I hear both the names a lot, and also hear people prefering one brand over the other both ways. so which prop (not including wooden props) manufacturer is better?

I have props by both and besides the shape, cant tell much of a difference given the same size and pitch. Which do you guys recommend is better?

I prefer APC...

Ford vs Chevy kinda --- Although I rarely see a MA prop. at the field or in pics on RCU

APC dont flex and loose pitch as bad as MA, but I think MA looks better on a plane but razor is right its a ford chevy thing ,,both are good products..dont try and finger flip a MA prop, they are sharpe!!

I use both and Zingers if its wood. I use MAS or Zingers on my more scale aircraft and APC on any performance aerobatic scale or not. APC seams to have a lot more of the lower pitch props for snappy performance but I used a 11x9 MAS with an OS 50SX on a 40 sized sport trainer and it was flying faster than the monocoat could keep up with. So It really depends on what you end up liking. I actuall own Fords and Chevys as well.

I like the Master Airscrew better because they give me better torque, which help with shorter field takeoffs. An APC would probably interest me more if I were looking for speed. Master Airscrew also gives a better scale appearance, while looks are secondary with an APC.

NorfolkSouthern

Which prop?

Whatever prop works best with your engine, on your airplane, at your field. And "which prop manufacturer" has so little to do with it, it's almost funny to hear the question again and again.

It is always worthwhile to try different diameters and pitches. It's also worthwile to try different shapes. And it's worthwhile to try different stiffnesses. To try all those requires that you buy props from different manufacturers. And if you do that, and have a chance to work out the right prop for more than one model, you'll see that diameter and pitch are the most important considerations.

BTW, the rpm you get on the ground means little or nothing.

BTW, the answer to the question, "which mfg, APC or MA?" is "both".

One of the guys at our field had a tower trainer with an OS LA 46 on the nose. He originally had a MAS 11x5 prop on it. Took most of the (grass) runway to get the plane in the air. He switched it to an APC 11x5, and now the same plane gets off the runway in about half the distance. The APC, for the same pitch prop, seems to be much more efficient at translating the engines power into pull. Not a faster prop, just more efficient.

Brad

I try both and sometimes three or four brands. Each brand of the same size put a different load on the engine. A good example. Saito 72 on a APC 13x6 is a great combo. Same engine on a MA 13x6 is terrible. Another example my Saito 1.80 will not run a Zinger Pro 18x6. It is to much of a load. APC 18x6W is OK but spool up is just OK because of the weight. Regular Zinger 18x6 is pretty good.

David

And remember that each mfg has several "lines" within their brand and they may perform differently also due to different blade shapes.

Yup

BTW, if you ever really want to pull stumps out of the ground, try a Graupner

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/grprop.htm

dr,I fly both, just depends on the budget at the time . APC don't flex as much as MA so when I want speed ,I use APC.Just all around flyin' I use MA. So I say go w/ as much as yo budget will allow. JMO___Rob

The MA props are more flexible, which means that when the engine speeds up, the prop twists and the angle of the airfoil tends to flatten out a bit. When a prop does this it looses "grip" on the air. The good thing about a flexible prop is that they are more forgiving, and will generaly tolerate most prop strikes, which makes them better for beginers. APC on the other hand is much more rigid, and does not flex much. This means it gets a really good grip on the air and you get better performance. But because APC is so rigid and brittle, they tend to break with prop strikes.

Actually, that's not always what happens.
A prop blade is an airfoiled wing. Some airfoil shapes do have pitching moments. Those moments may be strong or not. Some are close to the max thickness of the airfoil, some are not. Some props are just like wings and have different airfoils at their root than at the tips. Some have cambered airfoils at the roots with more symmetrical ones at the tips. Symmetrical airfoils don't create pitching moments.

Sometimes the load on the prop will actually cause it to try to increase it's AOA. And that's not necessarily the aerodynamic load. Just because a prop is flexible doesn't mean it flexs toward flat. Nor does it mean it flattens. It could increase AOA.

It's risky to apply simple ideas to complex things.

Most prop manufacturers understand all the complexities of the situation and capabilities of their production methods. And know that what they want to sell when they brand a prop 10x6 is a prop that pulls 6 inches worth. And they use whatever their production methods are to create a 10x6 that pulls 6 inches worth of pitch. Their 10x6 may not be actually be a pure 6" pitch because they expect it to flatten (or twist more).

We may have an engine with the power to get 6" worth of pull or we might not. Our engine may need the flexible prop to help it get 6" worth or it might need the stiff one. And truth is, the engine might run better and wind up putting out more power with less pitch.... and get less with the stiff one.... or not..... or whatever....... it ain't sound bite simple

hmmmm, I see,....... I think....................

That is full circle- And this time we did it without insults and it took < 1 page [X(]

I prefer the Bolly 18x6 Joe

Yup! i was looking at two different lines of Master Airscrew the other day. One was the black color prop (white edges, cant recall product line name) the other was the Master Airscrew Scimitar Profile (grey color). the guy at the LHS said one was for sports while other was for scale planes.

the Scimitar Profile (spelling?) prop was much more rigid than the black prop. Any of you experienced guys have tried this prop?