about to see the way of the RCX 1804 motors...

The HQ 6030 test concerns me a bit. I feel that the trust measured is considerably lower than it should have been. I expected it to be in the 450-475 gram range, and it just doesn't quite tap on 400 grams. I re-ran the test after data logging each prop was complete and came back to the same result. I wonder if there is a glaring performance difference between the normal and reverse prop of the same size, pitch, and make.

The HQ 6045 looks like the star of the show, but even it I wonder is a little on the soft side. Looking at Soma's results, my tests seem to be low just about across the board. So perhaps, with the setup I run, the results are proportionally correct.
Last edited by Mustang7302; Jul 10, 2014 at 04:57 PM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 19, 2014, 11:57 AM
☢ Self-Proclaimed n00b FPVer ☢
EngineerX's Avatar
Really great info here, the more data we get with the various setups the better we can choose our minimultirotor components - particularly powertrains
I got similar results with the HQ6030 -comparatively anyway, since measuring methods/equipment are a little different. I expected the HQ6030 to perform similar to the new "grey" GemFan GF6030, but that was not the case. Looking closely at the blade airfoil there is some difference. Amazing how just a small bit can result in a huge difference.
Jun 19, 2014, 12:32 PM
Team AlienWarpSquad
Yes, another great data set. Thanks Mustang.

I find your measurements fit the real world better than Soma's tests. He ensured that the Voltage was at 12.5V from 3S to measure the maximum possible thrust. I think this is unreasonable since the battery Voltage always drops below 12V with a minute or so of flight and is down to well under 11V at the end of flight.

I run the RCX1804 motors and they are good on a light quad (under 350gm).
I have tried the GF5030, HQ5030 and HQ5040 props.
The HQ5030's have under preformed in my own thrust testing and in flight. They are a bit thicker and heaver than the GF5030s so take more power to produce the same thrust (verified in tests and in flight). However, they take more of a beating and don't break/bend as easily as the GF5030's. This does make them good for tree bashing in fpv proximity flying.

The HQ5040s however give a bit more thrust than the GF4030s and only draw slightly higher current. These do work well on heaver mini quads than can only run 5 inch props.

From all the other tests and peoples experience flying with the SS2204 motors, the best prop on 3S is the HQ6030.

I have a set of the SS2204's I just received. Planning on putting them on my fpv mini-H quad this weekend to replace the RCX motors since this quad is a bit too heavy for the RCX motors.
Jun 23, 2014, 03:17 PM
3Dog Modeling
Switchblade2k's Avatar

set screws on Sunnysky x2204s motors...keep'em tight!


Just a note on Sunnysky x2204s motors, I have a couple sets of them and I think they are fantastic for the money. But they do require maintenance. The shaft is held in place with an "E" clip on the bottom of the motor and by 2 set screws in the Bell housing. I had one of my shafts fall out of one of my motors(rendering it useless). Before this I had never noticed the very small set screws in the Bell. I went through and tightened all of mine to find that slightly less than half of them were loose.

This also lets you adjust out any slop you have between the bell and the stator very easily, also makes for very easy parts swaps if you have damaged pieces and keep your old motor parts or to upgrade bearings.

I only posted this because I've never heard anyone talk about tightening these set screws or tuning the Sunnysky motors.
Jun 24, 2014, 07:53 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Switchblade2k
Just a note on Sunnysky x2204s motors, I have a couple sets of them and I think they are fantastic for the money. But they do require maintenance. The shaft is held in place with an "E" clip on the bottom of the motor and by 2 set screws in the Bell housing. I had one of my shafts fall out of one of my motors(rendering it useless). Before this I had never noticed the very small set screws in the Bell. I went through and tightened all of mine to find that slightly less than half of them were loose.

This also lets you adjust out any slop you have between the bell and the stator very easily, also makes for very easy parts swaps if you have damaged pieces and keep your old motor parts or to upgrade bearings.

I only posted this because I've never heard anyone talk about tightening these set screws or tuning the Sunnysky motors.
Alot of these motors have grubs that need to be checked every now and then, personally I would drop a little medium thread locker on each grub and of course oil the bearings regularly. Out of the 6 sets I gave recently purchased, only one motor had semi loose grubs so a quick check on the rest and all way good. The quality is slightly different than originally when they first appeared and maybe due to demand but they still work great. Sorry about the shaft, that blows!
Latest blog entry: Hubsan H107D Custom FPV Setup
Jun 24, 2014, 09:22 AM
Team AlienWarpSquad
I'll add info here since it is the SS2204 thread.

Here is a check list of what needs to be done with these motors before use. All of these steps are in various threads throughout the rcgroups forums.

1- Check the set (grub) screws in the prop adapter. Remove, clean, then Loctite (blue) and tighten.

2- Epoxy the wire leads into the housing. This helps prevent the wire from breaking at the coils. Watch Soma's video: http://www.warpquad.com/magento/how-to.html

3- Oil the bearings.

4- Check balance without props. These motor typically do not need balancing but if out-of-balance then something is probably wrong.

Here sources of parts:

'C' clips:
McMaster-Carr has them. Click the link and search for product number 92725A515

Bearings:
http://www.avidrc.com/product/1/bear...-bearings.html
Jul 23, 2014, 02:20 PM
Sec3
spak's Avatar
i am not saying that you are wrong or that anyone else is wrong..
but am curious as to how everyone is doing these thrust tests....and how everyone has different numbers.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...88&postcount=2

This post has some tests on the 5030 prop and gemfan 6030 prop on the sunnysky x2204 motors....but their thrust figures are like way higher than what we are seeing here....

its like we will never know what is fact or fiction...
Jul 23, 2014, 03:13 PM
Embrace the suck!
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Lots of variables, what ESC and/or firmware, power source, prop & motor balancing, Tx/Rx or servo tester endpoints...primary difference IMHO is quality of test stand. Many use an L shaped lever, which is fine unless the motor centerline and scale pressure point are not equidistant from fulcrum. Then there's the scale itself and how well it reacts to quick changes...
Jul 23, 2014, 03:14 PM
Team AlienWarpSquad
Yep, it is very hard to get the same measurements for two different setups.
Some of the previously posted thrust values where with a full 12.5V applied to the ESCs.
Note in the tables above the Voltage, most are close to 12.2V which does make a difference.
I have gotten pretty close to the values in this thread with my testing. I have noticed that if the battery is fully charged the thrust is highest in the first few seconds of WOT then decreases some.

In other posts it has been asked at what altitude is the testing. This is due to air density dropping off with alitude and can affect the thrust produced. I imagine that this can also change slightly the results on whether a high or a low pressure weather system was at the tester's area.

Lastly, there has been speculation that the newest SS motors are not as powerful as the ones available a year ago.
Jul 23, 2014, 03:40 PM
Registered User
There are a lot of variables indeed. Which is why I try not to compare my results to Soma's or anyone else's. The best I can do is use the same hardware, the same mounting location, and same throttle calibration for each motor I test.

I am at less than a hundred feet above sea level. But South East Texas has fronts which move in and out off the Gulf all the time which affect the barometric pressure by as much as three quarters of an inch of mercury from day to day.

But based on the reports since March/April-ish, I lean heavily towards to the SS X2204's today are not the same X2204's which were available a year ago.
Jul 23, 2014, 03:44 PM
Embrace the suck!
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang7302
There are a lot of variables indeed. Which is why I try not to compare my results to Soma's or anyone else's. The best I can do is use the same hardware, the same mounting location, and same throttle calibration for each motor I test.

I am at less than a hundred feet above sea level. But South East Texas has fronts which move in and out off the Gulf all the time which affect the barometric pressure by as much as three quarters of an inch of mercury from day to day.

But based on the reports since March/April-ish, I lean heavily towards to the SS X2204's today are not the same X2204's which were available a year ago.
I have some of each in my hot little hand a friend gave me to test...I'm working on a few other things at the moment but will do a side x side comparo soon.
Jul 23, 2014, 03:52 PM
Sec3
spak's Avatar
Wel tlat least this is good to know.. so i am scratching sunnysky's off the list...needed something to replace my rcx motors.....prob go with the dys 1806 ....since at least you have tested all these on the same setup.......glad you are doing this for all of us mustang...thanks.
Jul 23, 2014, 04:04 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by spak
Wel tlat least this is good to know.. so i am scratching sunnysky's off the list...needed something to replace my rcx motors.....prob go with the dys 1806 ....since at least you have tested all these on the same setup.......glad you are doing this for all of us mustang...thanks.
Glad the information is helpful. The DYS BE1806 motors are awesome, but so are the EMAX MT1806's as well. I am just a fan of the 1806 size in general for a 250 size quad limited to five inch props.

MultiRotorMinis is sponsoring a Hex build I am working on and will be providing a set of Cobra 2204 1960KV motors. I will do the usual thrust testing on them later this week. I expect numbers that makes 4S more manageable while still having great performance.
Jul 23, 2014, 09:36 PM
Sec3
spak's Avatar
Yeah is someone would make these like 1500-1700kv... that would be killer for 4S.
Jul 23, 2014, 09:41 PM
Team AlienWarpSquad
Quote:
Originally Posted by spak
Wel tlat least this is good to know.. so i am scratching sunnysky's off the list...needed something to replace my rcx motors.....prob go with the dys 1806 ....since at least you have tested all these on the same setup.......glad you are doing this for all of us mustang...thanks.
Yea, the Sunny's are not as appealing now since there are a number of other motors in the same size/weight/power class. Mustang has done a excellent job of testing with the same setup so his results should be very comparable.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Data Thrust Test: SunnySky X2204S 2300KV and new Hovership H2204X 2300KV foobarbazqux Multirotor Drone Power Systems 32 Jan 17, 2017 03:56 PM