RunRyder RC
 1  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 1 page 596 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Weight of blades: good, bad, irrelevant?
11-03-2004 09:15 PM  13 years agoPost 1
gigi

rrVeteran

Port-au-Prince, Haiti

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My first bades on my Raptor 50v2 were Mavrikk 600 mm woodies. I thought they flew very well until one of them flew out of its grip in inverted flight. I was probably over-reving them just a hair

My second blades were the TT CF black and whites, which I felt flew even better. At least until I smashed of of them to smithereens, anyway.

My third set were Mavrikk CF plain whites, which seemed to fly just fine. I recall they're a bit lighter than the TT black and whites, but not by much. Well, I needed to experiment some more, so I sacrificed them in order to move on to KSJ 600's, which are fiberglass. Those are a bit weird, with a kind of main spar, which I am assuming is the actual fiberglass part, and what looks like a plastic covering in the actual airfoil shape. They weight what seems to be a third of the other blades, if not a quarter. Of course, they flew as well as the others.

now for my question: I imagine heavier blades would make the heli feel more planted in wind, due to stronger gyroscopic effect. Likewise, lighter blades should probably do aerobatics faster. I seem to like the feel of the heavier blades better. But what of auto-rotations? Are the heavier blades better for auto's? If so, how much better? More to the point, how much harder would it be to auto with the KSJ's as compared to the heavy TT black and whites?

I've noticed that even the Mavrikk woodies are *much* heavier than the KSJ's. Should I not worry about it? Does anyone have experience with these blades? If they auto just as well, I'm better off buying them. They are only $40, as opposed to $55 for the Mavrikk white's, and $70-80 for the TT black and whites.

Thanks for any feed-back!

Gigi

My heli spending has gone way down since I got a Honda 919 :-)

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-03-2004 10:29 PM  13 years agoPost 2
Heli-Driver

rrElite Veteran

Arlington, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Heavier blades auto much better than lighter blades. Yes they are more stable than lighter blades too and you're correct about the faster cyclic on the lighter blades.

I preferred the TT carbon blades on my old Raptor 50. It autoed very well with these blades and the cyclic wasn't bad either, a very good all around blade.

You have to try blades and find some you like and stay with them. All blades will fly a little different. Depending on the weight, balance point (CG) both chordwise and spanwise.



Raymond

Predator Gasser SE/231 X 2
Century Helicopters

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-04-2004 02:54 AM  13 years agoPost 3
JKos

rrProfessor

Redondo Beach, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gigi,
Try some SAB 600 3D blades when you get a chance.

As was said, heavier blades should auto better. However, there are other factors of the blade design (airfoil and spanwise center of gravity in particular) which greatly effect their auto capabilities as well. For example, I'm currently running 165 g SAB 710 blades on my Predator Gasser and they do great autos.

- John

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-04-2004 02:19 PM  13 years agoPost 4
gigi

rrVeteran

Port-au-Prince, Haiti

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

nice, heavy feel
Those TT bricks do feel very steady, though, and I like the hang time at the end of an auto. I guess it's a matter of preference.

I haven't had the guts yet to try to auto the light blades. I'm growing extremely cautious as of late.

Gigi

My heli spending has gone way down since I got a Honda 919 :-)

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 596 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Weight of blades: good, bad, irrelevant?
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 1  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, June 19 - 8:03 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online