XING Nano 1204 4500KV Test Under Load

Author: Greg Gutmann


Below are the results of tests using various props on a 3-inch drone that is carrying a payload, to bring the total flight weight to about 390 grams. The props used can be seen below. I was unable to find 3030×2 to match the other 3030 props.

The following two graphs are the tests that used the bi-blade props. These turned out to be the most efficient, aligning with the normal trend for props with fewer blades to be more efficient.

The next two graphs are tests with tri-blade and quad-blade props. When conducting the test for the tri-blade, I could smell the motor a bit, and after two minutes they were pretty hot to the touch. Due to this, I was worried about testing the quad-blade props.

When testing the quad-blade props, the quad was twitching a lot in the air, which increased my concern, so the test was significantly shorter (to protect myself and the items in the room). In the quad-blade graph, the initial time to spin the props up to get in the air was removed from the average to get a better sample of hover data points.

The next six graphs show:

  • Top) Raw amperage values recorded and a moving average line
  • Bottom) Moving average line and a linear fit line

From the top set of graphs, the fluctuation in amperage drawn can be seen as the motor is making adjustments, and due to how motors work. I cannot explain more as I am not an expert on this.

From the bottom set of graphs, a steady increase in amperage drawn can be seen as the voltage drops. The props that required more wattage had their amperage increase faster, as their voltage decreased faster.

Below are the amperage graphs for the quad-blade props. Due to the short test these are less conclusive.

Below a performance summary of the above graphs is shown.

Contact me if you would like to use the contents of this post. Thanks 🙂
Copyright © 2020 by Gregory Gutmann

Leave a Reply

Close Menu