|
|
Post by rcfast123 on Feb 22, 2009 1:05:30 GMT 1
Use the Parkzone P-51d prop because it is an exact copy, except even 5x stronger than the original Stock cub one. It even has cool yellow edges! I have heard from somebody at my field that the Super Cub ones have been discontinued?
|
|
|
|
Post by gagallagher04401 on Feb 22, 2009 3:59:50 GMT 1
I use the GWS 10X6 prop and love them. Much more efficent, longer flight times, a little less thrust is all. Much stronger though then stock
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmugen on Feb 22, 2009 4:29:22 GMT 1
They are the same prop. Just painted. No stronger.
|
|
belem
Squadron leader
Posts: 210
|
Post by belem on Apr 22, 2009 4:36:07 GMT 1
huh, they seem stronger than the ones that came with my plane - stiffer anyway. My plane came with two of the stock props and one of the P-51. The stock props could get bent out of shape, the P-51 hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by l8again on Apr 22, 2009 7:09:02 GMT 1
The stock props and the replacement are the exact same. Check the part #. One prop fits 4 or 5 models. That "perceived" strength, is probably just a little luck!
|
|
duck
Squadron leader
R/C Addict
Posts: 219
|
Post by duck on Apr 25, 2009 14:02:48 GMT 1
I have a p-51 prop on mine now, and it seems almost anemic compared to the GWS and MAS props I usually use. The stiffer props just seem to perform better.
I checked my p-51 prop against my last stock SC prop and they seem to be the same sriffness, ( or should i say lack of stiffness)
|
|
gws003
Flying officer
Posts: 25
|
Post by gws003 on May 19, 2009 4:18:00 GMT 1
I have a p-51 prop on mine now, and it seems almost anemic compared to the GWS and MAS props I usually use. The stiffer props just seem to perform better. I checked my p-51 prop against my last stock SC prop and they seem to be the same sriffness, ( or should i say lack of stiffness) Ya, same props,just yellow tips, look cool,but the same ;D |
|
Don
Flying officer
Posts: 14
|
Post by Don on Jul 20, 2009 18:52:17 GMT 1
I tried a MAS 10x8e prop with stock power and battery, almost did't fly at all.
Very little climb at full throttle. Landed switched back to stock and all is well. Anyone else had this happen?
Also used a APC 10x8e and had less power than with MAS.
|
|
|
|
Post by duck9191 on Jul 20, 2009 23:23:20 GMT 1
the apc should performe better then the stock prop, was it on the right way? master air screws tend to produce less thrust but draw a bit less amps.
|
|
|
|
Post by admiralev on Jul 21, 2009 0:25:08 GMT 1
numbers on APC should be facing out towards you when the prop goes on. props on backwards will still fly the plane but you can feel the difference. try it opposite the way you had it on before
admiral
|
|
Don
Flying officer
Posts: 14
|
Post by Don on Jul 21, 2009 23:43:36 GMT 1
Yep the prop was on the right way....seemed like the motor on the stock battery just can't turn enough RPM's.
I am going to try a lipo in the not to distant future and see what happens.
I still like the way it fly's on the stock set up but that stock prop just does not look scale!
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjim on Nov 30, 2009 1:07:30 GMT 1
not only did I get my hands on a prop from the PZ P-51D, But I got the entire guts.........And I recieved a donation of a DX5E I can't wait to get it into the air.....
|
|
|
|
Post by flydiver on Nov 30, 2009 7:14:58 GMT 1
I tried a MAS 10x8e prop with stock power and battery, almost did't fly at all. Very little climb at full throttle. Landed switched back to stock and all is well. Anyone else had this happen? Also used a APC 10x8e and had less power than with MAS. The stock power system is a LOW RPM drive. It needs a SLOW FLY (read FAT) prop to work. SF props are not suited to high RPM. 1. They may distort and lose significant efficiency. 2. They risk literally blowing up at high RPM, really. That MAS and APCe (and GWS DD) are more direct drive/thin electric, higher RPM capable props. They are skinnier and beefier, especially the hub to deal with the higher RPM. Having less surface area they need more RPM to do their job. If you put a SF on a high RPM motor you risk overloading both the motor and the prop (size dependent of course), and the breakage problem. If you put a thin electric on a low RPM system you will be underwhelmed. There will be inadequate thrust. Sometimes you can prop up and achieve similar results by increasing the surface area. Wattmeters are just the ticket for this kind of work. Safety first, then prop appropriately for the motor and plane, then there is flexibility in the handful of suitable props left to see how it flies in the field. You'll probably end up liking one more than the rest. When you go 3S lipo (12.6v) from 7-cell (8.4v) you raise the voltage > RPM......SIGNIFICANTLY! That's where the extra power comes from. In addition the lipo maintains the voltage better for longer. The stock prop at that voltage becomes marginal for the power system. You'll get lots of thrust but if you spend a lot of time at WOT you'll soon get burned out components. Some folks get away with it, some don't. It's probably part lottery of electrical quality (highly variable in the Cub) and a big part of how you fly it. |
|
|
|
Post by flydiver on Nov 30, 2009 7:22:26 GMT 1
And I recieved a donation of a DX5E I can't wait to get it into the air..... No! Don't do it. The DX5e doesn't fly very well, poor aerodynamics.  |
|
|
|
Post by ginginho on Nov 30, 2009 10:28:55 GMT 1
And I recieved a donation of a DX5E I can't wait to get it into the air..... No! Don't do it. The DX5e doesn't fly very well, poor aerodynamics. Teehee, it will also be difficult to wiggle the sticks during the flight! ;D |
|
