Which 470 main blades

[Jomaba4308]

I have seen SAB, RJX, Switch(Edge), what else is there in this size? How do they fly?

I want blades that are a great all around blade. Stable but still quick to move. RJX Dynamic look new, anybody try them? Are the SAB really 470? Or are 460 bolt to end like the MSH branded blades?

I would also like to try 480 blades but Zeal is a QC disaster I'm not willing to risk and RotorTech blades are outside the U.S.

[Jomaba4308]

Really? Nobody can recommend blades in this size? Which should I go with? The new RJX Dynamic 470's or the tried & true Switch(Edge) 473's? Both cost about the same.

I'm leaning toward the Switch blades because it's a proven blade and 26mm longer rotor span than the MSH 460's I have instead of the RJX being only 20mm bigger. I am still open to suggestion if anybody has tried the RJX Dynamic blades and prefer them to Switch.

[flint723]

I didn't like edge 473s at all when I had a stretched Protos. Mushy on collective around center stick and slow on cyclic. Maybe switch will be different.

Never tried sab in 470 (I have used other sizes) but in general sab blades don't impress me. They are a lot of times narrower than others, which I don't like since I like lower head speeds.

I had a set of older rjx 470s I really liked, I don't know if the newer one is similar.

If I was in the market now I would go for the RJX. I love their blades on my mini P. Always balanced well out of the box.

[Dmaxison]

+1 for RJX 470's.

[DoubleCH]

Originally Posted by Jomaba4308

Really? Nobody can recommend blades in this size?

I love my cheap $20 470 blades but I don't think I can recommend them. These are b-grade blades at best if not "rejects". They are ok balanced within a pair but weight and CG lengthwise and chordwise are different between each pair. After some careful balancing myself they work good and I love the narrow chord and root-weighted responsive nature. Plus I don't want you to buy them out there's only one source.

[Selvag818]

I'm running SAB 470s and like the performance a lot.. Also liked the performance of the MSH stretch blades before wrecking them...

[Jomaba4308]

Originally Posted by Selvag818

I'm running SAB 470s and like the performance a lot.. Also liked the performance of the MSH stretch blades before wrecking them...

Are your SAB 470 blades really 470mm bolt-tip? Or 460mm like the MSH blades?

[Jomaba4308]

Originally Posted by DoubleCH

I love my cheap $20 470 blades but I don't think I can recommend them. These are b-grade blades at best if not "rejects". They are ok balanced within a pair but weight and CG lengthwise and chordwise are different between each pair. After some careful balancing myself they work good and I love the narrow chord and root-weighted responsive nature. Plus I don't want you to buy them out there's only one source. [emoji14]

Don't worry, I won't take your reject blades. I want quality blades that will be consistent from set to set.

[MSH-Direct]

A very quick measurement of the SAB reds is 467-469mm bolt center to tip.
I like them as well, seem to be pretty quick all around.

[Jomaba4308]

I was leaning toward Switch blades but based on Flint's testimony against Edge blades I am starting to lean toward the RJX dynamic blades because I don't want a mushy heli. Both Switch and RJX I can get cheaper than SAB, and if the SAB 470 blades have a smaller chord than RJX then I won't get those either, I like lower headspeed for longer flight times. My Mini Protos stretch can get 7:30 on 2500 rpm of orientation practice, about 7 minutes flat if I actually fly it at 2500. I haven't really flown it yet, still doing fbl tuning, but on one charge of up-down-adjust-repeat on my P500 I was out for 30 minutes minimum and still had average 3.75 per cell in my 6s Zippy 2650mah 45c.

[DoubleCH]

Originally Posted by Jomaba4308

on one charge of up-down-adjust-repeat on my P500 I was out for 30 minutes minimum and still had average 3.75 per cell in my 6s Zippy 2650mah 45c.

30min including motor stop time?

Narrow-chord blades by themselves are not inefficient. In fact it's quite the opposite. Running wide-chord blades are like running wide tires for your car. True, wider tires can tolerate more abuse before they squeal just like wide-chord blades can take higher AOA before they bark (or bog, wider-chord blades bog before bark like wider tires do). However, if you make up the lost blade area of the narrow-chord blade by adding length it can easily make up for it and provide higher efficiency at the same time. If you want high efficiency blades, get long narrow-chord and thin airfoil blades and adjust HS accordingly.

When I switched from Revolution 430mm FB blades running 14T/2600rpm to narrow-chord 470mm blades running 13T/2400 I got more pop, cyclic response and power, with no less flight time.

With my Blade 300X (300-size), switching from stock 245mm CF blades to 255mm Gaui X2 clone blades with significantly narrower chord and much thinner airfoil (3.9mm vs 4.65mm, makes a HUGE difference in efficiency and off-center cyclic/collective response) gained me 1 more minute flight time from 4 mins to 5 mins with the same 3300rpm HS, or from 4mins to 4.5mins at 3500rpm HS vs 3300rpm with stock blades.

If you want high efficiency blades, perhaps try the Zeal 480. I don't have personal experience with Zeal blades but I've seen Zeal 380 on Goblin 380. They make the kind of sounds thin airfoil blades do.

[flint723]

Originally Posted by DoubleCH

30min including motor stop time?

Narrow-chord blades by themselves are not inefficient. In fact it's quite the opposite. Running wide-chord blades are like running wide tires for your car. True, wider tires can tolerate more abuse before they squeal just like wide-chord blades can take higher AOA before they bark (or bog, wider-chord blades bog before bark like wider tires do). However, if you make up the lost blade area of the narrow-chord blade by adding length it can easily make up for it and provide higher efficiency at the same time. If you want high efficiency blades, get long narrow-chord and thin airfoil blades and adjust HS accordingly.

When I switched from Revolution 430mm FB blades running 14T/2600rpm to narrow-chord 470mm blades running 13T/2400 I got more pop, cyclic response and power, with no less flight time.

With my Blade 300X (300-size), switching from stock 245mm CF blades to 255mm Gaui X2 clone blades with significantly narrower chord and much thinner airfoil (3.9mm vs 4.65mm, makes a HUGE difference in efficiency and off-center cyclic/collective response) gained me 1 more minute flight time from 4 mins to 5 mins with the same 3300rpm HS, or from 4mins to 4.5mins at 3500rpm HS vs 3300rpm with stock blades.

If you want high efficiency blades, perhaps try the Zeal 480. I don't have personal experience with Zeal blades but I've seen Zeal 380 on Goblin 380. They make the kind of sounds thin airfoil blades do.

Sort of off topic but interesting. I tested Sab 800 blackline vs Align 800's back to back in big air sport and light 3d flight, I found the opposite. Pretty much identical pack voltage coming down w/ same flight time. But the Aligns which had a 6mm wider chord and thinner airfoil had much better performance at the same head speeds.

The Sab 800 blacklines did not have as much of a teardrop shaped airfoil with very thin trailing edge compared to the Aligns. I do not know anything about aerodynamics or blade design, only report what I find in real life.

Of course these are just two blades out of many, and in a category that may not apply to this thread. I'm sure there could be many different results on different blade sizes and preferences.

[DoubleCH]

Originally Posted by flint723

Sort of off topic but interesting. I tested Sab 800 blackline vs Align 800's back to back in big air sport and light 3d flight, I found the opposite. Pretty much identical pack voltage coming down w/ same flight time. But the Aligns which had a 6mm wider chord and thinner airfoil had much better performance at the same head speeds.

There are other factors that affect performance like lengthwise/chordwise CG. But for more closely related factors in your case, firstly thin airfoil blades (which is most liekly the bigger contributing factor in your case) almost always perform better until it's too thin that cannot support the thrust or the torsion from high pitch situation. Thin airfoil blades can significantly reduce maintenance power near zero pitch and can significantly improve off-center cyclic and collective response. When I first got my X2 clone blades for my 300X I had doubt with the thin airfoil because it's so thin it doesn't even look like a teardrop. But after test flying them, I can concur to everybody who have used X2 blades or X2 clone blades always claim a significant increase in flight time. On my 450DFC I tried a few different blades alongside with the Align blades that came with it. The Align blades are thinner airfoil than all others while they all have very close length/chord dimensions. While some of the other blades are for FB and therefore more responsive (which I absolutely love) on the FBL DFC but I still like the performance of the Align blades the best.

Secondly with narrower chord blades in your case, it's important whether the chord is enough for the kind of performance you're talking about when you go narrower. It's like putting on skinny tires on a race car that doesn't have enough tires for the performance to begin with then of course skinny tires hurt performance. But OTOH if the chord is more than optimal, going wider chord doesn't gain you anything but perhaps only to make sure it "bogs before barks" which I don't like (personal preference). Unless you run high HS on the lightweight Protos with high power batteries for hard-3D smack that you like to smack until HS drop then wait for HS to recover just so you can smack the HS down again and again, I'd say Revolution 430 blades with 42mm chord is enough for 430 blades and perhaps too much for 470 blades. Going wider or keep same as wide when going longer may not help if you're looking for efficient blades rather than hard-smack blades, but going narrower (when compensated with length) more like can.

[Jomaba4308]

Originally Posted by DoubleCH

30min including motor stop time?

Yes, 30 minutes from the time I power up to the time I shut it down.

I'm not buying Zeal blades, I can't stand the paint and Zeal has been a QC disaster & I'm not willing to take that chance. I will import a set of RotorTech 480's before I take a chance with the ugly Zeal blades.

[DoubleCH]

Originally Posted by Jomaba4308

but on one charge of up-down-adjust-repeat on my P500 I was out for 30 minutes minimum and still had average 3.75 per cell in my 6s Zippy 2650mah 45c.

Originally Posted by DoubleCH

30min including motor stop time?

Originally Posted by Jomaba4308

Yes, 30 minutes from the time I power up to the time I shut it down.

I don't know what's the point then because the longer time it takes for adjustment on the ground the longer the flight pack can last. I've done 30 minutes with my 6S 2650 for the Protos spooling up to full speed many times when I was diagnosing a head wobble problem.

Originally Posted by DoubleCH

When I switched from Revolution 430mm FB blades running 14T/2600rpm to narrow-chord 470mm blades running 13T/2400 I got more pop, cyclic response and power, with no less flight time.

Not selling my reject blades here but just to give an idea what kind of pop/response, etc. I'm talking about here with <10deg cyclic, <12deg collective, and only 2400rpm HS.

My Stretched Protos Lipo Shootout (5 min 41 sec)

[jfluegel]

I tried the Zeal 480 because they were inexpensive. I absolutely hated them compared to the MSH or Edge blades. The quality of the blades seemed okay, just didn't like the way they flew. Very mushy and unresponsive. I assumed that 480mm blades were just too long for the P500 stretch, but maybe it is the blades.