Silverburn
Member
Hi guys,
I broke a prop (and an arm) last month, and have been waiting what feels like an eternity for someone to get 1450 t-motor CF props back in.
Last week though, some clones came to my attention. I immediately ordered them, and below are my thoughts and observations when comparing the two brands side by side. I order 1455 and 1355 clones. I got the 13"'s because the ecalc calculation results are "safer" - the 14"'s at full throttle at 6S exceed the theoretical maximum of my motors by 10%, even though I sacrifice flight and hover time in the process. Give the power of the motors and 6S though, my chances of requiring full power are almost nil.
It should be noted that the clones were $50 *a set*...original T-motors are $50 *each*. Are the clones worth it? Lets find out....
Pic 1: as we can see the clones is an extremely close match to the original. The clone is 1455, but the T-motor is 1450, but for the life of me, I cannot tell the difference. Hopefully "Hardy" won't notice either. The angle of the shot makes the clone look shorter. Its not - it's definitely 14".
View attachment 11831
Pic 2: The clone is glossed, whereas the original is matt. You can tell the gloss adds weight, but I don't have a sensitive enough scale to prove. But in the hand, the original is lighter. The quality of CF in the original is also better, or at least the gloss has added some surface imperfections that aren't in the original. Notable is that the original's carbon weave is exactly 90' to the line of the prop. The clone is slightly squint. Personally, I like to think the original has more attention to detail and quality because of this. This could be critical in flight, where you want absolute integrity. Is squint weave a sign of weakness? Time will tell I guess. There are some horror stories in the cycling world due to clone carbon frames snapping and cracking too easily. That plays at the back of my mind, at least.
View attachment 11832
Pic 3: Do they fit? Yes they do. Very neatly in fact and you don't need the t-motor spacer ring either. However, check out that air gap on the blade bridge. That's a sign of things to come...
View attachment 11833
Pic 4: Ok, now we can really tell these are cheap clones. Compare the mounts of the original and the clone. The original has very smooth and even holes, and the edges are chamfered to aid screw and pole guidance. Good attention to detail. The clones...well. The drill was obviously blunt because the carbon thread is leaking out (those are not cracks btw). The finish is terrible. There are scratches on the finish. And you can see there's an imperfection in the bridge (it looks like a shadow). That could be a potential prop disintegration point. The 13"'s are similarly poorly finished.
View attachment 11834View attachment 11835
Finally, the most telling part. The balancing. Of the 8 t-motor props I have (4x14" & 4x11") only 2 needed a very light rub, and bingo. No hubs needed balancing at all. It took 1.5 hours to do all 4 clone blades on the du-bro. They all needed significant blade balancing and only one needed no hub balancing. I suspect the results could have been better for the blades if the gloss finish was not used. There is no excuse for the amount of filing and super-glue weighting I had to do on the hub though...that's where the poorer clone moulds show their weakness.
At the end of the day though, will I fly the clones? Yes. But they will need to earn my confidence, whereas the t-motor originals felt great from the start, and I had confidence in them the moment I fired up the motors. Will report back in 20 flights...if they last that long...(still grounded though...I broke an arm in the same crash, and that's still stuck in Swiss customs!).
Edit: The clones are here btw: http://www.foxtechfpv.com/1455-mkii-carbon-fiber-propeller-cwccw-p-1025.html
I broke a prop (and an arm) last month, and have been waiting what feels like an eternity for someone to get 1450 t-motor CF props back in.
Last week though, some clones came to my attention. I immediately ordered them, and below are my thoughts and observations when comparing the two brands side by side. I order 1455 and 1355 clones. I got the 13"'s because the ecalc calculation results are "safer" - the 14"'s at full throttle at 6S exceed the theoretical maximum of my motors by 10%, even though I sacrifice flight and hover time in the process. Give the power of the motors and 6S though, my chances of requiring full power are almost nil.
It should be noted that the clones were $50 *a set*...original T-motors are $50 *each*. Are the clones worth it? Lets find out....
Pic 1: as we can see the clones is an extremely close match to the original. The clone is 1455, but the T-motor is 1450, but for the life of me, I cannot tell the difference. Hopefully "Hardy" won't notice either. The angle of the shot makes the clone look shorter. Its not - it's definitely 14".
View attachment 11831
Pic 2: The clone is glossed, whereas the original is matt. You can tell the gloss adds weight, but I don't have a sensitive enough scale to prove. But in the hand, the original is lighter. The quality of CF in the original is also better, or at least the gloss has added some surface imperfections that aren't in the original. Notable is that the original's carbon weave is exactly 90' to the line of the prop. The clone is slightly squint. Personally, I like to think the original has more attention to detail and quality because of this. This could be critical in flight, where you want absolute integrity. Is squint weave a sign of weakness? Time will tell I guess. There are some horror stories in the cycling world due to clone carbon frames snapping and cracking too easily. That plays at the back of my mind, at least.
View attachment 11832
Pic 3: Do they fit? Yes they do. Very neatly in fact and you don't need the t-motor spacer ring either. However, check out that air gap on the blade bridge. That's a sign of things to come...
View attachment 11833
Pic 4: Ok, now we can really tell these are cheap clones. Compare the mounts of the original and the clone. The original has very smooth and even holes, and the edges are chamfered to aid screw and pole guidance. Good attention to detail. The clones...well. The drill was obviously blunt because the carbon thread is leaking out (those are not cracks btw). The finish is terrible. There are scratches on the finish. And you can see there's an imperfection in the bridge (it looks like a shadow). That could be a potential prop disintegration point. The 13"'s are similarly poorly finished.
View attachment 11834View attachment 11835
Finally, the most telling part. The balancing. Of the 8 t-motor props I have (4x14" & 4x11") only 2 needed a very light rub, and bingo. No hubs needed balancing at all. It took 1.5 hours to do all 4 clone blades on the du-bro. They all needed significant blade balancing and only one needed no hub balancing. I suspect the results could have been better for the blades if the gloss finish was not used. There is no excuse for the amount of filing and super-glue weighting I had to do on the hub though...that's where the poorer clone moulds show their weakness.
At the end of the day though, will I fly the clones? Yes. But they will need to earn my confidence, whereas the t-motor originals felt great from the start, and I had confidence in them the moment I fired up the motors. Will report back in 20 flights...if they last that long...(still grounded though...I broke an arm in the same crash, and that's still stuck in Swiss customs!).
Edit: The clones are here btw: http://www.foxtechfpv.com/1455-mkii-carbon-fiber-propeller-cwccw-p-1025.html
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
