I've have no information regarding the Byron P-47, nor do I know anyone that has.

I have not flown the Hellcat with the Bryon 3-blade setup, yet. I have been told that this prop works very well, giving the airplane a more scale-like take-off. I take this to mean "slower." I've also been told by former Byron personnel that the blades are very durable - in fact I recall now that before they shut down, Byron actually ran a P-47 with a 4-blade prop up to take off speed and then pushed down elevator, driving the prop into pavement. The result was a prop that was still 'flyable' - one could probably safely take off and get the plane back down, but the damaged blades should still be replace for safety's sake (so I'm told, and I would certainly replace the blades, too).

I understand that Iron Bay, the company that purchased the Byron tooling is selling replacement blades. They are also supposed to have adapters for mounting other props. When I called, they had none in stock, so I went to CH Ignition and they supplied me with a fine adapter.

These prop adapters don't affect the position of the prop relative to the cowling - so you can build the aircraft/mount the engine without caring whether you will run the Byron prop or something else. All other prop/adapter combinations are likely to be significantly lighter than the Byron setup - so you may want to consider nose ballast that can be increased/decreased depending on the setup you are running. This is probably less of an issue with the Hellcat and Corsair, as the gear rotates/folds back - you will always be more nose heavy with the Bryon prop if you don't remove some of your ballast, but the effect will be less noticeable on these aircraft.

I ran a ProZinger 24x10 with a J&A Engineer Pitts-style muffler - this was the only way that I could get the engine to run at Byron's specs. A 24" prop is close to scale on the Hellcat, but leaves very little ground clearance when the tail lifts on take off. I put a quarter-inch of rod stock at the top of each retract strut as a spacer (remove strut/spring, insert spacer, replace strut/spring) in order give a bit more preload on the springs - this helps keep the prop from hitting ground, as the robart struts were a bit soft for a 30 lb plane.

I've just purchased a Mezjlik 22x10 3-blade carbon fiber prop. Its installed, but haven't flown it yet, nor I have I run it to get RPM readings. It does look a little small, as its more fitting for a 1/7 scale Hellcat - but it does clear the ground well and its light as a feather. For the 4.2 engine, the Byron props are a bit oversized - using 2-blade vs. 3-blade comparison calculators, I believe the engine is 50% underpowered for the Byron 3-blade prop.

It may work fine, but its really overloading the engine and not providing any safety margin in the event that one needs to get the plane moving fast, immediately. I may fly with it, but not until I'm very comfortable with the performance of both the plane and pilot (me!). I'd rather get all the power I can out of the engine and throttle back, rather than be limited.

Don't use the PurrPower muffler at all. Besides the RPM loss, the higher restriction it places on the engine cause it to run very hot (it will melt that dummy engine cover supplied by Byron) and you may see the engine actually spit fuel out of the carb - its all supposed to go into the engine, so this is definately a power robber.

If you've not mounted the engine yet using the PurrPower muffler - DON'T. I think there are better ways to mount the engine (e.g. an engine mount box - which will require you to replace the one-third firewall with a full firewall, but it the mounting box will give you a nice place to store that nose weight!) and perhaps the PurrPower muffler can be saved for another engine that it would work fine with. It the PurrPower is already installed, you'll probably just want to leave it in and cut the header off.

The engiine will definately sound more like a chainsaw engine with a more 'normal' muffler on it. The PurrPower does sound very nice - but the performance/safety cost isn't worth it.

Since your planes are a bit old, they probably all came with 2-56 hardware. Throw it out! You should not trust the plastic after 10-12 years of aging and IMAC requires 4-40 hardware on all birds of this size. If you've already got your P-47 built with 2-56 - tough. Change it to 4-40. I had to do this on my Hellcat - its well worth it.

Also, trash the flap/servo linkage setup - its way to sloppy. Use two servos as close to the inboard flaps as possible. I mounted mine in the ply inboard wing ribs such that the servo arm moves in a plane parallel with the fuselage. This works well, and allows you to connect the linkages to the flaps as Byron intended. However, this method is still a bit sloppier than it could be, as in the fully deployed position, the linkage is not in a good position to maintain downward force on the flap. A better method involves mounting the servo such that the servo arm extends out the bottom of the inboard wing panel and then connects to a control arm mounted to the underside of the flap - in this manner, the servo pulls on the control arm in the same manner as the ailerons, giving a much more solid connection. The servo arm, linkage and control rod aren't hidden anymore, but neither are any of the linkages/rods associated with the rudder/elevator/ailerons - so what's a couple more going to do to the appearance?

Also, the Byron kits did not come with adequate fuel filters - put filters on both the fuel fill line (or on the pickup in the tank) and the vent line. I have a sintered filter in the tank pickup and an in-line filter on the vent line, and the fill line is capped after fueling. As the engine sucks fuel from the tank, air enters from the vent line - this line can suck up quite a bit of debris, especially if you've hidden the venting outlet somewhere under the belly of the plane or the underside of an inboard wing panel - the prop throws up a lot junk from the ground.

I have no experience with the Q-35 or reduction unit.

If you want to make the canopy slide, I found some real nice "canopy rail" stock from Balsa USA.

Oh, and one more thing - from numerous sources I've been warned to replace the Byron wheels - the tires tend to separate from the plastic hubs if you get the aircraft going a bit sideways on landing. I'm using some aluminum hub wheels from Robart - these are designed to capture the tires in a couple different places (near the hub and out towards the rim) so they are much more secure.

Much of what I'm stating here has been lessons I've learned from others, which I have confirmed in my own usage. If I'm starting to sound like I know what I'm doing, its because I've listened well.

12 years is long enough - get 'em flying, eh!

Cripes - I've written a novel. Hope you find some of it useful. Feel free to contact me again.