Master Airscrew props and polarpro prop guards

[Shadowfell]

Just got the polarpro prop guards and was disappointed that the Master Airscrew props apparently cannot be used with them. Anyone else come across this?

 

[IrishmanPDX]

I just heard bad things about the prop guards in general, such as they are too flexible and can end up chopping off your props as a result. Lots of bad reviews for them apparently.

 

[Maddog]

I just heard bad things about the prop guards in general, such as they are too flexible and can end up chopping off your props as a result. Lots of bad reviews for them apparently.

I 2nd that- looks like the prop guards cause damage instead of preventing it.

 

[Damien]

Yes, I tried them with standard props and resulted in a crash on the first flight... not a pretty sight seeing your bird just drop from the sky without any warning.

They should be called prop choppers, far from the meaning of the word guard!

I sent them a detailed set of emails describing the lack of clearance and the flaws, even the changes required so they will work, was refunded and sent props, but I was disappointed they didn't take them of the market

 

[Damien]

I just heard bad things about the prop guards in general, such as they are too flexible and can end up chopping off your props as a result. Lots of bad reviews for them apparently.

I think the issue is the props are more flexible than they designed for. They are quite stiff, but when under load the props flew into them. I imagine they just flew and tested in controlled or easy conditions... aggressive flying, high winds or high elevation makes the props flex a lot more and I believe they didn't take that into consideration

 

[XterraGuy]

I think that's exactly the case.. props flex a lot under load and hit the guards. Solo is pretty large and heavy for using props guards anyway, so you're probably better off keeping it away from hard, fixed objects!

 

[Damien]

I thought they might save me some health and safety paperwork on mine sites by lowering the theoretical risk of injuries to people, but IMHO these only increase the risk!

 

[IrishmanPDX]

I thought they might save me some health and safety paperwork on mine sites by lowering the theoretical risk of injuries to people, but IMHO these only increase the risk!

Nah, I think the best thing for mine sites is to hang a canary from a cage under your solo............. hey, it's been a long day....

 

[Maddog]

I think the issue is the props are more flexible than they designed for. They are quite stiff, but when under load the props flew into them. I imagine they just flew and tested in controlled or easy conditions... aggressive flying, high winds or high elevation makes the props flex a lot more and I believe they didn't take that into consideration

Not enough clearance between props and guards and the guards are not strong enough to resist a collision with a fixed object.

 

[Damien]

Not enough clearance between props and guards and the guards are not strong enough to resist a collision with a fixed object.

To be fair, they are tough, you couldn't get a stiffer plastic in that weight grade, and when my props clipped the guards and fell from 80 feet, the guards took the impact, didn't break, and remained latched on solo without movement... that part is really well designed I think. As I told them, the guard should be flat with a small 90 degree lip at the end, not curving up on an angle into the prop trajectory so there is no lip. The hard part of the design is fine, just need to redo the easy bit. Really sad they won't retract them even from their own website, shows where their heart is and just for that reason they won't get any more money out of me.

 

[Mike Boland]

Have had a couple of impacts with the guards and they held up fine.
Never had a prop strike in operation.
The MA props have a different hub design that puts them closer to the motor so they do strike the guards.

Can't use the two together :-(