Well guys here is what I found out yesterday. Ken Hopson andI flew our sky raiders both with EVO 46’s. On our first flight Ken used a 10 X4 APC and the exhaust-exit-restriction to increase muffler pressure. I used a 9X6 APC without the exhaust-exit-restriction. As best as we could tell bothplanes were flying at about the same speed. On our second flight we both used a9 X 6 APC prop. We both had the stock fuel tank that came with the kit. We bothwere able to fly about 25+ laps without any sagging in the turns. By using the9 X6 APC prop I tach ’ed 16,800+ on the ground.
Monday we will go back to the field, weather permitting, formore testing. Ken will fly the EVO 46 and I will fly my TT 40. We’ll try the 9X 6 APC on each engine. I’ll post the results here after our test.
Bob
PS. Skooter the whole object of allowing the EVO 46 is to haveanother engine for Club 40 that would NOT obsolete the TT 40’s still flying. Thework done by the NMPRA guys solved the problem for 424. It is now up to us inClub 40 to find a way not to obsolete the TT 40s and not give an unfairadvantage to guys using the EVO 46. The EVO 46 has more torque and can turn alarger prop. Therefore if a single prop rule is implemented it would be for theEVO 46 only thereby bringing the EVO more in line with the TT40. You can stillplay with props when running a 40 size engine.