DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Master Airscrew props....

Running late, but still on the books ...
 
I would like a prop that gives an error in sport mode provided it was based on excess current. Reports of the noise from these props being less irritating imply lower RPM which suggest more pitch or blade area. For all the people saying they didn't get a sport mode error, at what temperature and altitude, not height above ground level, are you flying?

If someone who has a set of these could just compare the motor RPM with DJI vs MA props under the same conditions, it would be possible to draw some meaningful conclusions. If the MA run at a lower RPM for hover, they will probably provide better performance at higher altitude. At low altitude, the DJI props would be less likely to draw excess current and be quickly responsive like a lower gear in a car. There are plenty of times where I would prefer one over the other depending on location and conditions. Just because you might get an error at full tilt in Sport mode doesn't mean that you can't safely operate the MA props at under 90 or 80% of max throttle yet still get advantages from quieter flight or increased duration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnis
I applied a bit of WD40 lubricant
WD-40 is not a lubricant, contrary to what many think. WD stands for water displacement and many of us who used it on firearms in the past found that it turns to varnish after a time and rather than lube, it locks things up tight. There are a number of articles and YouTube videos on what WD40 does and does not do. Just FYI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragonfly and mnis
At low altitude, the DJI props would be less likely to draw excess current and be quickly responsive like a lower gear in a car. There are plenty of times where I would prefer one over the other depending on location and conditions. Just because you might get an error at full tilt in Sport mode doesn't mean that you can't safely operate the MA props at under 90 or 80% of max throttle yet still get advantages from quieter flight or increased duration.
DJI prop's are not 'more responsive' than Master Airscrew ... Even though rpm rates are lower* comparatively for MA prop's they make the Mavic more responsive to control input, because the MA prop's are stiffer ... MA prop's are made from a glass-fibre composite, where as the DJI stock prop's are a plastic material (DJI don't seem to advertise what this is?). If you pick up a DJi Prop', you'll find that you can twist it very easily, up, down, sideways and rotationally too. Due to this flex' the DJI prop' tends to absorb some of the initial change in velocity or direction, by twisting and 'feathering' into the airflow, which tends to absorb some of the 'shock' of the immediate change. You can see this effect best if you use carbon-fibre prop's on a Mavic, as these are very stiff, and are very responsive to even minute changes that keep the Mavic locked in position when it's hovering, and they respond faster to control input when you make a sudden and large control stick input (because the c-f prop' responds to it, rather than 'flexing' and then responding like the DJI prop's do).

*I did some comparative testing a while ago, and observed lower rpm and longer flight duration on my Mavic Pro Platinum using MA 'Stealth' prop's. There is a good test in this video that reflects my own observations.

 
  • Like
Reactions: mnis
The video would appear to confirm that the MA props would probably work well in thinner air in hot or high altitude conditions. Almost certainly you would get better performance flying in mountainous elevations than with stock props.

As far as flex is concerned, a greater amount would allow the motors to spool up more rapidly. The wider blade area of the MA's would present more area to aerodynamic resistance and would need to be stiffer to yeild the same effective amount of flex. Another factor would be the effective mass at the moment of inertia which would favour the responsiveness if the lighter, thinner and/or lower pitch propellors. More flexible and lighter props would allow them to spool up more quickly.

Consider also that if you are in dense air in sport mode, your useful hover-flying throttle range might be 45 to 80 or 90 percent on the MAs but be 50 to 100 percent on the DJI props which give a responsiveness advantage to the latter.

It should be straight forward to measure the static mass, though not the effective rotational inertial mass, but one would likely bear of the other. It should also be possible to set up a fixture with a fixed weight and measure the effect on pitch to get a quantification of the flex. As far as I can tell, the testing is very subjective. Unfortunately, none of the tests indicated the altitude or barometric pressure.

Your experience may favour the MAs but there is no context. No doubt in thin air, the DJI props would appear to respond comparatively sluggishly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnis
The video would appear to confirm that the MA props would probably work well in thinner air in hot or high altitude conditions. Almost certainly you would get better performance flying in mountainous elevations than with stock props.

As far as flex is concerned, a greater amount would allow the motors to spool up more rapidly. The wider blade area of the MA's would present more area to aerodynamic resistance and would need to be stiffer to yeild the same effective amount of flex. Another factor would be the effective mass at the moment of inertia which would favour the responsiveness if the lighter, thinner and/or lower pitch propellors. More flexible and lighter props would allow them to spool up more quickly.

Consider also that if you are in dense air in sport mode, your useful hover-flying throttle range might be 45 to 80 or 90 percent on the MAs but be 50 to 100 percent on the DJI props which give a responsiveness advantage to the latter.

It should be straight forward to measure the static mass, though not the effective rotational inertial mass, but one would likely bear of the other. It should also be possible to set up a fixture with a fixed weight and measure the effect on pitch to get a quantification of the flex. As far as I can tell, the testing is very subjective. Unfortunately, none of the tests indicated the altitude or barometric pressure.

Your experience may favour the MAs but there is no context. No doubt in thin air, the DJI props would appear to respond comparatively sluggishly.
The spooling would be more relevent if the motor was unable to respond qickly - however it does seem that the Mavic motors have the 'punch' to be able to spool up fast even with the courser MA prop's ... My testing was done observational-wise ... I noted that in comparing DJI 'quiet' prop's with Master Airscrew 'Stealth' prop's on my Mavic Pro Platinum, I could see a lower rpm in the hover for the MA's ... This was indicated on the RC controller and was close to 1,000 rpm lower! In regard to the stability, again - Mk 1 eyeball (backed up by camera video in the hover). I was hovering the Mavic against a backdrop of a lattice fence - so watching it against the cross-hatch and the video confirmed that there was a lot more stability with the MA prop's. The gimbal tended to smooth the up and down, but still showed more sideways instability when flying the DJI prop's.
The MA prop's will fly better at altitude, because they have a higher pitch than the DJI stock. DJI's are 8330 and 8331 prop's, whereas the MA's are 8344 .. (3.0" and 3.1" pitch V's 4.4" pitch).
 
I'm confused by the comment about the gimbal smoothing up and down. A gimbal preserves the direction the camera is pointing and mitigates rotation on the roll axis but can not reduce vertical or horizontal displacement of the camera.

I have read on the MA web page that their Mavic props weigh 8.8 grams whereas the DJI specs have been more difficult to pin down. Gearbest claims the DJI original props weigh 7.6 grams and if that is true, then the props are almost 16 percent heavier than DJI specified for their motors. The 4.4" pitch is about 47 percent greater than the initial spec presenting a much greater aerodynamic load. If in fact they also flex less, they would present a much greater resistance to change in RPM . That is increased even more with what appears to be an increase in blade area which adds to the parasitic drag as well as total area translating on the horizontal axis.

Of course, all these changes, other than weight, would benefit performance over the conventional props but only below a certain density of the air. The MAs would probably perform very poorly at sea level in cold air with a high pressure weather system. They would be very likely to overload the motors well below full throttle. At some lesser air density, the two versions would provide roughly equal performance and when reduced enough, the MAs would have a clear advantage.

If you look at the specs on the Mavic cage props, they have shorter blades as well as less pitch. Presumably the blade length is a compromise to cage size/weight but the reduction in pitch, despite the increased overall weight on the Mavic appears to imply that a lower 'gear' has advantages despite the much higher RPM needed. The added weight of legs, skins, lights, floats, 3d cameras and other accessories would make the MAs more prone to overloading the motors and propellor stalling which generally gives an advantage to a lower pitch prop.

The fact that DJI makes high altitude props for the Inspire series further suggests that their standard props are optimized for lower altitudes. The pitch is increased 33 percent from 4.5" to 6" and the intended altitude ranges from 2,500 - 5,000 metres (8,200 - 16,400 ft). Note: this pitch increase is proportionately less than the MAs are over the stock DJI Mavic props.

Ultimately, all I am saying is that not one review or claim I have seen to date provides any meaningful data point since air density is not considered as a factor.
 
for myself i find the MPP props that came with the mav to be more than able to handle what i ask of it during flight, yes they do flex and are designed that way,the primary role of the mavic series of drones is a good camera platform for arial photography and the flex in the props is to smooth out the drone during changes in direction,it is not a fault that they are made that way,of course if you want to use other props and are happy with what they give you then that is not an issue,it is down to the persons own personal choice
 
for myself i find the MPP props that came with the mav to be more than able to handle what i ask of it during flight, yes they do flex and are designed that way,the primary role of the mavic series of drones is a good camera platform for arial photography and the flex in the props is to smooth out the drone during changes in direction,it is not a fault that they are made that way,of course if you want to use other props and are happy with what they give you then that is not an issue,it is down to the persons own personal choice

If you fly near where you live, the highest ground elevation is under 4000' in Wales so it makes sense that the standard MPP low noise props would work quite well. I doubt that the flex in the props is by design. It probably is a characteristic of the choice of material and the needed strength based largely on cost. There have been reports of the low noise props not working as well as the standard props in wind but like much information on the web, it's highly subjective. FoxHallGH implies that the MAs are stiffer and as a result, smoother and result in more stable hover which is the exact opposite of your assertion that more flexible props are smoother but then, we have no idea of either the air density or how steady the air was. I'm not ready to pick sides.

I would expect that heavier props turning fast would have a higher rotational moment of inertia and provide additional gyroscopic stability and smooth flight out better than bendy props. Based on the video, at hover, the MAs run at 4700 RPM vs 5500 for the DJI standard props. If you assume a similar weight distribution, which is a lot to assume, the rotational inertia would be similar for props that run 16 percent faster or slower props weighing 17 percent more. In still air, heavier faster props greater gyroscopic forces would tend to keep the drone from tipping from the horizontal plane but would require more abrupt or drastic RPM changes in gusty conditions in order for the drone to tip enough to counteract drift.

There are a great many variables to consider and your intended purpose and ambient conditions might dictate a prop with different parameters than you might assume at first blush.
 
If you fly near where you live, the highest ground elevation is under 4000' in Wales so it makes sense that the standard MPP low noise props would work quite well. I doubt that the flex in the props is by design. It probably is a characteristic of the choice of material and the needed strength based largely on cost. There have been reports of the low noise props not working as well as the standard props in wind but like much information on the web, it's highly subjective. FoxHallGH implies that the MAs are stiffer and as a result, smoother and result in more stable hover which is the exact opposite of your assertion that more flexible props are smoother but then, we have no idea of either the air density or how steady the air was. I'm not ready to pick sides.

I would expect that heavier props turning fast would have a higher rotational moment of inertia and provide additional gyroscopic stability and smooth flight out better than bendy props. Based on the video, at hover, the MAs run at 4700 RPM vs 5500 for the DJI standard props. If you assume a similar weight distribution, which is a lot to assume, the rotational inertia would be similar for props that run 16 percent faster or slower props weighing 17 percent more. In still air, heavier faster props greater gyroscopic forces would tend to keep the drone from tipping from the horizontal plane but would require more abrupt or drastic RPM changes in gusty conditions in order for the drone to tip enough to counteract drift.

There are a great many variables to consider and your intended purpose and ambient conditions might dictate a prop with different parameters than you might assume at first blush.
i have no problem with whatever props are used, as i said before it is a choice we make to suit what we want the mav to do,my reply was just my take on what i had observed flying my MPP, there are many many variables in prop design and there is no harm in trying different ones if that is what you want,my point about the props ability to flex ,to me means that the mav will react less to direction changes as the prop is able to absorb some of the inertia,due to the flex and i am sure that DJI spent a lot of time developing them to suit the flying characteristics of the mav ,versus cost of production
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnis
I put a set on my Mav Air today and they are quieter. Had no error messages. I'm not an aggressive flyer , just fly to take pictures and what not and so far fly under 2000 ft in elevation. But plan to go north and fly at higher elevations , like 7000 to 10000 ft. wonder if I'll notice any difference with the MA props then.
Later I did get a motor error but was full speed forward and down at the same time. I told MS about this they replied very fast with a fix that I haven't had time to try yet.
 
Last edited:
If you fly near where you live, the highest ground elevation is under 4000' in Wales so it makes sense that the standard MPP low noise props would work quite well. I doubt that the flex in the props is by design. It probably is a characteristic of the choice of material and the needed strength based largely on cost. There have been reports of the low noise props not working as well as the standard props in wind but like much information on the web, it's highly subjective. FoxHallGH implies that the MAs are stiffer and as a result, smoother and result in more stable hover which is the exact opposite of your assertion that more flexible props are smoother but then, we have no idea of either the air density or how steady the air was. I'm not ready to pick sides.

I would expect that heavier props turning fast would have a higher rotational moment of inertia and provide additional gyroscopic stability and smooth flight out better than bendy props. Based on the video, at hover, the MAs run at 4700 RPM vs 5500 for the DJI standard props. If you assume a similar weight distribution, which is a lot to assume, the rotational inertia would be similar for props that run 16 percent faster or slower props weighing 17 percent more. In still air, heavier faster props greater gyroscopic forces would tend to keep the drone from tipping from the horizontal plane but would require more abrupt or drastic RPM changes in gusty conditions in order for the drone to tip enough to counteract drift.

There are a great many variables to consider and your intended purpose and ambient conditions might dictate a prop with different parameters than you might assume at first blush.
There are a lot of variables, and I'm sure that you could run a large number of tests ... I've attempted to run hover tests with my Mav' Pro Platinum to compare prop' types - but have had inconsistencey with batteries (a battery can have more effect on flight duration than a set of prop's!). However, my flying is done in an area where I'm between 20 and 30 metres above sea level (I'm not at high altitude), and my personal feedback about the Master Airscrew prop's (all science aside), is that;
- They give my MPP longer flight durations
- they have a lower frequency 'bass' sound that is less intrusive
- passers-by have remarked how quiet the drone is
- rpm is generally lower
- With the sun on the drone, I can see the orange MA prop's further off when flying
- the drone has less impact on birds and animals when flying above them
- as a camera platform - the MPP is very stable.
- despite getting too close to a tree ... the prop's have no knicks, scratches or splits visible.

There is an element of gyroscopic stability in the Mavic, but in general, it's actually inherantly unstable, and uses a series of feedback loops to detect movement away from stable, and it uses the motor controller to bring it back (which is why the Gain settings can be important for 8331 or MA prop's). If the Gain settings are out, the gyro-effect won't help much, and will translate out as a low level vibration that typically makes the gimbal shake. If the Motor Control and Gain circuits are doing their job properly, then there are no 'drastic' changes needed, because the motors are being fed with little changes continuously ... Just watch the rpm on your controller screen when you hover a Mavic.
 
I put these on my Pro Platinum yesterday and they are in fact noticeably quieter in certain flight modes, and the response of the copter seems more zippy.
I had to hear it for myself to believe it.
The PP wasn’t as quiet as I expected at first after reading people say you can’t hear it when it’s 100 feet overhead. I can hear it from further away than that and I actually don’t hear well. But, it was still without a doubt a low profile drone, which is what I wanted, but with these props I feel it’s quiet the way I really expected the PP to be.
 
I put these on my Pro Platinum yesterday and they are in fact noticeably quieter in certain flight modes, and the response of the copter seems more zippy.
I had to hear it for myself to believe it.
The PP wasn’t as quiet as I expected at first after reading people say you can’t hear it when it’s 100 feet overhead. I can hear it from further away than that and I actually don’t hear well. But, it was still without a doubt a low profile drone, which is what I wanted, but with these props I feel it’s quiet the way I really expected the PP to be.
Welcome to the Prop' Heretic's group ... Enjoy your flying ...
 
Mavic Air settings for the MA new props, recommendations a bit different than what has been presented here:

Thank you for choosing Master Airscrew.
We have published more information on the recommended settings here: Mavic Air Gain Settings
Sure are - they are really pushing the settings to the limits! Although the nature of the Gain settings is that they are extremely 'fine' as they are controlling a feedback loop. I'm still of the opinion that you need to adjust / fly / adjust / fly / etc. in small steps until you see the drone get steadier. I also think that this is the case due to the various 'degrees' of oscillation that you can get - varying from a small shake when the drone changes direction, through to all-on gimbal shake through the flight. When you see that amount of variation, it says to me that you can't have one fix that fits all ...
 
I love mine. I got the orange ones then added some orange highlights to the drone and no I can't see any better then before. Well maybe a little. However with it all bright like it is now no one can say I'm trying to sneak up on them..DSC_1098.JPGDSC_1085.JPGDSC_0447.JPGDSC_0517.JPG
 
I love mine. I got the orange ones then added some orange highlights to the drone and no I can't see any better then before. Well maybe a little. However with it all bright like it is now no one can say I'm trying to sneak up on them..View attachment 67571View attachment 67572View attachment 67573View attachment 67574
@grgguy , what are you using to light up your prop hubs as shown in your pics? I'm flying Mavic 2 so maybe won't apply, but I'm curious. Thanks.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,588
Messages
1,554,142
Members
159,592
Latest member
MaxRichu