Im just wondering how you guys feel about either prop. I used plastic props on electrics because they came with the planes I bought. Now that Im flying a glow plane Im using wooden but the only problem with using them is they seem to break more often and become un-balanced very quickly. The problem with the balancing I think is due to the fuel or moisture in the air being soak up into them. Just a theory , so please feel free to voice your oppinions so I can order what is prodominately being used with glow engined planes .

Thanks [8D]

Well i thought I would put my two cents into this one,
I had an APC on my trainer and I didnt have to replace it for 2 years after its first flight!!!![X(]
Im running a Zinger on my Sportster now but ONLY because a APC prop would look like crap.

I prefer APC due to the fact they are more efficient and produce better instant response in case of a emergency situation. Also they almost always come pre balanced and need very little balancing unlike a master airscrew ,which always needs balancing before flying. Wood is good for finger protection when hit by the prop (which I hope never happens) it has a tendency to break easier and less "sharp" than a APC prop. A prop is not just a prop , each has its advantage and disadvantages for the type of flying you do. After the engine is started it doesnt really matter which prop you have on they all look the same turning high rpm's.

I,m not sure what you mean when you say " the type of flying I do" and if you feel a prop is better than another I just want to know which one and why before I " start doing the type of flying you do whatever that is .

I find 'plastic' props easier to maintain, clip it and it does not break that fast. Wooden ones are kewl looking and I am sure they are great but for fooling around nothing beats the 'plastic' props. I like Bolly props ... really nice.

OH ! sorry skid you where replying to jessupboys, also I did a little research and found out APC props are made for electrics also .......

I agree with Skribnod about the instant responce in case of a emergency situation because when I was still flying my trusted trainer I ran out of runway and there are big humps at the end of the field where I fly and I had to give it full throttle and take off in about 5 feet and that APC 10x6 took that trainer vertilce in about 3 feet.
If it hadent of worked the Superstar 40 would have ramped off the hump into some thick pine trees.
(by the way it has an O.S 40 in it and i can take it verticle......thats pretty good if you ask me!!!)

Jim

On smaller planes 1.2 or less, I use APC propellers.
On larger planes, I use wood.

Here's something to think about. A fellow told me its a better idea to run APC's on glow engines and wood on 4-strokers. Reason being, there's less chance of causing internal component damage on a 4-stroke if the prop used is a woody should the plane auger in or nose-over. 2-strokers have less critical sensitive parts and usually can handle a high-RPM prop strike most of the time. For what its worth.

APC's are HORRIBLE for instant response! Most plastic (composite) props are bad, they are simply much heavier than a comparible wood prop. I've got planes that span 10x6 to 18x8, and run both wood and composite props at different times. engine spoolup is MUCH quicker on wood props, but your idle is also going to be faster. Overall, I tend to prefer APC's though.

I prefer Graupner over both APC and wood. Graupner props look much better and offer superior performance. However, nothing beats a scale wooden prop:

My nod goes to plastic (APC) mostly for the durability aspect. Our field always has some longer grass that the mower somehow misses, and the APC chews on through whereas a wooden prop would get all nicked up. Wooden props are waaaaay prettier though, esp the Zingers.

Well, I'll have to agree with yall on this one, but I still have some input you might consider. I like the look of wooden props, but as stated above they hate to touch the ground! APC is by far, IMHO the best performer (in small to mid sized glow and small gas engines), but if you want all out durability for training I think the master airscrew, and dynathrust are good choises. The tip dosen't chip off as bad as APC on those hard first landings.Master airscrew K series, and Dynathrust are also good choices for scale looks on a cub or something similar when performance is not such a big deal. Not the rule, just some of my humble opinions.

Weight is also a consideration, both for balancing the plane and spool up time. I love APC props, but they are heavy.

Eric

I really like the APC props. I switched from a master airscrew to an apc(same size and pitch) on the same motor, and it seemed to me that there was less lag time from when I punched the throttle to when the thrust kicked in.

I have yet to get one that needed balancing. I always check them anyways. In contrast, Master Airscrew props have terrible balance, and I've had several that were so far out of balance, that it was unsafe to try and properly balance them.

The wood props are nice, and the different ones I used(top flite and zinger) were balanced very well. Hit the ground, and you're done.

APC props don't like the ground either, they always seem to have one blade snap off at the hub.

Master Airscrew props are definitely the most durable in my experience.

The age old question, plastic or wood?

Both have their merits. Over the years I have used both for different purposes. The plastics were generally better out of the box for entry level racing. For higher performance, a prop that would lend itself to modification to fit the airframe generally meant a wood prop.

For the beginner that will make ground contact with the nose of the aircraft frequently, the plastic prop is better for the owner. The wood prop would be better for the engine. By shattering upon impact, the wood prop better dissipates the energy of impact rather than transmit it through the engine. It may not be noticed at the time, but the engine WILL remember every one of those plastic prop strikes and have a shorter lifespan because of them.

For a faster engine spool up, I prefer wood props. They are generally lighter than plastics, and can be better balanced.

For a seriously cut hand or finger, requiring medical attention, the plastic props win every time.

For larger plane 3D flight, some plastic and C/F props are better. Bear in mind that a prop strike here may remove the engine and firewall from the fuselage, and will at least be an expensive replacement part. Much more than a wood prop.

Most plastics have a finite life cycle due to flex (imo). Eventually, the prop will fail by losing a blade. That's why they have a life limitation and TBO on full scale aircraft.

Overall, I prefer wood. But that's not to say wood will work best for all. Each plane/airframe/engine combination will work better with one type and size of prop over another. Only trial and error will find the right one.

Just my thoughts.

I agree, except that APC's are better than other plastic props because the mass is located closer to the center. Still wood props respond better. Most people don't experment with props enough. IMO APC's are no worse or better than other brands, its just that their pitch seems to be flatter than others so a 10-6 APC is like a 10-5 Zinger or MA prop. Most of us percieve a flatter pitch as better performance as the plane accelerates and climbs better, but if you are measuring top flat out speed you would see a drop in performance.

Thanks guys I think Sport gave me the information I needed , which is to experiment with both and also with different manufacturers . I have'nt flown with a plastic ( nylon composite) prop yet but this weekend I will try one .