I have the problem on the rear left  Chang to new props now right rear change props..

Still problems..

Never crashed, no problems after sw update problems.


That's a classic sw problem, fix it!

raulvolador Posted at 5-27 22:34
Zbip57,

Do you mean DJI's suggested way for folding propellers is wrong ?

It certainly looks that way to me.  It wasn't as obvious with the original rear props because they seemed to mesh together nicely when folded.  But the newly installed fresh props won't fold together unless one side or the other is bent under/over the other side.  I'm thinking if they're repeatedly forced to mesh together and stored for extended periods like that, then eventually the blades deform to take on that deflected shape, after which they'll easily mesh together again every time for storage.

Here's an image illustrating the angle at which the rear motors are canted outwards.  With the blades on the rear motors turn outward like this, you can see how high the tips of the props rest above a flat surface.  Like this the weight of the Mini is resting directly on the prop hubs, screws, and motors.

It's not easy to hold the Mini with one hand, while trying to take a photo with the other hand, while the props are swinging around freely, but here you can see how far below the motors the tips of the prop blades hang when turned inboard.

And clearly, if the blades from both sides are turned inboard, the tips of the prop blades will cross and will not easily slide over/under each other.

If I set the Mini down on the table top, it is resting on the tips of the blades.  Since the blades are flexible, they are being bent and distorted like this.

It's not a good idea to store the Mini resting on a table top like this.  The Fly More case is designed to support the belly of the Mini, with a recess into which the props can hang freely.  However, I suspect that just forcing the rear props to mesh so that they can fit into that recessed area might be enough to eventually cause permanent distortion of the blades.

In this photo I'm standing the Mini on its tail, allowing the rear props to dangle freely down along the sides of the body, rather than crossed over each other under the body.

The rear motors are canted at an angle outwards, but are not canted forward or back.  Positioned like this, you can see that the prop blades lie flat alongside the body.  This way you could set the Mini down flat on a table top without stressing the rear blades.  And because they're not meshed together folded across the body, there is no bending stress applied to the blades.

I ordered a new carry case from AliExpress in which the props are stored longitudinally, rather than crossed over/under the body of the Mini.  I'm hoping that's a better solution. It's not perfect either though, as there is no space for the charger and spare batteries.


I submitted the order four weeks ago but still haven't received it...

Sunnylife Protective Storage Bag Carrying Case for Mavic Mini

Ocilares Posted at 5-28 00:19
I have the problem on the rear left  Chang to new props now right rear change props..

Still problems..

You’re right it is a software problem, but it seems the “ Prawn Sandwich Brigade “would rather try frighten new users than give them the information that comes directly from dji . Refer to sticky at top of forum page . There is more chance of you crashing your drone while trying to hover in your apartment than flying your drone as it was designed. But you’ll find the armchair drone users don’t like to get up and out to test anything prefer to hover every evening indoors to get the same results. I kind of wonder why they still own a drone that has such a dramatic faults and I’m certain if reported to dji they would insist on returning them.

Ocilares Posted at 5-28 00:19
I have the problem on the rear left  Chang to new props now right rear change props..

Still problems..

You have verified the .500 firmware update via Assistant 2?  A lot of issues with the warnings were apparent after upgrading via phones and latterly found that the firmware was not installed correctly. Refreshing it via Assistant resolved this in most cases unless props were actually deformed.  You say you have changed both right and left rear props but still have problems so I would as a minimum ensure you have verified and/or replaced the firmware via DIJ Assistant for Mavic.  Standing the case vertically when storing for periods of time is also a useful way of preventing the props from deforming as is not storing with a battery inserted into the drone.

zeb_ Posted at 5-28 00:14
Zbpi57: this is a very impressive research and demonstration, thank you. As shown by you and some other users, there is now clear evidence that changing props for new usually reduces the rpm therefore showing some props do not have the same lifting quality. What is worrying is the reporting of the error message in brand new MMs (was not the case for me), but this could be due to a combination of bad prop production and an overly sensitive error throwing algorithm.

Now while I understand the importance of not squeezing the props under the body of the MM in the Fly More case, I find it incredible that even nesting the props as recommended by DJI is sufficient to reduce their quality. My new MM came with LBack props which look slightly flatter than the RFront ones (which should be identical, see pictures in my previous posts on this thread) but I never have experienced any error. I always store in the case the way DJI shows on the picture (albeit the picture itself is somehow wrong when it comes to props on the same motor). What I noticed however, after a dozen of flights, is that doing the hovering test shows slightly elevated mean rpm values for all motors now compared to the very first hovering test flight, by around 5% (e.g. going up from 8700 rpm to 9200 rpm). I will monitor if this evolves over time.

zeb wrote, "there is now clear evidence that changing props for new usually reduces the rpm therefore showing some props do not have the same lifting quality."
I don't see how anyone could reasonably interpret the evidence any differently.

"What is worrying is the reporting of the error message in brand new MMs (was not the case for me),
It was not the case for me either.  I've happily flown mine since December.  However I did get the Motor Speed warning on my first flight after upgrading to the v01.00.0500 firmware.  Some people continue to insist that is some kind of "proof" that the new firmware is buggy, or that it wasn't installed properly and should be corrected by re-installation using the Assistant software rather than the Fly app, or that the "problem" can be eliminated by downgrading to a previous firmware version.

The Motor Speed warning is not a bug in the firmware, it is a feature of the new firmware!  It is a signal to you that one of your motors is struggling to produce sufficient lift, and the warning specifically identifies the affected motor with instructions to replace the propeller blades on that motor.


"but this could be due to a combination of bad prop production and an overly sensitive error throwing algorithm."

Sure, that could be true.  But my props were produced sometime before I purchased the Mini Combo in December.  I've flown it on the original props from then until just recently.  And the spare props of the same vintage were stored separately in their original packaging since then.  There is a clear difference in the Motor Speeds between the originally mounted set and the newly installed spare set.  Furthermore, people are reporting Motor Speed warnings on first flights of brand new Minis.  Surely we're not all suffering from the same set of random bad prop production from December to now.

Is the error sensing algorithm overly sensitive?  Perhaps.  But in my case the flight-logs clearly show the left-rear motor reached a peak speed of nearly 16,000 rpm on the flight that triggered the Motor Speed warning.  With new blades installed, that motor now runs at less than 10k average in the hover test.

If the algorithm's threshold is too sensitive, that's certainly preferable compared to having it not sensitive enough.  With no such Motor Speed warning (or simple hover test), we'd be relying solely on a pre-flight inspection to briefly check whether the propeller blades visually look okay.  And we all know how reliable that test can be.

Way back when I first started taking flying lessons, my instructor showed me all the things that needed to be checked during the pre-flight walkaround inspection.  After several times observing that I was doing it properly, the instructor just sent me out to do the walkaround myself while he finished his coffee.  One time when I was finished the pre-flight and waiting for him, he climbed in beside me and asked if I was satisfied we were ready to go.  Sure thing, yup.  Well, he says, you might want to get out again and unfasten the tie-down lines before we try to  leave.

D'oh!  

Ocilares Posted at 5-28 00:19
I have the problem on the rear left  Chang to new props now right rear change props..

Still problems..

Suggest Changing props on Right Rear as Zbip57 did.

The rear props, as you can see from Zbip57's pictures are most suseptible to being damaged by bending.


Being DJI is never forth coming with changes to FW, all we can do is theorize as to why and what.
Two possible reasons why after changing Left Rear prop, you then got Right Rear prop being flagged as bad.

1) FW Can only flag one bad prop at a time, being DJI is using motor to make beep, instead of using a warning with image of MM, and all bad Props marked.

2) DJI is averaging 3 out 4 motor RPMs, then comparing 4th motor's RPMs to average.  If 4th motor exceeds average by X%, it is flagged.  If not, process moves to next group of three motors to average and compare to 4th motor's RPMs.

From great work Zbip57 has done, in majority of cases, Props are not bad as result of bad batch of blades.   But are bad as a result of DJI's process for folding of blades for storage.

Summary: FW is doing what it is supposed to do.  It is alerting Pilot to excessive RPM for particular motor.  Only two ways  comes to mind as to why a motor would have excessive RPMs.
1) Bad prop as result of blade damage or blades pitch being reduced do to bending / flattening.
2) Payload added to MM that is way off from lift center point.   Virtually all cases we can rule that possibility out.

hallmark007 writes, "There is more chance of you crashing your drone while trying to hover in  your apartment than flying your drone as it was designed."

Even if you don't get sufficient GPS reception indoors, the VPS sensors on the Mavic Mini work perfectly fine.  My Mini takes off, hovers, and lands, perfectly stable and holds position rock solid for the entire duration of the 2-minute hover test without me even touching the control sticks.

If you are worried that there is a chance of crashing while hovering indoors, do the hover test with prop guards installed.  That's what they're designed for.  The added weight will probably cause a small increase in the motor speeds, but that's not an issue.  What you're looking for in this test is any significant difference in speed between one motor versus the others.

If you are still worried about crashing while hovering indoors, or don't have the prop guards, there's no reason why you can't just as easily do the hover test outdoors.  But do try to pick a day or sheltered location without high winds.

Conducting experiments and documenting the results is a useful way to expand your knowledge.  It's science.  Try it, you might actually learn something.

Or, you just re-install the firmware again in the hopes the error messages won't re-appear.  Or, you could just look at your props and, if they look fine to you, go ahead and ignore the warnings and keep flying.  You may well end up learning something that way too.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-28 07:15
You’re right it is a software problem, but it seems the “ Prawn Sandwich Brigade “would rather try frighten new users than give them the information that comes directly from dji . Refer to sticky at top of forum page . There is more chance of you crashing your drone while trying to hover in your apartment than flying your drone as it was designed. But you’ll find the armchair drone users don’t like to get up and out to test anything prefer to hover every evening indoors to get the same results. I kind of wonder why they still own a drone that has such a dramatic faults and I’m certain if reported to dji they would insist on returning them.

Enabling hallmark BS filter 9000: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah  Refer to sticky at top of forum page . blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

It's a shame the sticky doesn't illustrate anything, just describes what to do vaguely like your typical comments.

If DJI provided us with pictures on what to look for, instructions on HOW to smooth the props, what it should look like AFTER. Yet DJI is happy to not elaborate in the slightest.

I thank everyone for there hardwork and continued effort into this matter, it's better then listening to someone suggest to drink bleach to solve the problem. We have factual PROOF of what's happening from New and Old drones, we HAVE tests that can give you the information you otherwise lack from simply observing the props.

A prop can visually have no damage or be dinged, chipped, rolled on the edges and perform the same because its PITCH hasn't been effected, but props that look visually brand new but are "FLAT" have the incorrect PITCH so they under perform and trigger the warning.

Doing a Hover test VALIDATES that the prop is under performing, no more guessing, weighing, x-raying, simply hovering inside or outside, flying inside or outside, simply REVIEWING THE RPM GRAPH will tell you 100% no bull... what's going on.

From factory the Mavic Mini is exposed to incorrect storage practices, thanks to Zbip even storing the drone out loose can cause warping, all information DJI has never bothered to SHARE with us. So I'm happy that users like myself aren't happy with just being FED BS, we take matters into our own hands to figure out what's going on so that WE CAN HELP EVERYONE since DJI doesn't plan to.

Well babelfish on the other thread has received from DJI specifications for the motors, in relation to speed error message:

Motor model: 1503
Motor type: brushless motor
Diameter: 18 mm
Kv: 2900 rpm / V
Hovering speed: 10200 rpm
Maximum speed: 15000 rpm
Rated power of single motor: 7.2 W
Maximum power of single motor: 23.8 W
Rated working voltage of single motor: 14.8 V

So from DJI themselves we get some hovering speed value specification. It is now obvious that those speeds or wattage values play a (limit?) role in triggering the error, and that we correctly dissected the issue there.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-28 09:57
“From factory the Mavic Mini is exposed to incorrect storage practices, “

You don’t know that , you completely made it up, scaremongering from the prawn sandwich brigade.

“From factory the Mavic Mini is exposed to incorrect storage practices, “

You don’t know that , you completely made it up, scaremongering from the prawn sandwich brigade.

I don't know that? Clearly for as much time you spend on this forum I'm shocked that you haven't read about all the NEW drones that come out of the box with FLAT props. Oh wait you probably don't read anything from our prop wear thread, because it's been FOUND that FROM FACTORY they are coming out FLAT but I guess they Purposefully flattened their props to make DJI look bad....


EDIT: Let me Ask, why do you have to OWN a mavic mini to talk here?

ABeardedItalian Posted at 5-28 11:45
“From factory the Mavic Mini is exposed to incorrect storage practices, “

You don’t know that , you completely made it up, scaremongering from the prawn sandwich brigade.

I'm going to reply to myself, here's 2 posts from NEW Mavic Mini's with a FLAT prop FROM FACTORY.

Ralle Finland #42

zeb_ US #230

I guess I'm making these posts up :/

EDIT: Not to mention a Confirmed UD on 1.05 but go ahead and keep touting It's been magically fixed.

ABeardedItalian Posted at 5-28 11:45
“From factory the Mavic Mini is exposed to incorrect storage practices, “

You don’t know that , you completely made it up, scaremongering from the prawn sandwich brigade.

Again repeating made up stuff, you have no clue what came out of what factory except what you got yourself. I know what I got and I know what condition it was in that’s it, the rest is speculation to suit a made up theory.

If they are coming out flat and we’re so damaged how come their flying better than they ever did ? You can’t have it both ways if they’re bad then we should be seeing direct result of this badness, not improvements particularly for those who just updated FW. I see the problem for you guys is these craft need to be dropping out of the sky on a daily basis to prove your theory, for me I stopped believing when Hedgetrimmer tried to convince all users that props were invisibly damaged and could only be detected by X-ray . I think they say if it ain’t broke don’t try fix it...

Zbip57 Posted at 5-27 12:32
Do yourself a favour.  Don't listen to people's opinions based solely on something their uncle's, mother's, hairdresser's son reported about how the motor speed warning goes away forever if you reinstall the firmware ten times, or you downgrade to a previous version, or you just look at the props and can't see anything wrong with them.

Do the simple hover test and check your motor speeds.

An idea: have you tried to reshape your 'bad' props and check how that affects the speed? I am curious to see which kind of change in shape, pitch, curve, etc... is important.

ABeardedItalian Posted at 5-28 11:52
I'm going to reply to myself, here's 2 posts from NEW Mavic Mini's with a FLAT prop FROM FACTORY.

Ralle Finland #42

How much damaged was caused by these bad props ? One thing I do remember was zeb was arguing about flat props here for two weeks before he even purchased a mini, and low and behold he gets lucky and draws the props he’s been looking to debate, but when you take into consideration the thousands of minis without any problems with “so called flat props” I’m not sure if I should congratulate or commiserate with him. But I’m wildly surprised that someone would accept this flying trap as a brand new drone, surely you buy a brand new drone with such an obvious problem, and your first thought is to come to the forum “not to complain” but be beside yourself that you got so lucky and had a set of props which you paid good money for to toss in the bin. If he had of asked me what should he do, I would have said ship it back and demand a brand new one, no one should be left out of pocket after paying €400 for something.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-28 13:47
How much damaged was caused by these bad props ? One thing I do remember was zeb was arguing about flat props here for two weeks before he even purchased a mini, and low and behold he gets lucky and draws the props he’s been looking to debate, but when you take into consideration the thousands of minis without any problems with “so called flat props” I’m not sure if I should congratulate or commiserate with him. But I’m wildly surprised that someone would accept this flying trap as a brand new drone, surely you buy a brand new drone with such an obvious problem, and your first thought is to come to the forum “not to complain” but be beside yourself that you got so lucky and had a set of props which you paid good money for to toss in the bin. If he had of asked me what should he do, I would have said ship it back and demand a brand new one, no one should be left out of pocket after paying €400 for something.

I guess we were raised with different values, I grew up in a poor household and if we wanted to get anything nice it had to be Top Tier because we couldn't afford to replace it if it broke, anything we bought had to be repairable to some extent. I remember when my grandpa bought a new ride on lawn tractor, we couldn't get it to start after it was delivered. He could of called and had them come back and replace it, or he took a look around and found that it needed a new spark plug. He contacted them after and they refunded him the difference of the spark plug, he didn't have to go through the effort to have it picked back up when he was more then capable of figuring out what was wrong. I understand buying something and expecting it to Just Work but this is reality and after every few thousand cars/devices/cameras there's bound to be lemons. Would you tell someone that the car they were driving was perfectly safe after it had costed someone their life just because there are thousands of others driving just fine?

I started in the Hobby scene because Everything was replaceable, fixable, serviceable by the user. I could change motors, gears, wheels, tires, batteries, engines, to all various extents in between. The Idea of buying a phone without a replaceable battery KILLS ME, sure I'm able to remove the back glass from my S9 to replace the battery but does that make me any less upset that that's the process I have to do if I want to continue to use my Phone that I paid $799 for 2 years ago? Sure I could bring it to a repair shop and spend whatever they charge for parts + $75 an hour for labor or I could buy the $30 worth of parts (Battery, USBC, Clear Back Cover) and do it myself in half an hour. I'd rather take the 20 minutes and troubleshoot it myself then contact support, it's more valuable to me to fix it myself then send it back, wait, and at the end of the day just get some other refurbed product instead of my known good product I had originally before ever contacting support.

zeb_ Posted at 5-28 12:00
An idea: have you tried to reshape your 'bad' props and check how that affects the speed? I am curious to see which kind of change in shape, pitch, curve, etc... is important.

I have not attempted to reshape the "bad" props.  The Combo kit came with several sets of spare props.  It's not costing me anything extra to now actually use those spares.

When I received the Motor Speed warning telling me to replace the left-rear propeller blades, I first had a close look at all the blades.  I could see nothing wrong with any of them.  Not a single knick, scratch, or blemish.  They looked perfectly fine to me.

I went ahead and replaced the left-rear blades as instructed.  It was only when directly comparing the new blades to the discarded old blades, that I could see the old prop blades had lost pitch angle.  The new blades have visibly more twist to them, whereas the old blades seemed to have flattened out.  The other very obvious difference was in how the new blades stand higher from the Mini's body, as illustrated in the previous photos I posted.

hallmark007 is quick to dismiss any opinions which disagree with his own, and concerning the Motor Speed warning he categorically states that, "You’re right it is a software problem".  On the one hand he declares the warning message is due entirely to the faulty software of the v01.00.0500 firmware, yet on the other hand he praises the exact same firmware version, "since Mavic Mini last FW update the craft has been flying much better."

hallmark007 will have you believe that, "if there is no visibledamage to your prop it’s perfectly fine."  I'm saying, you can't tell just by looking.  You might be able to see a difference only when making a direct side-by-side comparison between an old vs new blade.  But just glancing at the props installed on your Mini won't tell you anything unless there are actual chunks missing from the blades.


hallmark007 insists that the "props are causing no problems to flight, unless of course they are visibly damaged."  My Mini was flying fine. As far as I could tell, the props were causing no problems.  If not for the Motor Speed warning, I would never have suspected that a problem might be imminent.  It would otherwise never have occurred to me change the prop blades to a newer set.

Would the old props have continued to deteriorate and eventually cause a crash?  I can't say for certain.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I can say with absolute certainty, and can demonstrate with actual flight log data plots, that the motors now turn significantly slower with fresh prop blades installed compared to the old original props.  Hallmark007 will probably accuse me of hallucinating or of fraudulently manufacturing fake data with the sole intent of creating hysteria.


hallmark007 says, "I think it’s pretty clear, the prop testing has proven to be a folly".  And yet he never provides any actual proof to back up such declarations.

It is a dead simple process to demonstrate whether the Motor Speed warning is to be trusted, or whether it should be disregarded as an erroneous software bug.  Examine your flight log DAT files and plot the motor speeds.  Or do an even simpler 2-minute hover test and plot the motor speeds.  You can see for yourself, from your very own data (if you don't trust other people's evidence), whether there is any truth to the identified motor turning at higher speeds than it should be.

If you can't see any visible prop damage you could choose to decide the warning is a hoax and it's perfectly fine to continue flying, or you could do a simple hover test to confirm the prop's performance using actual physical data.  It's up to you to decide which is a more reasonable response.  Or if you run out of any meaningful arguments whatsoever, you could always just accuse people of belonging to the, "prawn sandwich brigade", whatever that's supposed to mean???

Zbip57 Posted at 5-28 17:07
I have not attempted to reshape the "bad" props.  The Combo kit came with several sets of spare props.  It's not costing me anything extra to now actually use those spares.

When I received the Motor Speed warning telling me to replace the left-rear propeller blades, I first had a close look at all the blades.  I could see nothing wrong with any of them.  Not a single knick, scratch, or blemish.  They looked perfectly fine to me.

Folly meaning pointless.....to satisfy your own whims.....
I believe you could take many drones from the small to the tall, and get similar results. But a failure on your part to ignore that there has been real improvements with Mavic mini since last FW, and to say this must be proved by data is total rubbish.
I have owned a mini since November last year, I have watched on while we have seen many problems particularly with craft staying up in the air. Some 7 months on, where I used to read of falling minis once a day or craft not returning home, and the many theory’s , not enough pitch, barometer problems, craft to cold to hot, invisibly damaged props, props needing X-ray .
But now it’s a very rare occasion I read of craft failing to Rth or landing in the drink or not having enough power. So as the say the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
But what I have noticed is many new users being scared to fly, thinking they bought a dud, but nothing could be further from the truth. So look around you aren’t saving anyone or anything, and in some cases having quite opposite effect.

https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=216790

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 01:09
Folly meaning pointless.....to satisfy your own whims.....
I believe you could take many drones from the small to the tall, and get similar results. But a failure on your part to ignore that there has been real improvements with Mavic mini since last FW, and to say this must be proved by data is total rubbish.
I have owned a mini since November last year, I have watched on while we have seen many problems particularly with craft staying up in the air. Some 7 months on, where I used to read of falling minis once a day or craft not returning home, and the many theory’s , not enough pitch, barometer problems, craft to cold to hot, invisibly damaged props, props needing X-ray .

OK, yes there have been improvements with the MM since it has been released. I repeat: YES THERE HAVE BEEN IMPROVEMENTS. Happy now?

Now there is a new error message added in the newest FW revision and this is WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. And it is undeniably related to the motor speed (hence the name "Motor Speed Error") and many of us have been trying to understand it and also to interpret the very vague recommendations from DJI about prop shape, quality and storage on the "official" motor error thread. DJI themselves have even communicated about hover motor speeds specifications when queried by a user, so there is little doubt this is important and related to the trigger of the error message.

So thanks for your contribution but we have understood your message you have repeated ad nauseam. You should really move on, stop your ranting, conspiracy theories and personal attacks about family photos or what else, which have absolutely no place here.

zeb_ Posted at 5-29 03:45
OK, yes there have been improvements with the MM since it has been released. I repeat: YES THERE HAVE BEEN IMPROVEMENTS. Happy now?

Now there is a new error message added in the newest FW revision and this is WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. And it is undeniably related to the motor speed (hence the name "Motor Speed Error") and many of us have been trying to understand it and also to interpret the very vague recommendations from DJI about prop shape, quality and storage on the "official" motor error thread. DJI themselves have even communicated about hover motor speeds specifications when queried by a user, so there is little doubt this is important and related to the trigger of the error message.

Why should I move on ? I mean are you in charge here, it seems your tiny group have taken over the mantle to warn others of why this speed warning is happening almost in direct contravention of what dji have posted. I feel this is all a bit rich coming from someone who was nowhere to be seen as so many craft were lost to uncontrolled descent. Maybe show some respect for the many if not the majority who have come to this thread wondering what to do, giving others information that has clearly worked for them, without scaring others into being afraid to fly their drones with made up rubbish about X-raying props etc. allow them the courtesy of figuring out the warning and instruction from dji and hints that come from others who have proven they work. Maybe it’s you who should move on as your futile attempts seem to be confusing and falling on deaf ears.
I have been on this forum for 5 years trying to help others, I’m not a one trick pony, but someone who cares particularly for new users and I’m also careful to giving them advice that is suitable to new users.
It seems if you can submit a gang who believes it’s there way or no way, you then can ask anyone who doesn’t agree with your theory that it’s time to move on. You might need to think about that again, there is no Stasi around here.
The real truth is those repeating and trying to impose their bright ideas on all new comers is doing this ad nauseam, and it’s pretty clear that most new comers and older users are ignoring your follies.

Hallmark007: Listen, I am convinced you are a very experienced drone user and have all the qualities required to advise in this matter. I respect you in that matter. However, in regards to showing respect to others, I do not think you are in the best position to give lessons here. Your level of experience still does not allow you to start flaming or doing personal attacks (accusing someone of stealing family photos, wtf?) Civility is something important and there are many ways to express disagreement.

Now there are factual data that show that swapping props lead to different rpm values, and if DJI were a bit more transparent and less vague about checking props (copying their own satement: "If the propellers are slightly misshapen, can straighten them out", which means little to someone who has the error message on brand new MM or new set of props) we would not have to dissect what they do mean by triggering this error message. Still that does not mean that all MMs are dangerous or fall from the sky, on the contrary.

zeb_ Posted at 5-29 03:45
OK, yes there have been improvements with the MM since it has been released. I repeat: YES THERE HAVE BEEN IMPROVEMENTS. Happy now?

Now there is a new error message added in the newest FW revision and this is WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. And it is undeniably related to the motor speed (hence the name "Motor Speed Error") and many of us have been trying to understand it and also to interpret the very vague recommendations from DJI about prop shape, quality and storage on the "official" motor error thread. DJI themselves have even communicated about hover motor speeds specifications when queried by a user, so there is little doubt this is important and related to the trigger of the error message.

“You should really move on, stop your ranting, conspiracy theories and personal attacks about family photos or what else, which have absolutely no place here.“

Again it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a fact that said member trolled me in private and breached the rules of this forum, which culminated in him stealing personal photographs as well as personal family information and posting directly on this forum.

He is also directly involved here on this thread in conspiring to lead this thread down the tubes. It’s not a coincidence he has continually put forward the idea of X-raying props bad batches of props, invisibly damaged props. He’s here to troll nothing else.

When a member decides to troll another members private life including his family , he needs to be called out.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 04:42
“You should really move on, stop your ranting, conspiracy theories and personal attacks about family photos or what else, which have absolutely no place here.“

Again it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a fact that said member trolled me in private and breached the rules of this forum, which culminated in him stealing personal photographs as well as personal family information and posting directly on this forum.

Then if this is a private matter, then keep it private, inform the moderators and do a formal complaint to the police, especially if this is so serious. But this thread is not the place to discuss this or worse to use them as an excuse to invalidate all the good work reported here. There are 24 pages to this thread with graphs and photos, and one(?) talks about X-ray (could be a joke btw), but plenty of other users show direct data from DJI logs, which I gather do not come out of their imagination.

To go in your direction: my new MM was delivered with slightly flattened LBack props. Still the LBack motor is not struggling and is not even the fastest of the 4. Hence I do not think that the pitch is the important criteria. Still it is undeniable that motor speed changes with prop lots, and this is something to keep in mind in case the motor speed error appears. So that instead of dismissing it as a bug, one can have a way to check if this is real without having to "straigthen props out" as suggested officially by DJI.

zeb_ Posted at 5-29 04:51
Then if this is a private matter, then keep it private, inform the moderators and do a formal complaint to the police, especially if this is so serious. But this thread is not the place to discuss this or worse to use them as an excuse to invalidate all the good work reported here. There are 24 pages to this thread with graphs and photos, and one(?) talks about X-ray (could be a joke btw), but plenty of other users show direct data from DJI logs.

To go in your direction: my new MM was delivered with slightly flattened LBack props. Still the LBack motor is not struggling and is not even the fastest of the 4. Hence I do not think that the pitch is the important criteria. Still it is undeniable that motor speed changes with prop lots, and this is something to keep in mind in case the motor speed error appears. So that instead of dismissing it as a bug, one can have a way to check if this is real without having to "straigthen props out" as suggested officially by DJI.

I have reported to both moderator and police, but the trolling still goes on and much troll baiting on this thread.

I don’t think you realize that many more have ignored your advice to opt for other advice without any repercussions. So don’t dismiss others giving out information that clearly works and that’s my point .

I do know what folly means.  You said, "prop testing has proven to be a folly".  The key word here, underlined and highlighted, is "proven".  How have you proven that prop testing is a folly?


In your opinion Minis are flying better than ever as there are, "real improvements with Mavic mini since last FW", but you feel no need to present proof of that claim either.  Is that your whole argument?  Minis are flying better, thus prop testing is proven to be a follly?

This thread is about the Motor Speed warning.  Hint:  The thread title is, "Motor Speed Warning after 04/2020 Firmware"

You claim the Motor Speed warning can be dismissed by merely looking at the props.  If you cannot see anything visibly wrong with the prop blades, in your opinion that means they're "perfectly fine" and it's safe to dismiss the warning and continue flying.  You have repeatedly stated as fact (based solely on your unproven opinion) that the warning is a software bug in the unreliable and faulty new firmware, the same faulty firmware which in your unproven opinion has otherwise greatly improved the Mini's flying capability.

The Motor Speed Error message explicitly warns of a problem with your propeller blades and specifically identifies the affected motor.


You are encouraging people to ignore a warning message that DJI deliberately added to the new firmware for the user's benefit.  You say a visual inspection is sufficient to prove that the warning is invalid due to faulty software.  You say Minis are flying wonderfully, so there's nothing to worry about.  But worst of all, you state (without proof) that doing an actual test to measure the prop's performance has been "proven to be a folly".

I do hope that most people will recognize your incoherent ramblings  as being utter malarky, but I fear you are doing a dangerous disservice  to those who might actually swallow your preachings.  

If you doubt the vailidity of DJI's warning message, do a simple 2-minute hover test.  Plot the motor  speeds from your flight-log DAT files.  That will demonstrate one way or the other beyond doubt whether the prop is perfectly fine with the Motor Speed warning due to a defective software bug, or whether the affected motor actually is spinning at an excessive rpm.

It is not a pointless folly to satisfy your curiosity with an actual test.  You can cross your fingers and hope a visual inspection is sufficient to prevent a potential future crash, or you can perform an actual test to settle any anxiety generated by the Motor Speed warning.

Never trust anybody's unproven opinions, not even mine.  Do the hover test and prove for yourself whether the Motor Speed warning is valid or not.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 07:00
It seems being a smart @ss and writing complete untruths is now what you have sunken to.

1/Never told anyone to ignore warning, but to follow djis instructions

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 08:00
Ye should get out flying all that hovering can’t be good for ye....LMAO.....

I would like to think I'm a pretty active mini flyer:

ABeardedItalian Posted at 5-29 08:34
[view_image]

I would like to think I'm a pretty active mini flyer:

That’s a lot of flying around the kitchen .....

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 07:00
It seems being a smart @ss and writing complete untruths is now what you have sunken to.

1/Never told anyone to ignore warning, but to follow djis instructions

Evidently you are incapabable of providing proof for anything you say.

"1/ Never told anyone to ignore warning, but to follow djis instructions"

You have on numerous occasions stated that the Motor Speed warning is not reliable, and that in your opinionthe warning is the result of defective software.  You have repeatedly posted your opinion that a visual inspection is sufficient to prove the blades are "perfectly fine".


"2/ Your indoor test could be done with any or many different drones and similar results will come about."

Well, duh, yes!  That's exactly the point of the hover test.  It is a valid and repeatable simple test, the results of which document the relative health of your propeller blades, regardless of which drone you currently fly.

The purpose of the Motor Speed warning is to warn you that your propeller blades are not producing sufficient lift.  The motor needs to run at abnormally higher speeds to compensate for that lack of lift.  Eventually the motor will reach a point where it is no longer capable of running any faster.  That's when you'll see drones dropping from the sky.

The Motor Speed warning, is a "warning".  It is a preemptive warning to tell you it is time to inspect or replace your prop blades.  You say, if they visually look okay, that means they're "perfectly fine".  The Mini may continue to fly perfectly fine and you may not encounter the exact same conditions again which triggered the Motor Speed warning.  None of that proves that the blades themselves are in fact "perfectly fine".

The Motor Speed warning is an explicit indication that something is amiss, and it specifically identifies the suspect motor telling you to replace those propeller blades.  You can trust your cursory visual inspection, or you can do a simple hover test to find conclusive evidence of whether or not that motor is spinning faster than the others.  The simple test can be done with any drone capable of recording motor speeds as part of its logged flight data.  If you prefer, you can even do the hover test outside if you're too afraid to trust indoors the "real improvements" in flight stability from the latest firmware update which you keep harping on about.

"3/ Almost everybody has ignored your plea to test and yet no problems showing, [...]"

It's not a plea.  It's a suggestion.  Whether you choose to verify the condition of your props via a visual inspection or via an actual physical test, is nobody's business but your own.

My only objection is to your continued nonsensical insistence that the Motor Speed warning is invalid, that it is a software defect, and that it can be dismissed with a simple glance at your props if they show no visible damage.  The fact that the Mini may continue to fly normally, even after receiving a Motor Speed warning, only indicates that the props have not yet surpassed a critical level of deterioration.  They may continue to fly fine for now, they even might not trigger another warning, but their condition has already degraded sufficiently to have triggered this warning.

Do a visual inspection and you're only guessing.  Do the hover test and you'll know for sure.

"3/ [...] many say they are scared to fly because the “prawn sandwich brigade” insisting that props are bad even if they Follow dji's instructions as laid out at top of forum."

You keep referring to those instructions, while continually misrepresenting what they actually say.  Here's a link so others can read the actual instructions for themselves. What they say is this;

• When the propellers are bent or damaged, the aircraft propulsion may be reduced and not perform as intended. The new Mavic Mini  propeller safety inspection feature is capable of detecting this  and  sending a notification to the pilot with a “Motor Speed Error” message.
• Please  land the aircraft as soon as possible and check if the corresponding  propellers are visibly damaged, bent, chipped. If the propellers are  slightly misshapen, can straighten them out and retest to ensure the  issue has been resolved. If the propellers show signs of major damage,  chipped or bent, please replace them before flying.
  

DJI's instructions say that the new firmware is capable of detecting whether propellers are under-performing.  Nowhere does DJI say the firmware is defective or unreliable.  DJI says to inspect for visible damage, attempt to straighten, replace the propellers.  Nowhere does DJI say that a visual inspection following the Motor Speed warning can be interpreted as meaning the firmware is defective and that the props are "perfectly fine".  Your opinion is not supported in any way by what DJI actually instructs.


The Motor Speed Error message in DJI's Fly app says, "Motor speed error.  Land or return to home promptly.  After powering off the aircraft, replace the propeller on the beeping ESC. If the issue persists, contact DJI Support."  Nowhere in that message does DJI say, oops my bad, this firmware is obviously defective and your props are "perfectly fine".

You say, "It’s probably time to stop scaremongering and advise users to adopt manufacturers instructions".

You are the one responsible for continually spreading false information.  You are the one telling people to continue flying on props that DJI has detected as being suspect.  You are the one telling people that if the props visibly look okay that is somehow proof that DJI's firmware is defective and the props are "perfectly fine".

I am saying there is a simple hover test that anyone can do at any time to definitively confirm for themselves whether the Motor Speed warning is valid or not.  It is not scaremongering in any way.  It is a simple scientific test to either reasure yourself that your props are indeed perfectly fine, or that they are need of replacement.  A visual inspection is not sufficient to prove anything.

"It seems being a smart @ss and writing complete untruths is now what you have sunken to. [...] “prawn sandwich brigade” "

Whereas you have sunken to calling people names...

Come on you lot i thought we are a comunity ?

i read through this constant tit for tat argueing and wonder what example is being set for anyone new to this forum seeing and reading all the arguing?

Regardless of eachothers strong opionions we are all here for the same reason and that is to get a better more in depth grasp of the equiptment we use.

And to share our flights and experiences and help one another when things go pear shape! And we cant understand something!

i see now people get barated and belittled when asking a question that the more seasoned flyer can answer in a click of a finger, but new members are

to become part of this great comunity they should not be frightened to ask questions at the risk of releasing the wrath of over opinionated members.

Issues will not be solved by arguing ! just imagine the mountains we could all move if we worked together to come up with solutions.

I will say never expect DJI to be self critical and appologise for any mistake with hardware or software issues ! they are a buisness and will protect the brand at all costs!

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 11:18
“Evidently you are incapabable of providing proof for anything you say.”

Before last FW, at least 2/3 craft with uncontrolled descent, now none, but you don’t see that as proof, thats ignorance on your part.

Prop Strike & Possible Uncommanded Decent

JJB Confirming a UD on this users flight.

Yeah, no one's experiencing this anymore. They left the code that causes un-commanded descents on the Flight Controller but It's been fixed in the non-disclosed patch notes...

ABeardedItalian Posted at 5-29 11:50
Prop Strike & Possible Uncommanded Decent

JJB Confirming a UD on this users flight.

Now you’re just getting desperate, I think I was right about one thing, the prawn sandwich brigade wouldn’t be happy until they seen craft go down. It’s a complete miserable thing for anyone to wish or hope for, however you will read many of my posts including above and I made myself clear regarding uncontrolled descents.
I’m also amazed you putting jjb forward here, as he has shown no interest in your ridiculous testing.
But it’s clear now what you’re all wishing for, shame on you, particularly since nothing has been confirmed about this crash but the mob are already claiming it.
I think it shows who’s side people are on.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-29 12:19
Now you’re just getting desperate, I think I was right about one thing, the prawn sandwich brigade wouldn’t be happy until they seen craft go down. It’s a complete miserable thing for anyone to wish or hope for, however you will read many of my posts including above and I made myself clear regarding uncontrolled descents.
I’m also amazed you putting jjb forward here, as he has shown no interest in your ridiculous testing.
But it’s clear now what you’re all wishing for, shame on you, particularly since nothing has been confirmed about this crash but the mob are already claiming it.

Can you do anything but share your delusions? Labroids as well as JJb haven't said anything, why would they? No one's being forced to do any testing, it's cool to share and experiment and plot different points of data. You can do this on a Matrice if you like, it would be cool to see the rpm graphs from other drones but none of that has anything to do with this thread or the Mavic mini.

I don't wish anyone's drone to fall, no one here wants peoples drones to fail, everyone here just wants to fly the mini without a headache. We are discussing if the headache is valid and have come up with a test that can provide factual data to determine the course of action.

I think it's clear for people to understand if the Bad code lives on the FC that it "Could" happen to them but it's not a "WILL" happen to everyone. You said yourself the mini came out 7 months ago, perhaps people aren't coming here because the hot new drone isn't that and now every couple of weeks months people will trickle in reporting issues. It's alright if you want to be blind to these users who will eventually be coming to ask for help but rule it out oh experienced one.

What I've been saying this whole time since the Prop Wear thread has been the CODE STILL REMAINS. Nothing past that, if they don't remove the bad code then People will still experience UD's. You can drown from drinking water, that's a fact but no one thinks of having a drink as something that could kill them but is it possible every time you drink? Yes. Just like the fact that the Bad Code Remains and could effect someones mini, but does that mean it's going to effect everyone's? Yes, it has a the possibility to. You know what else could happen, the pixies inside the battery die prematurely and cause the drone to fall out of the sky but hey that's only a possibility right....

I think we explained the same stuff repeatedly, we all tried our best to be clear and accurate, Hallmark does not agree with what we have done and the conclusions we came to. Fine, let's move on and agree to disagree, it's one user.  I will continue recommending the hover test because I'm fully convinced it's useful and provides a good baseline for people to make educated decisions about their props.

120CCPM, a proud member of the Prawn Sandwich Brigade

120ccpm Posted at 5-29 14:42
I think we explained the same stuff repeatedly, we all tried our best to be clear and accurate, Hallmark does not agree with what we have done and the conclusions we came to. Fine, let's move on and agree to disagree, it's one user.  I will continue recommending the hover test because I'm fully convinced it's useful and provides a good baseline for people to make educated decisions about their props.

120CCPM, a proud member of the Prawn Sandwich Brigade

Seconded!

What's done is done and let's move on, plenty of other things to discuss.

Someone want to make us a Prawn Sandwich Brigade Patch?

It is a blatant lie to say nobody reported elevated rpms when flying outdoor. Actually the very first report of motor error with .DAT graphs was made by grahamjohnson10 from an outdoor flight and it also showed a dramatic changing in rpm after changing the props. Furthermore there have been several similar outdoor data in various threads.

What I can concede is that we do not know how the elevated rpm we see in controlled hovering conditions with some props translates in outdoor and at full speed. However it is still a strong indicator of the lifting power of props under no stress.

I have same issue after firmware update on the left rear motor. Considering this is the second flight in total with no crash at all. I suppose this is a problem given by the last update