cheese_puddin

Hello all,

I am building a VQ me109 its a .46 size plane and I am wondering is there really a huge difference whether I use a wooden 11x6 prop or a Nylon 11X6 prop for my O.S. 46? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Brad

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Various prop materials will flex when torqued. That produces a somewhat ineffective prop. From what I understand, some of the better wooden props will flex less than the plastic or plastic composite materials. But, they are more delicate than the plastic composite props, meaning that they can shatter much easier than a plastic composite prop.

Then there are the carbon composite props that are probably the best around, but much more expensive than what we get off the shelf with wooden or plastic composite materials.

I have gotten into the habit of using APC plastic composite props only because they were easy to obtain (the LHS has a very good stock of varying sizes) and inexpensive. When I was in training, I was breaking one or two a day for a while . So, inexpensive was the key and I bought them by the dozen

I'm sure that there will be more information forthcoming in subsequent replies, though... some more technical and others more emotional...

CGr.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

From a beginner's perspective the performance of the various prop materials isn't the real issue. The real thing to worry about is durability. If you are beginning and learning to fly there is only one choice. Nylon. Wood props will break and shatter if you even THINK about touching the runway with them. They shatter very easiy and do not stand up to any type of abuse whatsoever. If you go with wood props you had better pick up 10-15 of them to get through your training. Nylon props will stand up to the abuse they are going to get while training. You're going to have plenty of dings and dents on the prop while you train, and for the most part the nylon props will take the licking and keep... well, you know the rest. You can usually get through your training with 2-3 nylon props.

Out of the nylon props available it's been my experience that Master Airscrew props seem to take more abuse than other brands.

Hope this helps

Ken

hogflyer

I agree with RCKen on the durability of the glass reinforced nylon props. Master Airscrew makes some very tough props that will last. Another good prop for a .46 engine is the Hobbico NextStar 11 X 5 prop – it’s the one with the red tips, and is $.50 less expensive than the MAS 11 X 5. The black glass reinforced nylon, while maybe not as effecient as an APC, is less brittle than the APC and IMHO is the better way to go for a prop for your trainer. I recommend the NextStar prop to my students as I’ve had very good luck with it, it takes the abuse and the red tips are visible at idle speeds helping to remind students this is a prop spinning along at 2400 rpm.

Hogflyer

Missileman

I agree with everyone else.
I prefer nylon myself. Master airscrew are ok and can withstand quite alot of abuse. I am now using APC and Graupner. I really, really like the Graupner props but I have to have my LHS order them for me when I want one, APC are always in stock.

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Good point. I hardly get to use the MAS props mainly because the LHS carries primarily APC and some expensive carbon composite props. He does have some MAS props, but not as many as he does the APC's, and he has quite an assortment.

CGr.

Charlie P.

Be suspicious of a "scale" version of a "Me-109" if they haven't researched the original enough to know it was a Bf-109 (there is no such thing as a Me-109).

I like the APC for most all glow uses. On trainers the less expensive the better for the first few solo landings. A prop that doesn't shatter may put styresses on the engine and firewall that will haunt you. For my gas models I like the Pro-Zinger props. They look good and are lighter.

hogflyer

Charlie,

Actually there was an Me-109 before the Bf-109. The change from the Me to the Bf designation happened early in the deisgned life - some time in the late 30's. I haven't studied the plane enough to get the exact history on why it was changed.

Hogflyer

spiral_72

For training, start off with a nylon Master Airscrew. They're cheap and extremely tough. But for performance they suck as they flex too much. (it was a hard lesson for me to learn)

Once you start building confidence, go to an APC. You'll immediately tell a difference. The APC's are cheap too, but not as forgiving.

For what it's worth.

Jburry

Couple tips for APC props...

1: They're sharp! Break the edges with sandpaper to save your fingers! Goes for all props, but APC is sharpest of all!
2: They're Ugly (I think), but you can dye them any colour you like with RIT clothing dye. Boil up and dip!
3: They get hard with age, but boiling them will restore their flexibility

Master airscrew is what I use on trainers, they'll survive many a groundstrike and even a few noseovers!

J

hogflyer

APC's also don't always fit standard spinners - the shank of the blades is thicker than MAS or wood props. Be careful with this especially when you want to use an APC with a tru-turn spinner - they have to be specifically cut (or modified) to fit an APC.

Hogflyer

-pkh-

My Feedback: (2)

As mentioned in previous posts, I've found Master Airscrew (MAS) props to be the most durable, so I use those on belly-landed planes, and planes with very little prop-ground clearance. APC props flex much less and seem to be more efficient, but aren't quite as durable as MAS. I use APC props on most of my planes. Wood props break very easily, I don't use those at all.

Rodney

I have not kept up with the manufacturing of props but; I do not believe that you can buy nylon props anymore. The composite props do not seem to be nylon, at least not the form that the original nylon props were. Maybe some of the manufacturers would jump in here and let us know what modern day props really consist of. Most seem to be a form of epoxy bonded material, probably mostly a fiberglass type of material. Anyone know for sure? There appears to be at least two forms of plastic for the electic users as well, probably more than two.

jorgy-Delta

Hi Cheese, how do you like the VQ 109E?

I have one almost done. Really surprised me, I bought it out of curiousity.
No bad, seems well made and strong. Went together easily. Pilot figure is a little "cheesy" but.....

** Be very careful what you use to clean it with. Any type of solvent, gas or thinner will remove the colouring.
Its dull white finish under the paint job. Windex seems to be ok, just don't rub it very hard in same spot.

Haven't flown it yet, but should fly nice and easy, good amount of dihedral & larger than scale wing, almost rectangular
not tappering in toward tips.
Nose is long, cg balance is easy.
Just barely over 6 lbs.

It is listed as semi-scale.
If your true scale, you'll find issues, but its a fair representation and looks nice.
Bf-109E, ME-109E lmao all depends where you read about it but thats a whole other subject.
Goggle ME-109 and the 1st two hits contradict each other.....

Running a 46 w/ MAS 10x7- 3 blade,
Shaved a little off the spinner tip, give it a little more true look.
Retracts are not scale for sure, but should make ground handling a little easier. 90 degree. wider stance.
It was/is a notorious bad girl on the ground, landing & take offs.
Full length ailerons and no flaps, but bang for buck, I think its ok & VQ is very nice to deal with.

[link=http://VQ-Warbirds]www.vqwarbirds.com/index.html[/link]




Not my bird, pic from VQ website, I have the older model, green camo.

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

Just remember a wood prop will break easiest therefore possibly saving your shaft on your motor. It is a lot cheaper to replace a wood prop than it is a motor or motor shaft.

Jburry

Master Airscrew and APC props are both versions of glass filled nylon. Basically nylon with bulk glass fibre in it for reinforcement. Common material for many mid-high strenght plastic apps.

With smaller engines, I always use a nylon prop, the small engines are inexpensive to repair, and actually I've not damaged one yet due to propstrikes. On gassers and other larger engines, wood seems a safer bet for the engine.

Wood props are lighter and really help the gassers accellerate much better. I've got a few 18x8 props. The wooden zinger weighs about 90g. The MAS weighs almost 150. Engine throttle response is markedly different between the 2 (G-38).

J

-pkh-

My Feedback: (2)

I've never heard of anyone bending a nitro engine shaft with a prop strike. I've had many prop strikes, and I've even dug .25 and .50 sized engines out of the dirt with no damage to the engine.

fozjared

ditto, i dug my .46 evolution that i trained on from deep in the earth haha ~6" at most.. anyway, i was self taught and i went through probably 15 props in the training process! the crazy thing is, i still fly that .46 evolution on my piper cub and to tell you the truth i think it runs better than a .46 evolution that i just bought about 1 month ago! i know its not because of break in either because the newer one has about 3 gallons through it by now so it should be making the most power, but i don't think it is, next time i run it i will check the rpms on both..

as for what prop to use, i would recommend apc, they are cheap and you will notice a little improvement in your engine's performance! good luck!

ianwynne

Hello Everyone:

I feel so much better after reading this tread. On my second "landing" I broke the propeller. It's comforting to find out that this is a common experience.

Bye, Ian

cruzomatic

My Feedback: (17)

I fly all APC nylon props on my whole fleet except for my J3 Cub. That one has a wood 13x6. Cubs should have a wood prop. They just look better with a wood prop, anything else would be just wrong.

cheese_puddin

Thank you all for your help! Right now i have a MAS 11x7 on her!

bbbair

Here is where I agree with everyone. []

I use MAS and APC props on all of my engines that are .61 and smaller for the price and durability.

For Engines that are over this size the Wooden ones are recommended. The point is simple, over this size there is so much torque with a ground strike you can bend or break the prop shaft and the wooden prop is cheaper than an engine.

Happy Landings

mrbill76

I have been to the APC factory in Sacramento and seen how they are made, and they are NOT glass filled. They are just an epoxy resin pellet that looks just like grey plastic rabbit food! There are four machines that use injection molds. The pellets are melted down and injected into 1 of many sized molds. 4 machines produce whatever size is needed that day. And the reason I like APC props is because I haven't found a prop that comes more balanced than APC. Very little balancing to do here, even on the 21 inch props!! That's amazing.

Hossfly

A little off topic here, however I don't see the need to create a problem where none exists, and I may be dead wrong. While I like MAS for a number of projects, it is a relatively low RPM producer because it is somewhat bulky. I use them on trainers, fly some APC buzz saws, and mostly wood props which I do break a couple now and then.

The point is that an 11-7 is a lot of prop for a .46 glow engine. I hope you are not overloading it because an 11-7 is to me a small .60 prop. For a .46, an 11-6 may do well for first flights but if you want a faster fighter, I suggest a 10.5-6 or 10-7 APC (actually that is a .51 prop) after you get it tested out. Just my thoughts as I have only flown glow since Ray Arden invented the glow-plug, some 60 years ago. MAN, I do be OLD! [:-]

edited to correct hitting wrong letter key.

bigtim

My Feedback: (13)

I use alot of the MAS props on all my planes engines, there 3blade is pretty tough and doesn't break that easaly.
as for a OS 46 spinning a 11"prop perfect size for the fx-AX46's,for my OS61fx a 13X4to13-8.
for my 91 4stroke's I like the MAS 14-6 or 14-8 the only gripe with MAS is when they spin up they are noisy and they also tend to flatten out but they sure do last and can take some abuse where a APC will snap and wood will splinter to bits