k_caller

My Feedback: (1)

Here's a question for Gas engine manufacturers- Since the day has more or less come that manufacturers should standardize (e.g. cell phone chargers) their connections, why can't that be brought forward to the model engine suppliers? No not chargers for the engines but rather the propeller mounting holes for gas engines of approximately the same size? I would think that it should be possible to standardize the bolt pattern so that one could easily switch a prop from say a ZDZ - 3W or DA and others without having to redrill the prop creating more holes, possible balance problems, and possible weakness in the hub? Buying another CFK prop just to try it out on another plane with a different motor starts running into a lot of $$$$. For that matter, what drives the decision for each manufacturer to have a different pattern? Maybe we should all revert to ZG which only has a center bolt and nut? OK, Zenoah doesn't have the power engines as other manufacturers so that limits them to under 100cc. Let's face it- at over 120$ for a quality 3 blade CFK prop you don't want to have to keep buying props just to see what the performance difference is or what difference is makes for a decibel reading!
Would be interested in hearing what other people think about this.

init4fun

[8D] While such universal mounting would be great for us customers , I highly doubt any manufacturer would willingly conform . From the manufacturer's point of view , why should we make it easy for you to use some other manufacturer's engine ? Once you've got your prop drilled to our engine , that's it , we got ya , either keep using our engine if ya like that particular prop , or get another prop for the different engine you want to try . The manufacturers aren't worried about making it easy for us customers to use other companies engines any more than the automobile manufacturers care to make us able to use any other auto maker's wheels or engines on their cars .

Just so ya know , I DO agree that it would be great to have a single specification prop hub for the different size class engines , But I highly doubt the manufacturers would comply willingly for the reason stated above .

STUKA BARRY

Valleyview RC has a single bolt prop adapter for just about any engine, no more multi holes in the prop.

pilotpete2

+1,
I don't know the upper displacement limit for a single bolt prop setup as far as displacement goes, but I do know, I'll never own an engine in the displacement range that would actually require a 4 bolt setup.
Pete

acerc

I'm with Pete. That would be too many cc's for me.

STUKA BARRY

I dont understand your logic on this statement as a DLE 30cc which is a very small gas engine has a multi bolt hub.

Charlie P.

How are you going to get them all in one room to agree on standards?  Or agree whose parttern should be the standard?

rangerfredbob

My Feedback: (13)

He means that 99% of all engines with a multi bolt prop hub don't "need" them, I don't remember what TOM or Antique said was the upper limit of a single 3/8" prop bolt but I think it was in the 250cc range, which is well beyond what 99% of us will ever fly...

MTK

I used a BME 102 twin cylinder years ago which had a single nut prop attacment. The prop shaft was 10 mm, or just a hair larger than 3/8", if I remember right. It turned a 26"-28" prop and never had any issue with prop slip or prop spinning off or anything silly like that. So in practice, at least the 102 cc worked well

The OS33 and SAP180 come with prop shafts/nuts, standard. There is no issue with either engine keeping props on. I also wish that multi bolt prop hubs become a thing of the past. They are heavier to boot.