You can see time flight and final percentage of battery (P3: final 22% with 16 min flight // P4: final 24% with 19min flight). Both were started with 100% battery.I'm sorry but this has no value for comparing the two since flights were very different.
If the P3 consumes more power to climb to 185m (compared to 122m with the P4) it also consumes less during a longer descent... so there is maybe not a big difference as mentioned above.
An to be sure, it is easy to test with the same quad and the same flight time.
You are right, the Phantom 4 flew a mile farther in distance and the Phantom 3 climbed 63 meters higher, seems it would take a lot more battery to fly a mile than climb 200 something feet up, maybe I am wrong but surely you could submit your own comparison.I'm sorry but this has no value for comparing the two since flights were very different.
Thank you Sinisalo for your suport! We need more people like you...I personally find it to be a good comparison, unless all you naysayers want to do the "scientific" test yourself stop trying to debunk the comparisons people choose to share. I suppose you could get a P3P and a P4, set up an exact waypoint mission and fly the mission 1000 times with each aircraft, then analyze all of the data and figure out what the mean, median, and mode values are. Then you can go to another location that is a different elevation and repeat the test again. Do that for every 1000 feet above sea level and plot all of the data on a graph. Let us know what the real battery flight time differences are, and what effects elevation and wind have, or shut up and don't knock it when other members share.