On a 12x6 prop, is there much diffence performance wise between the 2? They both have different shapes, the MAS looks better with the squared off tips and black color for the T-34, but the Magnum book suggests using the APC prop, which would look better on my Deweyville, more period like than on the T-34. So far I have run up the Magnum by the book on the suggested prop for it, but haven't flown yet. My OS 52 FS runs an 11x7.5 MAS and works just fine.

Other than Opinions, which is what most responses will likely be , is there an actual performance variable that has been documented?

I've not found a MAS to perform as well as an APC. They look better though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuHuC...81B087CA0C5BD5

Not my test but same results as I have found. Keep the MA for stirring your paint.

Ionly use MA props, Ihad a bad experience with an APC. And I am perfectly happy with them.

Scale planes such as the T-34 do not perform better than pattern planes.

You should just give the T-34 to me since I will put a good looking but bad performing MAS 3-blade
prop on it and suffer with it's unsatisfactory flight performance wile you zoom around at near 100% efficiency
with your APC spinning pattern plane. Always remember Form follows function!

I started out using MA K-series props on my airboats and when I got motivated to go for speed I went to APC. What I like about MA props is the fact that if you knick something or strike something, they shrug it off and hold together fine. APC on the other hand, generally, if you knick them ( such as a 4-stroke chucking the prop ) you probably should just chuck it in the trash. APC is more efficient, but for fragile in a way. MA props in my experience, flex too much and I have "heard" their pitch figures are a bit short of what are marked as.

In a plane, I probably would still run APC props except for something scale. MA scimitar/S-2 props look very similar to APC and probably perform well though wouldn't look "right" on a scale ship.

I agree on the flex of the MA. On my DLE20 with a 16X8 K, I can see the prop flex on throttle up.  They are very forgiving though when you strike the ground on a not so smooth landing, something that happens more often than not with a couple of my planes. 

But really, how could you not want to put this beautiful Master Airscrew 11x7 3-blade prop one your T-34?

If it were a C model.   The trick is also finding a matching spinner, the one I have matches the paint perfectly.  I have a 15X7 MA K for my other plane.

I am not going to take the word of the two guys in the video in regards to the test. The test figures of more RPM and more static thrust with the APC really doesn't make much sense. Why would the RPMs be higher? especially with the more thrust? And then the MAS was lower RPM and lower static thrust.

Thrust is the result of the pitch of the prop + RPM So if Pitch + RPM = thrust how is there a difference?

There are too many variables that have to be taken into account for the test to be qualified. Was there a change in the throttle position?

I have flown with both. I like MAS better. However, I would take a good wooden prop over a plastic anyday.

Frank

Spend $6 and buy both, then make up your own mind which you like better.

G'day

I like them both. These days, the MA are a bit hard to find around here (country Australia) but the APC are pretty common.

I like the MA for their toughness. As has already been said, if you have a minor prop strike with a MA, it just gets a bit dirty and worn but usually they don't break. If you do the same with an APC, they usually don't survive.

As for performance, I think the APC work better. They are certainly better balanced.

I always sand the rough edges off both types with some 220 grade wet and dry paper. Less cut fingers and they work better too.

Now if Bolly props would come back on the market. They were really great.

Cheers

Mike in Oz

I would also suggest that you try both of the props on your engine and plane combination and see which one works better for you.
The APC prop design is aerodynamically more efficient that the Master Airscrew prop. But the different prop designs and brands behave differently with different airplane designs and engines. One prop may perform better than the other depending on the engine and airplane. For example the MA prop might outperform the APC prop with certain engines where the prop goes outside the powerband of the engine. Or a more draggy plane such as a WWI biplane may perform better with a MA prop than a APC prop or vice versa. Also the APC props tend to be more quiet in operation than a MA props as the aerodynamic design lends itself well to reducing prop noise. Prop noise can be important at some flying fields where noise levels are important.

I tend to prefer the MA props more than the APC props with larger engines, as the APC prop is a razor sharp scimitar blade and it makes me feel like i'll lose more fingers with it, should an accident happen. But the APC props tend to work better than the MA props.

These are my favorite three blades, but sadly Hobby-Lobby has stopped handling many of the high quality products and is pushing electric junk. These Graupners have wider blades and a little more weight for a glass smooth idle. I am not an APC fan in any way shape or form.

RPM was higher W/the MAS. 8190 Vs 8000 for the APC.

Graupner props are great props & yes they do make an excellent flywheel for lower reliable idle RPM.

SR, if you attend the RC Flea Market in Lebanon, Pa. several venders have boxes full of Graupners.

You can buy them here now Hobbsy

http://www.v-eastonline.com/categori...e-blade-props/

First: Master Airscrew props weigh much less than Apc props, sometimes 1/2 as much.

Second: What is the point of trying to find out which is the best 10 x 6 prop or other given size of prop? We should instead attempt to find out which prop develops the most thrust for a given load on the engine. If a MA 11 x 6 prop loads an engine the same as an APC 10 x 6 prop, which do you think would produce the most thrust? I think this type of comparison is more useful but seldom considered.

^^^That was what I was looking for!^^^

Who Knew?<div>
</div><div></div>

Ditto

Thanks AW, I stored that in my Favorites.

Back in the day (50's and 60's), every nylon prop came with a warning to boil the prop before use. To not do so invited disaster.

Graupners still recommend doing that every so often.