Disproportionate propeller loss

[pungbjoern]

I was out this morning, tweaking my cleanflight settings. This, naturally, involved a lot of crashing. I noticed, strangely, that I was much more likely to lose R propellers (front left and back right) than "normal" propellers. I also tend to lose more back propellers than front. Any idea why this might be? Am I just unlucky, or is this some classic rookie mistake where I do (or don't do) X, which is the reason for this?

I mostly lose propellers due to crashing into the ground, as opposed to into trees, if that helps.

 

[Montiey]

The adapters on your motors likely are going the same directions, so the front right and back left props are actually being self tightened, where as the resistance from the prop on the other ones don't do much but loosen, and and would probably completely unscrew the prop adapter completely if the prop was met with static force (i.e tree).

 

[pungbjoern]

The adapters on your motors likely are going the same directions, so the front right and back left props are actually being self tightened, where as the resistance from the prop on the other ones don't do much but loosen, and and would probably completely unscrew the prop adapter completely if the prop was met with static force (i.e tree).

That sounds reasonable, but it's actually wrong. I have directional self-tightening mounts on all 4 motors. They all work in the correct direction.

 

[Ocean]

I have the same problem but can't find the route cause of the issue.

All motors are running in the correct direction so that they self-tighten.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

I haven't had a complete cup of coffee yet, but my first guess is it might have something to do with the "outside" tip of the prop advancing into the ground vs receding depending on the quads orientation in any particular situation.

 

[pungbjoern]

I haven't had a complete cup of coffee yet, but my first guess is it might have something to do with the "outside" tip of the prop advancing into the ground vs receding depending on the quads orientation in any particular situation.

Sounds plausible. Also sounds like something I can't do anything about =(

 

[Cyberdactyl]

Oh sure you can. Don't impact the ground at high speed and insure the z-axis of the quad is pointed upwards.

Layman translation --- Don't crash.

 

[RAM]

So far, cybers conclusion seems most likely.

I would only add that more back breaks vs front breaks could be CG related and when it falls it tends to tip back.

 

[jhitesma]

I've found I seem to go in cycles for some reason. For a few weeks I'll tend to break only the right rear prop in crashes...then suddenly I'll only break front left...then for a few days only the front right...then I'll have a good crash and smash all four at once

 

[Craftydan]

Two theories (neither of which are based in any way to the described scenerio, just general science):

- Number runs: While dice and coins don't have memories, it's empirically improbable that you won't have a run of identical measurements in a truly random variable. A Statistics prof once put it this way with a classroom demo -- split the class in two, gave them a coin and instructed them to create two 50 point collections of "heads or tails", and to use the coin to decide which half will measure it with a coin and who will "make it up" . . . then left the room for 5 minutes. He would come back in the room to face two boards with 50 H's and T's each. without fail he could guess which was measured, and which was fabricated, by the lengths of the runs. The real one always had longer runs. A coin may not have a memory, but Runs in random is a perfectly natural thing.

- NASCAR effect: Left turn. Left turn. Left turn. Left turn . . . Ri . . . Nope. Left turn.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

Hence the infamous --- 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2. . .