Browsing Xianyu at 5 AM: The Third Racket I’ll Receive
In the previous analysis of Li Ning’s three major mid-range and low-end series, the AERONAUT series stood out in terms of popularity. Although the Energy series had a few supporters, it couldn’t compare with the WS series. As for the AERONAUT series, based on the scores from the equipment database, the rackets are indeed good, inheriting the legacy of the old Li Ning AirStream, but they have remained largely unnoticed.
Among them, the AERONAUT 6000 is relatively more recognized, while the AERONAUT 5000 and 4000 have become rather obscure. I wanted to see if these lesser-known rackets have any potential.
Specifications: 3U G5, no grip, total weight in use 92g, balance point 305mm, shaft length 215mm, medium to soft flexibility, box frame, 72-hole stringing, 9-3 point string grooves, tension warranty 30lbs, strung with N68 at 26lbs.
The mid-range racket frame has only one pair of air tunnels, which makes it quite recognizable. The current color scheme is black, purple-red, indigo, and emerald green. I feel like I’ve used a racket with this color combination before, but I initially thought it was the 7000B, which I haven’t actually used. This design looks very familiar, but I can’t place it at the moment. The appearance is indeed youthful and vibrant, but only to a certain extent. Generally, Li Ning’s paint quality is very reliable, but unfortunately, the previous owner of this racket didn’t take good care of it.
Don’t be intimidated by the balance point and specifications; once you hold it, you’ll discover that the AERONAUT 5000 is a “sugar water” racket. It’s head-heavy, has a long shaft, and is relatively soft in stiffness. Although the swing weight is slightly heavier, it feels very satisfying to simply lift the racket and send the shuttle flying. Unlike the holding feel caused by a soft frame, the prolonged shuttle stay on the AERONAUT 5000 is mainly due to the shaft, but the shaft’s elasticity is not disappointing. Moreover, the slightly boxy frame provides a reassuring sense of direction, and after a brief period of adjustment, you can consistently hit the shuttle near the back service line during high clear drills.
Despite the heavier swing weight, it doesn’t feel cumbersome, much like the AERONAUT 9000, which might truly be an advantage brought by the air tunnels.
If you don’t mind the soft shaft, this racket is full of “sugar water” feel. Recently, the reason why I’ve been in poor form is mainly due to constantly switching between entry-level and high-end rackets, where the vast differences in feel lead to long adaptation periods and a lack of enjoyment. However, with the recent use of the Star Shadow and AERONAUT 5000, I’ve realized that I need to “replenish some sugar.”
The head heaviness drives the shuttle downward, and the shaft’s flexibility is easy to harness, with good elasticity and a high degree of compatibility with the head heaviness, without a dragging hitting feel. Although the feedback is not particularly direct, the power of smashes is still decent, reminiscent of the old Li Ning rackets that felt soft but solid. The shots have both weight and speed, and the sweet spot is relatively large, making it easy to control. The disadvantage of the heavier swing weight, which increases physical exertion, is compensated by the lower power requirement.
Of course, in a doubles match, continuous defense against smashes can be challenging. While it’s not a problem to defend one shot, using the racket’s stable shot-making and decent power to lift the shuttle to an appropriate position, as the opponent continues to smash, the shaft and head start to wobble, and the ongoing swing weight makes it increasingly difficult to lift the shuttle, especially when trying to recover from body shots.
In drive exchanges, the typical disadvantages of a soft shaft and head-heavy racket persist. The added swing speed from the air tunnels isn’t quite sufficient, and the holding feel is indeed present. Even though the swing speed feels relatively friendly during proactive shots, it becomes strenuous as the pace increases.
At the time, I treated it as a smaller version of the AERONAUT 9000; this is a mid-range racket suitable for both singles and doubles. I never quite understood the hype around the Blade 500, although it’s indeed a reliable choice with its own distinct drawbacks. After initial trials with other mid-range series, I believe that from the perspectives of ease of use and performance, it’s a similarly good choice. There’s no need to chase after overpriced products just because they’re highly sought after.
The “C” in “C for Combat” is generally regarded as a tuning version in the mid-generation Li-Ning products that emphasizes downward attacking power, and it doesn’t have much to do with the release sequence. For the AERONAUT 4000C, which was launched in 2017 alongside the AERONAUT 4000 as a mid-range model, it was designed with an attacking racket mindset from the start. Above it is the AERONAUT 5000, which I have used, and it genuinely has a strong downward attacking feel and offensive performance.
There are two reasons for this: First, it was released earlier, and second, it was positioned between two numerical models. Rackets that are caught in this “in-between” position often face unclear positioning and marketing challenges.
Specifications:
3UG5
Stripped weight: 88.81g
Balance point: 311mm
Shaft length: 218mm
Stiffness: Medium
Box frame
AERONAUT at 4 and 8 o’clock positions
72-hole string bed
Grooves at 9-3 o’clock positions
Warranty: 30lbs
String tension: 25-26lbs (BG65TI)
As expected for a racket released around the same time, the AERONAUT 4000C differs from the AERONAUT 4000 only in the color of the water decals, changing from the latter’s golden yellow to red to highlight the racket’s aggressive nature. The details in appearance and technological applications do not need further elaboration, as even the shaft may not have been adjusted and was directly carried over from the AERONAUT 4000. However, after returning to the standard length of 675mm (note the distinction between standard and long length), it does look a bit more pleasing.
This should be a typical 3U, head-heavy racket. Within the AERONAUT series, which primarily focuses on balance, you could indeed consider the 4000C as an attacking racket based on its specifications. However, although the 4000C does feel somewhat heavy when first picked up, I found that it became much lighter and quicker after warming up, similar to the AERONAUT 9000, which looks heavy but doesn’t feel heavy in use. Even though it’s marked as 3U, I suspect the empty weight is just barely 85g. So, compared to the AERONAUT 5000, it still feels more like the AERONAUT 4000B.
Moreover, unlike the AERONAUT 5000, the 4000C has a slightly higher stiffness, so the “sweet and smooth” feel I experienced with the 5000 is somewhat diminished with the 4000C. During warm-up with clears, I didn’t feel much feedback from it. The elasticity is good, the drive is friendly, the sweet spot is consistent, the power delivery is smooth, the shot placement is acceptable, the shuttle release is stable, but my ears got a bit tired of the same sound.
The 4000C’s attacking performance is decent, capable of producing high shuttle speed in smashes, but it doesn’t give a winning feel—the smashes aren’t powerful enough. Even though the “C” suffix in Li-Ning’s previous generation products typically indicates a tuning more focused on offense, using the 4000C felt similar to using the AERONAUT 600C, which is also relatively balanced. However, the AERONAUT 600C has a stiffer shaft and a more decisive shuttle release. When compared to the AERONAUT 300C, the 4000C does feel lighter, and it’s hard to say which of the two has superior attacking efficiency.
At the same time, I’m not sure why I kept hitting the net during some perfect smash opportunities at the start. It could be due to the lower string tension or possibly an issue with the racket’s torsional resistance—the former seems more likely. Who knows how much tension loss has occurred?
During drives and blocks, the delay in shuttle release is less noticeable than with the AERONAUT 4000, and the racket’s swing weight didn’t significantly compromise its maneuverability. In fast-paced exchanges, as long as the racket is set up in time, it can easily follow through to the next shot, although the recovery speed of the long shaft can be a limiting factor. So during the trial, I wasn’t too worried about being targeted at my body and could focus more on following up at the net.
In defense, the racket can reliably block every smash from the opponent, but in backhand returns, the escape efficiency isn’t very high, likely due to the shaft’s elasticity and the swing weight.
Lastly, I initially thought it might be more suitable for singles, especially after stringing it with BG65TI, but its weight makes it a bit challenging for men to use in singles—maybe women could manage better. I was surprised that my experience with the racket didn’t match the reviews, where most opinions aligned with my expectations before the trial. Did I improve?
In any case, this is a relatively user-friendly entry-level AERONAUT racket. There’s no need to feel intimidated by the “C” suffix. But if I had to choose among the three brothers, I would still prefer the AERONAUT 4000B. The AERONAUT 4000 trilogy concludes here.
It’s common to start something on a whim and then find yourself unable to backtrack, like when I enjoyed the Fengdong 4000B and Fengren 300 so much that I wanted to explore the entire series’ performance differences. This leads to new small goals.
Not every adjusted version is perfect, so it’s important to approach sharing and selling with a balanced mindset. It’s okay to incur losses, struggle, and remain busy despite challenges.
Specifications:
4UG5, no grip, total weight in use: 93.0g
Balance point: 300mm
Full length: 670mm
Shaft length: 210mm
Stiffness: Medium
Box frame
72-hole string bed
9-3 o’clock grooves
Tension warranty: 30 lbs
Strung with VBS70P at 25-26 lbs
This racket, like other second-hand mid-range models, shows average condition as previous users likely didn’t treat it as carefully as high-end rackets. This model, lacking a suffix, is from the earliest batch of the series (2017). Its black base paint and yellow stickers, with minimal decoration, give it a dull appearance compared to the later 4000B (2019). The shaft’s design hasn’t changed much, but the total length of 670mm is shorter than mainstream models, which might be an attempt to adapt to doubles play, similar to the 88S’s approach.
Despite being marked as 4U, it feels more like a 3U racket when swung. The low-end model typically features two wind tunnels, and the impact on swing speed is minimal. I personally agree with the idea that “making a hole is not as effective as thinning the frame.” The shorter shaft increases the difficulty of driving, with a wooden feel when fully utilized. The head has some weight, and the large sweet spot of the string bed is still accessible, but the overall enjoyment of hitting isn’t very pronounced.
In terms of feel, it remains in the balanced racket category, with a noticeable ball-holding sensation, likely due to the VBS70P string.
The racket is responsive and performs well in terms of torsion resistance and tolerance. Small net shots have a solid feel, and switching to a string similar to the BG80 could further enhance the feel. Defensive play is decent, with stable reception and reasonable agility, but it lacks clarity in soft net play and is not my preferred type.
Comparing it to the Fengdong 9000, which excels across various aspects with a balanced score of 85-90, the Fengdong 4000 feels more like a 60. The shortcomings of the 4000 compared to the 4000B don’t offer significant benefits. For instance, the shorter shaft doesn’t improve continuity or endurance; while the heavy smash feels good, subtle differences in performance make users more cautious in the backcourt, focusing on controlled attacks rather than aggressive smashes. This analysis suggests that while the Fengdong 4000 may refine one’s game approach, it doesn’t provide the most enjoyable experience.
Regarding opponent control, the 4000 performs well due to its directional accuracy and feel, particularly with high clearances and net shots. Although it may lack communication between player and racket in long-distance shots, its placement is generally satisfactory.
However, in fast exchanges and flat shots, its slightly head-heavy balance and slow string bed response negate the agility advantages of its 4U specification. It lacks the nimbleness needed for quick responses, often resulting in defensive play rather than proactive reactions.
Overall, the Fengdong 4000 isn’t particularly standout. However, according to the principle of dialectical unity, its imperfections might help in refining one’s doubles strategy, serving as a useful training tool. Technologically, it features multi-point composite carbon fiber reinforcement, mechanical optimization of the frame, aerodynamic cross-section system, superconducting nano, hot melt glue, elastic torsion, and high rigidity thin shaft, but it essentially represents a mid-range balanced racket in a major brand’s lineup.
Some things are a bit awkward to admit, such as Tenga’s suction power or Chun Shui Tang’s texture; similarly, it’s not easy to admit that my skills in badminton are lacking or that some prestigious rackets fall short of expectations.
I’ve never been fond of using discontinued old rackets, especially from brands like L and Y. They’re often hyped up, with much less discussion about their actual performance, and their value can be extremely polarized. Rackets endorsed by stars see their prices soar, while those without such endorsements languish. Worse still, for someone like me who has a high demand for modern feel, these rackets often come across as outdated, even crude. This is clearly reflected in the N553. Having updated from the N553, I feel I’ve done it justice.
Specifications: 3UG5, no grip, total weight in use is 95.0g, balance point 320mm, shaft length 210mm, stiffness on the higher side, box frame, 72-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock grooves, 28 lbs tension warranty, strung with XB63 at 25-27 lbs.
Although the manufacturing technology at the time was not very advanced, the appearance of old Li-Ning rackets had a “classic” charm. The paint quality was already top-notch. The N553 is like a purple-gold sword, with the head and blue-purple areas at 4 and 8 o’clock creating a layered effect, complemented by a pearlescent finish. The shaft is mostly gold, reflecting both the aesthetic preferences of the time and its status as the flagship of the Air Stream series. As the predecessor to the AERONAUT series, the wind tunnel design is the most eye-catching feature. Although it also boasts six wind tunnels like the 9000I, it uniquely places two at the head of the racket—a rarity.
The impact of the wind tunnel on the racket’s frame structure has always been a topic of discussion, especially at the head. It seems the idea at the time was rather crude—if the wind tunnel design is prone to damage, why not strengthen the structure? Consequently, I suspect the racket’s heavy swing weight is partly due to the additional material used at the head. Indeed, while the wind tunnel was meant to reduce wind resistance and increase swing speed, the 553’s swing weight is notoriously high, making the swing speed unsatisfactory for me.
When some players described it as Li-Ning’s greatest weapon, I anticipated this situation.
There’s no doubt this is a racket that requires good physical fitness and strength to fully utilize. Although it offers a strong leverage feel, producing powerful shots in slow-paced games, the sweet spot’s explosiveness isn’t very concentrated, and the shaft’s elasticity is quite poor. Officially described as having a soft shaft, it actually feels much harder, making the N553 difficult for me to use. I had to force myself to use it for a week, slowly adapting, and only felt comfortable using it in lower-level mixed doubles.
The philosophy of “heavy is strong” is simple and blunt, but its solid feel is beneficial for controlling small balls. Net returns are easily stabilized, and after targeted practice, the racket can deliver precise net shots.
For smashes, the N553 felt too wooden for me. I couldn’t generate a driving feeling, and when given an opportunity for a heavy smash, it felt like swinging a hammer—emotionless, with no real connection to the racket. Sometimes, due to slow swing speed, accuracy was an issue, pushing me to move faster to get into position. Occasionally, I managed to smash through the opponent’s defense, but that was only when they made a poor return and I didn’t need to move much. Focusing solely on the maximum potential for smashes while ignoring the limitations it brings in prolonged play isn’t a rational approach.
Surprisingly, I found it more effective for overhead shots. Although it is heavy and might cause injuries for beginners with improper technique, the N553’s strong smash feel makes for very sharp and precise placement, significantly improving shot quality.
Handling defensive shots and flat exchanges feels the same. The massive swing weight leaves me struggling, and unlike the 2nd generation, it doesn’t compensate with better face performance or reduced wind resistance. The N553 is a racket that demands the user’s skill.
I indeed struggled with it and believe it’s unnecessary for non-collectors to invest in it due to its many limitations. However, it might be like “luosifen” (a type of Chinese noodle dish)—some will love it, while others will steer clear.
“Beautiful exteriors are everywhere, but interesting souls are rare”—who said this? While the latter part is undeniable, I still have a soft spot for attractive designs.
For many beginners choosing a racket, beauty alone isn’t enough; it also needs to come from a reputable brand. Before one’s skills improve, having equipment that looks good can help make a good impression. On top of that, if the racket is also easy to use, durable, and versatile, that would be perfect.
Wanting it all might seem a bit much, right? The result of wanting too much is often that one ends up like me, having spent over 400 on a low-end racket, the Tianfu.
However, after a productive weekend, I think I might actually have an option to offer…
Specifications: 3UG5, factory grip, total weight in use is 95.65g, balance point is 293mm, shaft length is 220mm, medium to low stiffness, box frame, 72-hole string bed, 5 and 7 o’clock air vents, 9-3 o’clock grooves, 30 lbs tension warranty, strung with Li-Ning No. 5 string at 26 lbs.
Does Li-Ning have a thing for red? Obviously, even the factory logo has a Chinese red background, not to mention the color schemes from their glory days with the N55. Although the AERONAUT 4000B is a mid-range model, it continues the red theme, which reminds me of how many players couldn’t resist the aesthetics of the Energy 80. Apart from the similar color, the proud paint quality of the “red” brand is also present in this racket—fine, refined, with a touch of metallic feel, and strong enough. Aside from the gold stickers, the frame has a subtle dark pattern that’s worth noting.
The 3U weight might discourage some players, but honestly, wanting a racket that is from a big brand, looks good, and is both powerful and fast—come on, be realistic. Although it’s a 3U, the AERONAUT series focuses on control, and for the B-suffix model, the 293mm balance point is quite friendly. It feels solid in hand and doesn’t suffer from excessive swing weight that makes it hard to handle. The 72-hole string bed ensures a large sweet spot. While the swing speed isn’t outstanding, the two air vents still provide a smooth feeling during swings, so be content with that.
Try hitting some clears; for male players over 14, if you can’t get the shuttle to the baseline with proper technique, consider me defeated. The response of the shuttle on the string bed isn’t extremely crisp, with some dwell time indicating the shaft’s lower stiffness. But considering the robust shaft, it’s expected to have the common issue of a wooden feel, seen in many of Li-Ning’s previous models.
I haven’t had much time to get used to it before using it in a match.
Looking at it, the B represents a more balanced model in the family. Honestly, it reminded me of the feel of the AERONAUT 900B, even though the wind resistance and swing weight aren’t particularly low. It feels quite agile and stable for flat exchanges, making it not too difficult to handle, especially for a male mixed doubles player standing further back. Many shots under pressure can be handled with a backhand.
Not just for flat exchanges, the slightly tacky string bed of this racket also helps in delivering precise net shots or smashes that can turn defense into offense. It has a bit of a grip feel for handling small balls, and after adapting to the 4000B, I occasionally manage to replay from low positions or even challenge myself to practice transitioning from the back to the front.
Some players in my group find it slightly heavy. Generally, a heavier racket affects defense the most, but with the 4000B, I can still defend effectively—reach and retrieve shots, and smash hard without issue. Among 3U rackets, this one is quite friendly.
I know you like smashing. To be responsible, this racket is the most comfortable and efficient for smashes among all the rackets I tested on the day of the review. Compared to the Small Devil, it has a smaller backswing and follow-through; compared to the Speed 98K, its directional accuracy is higher; and compared to the NF800, it’s easier to drive. I’m not saying it’s better than the other three, but when I reached the high point, the AERONAUT 4000B really stood out. The feel at impact is solid, with fast and powerful smashes that are hard for opponents to return. The only discomfort was that the trajectory of the shuttle was flatter than with other rackets, perhaps due to its balanced setup. But the issue of not finding the high point is neither its fault nor an unadjustable problem. In terms of downward pressure, the AERONAUT 5000 offers a stronger sensation, but it’s not commonly used.
Here’s a tip: After a couple of strong smashes that make your opponent wary, a high clear and a drop shot work even better.
I understand many beginners prefer to use rackets from the major brands even before their skills are fully developed. They’re not looking for cost-effectiveness or high quality—just the brand logo gives them confidence against criticism. On top of that, if the racket is also aesthetically pleasing, that’s even better. And if it performs well, that’s perfect.
In my opinion, it’s possible, but you’ll need to spend more. Otherwise, consider the 4000B. It’s up to you.
Didn’t I mention that I’ve already tried out the flagship rackets from the three major brands last year? The only one left from the “red” brand is their former flagship, which I haven’t gotten around to yet. I doubt many readers would have guessed that it’s the AERONAUT 9000I.
The reason I’ve delayed writing about it for so long is simple: I didn’t know how to describe it. The “red” brand has always been rather obsessive when it comes to making 5U rackets, especially when the idea of balancing offensive power becomes so prominent. This often requires an extremely high balance point and the best shaft available at the time, which can lead to poor overall coordination of the racket.
While the AERONAUT 900I from a different series gave me a great experience, the 9000I did not.
Specifications: 5UG6, factory grip, total weight in use is 89.91g, balance point is 320mm, shaft length is 210mm, medium stiffness, box frame, 72-hole string bed, full groove, 30 lbs tension warranty, strung with XB63 at 25-27 lbs. This racket has been on the market for quite some time, and as it garnered widespread comments labeling it as a “hammer,” the AERONAUT 9000I increasingly resembled the two hammers of the mythical figure, Leizhenzi. The black base coat and purple-green stickers have become its hallmark. Of course, as a flagship model, it boasts many refined details, including embellishments along the outer edge of the frame, decorations on the inner side, a matte finish, gold lettering, and the bright red Li-Ning logo at the T-joint, which adds a touch of mysterious prestige to the racket. Is it visually appealing? At the very least, it’s a racket that sticks in people’s minds—a specialty of the “red” brand. But trust me, the more stickers there are, the more likely they are to develop imperfections.
Although many people say that the head-heavy 5U setup is overly stubborn, to me, after experiencing rackets like the AERONAUT 900I, Dragon Tooth, and VTFB, it doesn’t seem that strange anymore. The shaft is slightly stiffer, and the head heaviness is moderate to high, resulting in a noticeable feeling of power transfer. The feedback from the racket upon hitting is quite “solid,” with a certain sense of power. Under this setup, the shaft’s responsiveness is still apparent, allowing for some elasticity, and for basic clears, many players might find it adaptable.
The key issue is how much offensive advantage this setup provides and to what extent it balances speed and maneuverability.
Let’s start with the latter. The oversized swing weight means it requires more backswing space when making strokes with just the forearm and fingers, which puts it at a disadvantage in extended rallies, especially during flat exchanges in doubles. I’m still puzzled as to how Yuta Watanabe managed to achieve results with the 9000I. Although the racket itself is relatively light and the swing speed in the latter part of the stroke isn’t slow, I found that before fully adapting to its quirks, I would occasionally miss or frame the shuttle when I needed to react quickly to intercept or block my opponent’s shots.
Moreover, during the complete swing motion, the 9000I tends to have a “runaway” feeling during deceleration, with a noticeable wobble at the frame when trying to stop the racket. This negatively affects continuity. Fortunately, the 210mm long handle allows for an adjusted grip position to mitigate this issue.
Now, let’s talk about the former. The downward pressure of the racket is perfectly fine. When you take the shuttle at a high point and hit, you can clearly feel the frame wrapping around the shuttlecock and smashing it downward, producing a trajectory that is low and sharp. This makes the 9000I incredibly effective for controlled smashes and slices, but in terms of raw offensive power, the lightweight disadvantage is not easily offset by the high-mass frame. When the opportunity to fully exert force arises, it still feels like the energy is insufficient, and it’s challenging to penetrate the opponent’s defense fully.
That said, using the 9000I to maintain downward pressure doesn’t require much effort to produce a decent suppressive shot, which I find quite beneficial. It allows for more energy-saving play, as long as you have the patience to keep up.
The racket excels in providing a solid feel for control. Due to its relatively heavy feel for a 5U racket, it offers a firmer touch than many 4U rackets, contributing to very stable shot quality during net play. In the backcourt, drops and slices continue to benefit from the good characteristics of its downward shots, with sufficient margin for error and often high-quality, close net shots.
As for handling defensive and passive shots, although this is an extreme racket, its performance in these areas is quite average—neither particularly good nor bad.
Initially, the prevalence of counterfeit versions of this racket made me hesitant to try it out, and it also poses a significant risk for those interested in purchasing the AERONAUT 9000I.
Moreover, I personally find the AERONAUT 9000 to be much better. As mentioned above, what feature does the 9000I have that the 9000 doesn’t? I really don’t understand the rationale behind cramming tasks that a 3U racket naturally handles well into a 5U frame. Didn’t they consider that players who can’t manage a 3U racket might not be able to fully utilize the potential of this 5U racket either?
This racket not only stands out in the AERONAUT 9000 series for its impressive offensive capabilities but has also accompanied Zheng Siwei in his relentless journey of success. Based on its popularity and reputation, it aligns well with my initial understanding of it.
Despite its widespread use and stable price, which has never plummeted, I hesitated to try it out for a long time. Sometimes, when I see fellow players using it, I feel too shy to ask to borrow such an expensive racket. I’m grateful to a friend for sharing their equipment.
Specifications: 3UG6, with towel grip removed, total weight in use is 93.86g, balance point 310mm, shaft length 210mm, medium stiffness, box-shaped frame, 72-hole stringing, 9-3 point grooves, 32 lbs string tension, strung with 26-28 lbs BS720.
The visual design of the racket is quite impactful. The color choices—deep blue, bright blue, and scarlet—have a distinctly Chinese style, reminiscent of the glaze on ancient artifacts carefully restored by archaeologists, making it highly recognizable. Some players mentioned that this design is reminiscent of the AT900T from the green factory but with a brighter tone, which I admit is beyond my knowledge. However, due to this distinctiveness, the racket has become a prime target for counterfeiters.
Although I knew this was a 3U racket with a bias toward offensive play, my initial impression didn’t overwhelm me. No doubt, it has slightly higher swing weight compared to the AERONAUT 9000, but overall, it still falls into the category of balanced rackets. If its current weight distribution were reduced to a 4U specification, it wouldn’t feel much different from the Zhan Ji 6000 I previously tested in terms of an empty racket experience.
The shaft isn’t overly stiff, comparable in quality to its siblings. When handling incoming shots, the ability to borrow force is clear, and it’s easy to drive and feel the shaft’s flex in the AERONAUT 9000C. The feedback from hitting the shuttle isn’t much different from the AERONAUT 9000; in fact, it’s quite user-friendly, with a slightly sweet spot, making it easy to get used to. The box-shaped frame also provides good torsional resistance, performing well in directional control, allowing for precise placement in the small back corners of the court.
People often say that the AERONAUT technology enhances swing speed. Since Fat Tiger has already done a control variable experiment, I won’t delve into whether the AERONAUT frame or a box frame with the same projected area is better. At least in doubles, on a day when I was in good form, the racket allowed for fast-paced exchanges. Although the increased swing weight reduces agility, the longer grip effectively prevents the generation of large moments of force.
However, the feel of the racket face isn’t typical or aggressive. Unlike the trendy “hit and go” feel, the AERONAUT 9000C has a noticeably more pronounced hold on the shuttle. But this isn’t an excuse, as Zheng Siwei has transitioned from the AERONAUT 9000C to the Duora 10 LT and now the Arcsaber 11 Pro. It’s also said that he prefers the BG65 string, indicating that racket face characteristics are more about personal preference than specific scenarios.
In the attack department, which is its proudest aspect, the AERONAUT 9000C gave me a rather “average” experience. The racket imparts energy to the shuttle through both gravity and elasticity, with a nearly equal balance. As one of Li-Ning’s best shafts at the time, its performance is still solid today but slightly behind current standards. I’m not sure if it was intentional, but within the 9-series, the Windstorm’s ferocity is indeed more apparent than the AERONAUT’s, giving more confidence in shots.
That said, the downward pressure feel of the AERONAUT 9000C is slightly higher than that of the AERONAUT 9000. When exerting full power for heavy smashes, the shaft’s flex is less pronounced than the AERONAUT 9000, with a more resistant feel, allowing you to sense the whip-like motion at the end of the swing, especially in the racket head. Using stiffer strings might maximize the power output. It’s not difficult to execute smashes, and both downward pressure and power reach a certain level, making it sufficiently aggressive. However, to deliver a truly threatening shot, the player needs to rely on their own skill and maintain a continuous flow.
Even though it bears the C suffix, I haven’t seen any fellow players around me instantly unlock their heavy smash or continuous downward pressure capabilities after switching to the AERONAUT 9000C. The retail version of the AERONAUT 9000C is still fundamentally a relatively balanced racket with some offensive specialties. After using several other AERONAUT rackets, I don’t find the AERONAUT 9000C to have any outstanding qualities. Moreover, its series-specific hold on the shuttle gives me more confidence in net play, rear-court slices, and slides, leading to a slightly better impression in controlling tempo changes on the court.
Based on this understanding, after using all four AERONAUT 9000 siblings, I might still find myself missing the days spent with the AERONAUT 9000 the most.
There is no best racket, only the most suitable one.
Choosing a racket that fits your power style and playing technique greatly aids in performance. Although brands offer various detailed classifications of products, when players make their selection, they may still face some awkwardness. Sometimes, even rackets labeled as offensive by the brand can produce vastly different experiences in the hands of different players. Enthusiasts who chase these differences find joy in buying and testing new rackets, while average players might struggle, just wanting to find a racket that suits them…
In this review, the Badminton Central Review Room presents a joint evaluation of Li-Ning’s newly launched AERONAUT series: AERONAUT 9000, AERONAUT 9000C, and AERONAUT 9000D. We hope this will help players in their racket selection.
Introduction
“AERONAUT” can also be understood as “Wind Tunnel.” The frame of the AERONAUT series is an improvement on the fluid box frame design, which has been tested in the market for many years. The lower part of the racket frame is slightly thicker, enhancing hitting stability, and features four airflow channels to reduce wind resistance during swings. This airflow channel design is somewhat similar to the spoilers on cars and airplanes, which guide the airflow to the rear of the high-speed moving object, reducing the negative pressure at the tail during high-speed movement, thereby decreasing motion resistance and increasing aerodynamic stability.
In simple terms, the AERONAUT series frame is an upgrade of the classic box frame, offering excellent hitting stability.
This time, the AERONAUT 9000 is available in three models. The AERONAUT 9000 is a versatile racket endorsed by the new generation of Chinese national men’s singles star “Little Stone” Shi Yuqi. The AERONAUT 9000C (Combat) focuses on offense, endorsed by mixed doubles star Zheng Siwei. The AERONAUT 9000D (Drive) emphasizes driving, endorsed by Li Junhui of the “Twin Towers” pair. Shi Yuqi’s style is steady and comprehensive; Zheng Siwei poses a significant threat from the backcourt, often surprising opponents with his fast-paced smashes and slices; as a doubles player, Li Junhui demands high racket flexibility and speed in drives, so the introduction of the AERONAUT 9000D might finally let him put down his flashy pink racket.
Paintwork
Li-Ning’s racket paintwork is known for its durability and aesthetics, far exceeding the industry average. However, this time, Li-Ning excels not just in aesthetics but in the relationship between paintwork style and the physical properties of the racket.
The AERONAUT 9000 features a champagne gold and ivory white color scheme, with an overall style that is low-key and restrained, matching its nature as an all-round racket and Shi Yuqi’s calm on-court demeanor. The AERONAUT 9000C adopts a deep blue, sky blue, and crimson color clash scheme, offering more visual impact and aligning with Zheng Siwei’s aggressive play style. The AERONAUT 9000D uses a large amount of fluorescent yellow with hints of green, making it flashy and, yes, just right for Li Junhui!
Specifications
The AERONAUT 9000 weighs 86g unstrung with a balance point of 305mm. The AERONAUT 9000C weighs 88g unstrung with a balance point of 298mm. The AERONAUT 9000D weighs 84g unstrung with a balance point of 314mm. All models use the relatively thin S1 grip.
Experience
During the initial trial, the AERONAUT 9000 feels slightly lighter than the AERONAUT 9000C. Both have similar shaft stiffness, but the AERONAUT 9000C feels harder on impact. The two models have a noticeable difference in overall weight, making the AERONAUT 9000C more burdensome in actual use. The AERONAUT 9000D, however, is entirely different, feeling noticeably lighter during swings, with a large shaft flex due to its head-heavy nature. This characteristic is somewhat similar to the pink Energy 70i, though with significant differences in hitting stability, swing speed, and overall weight.
AERONAUT 9000
The AERONAUT 9000 is a racket with excellent shot directionality. Unlike the AERONAUT 8000, which feels heavy and stable, or the crisp and agile AERONAUT 7000, the AERONAUT 9000 feels like a combination of the two or somewhere in between. The frame stiffness is moderately hard, providing a crisp but not overly hard hitting sensation. Among Li-Ning rackets, the last one to give me this kind of comfortable feel was the Windstorm 900. Compared to the Windstorm 900, the AERONAUT 9000 offers even greater hitting stability, though the Windstorm 900 still outshines it in swing speed and point smash.
Forgiveness and power feedback jointly determine shot directionality and racket control properties. Rackets with a high degree of ball wrapping around the frame usually offer high forgiveness and a soft hitting feel (such as the AERONAUT 8000). However, due to this soft feel, these rackets often lack direct power feedback. In actual use, this may result in minimal differences in shot effect when using 4.8 vs. 5.2 units of force, greatly reducing error rates but not benefiting players seeking precise control. Similarly, many rackets with very clear power feedback have low forgiveness, increasing precision but also the error rate.
The AERONAUT 9000 strikes an excellent balance between forgiveness and power feedback, making control comfortable.
A minor regret is that the AERONAUT 9000 uses a 210mm handle, with a shorter shaft compared to the AERONAUT 8000. Long-handle, short-shaft rackets generally offer higher hitting stiffness and more direct, quick response, but they fall short in power transmission during smashes and have a higher skill threshold than short-handle, long-shaft rackets (those who have played with the short-handle, long-shaft Windstorm 900B/N904 will understand). Therefore, when it comes to heavy smashes, the AERONAUT 8000 still has the advantage. Fortunately, the AERONAUT 9000 has moderate shaft stiffness, so while it’s not a zero-skill-entry-level “sugar water” racket, it doesn’t require too much time to adapt.
Control is the biggest feature of the AERONAUT 9000. As an all-round racket, it also performs well in midcourt drives and backcourt attacks. Especially in midcourt drives, although not as agile as the AERONAUT 7000, its directionality is excellent. The AERONAUT 7000 offers a more direct and quick drive, while the AERONAUT 9000 is more comfortable. In backcourt attacks, the AERONAUT 9000 lacks the powerful downward pressure of the AERONAUT 8000, missing that feeling of stored power in heavy smashes. However, because it is lighter overall than the AERONAUT 8000 and has a stiffer hitting feel, the AERONAUT 9000 is still advantageous in quick attacks.
Based on the AERONAUT 9000, Li-Ning has adjusted the weight distribution and stiffness parameters to launch the more attack-oriented AERONAUT 9000C and the drive-enhanced AERONAUT 9000D.
AERONAUT 9000C
The AERONAUT 9000C has a hitting feel very similar to the AERONAUT 9000, but with higher overall weight, making smashes more stable, though defense may be more challenging. The AERONAUT 9000D differs significantly from the AERONAUT 9000, concentrating weight in the racket head, reducing overall weight, and making it more flexible and easy to drive.
Besides the increase in overall weight, a closer comparison reveals that the racket face of the AERONAUT 9000C is also stiffer than that of the AERONAUT 9000. Compared to the AERONAUT 9000, the AERONAUT 9000C sacrifices some comfort to increase attack power, akin to switching a vehicle to sport mode, where pursuit of exhilaration naturally comes at the expense of comfort. Compared to the more attack-focused AERONAUT 8000, the AERONAUT 9000C provides a more straightforward and firm smashing experience, with the AERONAUT 8000’s heavy smash feeling like a power move requiring buildup, while the AERONAUT 9000C’s heavy smash feels like wielding a large broadsword. Players who favor Bao’s heavy build-up smashes might prefer the AERONAUT 8000, but those who enjoy Zheng Siwei’s fast-paced heavy smashes and slices will find the AERONAUT 9000C an excellent choice.
AERONAUT 9000D
The differences between the AERONAUT 9000D and the AERONAUT 9000 remind me of the Energy 70i and Energy 70. Both reduce overall weight and increase the balance point based on the original version. The AERONAUT 9000D is a racket with a very low entry threshold, head-heavy but overall light, with a large shaft flex, making it easy to use the force of the shot. In doubles, the AERONAUT 9000D is very agile in drives and defense, producing a shot that is slightly less swift than the AERONAUT 700
The racket face of the AERONAUT 9000D is also stiffer than that of the AERONAUT 9000. Combined with its larger swing amplitude, the AERONAUT 9000D sacrifices significant control. Compared to the speed-oriented Windstorm 900, the weight of the AERONAUT 9000D is more concentrated in the racket head, making it easier to leverage for point smashes. However, the lack of a wrapped feeling in the racket face makes the Windstorm 900 more comfortable in my opinion. The AERONAUT 9000D may be more suitable for players with slightly less power or those who enjoy the AERONAUT 7000i but prefer a softer shaft, or for those who like the Energy 70i but find it too light.
Selection
The AERONAUT 9000 perfectly embodies the essential control properties of the AERONAUT series, while the AERONAUT 9000D and AERONAUT 9000C make performance adjustments based on this foundation. The AERONAUT 9000C is quite similar to the AERONAUT 9000, but with a higher overall weight, making it suitable for players who have more power and love to attack. The AERONAUT 9000D, however, differs greatly from the AERONAUT 9000, resembling a softer-shafted, 675mm long AERONAUT 7000i, or a box-framed, slightly heavier Energy 70i, making it more suitable for doubles players with slightly less power.
String Combination
All three rackets were tested with Li-Ning No. 1 string, strung at 26 lbs vertical and 28 lbs horizontal. In my experience, both the AERONAUT 9000C and AERONAUT 9000D have stiffer racket faces than the AERONAUT 9000, so pairing them with slightly softer strings can increase the wrapped feel on the racket face. Considering the wear and tear on strings during attacks, the Li-Ning No. 7 string might be a good choice for the AERONAUT 9000C, while the AERONAUT 9000D, designed for driving and doubles, naturally pairs better with the crisp-sounding Li-Ning No. 1 string. Since the AERONAUT 9000 has well-rounded performance, pairing it with the equally versatile Li-Ning No. 5 string could be a viable option.
