First affordable USB thrust stand available now!


We are now shipping the RCbenchmark Series 1520. It measures overall efficiency, current, thrust, voltage, and motor speed. The device communicates with our open-source software, which displays and records data, and controls the motor manually or through a scripting system.


Whether you want to increase flight time for aerial photography, or performance for racing, the tool will help you obtain the data you need on your motors, propellers, ESCs, servos and batteries quickly and accurately.


A year ago, I posted here asking if people would be interested in a low cost, automated thrust stand. My colleague and I, both recent graduate from M.Sc. Mech. Eng., developed the Series 1580 dynamometer, and we obtained excellent feedback from a large number of businesses and universities. Many hobbyists asked us for a simpler, more affordable tool. We heard you, and we are now offering the Series 1520 for $165.


Get it at $149 if you order before March 1st! Additionally, for a limited time, we will refund an additional $40 if you post a video review about our tool, which will lower the product’s price to only $109. Check the product page to see if the offer is still valid.

Here are the specs:

  • Voltage (0-35 V)

  • Current (40A continuous, 50A burst)

  • Power (0-1400W)

  • Thrust (±5 kg)

  • Motor speed (100k RPM)

  • Overall efficiency (%)

  • USB interface

  • ESC manual control

  • Three servo control ports

  • Output data to CSV files

  • Real-time sensor plots

  • Automated tests and recording

  • Powerful scripting abilities

  • Safety cutoffs


We want to offer more than a test tool. You might also be interested in our ongoing video tutorial series on motor and propeller theory. For more more information, check out our website or the Series 1520 product page. I will be available here to answer questions on our tools and on motor and propeller testing.


E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • T3

    Darius, it's one thing to offer constructive criticism and it's another thing to criticize every single post that anyone puts up on this site that you show even partial interest in. You're critical of whatever was posted, calling it flawed in any minute way, suggesting whatever you say as ALWAYS being right and better. Even the single blog post you started on the site was to gather opinions regarding how theoretically, Ardu* devs can't fly because of the new FAA regulations, trying to get people to side with your opinion of how you're right about something.

    This is still a DIY site and given cost and time constraints for what people are interested in here, whatever people code, design, or think up and then post about, you find the smallest flaws in everything just because it cannot live up to theoretical calculations or what you think is right. If you think it's possible, then put the information, designs, whatever out there you're proposing is better that is even within a sliver of reach of the typical amateur/hobbyist budget.

    Regarding your most recent post here, you mention design standards and guidelines that should be followed. Care to be ANY help whatsoever and give what those standards and guidelines are or is that an exercise for Charles to perform because you're too good and too smart to post it to us fellow unworthy and less competent individuals?

    You also go off telling him if he wants to offer a professional product blah blah blah. Did he state this was a professional product for absolute motor thrust calculations? It's a trust stand for hobbyists! COME ON! They're only looking to get numbers on motor/prop combos to try to be more efficient without breaking the bank. If people cared for exact specs, they would put the big bucks up for it but how many of us fall into that category other than yourself?

    It makes absolutely NO SENSE for someone like Charles to put in the money and time to design and product something of the caliber of what you purport is a good design and "proper" in your mind. There's absolutely no way he could recover any of those development costs by selling them for $150 and then he has to sell them for a higher cost, to which you would then remark by posting "that's too high for something that simple and I could do it for less and still following known design standards blah blah blah." Of course, you already know all of that but still find ways to clutter up any new post that comes up on the site.

    The constant criticism of every post you make does nothing to help whatever cause you're pushing with the ever critical eye you use to essentially berate anything anyone does here.

  • @Marc, please stop, don't push any more.

    Don't you see, previous version was smarter by design.

    PCB was placed horizontally,  no metal shield obstacle to free air flow.

    If you offer professional product, you should follow some known design standards, guidelines.

    I can donate transducers from electronic scales for tests and a new design development.

  • @Darius. You are insufferable. I am quite sure for $149 that this stand will do exactly what is intended to do within acceptable tolerances. It is one thing to make a suggestion for improvement, but quite another to dogmatically suggest that it is flawed and not fit for purpose.

    In general I would have to say you are getting to the point where you are simply becoming a super nerdy troll and making many comment threads somewhat tedious as we have to skip past your inane posts and cries for attention. 

    Grow up.

  • T3

    Haha, see why I suggested "do not engage"?

    The idea of Darius telling you to remove your product because it does not meet "design and proof-of-concept standards" is laughable.

  • @Darius

    Since we're freely pointing out what we perceive to be flaws, may I [not so] humbly point out a flaw in your personality and approach?  

    Tact...ever heard of it? :)

    Just to humor you (and throw gas on the fire), can you provide evidence that your concerns are substantiated and MATERIAL relative to the product's intended use?  Please show us your data - especially the percent variance from "true" measurements based on real observations that you claim these "bugs" introduce.

  • @Marc,

    sorry Marc but your are not right promoting faulty product directed to amateurs.

    Bugs with Charles' product are easily visible so just ask him to remove this product from sale until bugs are removed and a new corrected design product offered.

    This is not a free product, this is commercial product subject to design and proof-of-concept standards.

    PCB should be mounted horizontally, stainless steel, shield should be removed.

    Any obstacle on the air free flow track should be removed.

    If I am wrong, please correct me.

  • Darius. Seriously. Please stop. Have you nothing better to do.

  • @Charles,


    the central part of the propeller does not contribute as much"

    Just tell me how could I help you since design of your motor thrust stand is not smart.

    How much is much ?

    Measurement results should be reliable.

    Forget your design.

    Mount, attach motor to a tube shaft, remove electric board from a motor and blades as far as posssible to damp vibrations, resonant frequencies, affecting measurements.

    Mount a tube shaft to move freely forward/backward, attach thrust, torque sensors on the other part of the tube shaft and forget "Much".

    You can't offer such product for money since bugs are obvious and visible.

    You refer us to scientific papers but this stand is all against the science - practice and theory.

    Mounting a motor to a lightweight tube shaft  free air flow can assured, no turbulences, no vibrations, no false air flow, no vibrations transferred to electronic board, sensors.

    Since you measure static thrust at fixed RPM, long tube shaft can not affect measurements (50cm). 

    50 cm tube shaft can be easily supported in 3 points

    and forget "much", just deliveery quality, bugs free product.

    You can easily cut stainless steel elements with laser at pocket money

    to offer quality product since the r&d papers referred by you are free from your

    bugs in design and performance, theory and practice.

    Just build another stand next week, free of bugs and please, never put electronic board (PCB) so close to motor, propeller and never let PCB to vibrate.

    Tube shaft is the only way to remove physical obstacles affecting free air flow

    and thrust measurement data in your case.

    Airframe arm, suggested earlier, is not a smart idea since plastic arm can generate false data.

    Metal tube shaft can easily transfer thrust force to sensors attached on the opposite side not affecting measurement data.

    Trust me, large wind turbines are affected by infrasonic vibrations transmitted through the ground kilometers away to rural residents exactly due to tower construction, high and propeller, turbine mounting standards, stimulating RPM x 3 infrasonic frequency.

    There is no way to build and install such long shaft with large wind turbines due to precession.

    In your case, propeller's diameter is low to generate precession at high speed so

    tube shaft can be 50cm long.

  • @Tobias Unfortunately, the central part of the propeller does not contribute as much. Blade speed is proportional to the radius, and area covered is proportionnal to the radius. Thrust is proportional the square of the air speed. Those are not the only factor, but a dimensional analysis shows that thrust as a function of distance to the shaft r is at the very least r^2. If your are interested in actual measurement, you can look at this paper (section 5.4 specially) using PIV and CFD. For general experimental propeller test, this is also a good paper. 

  • Interesting. Is "most thrust from the tip" also true for propellers like the Graupner shapes for example? They have really large pitch near the hub and lower pitch near the tips. I would have thought that the thrust is relatively even along the blade radius. Larger pitch compensating for the slower tangential blade speed near the hub.

This reply was deleted.