Ideal Motors for Quadcopters:

While searching for the Ideal motors I figured out few things which will give smooth flight and long battery life

1. Should be low Kv

2. Should have enough torque. May be the motors with more outer dia are better

3. Should have very low weight

4. Should be using very low current while on low load. but spinning bigger props

5. CNC light weight casings

6. Should be using Neodmium high temp magnets

7. High quality lamination 0.2mm stator sheet for high temp operation

8.High quality motor shaft.

Or anything else

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join diydrones


  • Developer

    Just look my picture gallery... theres a lot of pictures. Videos for those are really boring as they are noisy and windy :)

    Here is just one example pic...our engineer Gap is running tests for few motors:


  • @ jani. Some pictures of all these motors and testing of them would be cool, maybe even some video. :)
  • Developer

    Andrew, answer is yes/no. As always we at jDrones are working with several motor companies and we have huge amount of motors that we are testing and modifying for our needs. Currently we have several motors in test/modify program. 

    Good thing on those motors is that they do not use so much of current but bad thing is that they also do not create lift like what our normal motor does. Another good thing is that we can swing 15-16" propellers with those. 

    Mainly those big motors gives massive torque but with small rpm so they need big propellers too.

    Just as example, one of our test motor gave results like this: 15" Carbon Prop., 60% power output, 2.45Amp, Thurst 438gr. Same motor with 70%, 3.69Amp, 635gr and so on

    After all tests and modifies are fully done, we will have best ones of those in store.

    jDrones, R/C UAVs and More....
    Manufacturer of ArduCopter frames and parts. Custom airframe manufacturing, Custom design services for all your R/C UAV needs
  • more polls == better speed control == more stable multicopter.

    Sizing motors will always be a problem since they need to be matched to the props being used. Otherwise, you're just wasting watts or over heating (ESC or motor)

    A set of motor specs (basically a Kv range) should be developed first as a start IMO:

    motors for a

    10x4.5 (2 blade)



    9x5 (3 blade)

    7x6 (2 blade)

    are the most common props to start with since you can get them off the shelf.

  • So are those motors I see which are flatter and have more poles better for Quads, they are more 'pancake' looking than the normal motors - they would be more suitable for quads?

  • Items 1-4 are not objectively good: it is entirely possible to have those numbers go *too far* for a given AUW, number of motors, prop, and voltage. Finding the optimal solution involves varying these numbers along with props.

    In the end, the bottom line of all this tuning is to maximize either endurance or maneuverability. Minutes aloft down to a certain battery discharge is the only objective, apples for apples means of comparison.
  • challenge is the middle ground, right pricing for right charactestics. I assume if there was enough of multirotor market we should see market evolving in that direction. As of now, there is gap for motors of good quality between 200<x<400 watts, the price gap between 100-200 watt to 400-500 watt is non linear...

  • By the way what is the benefit of having more poles in such a motor

  • Jani: I think 80$ should not be an issue but quality is the prime reason.

    Johann: I think most people fly quads around 1.5Kg flying weight. So If we take this as reference what is your suggestion

  • Developer

    Yes like johann said (he's referring our earlier discussions), every different frame type needs motor/propeller/esc combination that is properly scaled for that device and to main flying area.

    It's really different to fly on close to sea level than flying on himalayas on high altitudes. Light/Heavy weights, windy/no wind and so on. 

This reply was deleted.