The answer to all our problems!!!!
#26
Thread Starter

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Crawfordsville,
IN
No Darren Im not saying ANY of this is jest..........I am also NOT talking about a Sopwith Camel OR the Super Guppy!!
Im talking specifically about IMAC type airframes and applications..........I apologise if i was at all vague.
Kindesr regards Ian B
Im talking specifically about IMAC type airframes and applications..........I apologise if i was at all vague.
Kindesr regards Ian B
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: concord, NC
Daren has it right, Ian. . different airframes, and sizes of plane, require different prop considerations.
Imagine you have a super-sleek 33% Extra that weighs about 25 lbs, and a very porky 35% Extra at 30 Lbs, then someone gives you a 42% Weeks Solution. . and then some yo-yo shows up with a 38% 260 that floats along at only 29 lbs, and another guy actually tried to put the same motor on a 40% Composite-ARF . .
I have had, or will have EVERY one of these planes. . all using the same engine but different exhaust setups. . all using different props (except the 40% that is. . Xtreme going on that one)
The 33% takes FOUR different props, depending on what I am doing with it. . the 35% lead sled took the hardest turning prop so that the engine could stay wound up on verticals for max "moving" thrust. The bipe took an 8" pitch prop, simply to overcome drag and let it fly more smoothly. . .the 260 floated along nicely, and used a slightly different prop from the 35%, and the 40% is going to be taking yet ANOTHER prop, simply because of the larger size (and upgraded motor, , , ) of the airframe and with a more powerful motor its going to need more blade area.
I've used about 8 different types/sizes/shapes of props on the BME 5.8/102 since I started using that engine. . excluding 3-blades. Always for a different reason or because I was flying the plane in a certain specific manner where one prop had proved superior to another. I never worried about static thrust, but concentrated on making the plane fly as well as possible.
That, to me, is the major consideration when choosing a prop. There are tradeoffs with other factors, but HOW the plane flies with it is still going to be THE reason you choose a prop.
Imagine you have a super-sleek 33% Extra that weighs about 25 lbs, and a very porky 35% Extra at 30 Lbs, then someone gives you a 42% Weeks Solution. . and then some yo-yo shows up with a 38% 260 that floats along at only 29 lbs, and another guy actually tried to put the same motor on a 40% Composite-ARF . .
I have had, or will have EVERY one of these planes. . all using the same engine but different exhaust setups. . all using different props (except the 40% that is. . Xtreme going on that one)
The 33% takes FOUR different props, depending on what I am doing with it. . the 35% lead sled took the hardest turning prop so that the engine could stay wound up on verticals for max "moving" thrust. The bipe took an 8" pitch prop, simply to overcome drag and let it fly more smoothly. . .the 260 floated along nicely, and used a slightly different prop from the 35%, and the 40% is going to be taking yet ANOTHER prop, simply because of the larger size (and upgraded motor, , , ) of the airframe and with a more powerful motor its going to need more blade area.
I've used about 8 different types/sizes/shapes of props on the BME 5.8/102 since I started using that engine. . excluding 3-blades. Always for a different reason or because I was flying the plane in a certain specific manner where one prop had proved superior to another. I never worried about static thrust, but concentrated on making the plane fly as well as possible.
That, to me, is the major consideration when choosing a prop. There are tradeoffs with other factors, but HOW the plane flies with it is still going to be THE reason you choose a prop.



