I am wondering what the difference in performance is between APC and MAS props of the same dimensions.

For example, I am moving to a 10X6 prop from an 11X5 for my 40LA on an LT-40.

Would an APC 10X6 be different from an MAS 10X6 in terms of performance? If so, why?

Just curious, thanks in advance.

I seem to lean to the APC , but I use both & hear no complaints from my engines or planes. I also use Top-Flites marked 25 cents & Rev- Up's marked 50 cents ,so who am I to know? Do use a 11/4 APC on a 40 LA in a Kadet Senior that really works good ,thats all I care. MAX H.

From my experience, APC props have been; size for size, more efficient and with higher thrust, when compared with Master Airscrew props.

At the same time, the APC also imposes a greater load on the engine and RPM was always lower.

My most recent experience is with Bolly Clubman propellers.

Although the +0.5" size is heavier than the MA and imposes a still greater load on the engine, its thrust capability is paramount.

The current, up to 11" MA G/F series, is a great improvement over the previous MA design, but after changing from the new MA 11x6 to the Bolly 11.5x6, the T-34 I fly with an OS.46FX was transformed.

Even though RPM is down by about 700, the plane pulls itself straight up, accelerates out of a hover and even attains a higher flight speed. It also slows more noticeably for landings.

The APC is capable of higher safe RPM and its tip efficiency is probably higher, but a little "kiss" with the runway is all it takes to need replacement, while the Bolly can be used again after the same.

It has been said that the MA props have shown optimistic RPM figures, because they are underpitched.

Sincerely,

Only had one MA prop. Never again. Far too flexible. I want the engines energy go into accelerating the air not bending the prop.

I virtually exclusively use APC, but trying Bolly clubman at the moment as well. Seems very similar to APC.

I tried a 13x6 on my Laser 70. APC gave rpm about 10,000, MAS gave about 9,000.

Also noise reduction is a big issue in the UK. MA and Graupner tend to be a lot noisier than APC of equivalent size, even given lower rpm.

Between these two, I prefer the APC. Most of the reasons have already been stated, but one other reason is that due to their design, they tend to be quieter.

I've never tried APC but have only heard good things about them. My favourite is Radio Active props. Good performance and also very rugged. Needs very little, if any, balancing.

APC all the way! These props produce more thrust, run quieter and flex less than the MAS props. Yes, they do load your engine slightly more...but you don't get something for nothing! Also, in case you are a clumsy clutz, APC props will cut you to ribbons QUICK!...so be careful!!!!

To actually answer your question simply, I would just say YES, the performance would be different. However, to say in what way it would be different would be tougher. Though I too also fly mostly all APC props, I still find an occasion every now and then where the old MA prop design works better for pull, or acceleration, or especially downline braking (if that is important for a particular plane) with a particular plane. Another thing some people are not aware of is that at least some of the MA props use an under cambered airfoil.

Lee