Thanx, I had gotten a set from him, cause I needed the box for the backpack. I was asking what the difference was with the carbon fibre props ?
Having done quite a lot of propeller testing with RC airplanes, military drones, and multirotors there’s a lot of different things than can make a prop good or bad. For now I’ll focus on carbon fiber.
Carbon fiber is rigid, and when laid up to adequate thickness at the blade and hub significantly reduces flexing and twist of the blade under thrust load. All propellers flex to some extent but the amount can run from very little to so much the propeller ends up shaped more like a cone under load.
The benefit of less flex is that more if the rotational energy is converted to thrust. The propeller diameter is maintained at it’s original size. When a propeller flexes the blades move forwards and inwards, changing functional diameter. Under normal use conditions diameter equates to thrust while pitch controls speed.
Another affect of prop “coning” with electric motors is energy efficiency, and it manifests on two fronts. A prop that flexes too much produces less thrust for the energy used to turn it. Personal testing with larger multirotors has demonstrated that a flexible prop requires more amperage to obtain thrust similar to a more rigid prop. IOW, the flexible prop has to turn faster. For example, using Tarot and Tiger Motor 15” props on the same multirotor established that more flexible Tarot carbon props pulled 135 Amps for a lift off and climb to 20’ while the Tiger props pulled only 78 Amps. That difference greatly impacts flight time with a battery.
So all the above would suggest carbon is better, yes? The right answer is both yes and no. If your aircraft is designed well carbon can work well. However, and aircraft built to minimum standards can easily break when a carbon blade strikes an object. Because they are more rigid the blades do not separate as easily. That increased rigidity can cause a motor to be ripped from a boom, a boom to separate from the airframe, with the probability of damaging an ESC increasing exponentially.
The personal safety factor is not really better or worse with carbon. The stock blades can cut as well. We are supposed to be smart enough not to be placing parts of the human anatomy in the path of a spinning propeller.
The Typhoon H is pretty amazing for what it is. Although not designed to endure crashing without damage, which would make it to heavy, the design was well thought out where all the stock components compliment performance. The motors, props, and ESC’s are an efficient combination in stock form. Making changes does little of benefit and, if you don’t choose parts wisely, end up reducing performance. It was designed to work best just the way it came from the factory.