Low noise would be great.

While I personally don't mind the sound/pitch the Mavic Air gives off, most of my concern around its noise is people nearby. It's not so much the volume but the higher pitch sound that is more audible to others at a longer range. So many people these days have already developed a negative feeling towards these things due to privacy concerns and having a noisy one attract attention isn't ideal. It's easy enough when you take off because you can simply send it up in the air real quick to get it out of the way but it is usually the return trip where I end up spending a bit more time landing that I just can't wait for it to get on the ground and stop its motors.

I love to see  low noise props for the Mavic Air, but non foldable. to mee it doesn't make any sence to have some foldable props, but low noise does.

I would like a low noise props for Mavic Air too

Just low noise would be fine!

I had purchased the Air and man was that thing loud. My neighbors called it a flying weed whacker. Mavic Pro was much quieter. I sold it to my brother in law. I don't think different props would make it that much quieter.

I love the noise, please keep as it is. The noise is the trade mark of MA, Just like lambo sound. I love it

Noise reduction is necessary, many locations are limiting the noise pollution there by restricting the use of Drones. The potential loss of revenue should be incentive enough to create quieter props.

SC Bradley Posted at 2018-7-20 19:23
Noise reduction is necessary, many locations are limiting the noise pollution there by restricting the use of Drones. The potential loss of revenue should be incentive enough to create quieter props.

I'm with Bradley and others. Lower noise reduces the drone's "footprint" and makes it less of a nuisance when there are so many more around. I don't get the obsession with foldable props as it doesn't make the craft any smaller when stored anyway.

Foldable ...

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 21 VI. Conclusions  The  paper  presents  a  comprehensive  method  for  the  design  of  quiet  propellers,  which  is  based  on  a Multidisciplinary  Design  Optimization  (MDO)  approach.  The  design  of a  quiet  propeller  includes  usually  a  high number of design variables (69-70 design variables in the above described example) and constraints. Thus in order to cope  with  the complexity  of this  design  problem,  three  different optimization  schemes  are  used that  enable  the design  process  to reach  a global  optimum.  The  designer  is  responsible  for the  definition  of  the  cost  function and constraints. In addition, the designer decides on transferring from one optimization scheme to the other. Often, the design trends of a  quiet  propeller contradict the design trends of an efficient propeller. Thus a trade off is required in order to arrive at a practical design. The efficiency of the propulsion system does not depend solely on  the  propeller,  but  it  is  affected  significantly by  the  motor efficiency  and  the vehicle  characteristics.  Thus  it  is important to include the motor characteristics in the design process. Based on the example of designing a quiet propeller for an electric Mini-UAV, the following conclusions can be drawn: a. For a given number of blades, the main mechanism of reducing the propeller noise involves a reduction of the propeller’s rotational speed. b. Defining the  propeller SPLA as the cost  function, without  applying  additional constraints, may result in an impractical design of blades having a very large chord and high required power. In the present example the loitering time for such a design was reduced from 160[min.] in the case of a maximum loitering time design (without considering any other constraints), to only 25[min.] for a very quiet propeller deign (without apply any performance constraints). c. Imposing power constraints, namely imposing a limit of the extracted power from the battery, increases the propeller  noise  significantly (compared  to  a  design without  such  constraints). In  the  case  of a two-bladed propeller,  limiting  the  power  to 75[W] results in an  increase  of 10.3[dBA], while a stricter power  limit  of 65[W]  results  in  an  increase  of  12.3[dBA].  This  increase  in  noise  is  mainly  due  to  the  increase  in  the rotational speed that leads to an improvement in the efficiency of the propulsion system. d. Imposing  stress  constraints  leads to  an  increase  in  the cross-sectional  thickness  and  the  rotational  speed. Due to  the  increase  in  the rotational  speed the SPLA is  increased as  well  (by 1~3[dBA] for  a  two-bladed propeller).  It  has  been  shown  that  by  introducing  a  cone  angle,  the  aerodynamic  bending  moment  is reduced and the optimal propeller’s SPLA is decreased by 0.1~0.3[dBA]. e. As the number of blades increases, the  noise signature is decreased. The reduction in  noise is a function of the power constraint and can reach 10[dBA]. f. The influence of stress constraints on the optimal design depends strongly on the number of blades.  g. During  a  flyover  the  noise  of  a  UAV  varies  as  a  function  of  the  location  of  the  vehicle  relative  to  the observer.  The  maximum SPLA is  obtained  for a  receding  vehicle,  shortly after  it  passes  the  zenith  point. Nevertheless, optimization for a minimum noise at the zenith point reduces the noise signature for  most of the flyover case, especially along the noisier parts of the path. h. For  most  cases, as  the performance  constraint  becomes  more  strict (smaller  power  is  allowed),  the  noise signature increases. Only for an  approaching  vehicle,  at certain distances  from the observer, this trend can be reversed. i. The far  field  loading  noise presents the  main  contribution to  the  propeller  noise.  The  contributions of  the thickness noise and near field loading noise are usually much smaller. The  results  of the  present paper  emphasize  the  importance  of  a multidisciplinary approach  during  the  design  of  a quiet propeller. It is important to address all the disciplines simultaneously along the design process. Ignoring one of these disciplines may lead to an impractical design.

I’d certainly want to see low noise props - the MA is quite noisy.

Along those lines, how about 4 blade props?  Same amount of thrust at a lower RPM.  I wouldn’t expect them to be foldable, and that’s okay.

If they made a quieter non-foldable prop for the Mavic Air I would buy it.

Heck, I use the noise to find it in the sky sometimes.  Sometimes I can’t see it but I can hear it and know where to look..lol

My preference would be props which produce less noise.  If the technology is there I think it would be prudent on several levels to offer them.  I would buy them today if offered.

Folding or non-folding, I would immediately buy lower noise props. I would like to draw less attention to myself when flying - not because I'm doing anything illegal, I'm very much a stickler for the rules, I just worry about bothering anyone that happens to be around.

We really need low noise props on these pups!

The MA is annoying loud and disturbs any bystanders. Even at 200 ft altitude it can be heard and easily spotted, Mavic pro and spark can fly at 125 ft and is unnoticed.

The MA needs low noise props otherwise I’m done with it.

GoldenSun Posted at 2018-4-21 05:54
Which does not mean it cannot be quieter ;)

I agree with that.  Can most definitely be more quiet.

We really need a low noise props for the AIR.

We need  quieter props. All my neighbors dont want to tell that im flying. IS JUST ANNOYING to everyone else.

Stock are good

Wouldn't mind noise reduction props. Don't really see a use for foldable props but hey you could probably sell ice to an eskimo if you had the right price.

Low noise would be great, foldable ones don't really make any sense.

do you seek satisfaction?

I think low noise props are good

I think low noise props are good

would love quieter.. don't care if foldable or not

The noise it's a statement of the MA!
I'm happy with my boosted Bee!

I vote for low noise propeller.. either it will foldable or not..

smaller the props = higher rpm = higher sound.
Its impossible to cut sound just by prop design.

flyingcooldudea Posted at 2018-10-2 03:45
smaller the props = higher rpm = higher sound.
Its impossible to cut sound just by prop design.

even though been proven you can reduce the RPM by increasing the angle of the prop cause it to produce more lift with less RPM and  adding a winglet tip can reduce the turbulence at the end of the prop from the air being chopped up?

mavic pro props would love to teach you a lesson!   i miss my mavic pro with my quiet props...that thing was soooooo nice and quiet.

+1 would buy them even if it just tuned the noise pitch a bit which would be awesome to make the air more discrete

joe_gadget Posted at 2018-5-4 00:27
Thanks i wasn't aware of the extra flight time on the MP with the 8331s. Lets hope so. I think the loud noise in fact attracts birds to defend their turf rather than a deterrent though so here's hoping for accessories down the line.

Yeah, birds.  I don't notice bugs so much but I sure do notice birds coming out to defend their territory more with the MA than the MP.

Today an angler told me I should stop flying, MA's noise disturbed him. MA was about 200 meters distance and 40 ms high from him. I would very happy with low(er)  noise props ( and the angler as well). I would pay for them.

TheCenda Posted at 4-21 02:17
Why would you need foldable props for MA?

Agree no real need except for carrying the spares the spark had them and I use the MA now as a replacement for the spark but compared to the MPP or M2P the MA is noisy as hell not far off my old P3P

davidmartingraf Posted at 4-21 19:37
I think folding props are easier to maintain and transport, makes things so much easier with the Spark and Mavic Pro.

transport possibly .. maintain not so much

can't balance a folding prop... not as easily anyway

and on a folding prop.. way more failure modes... moving parts, pins, plates...

lastly.. ridged props provide better power response...

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 11-8 04:58
transport possibly .. maintain not so much

can't balance a folding prop... not as easily anyway

The transport is easier but there are other less so beneficial benefits

HereForTheBeer Posted at 10-2 23:07
even though been proven you can reduce the RPM by increasing the angle of the prop cause it to produce more lift with less RPM and  adding a winglet tip can reduce the turbulence at the end of the prop from the air being chopped up?

mavic pro props would love to teach you a lesson!   i miss my mavic pro with my quiet props...that thing was soooooo nice and quiet.

yes and no...

the aerodynamics of props go way beyond just increasing pitch for thrust and reducing rpm too much gets you into trouble..

its like riding a mountain bike stuck in 16th gear.. yeah you can go faster sometimes but starting and stopping etc is real hard... takes a lot more amps and torque to make rapid RPM changes .. etc..

its a balancing act

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 11-8 06:40
yes and no...

the aerodynamics of props go way beyond just increasing pitch for thrust and reducing rpm too much gets you into trouble..

actually, aerodynamics and hydrodynamics are very much similar art.  and in this case more like hydrodynamics.  because if anything reverse of of what you said about 16th gear.., since not increasing enough to make spinning up more difficult in fact it achieve lift easier this needs fewer RPMs, so more like being stuck in 1st or 2nd gear instead of 16th gear.     however reaching max RPM of the motor is more difficult as increased pitch = increased resistance and air resistance increases with speed. much like liquid.. faster something is pushing against it the more it wants to resist it..


balance act comes in slightly differently.. you can add pitch and get same results at lower RPM.. it be able to hover 5 feet off the ground at a much lower RPM.  however stability and wind resistance is where things ultimately get trick and balancing is a real pain, however this DJI's field making highly efficient drones and props.., they have billions of dollars so...really i think ultimately speaking, these are fairly small things to overcome for such a company...