Product Review ** DJI 1552 Folding Propeller

econfly

Member
DJI 1552 Folding Propeller

1552_zps46d7f24b.jpg


DJI introduced the 1552 folding propeller a few months after the release of its S800 Evo multirotor, claiming, “with a new advanced airfoil design and stronger materials, it gives a 10% efficiency boost when used with an S800 EVO.” In the following months the new prop became standard on the Evo and on DJI’s recently released S1000.

Here we examine the 1552’s performance in detail, and compare it to the original Evo folding prop, as well as to the T-Motor one-piece 15-inch propeller (the T-Motor prop can mount directly to the 4114 motor using supplied hardware and leaving the folding mount points open).

Summary

In sum, the 1552 prop delivers on DJI’s claim of a 10% efficiency gain, yet does not reach the level of performance that T-Motor’s one-piece prop provides. Compared to the original Evo prop, the 1552 offers more thrust at every throttle position, and, more importantly, power consumption for any given level of thrust is lower. Where it matters, at about 1.25 to 1.50 kg of thrust per motor, the new prop demands 9% less power than the original Evo prop – just under the 10% improvement DJI claims.

Vibration is not measurably different, and remains significantly greater than that experienced with the T-Motor prop. However, vibration is managed by the entire flight and camera system, and none of these props has produced a noticeable vibration problem in my actual Evo flights with a paired Zenmuse Z-15.

Initial Impressions and Tests

The 1552 differs significantly in shape from the original Evo prop, is less carbon-fiber-looking in appearance, and more flexible. The mount to DJI’s 4114 motor changes slightly, with a thicker top bracket and no internal mount screws directly to the motor. The propeller mount screws are slightly longer than those of the original Evo props, and an upgrade from the Evo originals therefore requires new props as well as new brackets and screws.

props_zpsc6947e24.jpg


For six pairs of the 1552 blades, weight varied from 6.45 to 6.60 grams per blade. This is much improved over the 5.00 to 5.51 gram range I found for six pairs of original Evo folding props, and comparable in percentage terms to the 22.48 to 24.65 grams weight range found in six T-Motor props. The 1552s were delivered in well-matched pairs, as were the original props on my S800 Evo. If mixed, it would be prudent to re-match pairs using an accurate scale (I am using an RCBS digital scale). T-Motor props, while varying in weight as noted, were all balanced from the factory.

For testing, I mounted a DJI 4114 motor to a thrust meter and controlled it with a T-Motor 40 amp ESC. Power is delivered by an eFuel power supply set at 6S voltage. An Eagle Tree data logger feeds real-time power data to a computer. The thrust meter’s cover is removed in the accompanying photo (more on that later). Prior to testing I checked the meter for calibration using known weights as well as a spring scale. ESC throttle calibration was checked prior to each test.

setup_zps3deecbd8.jpg


At every throttle position the 1552 props provide more thrust than the Evo originals, though generally still not as much as the T-Motor prop. For given throttle positions, thrust for the new props measures as much as 20% more than that delivered by the original Evo props, with peak improvement at about 65% throttle.

thrust-throttle_zps90ff494a.jpg


Efficiency

The improved thrust provided by the 1552 props is combined with very nice efficiency gains. Power consumption, measured in watts, is lower for the 1552 props when compared to the original Evo props for all but extreme thrust levels. Efficiency peaks at just under a 10% improvement over the original Evo props, but this improvement is delivered where it matters – right at the thrust levels required to hover an S800 Evo loaded with battery and Zenmuse.

watts-thrust_zps23bb57f4.jpg


The T-Motor props dominate, and are as much as six to seven percent more efficient than the 1552s.

Vibrations

Vibration measurement is tricky business, and no one approach can capture the myriad issues (or mitigations) in an entire airframe and mounted camera system. Nonetheless, objective vibration measurement is something sorely lacking in the multirotor world, and any objective data can only inform the situation a bit more.

To measure vibration I mounted an Extech VB300 to the horizontal bar carrying thrust from the hard-mounted motor to the thrust meter’s strain gauge. The VB300 measures acceleration in 3 axes every 50 milliseconds, and I captured those accelerations for each prop with throttle set to deliver 1.25 kg of thrust.

vibe_zps3707fd63.jpg


Every triplet of acceleration data (X,Y,Z values, with Z adjusted to remove gravity) is combined to get a root mean square value. Results are as follows. Clearly the T-Motor prop is winning the vibration contest, and while the original Evo props appear to vary more than the new 1552s, the mean and standard deviation for the series are immaterially different. There simply is no apparent difference – good or bad – between vibrations for the 1552 props and the original Evo folders as measured here.

vibe_zps803377c2.jpg


Final Thoughts

DJI’s 1552 folding props work as advertised and are a solid improvement over the Evo’s original folding props. They provide about 10% longer flight times without any measurable downside. T-Motor’s one-piece carbon fiber prop is better, but costs substantially more, and does not offer the convenience in transport that a folding prop can provide. Those flying the S800 Evo with original props would do well to upgrade to the 1552s, while Evo and S1000 flyers may want to consider the T-Motor option if the benefit of a folding prop is worth trading for even greater performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jes1111

Active Member
Very interesting - thank you!

Can you expand a little on the subjective side? How do they sound and feel? - "soft", like Xoars? or "sharp" like Tigers? I'm tempted by the transport convenience factor - I'm happy with my JXFs but easier transport is mighty tempting.

Do you think the additional vibration could be balanced out? I'm guessing (wildly) that it could be caused by slight play in the hinges rather than just blade imbalance. How "stiff" does the hinge arrangement feel?

I've always thought that the folding mechanism should make the blades "safer" in the event of striking something. Obviously there's still a lot of kinetic energy involved but , on a closed throttle, do you think the "damage potential" is substantially reduced, slightly reduced or not reduced at all? Unfortunately, objective testing would be rather expensive!

Now we just need Tiger to make folding versions of all their blades :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

econfly

Member
I'll sum it up this way: I already have a full set of all three props for my Evo and I am flying the 1552s. The feel is not quite as tight as the T-Motor prop, but it's nice, and for photo/video purposes more than enough. Folders are very handy for transport (even moving in/out of the house), and the additional flight time I get from the one-piece prop (about a minute or so over the 1552s) is something I can give up for convenience. The real life flying matches my bench estimates. I get about 10% better flight time from the 1552s as compared to the original Evo props. The T-Motor prop is even better, with about 5-8% increased flight time over the 1552s (over 15% better than the original Evo props).

The original Evo props seemed to lack responsiveness, and you can see that in the throttle curve. Between, say, 50% and 75% throttle there just isn't that much thrust response. The 1552s fixed that.

The sound of 1552s is between the original folders and the T-Motor prop -- retaining a slightly sharp buzz, but with a bit of a low fluffy hum that the T-Motor props produce.

I'm not concerned about the vibes. I was surprised to see the difference between the DJI folders and the T-Motor prop. As you can imagine, I spent a decent amount of time with these props on the bench gathering data for the review. I recorded three thrust data points for each prop at throttle positions in 5% increments, captured power data over the throttle curve in multiple passes, etc. -- and at no point did I sense that the folders were vibrating excessively or significantly more than the T-Motor prop. And when I saw the results I ran the tests again (and again) to confirm. Something is there, though I haven't seen the impact in actual flights.

DJI's design for mounting the folding props does not lend itself to much adjustment. You can over-tighten, and that obviously should be avoided. But apart from that, if the props swing out and balance that is about all there is to it. Out of the box, I wouldn't call the folding mount "stiff", but it certainly isn't loose. I have an S1000 ready to put together, and the 1552 props on it swing easily enough -- just about how I have my Evo setup now.

I don't think, by the way, that the vibration issue is balance related. I weighed the blades I was testing and picked a pair that were near perfect in matched weight with indistinguishable center of mass (as best I could measure it). The scale I am using is extremely sensitive and accurate, and I trust the results. Perhaps the vibes I am seeing are inherent to the folding design. I don't know at this point.

T-Motor has announced a set of 15-inch folding props. If these will mount to the 4114 motor (and I have to think they will) then it will be very interesting to see how performance compares to the solid prop and DJI's offerings.

As for damage potential, I think any of these props pack plenty of danger. I was standing next to them running on the bench and was very aware of that risk. I don't even want to consider what a strike at speed would look like. Having said that, the 1552s are softer and more flexible. If I had to make a choice, the 1552s are probably the "safest" prop of the bunch, but that's only relative. I wouldn't want to get hit with any of them!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Many thanks for taking the time to do such extensive testing. I've got both the 1552's and T-Motor's for my EVO and I've swayed towards the 1552's for travel convenience too.

I've found the 1552's to be performing better in windy conditions but that could be due to my gain settings for the T-Motor props not being dialed in properly yet.
 

deluge2

Member
I would like to add my thanks for the hard work and the excellent presentation of your results and conclusions. It is quite helpful to have both objective data and your subjective impressions.

Steve
 




econfly

Member
Very well done. Adding it to my blog if you don't mind.

Thanks. It would be neat to do the same comparison between the new E300 system (the E600 would be interesting too) and the previous 450/550 ESC/Motor/Prop setup. I know DJI spent a lot of time working on the benefits of combining the optimal ESC, motor and prop, and it would be fun to see how that all comes together. I'm particularly intrigued by how much benefit is delivered by each component of that new E300 system -- i.e., the improvement we see from each part, and how much of the improvement is the sum of those parts as opposed to the individual pieces. The answers would be very relevant to those looking to upgrade. A parallel piece that would be nice would be a writeup of how to upgrade a prior model Phantom 1 to the E300 system and how that upgrade performs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ZAxis

Member
I'd like to pick up on the vibration issues.
Unlike a lot of other frame manufacturers, DJI mount their motors with soft rubber vibration dampers. To my mind this means there are inherent vibration issues with the folding blades and this is part of their cure for them. Our experience is that the vibration is isolated from the frame and we see no jello on our video.
But... on our S1000 those rubber dampers are beginning to shred and lose material. Another S1000 user we know has seen the same behaviour. This is after only a few hours in the air for both cases. Finding spares is also proving pretty difficult in the UK. I don't mind replacing them on a regular basis if necessary but not quite this rapidly and perhaps more easily obtained.
Has anyone else seen this behaviour? Anyone know of a UK supplier with the dampers in stock? Are they the same as those for an S800EVO?
After reading your excellent review I may consider replacing them with Tiger blades which have impressed us before.

andy
 

econfly

Member
I'd like to pick up on the vibration issues.
Unlike a lot of other frame manufacturers, DJI mount their motors with soft rubber vibration dampers. To my mind this means there are inherent vibration issues with the folding blades and this is part of their cure for them. Our experience is that the vibration is isolated from the frame and we see no jello on our video.
But... on our S1000 those rubber dampers are beginning to shred and lose material. Another S1000 user we know has seen the same behaviour. This is after only a few hours in the air for both cases. Finding spares is also proving pretty difficult in the UK. I don't mind replacing them on a regular basis if necessary but not quite this rapidly and perhaps more easily obtained.
Has anyone else seen this behaviour? Anyone know of a UK supplier with the dampers in stock? Are they the same as those for an S800EVO?
After reading your excellent review I may consider replacing them with Tiger blades which have impressed us before.

andy

I have had two dampers tear on my Evo, and both were factory mounted with the thin side up. On my S1000 motors the thick side is always up, but I don't have the thing built yet (waiting on the BMPCC Zenmuse), so I can't say how they hold up. I'm fine with that solution, but agree that replacements are not easy to find. DJI did send extras with the Evo so I have some for now, but ideally they should offer something like a bag of 20 for $10 or less. It's fine to have a consumable part as long as it's affordable and available.

And, yes, the dampers on the S1000 appear to be the same as those on the Evo.

The bottom line for me on the vibes is that I believe they are there for the folders in a materially different way than you find with a solid prop. Yet, they don't have an impact on flight or photo/video work that I can detect. So, DJI is getting it right, either with the dampers or in understanding that some vibes don't matter. Ultimately, it's a successful design that works. All they need to do now is make the consumable rubber dampers easy to find and cheap. I expect they will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jes1111

Active Member
I've never understood putting dampers under the motors - even though many have reported success with the method, it is fundamentally wrong - kinda like putting WD40 on your car's brakes to stop them squeaking. Newton's thing about "equal and opposite reaction"... if you allow compliance in the motor mount then the motor will "wind up" with every throttle increase and "unwind" with every decrease. Unlike with a car's transmission, there is no deliberate "universal joint" to account for this movement so the energy must be absorbed elsewhere - 1) into the compliant mounts (in the form of constant flexing), with a proportion passing into the arm itself, and 2) into the motor shaft, stressing the shaft itself, the bearings and the prop's hub (since the inertia of the spinning blades will tend to resist deflection). All bad stuff!

It may well (if you're lucky) reduce the vibration transmitted elsewhere but at the cost of additional stress on flight-critical components and wasted energy (i.e. energy expended on something other than spinning the blades to produce thrust).

[/end rant] ;)
 

MombasaFlash

Heli's & Tele's bloke
Thanks for this report. I too put up with the slight deficiencies of the 1552's over the T-Motors' for the easier transport.


I've never understood putting dampers under the motors ....


I have similar misgivings over the Bi-Pod anti-vibration damper kit. It certainly isolates the Bi-Pod - and gimbal - from frame vibes, but at the expense of structural rigidity of the booms. I have given up using the IMU tray. Again, it shelters the IMU from vibes but also puts it a bit out of touch with what the frame is doing.
 


econfly

Member
A brief follow up to my review:

I was out playing around with my S800 Evo today after installing an amp meter and mAh counter (the "efuelgauge"). I had been testing one of these little telemetry gauges on my F550 and it is a great item for those of you using a Futaba radio with S.Bus2 telemetry (e.g., the T14SG with the R7008SB receiver). So, I soldered one into the power harness on my Evo and took it out for a spin.

My Evo is on the heavy side, and all-up at around 8kg it's right at the limit DJI recommends. This is with a Zenmuse, NEX 5r, and two Turnigy Nano-Tech 8000mAh batteries.

The rig pulls a little over 50 amps to hover, or about 8.3 amps per motor ignoring the small power demands of non-motor components. From my review work, I know the 1552 props and DJI 4114 motors will produce about 1.4kg of thrust at that load, and over six motors that is 8.4kg of total thrust -- a sensible result for hovering given the weight and real-world efficiency loss.

As for flight time, I tend to get about 12-15 minutes, depending on how I fly. Previously I had put my hard cutoff with these Nano-Techs at a voltage under load of 21.5 volts. Recovery brings that voltage up to about 21.8-21.9 or right around 3.63-3.65 volts per cell after landing. Beyond that I've found these batteries to drop voltage fast. So, in practical use I land around 21.5 to 21.7 volts. Well, it turns out that is getting me a total of just under 14,000mAh from the pair of 8,000mAh batteries -- i.e., about 87% of stated capacity.

If all I did were hover, my flight time should be 14.000Ah / 50A = 0.28h or almost 17 minutes. Given real-world flying, my actual time of 12-15 minutes makes sense given that I fly pretty tamely and just as a means to get a camera in the air.

It's nice when the bench results and real world are in agreement. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:


econfly

Member
Here is an update that includes the recently released T-Motor 15-inch folding prop. These new props come with mounting brackets that are the same dimensions as used by DJI's folding props, and mount easily to the S800 Evo and S1000 motors, as well as to T-Motor's own compatible motors.

In sum, the T-Motor folder is inferior to DJI's 1552 folding design. It is no better at low throttle settings and substantially worse at higher throttle. The T-Motor folder is comparable to the original DJI Evo prop in both appearance and function. It is a better than the original Evo prop at lower throttle and worse at higher throttle. As with DJI's folders, the T-Motor folding prop's vibration characteristics are markedly inferior to a one-piece design.

Flyers using 15-inch props and who desire a folding design should stick with DJI's 1552s on the S800 Evo and S1000 platforms. On other platforms, the T-Motor folders are fine props, but not up to the standard set by DJI with its 1552 design. Like all folders measured here, the new T-Motor folders are inferior to T-Motor's very impressive one-piece carbon fiber prop.

Updated photo/charts follow:

props_zpse149c537.jpg




thrust-throttle_zpsb8ad576e.jpg




watts-thrust_zps028941ff.jpg




vibe_zpsccf16fe3.jpg
 


maestronico

New Member
Data request

Dear econfly,

I would like to analyse the T-motor and DJI 1552 propeller at off-design advance ratios. Ther is any possibility to share with me the Excel file data about your meassurements. I will be happy to share back the computation of my analysis.

Appreciating your help,

best regards,

Marcos.
 

econfly

Member
Dear econfly,

I would like to analyse the T-motor and DJI 1552 propeller at off-design advance ratios. Ther is any possibility to share with me the Excel file data about your meassurements. I will be happy to share back the computation of my analysis.

Appreciating your help,

best regards,

Marcos.

PM your email address and I will send you the data.
 

Top