propeller choice?

A place to discuss different propellers and their pros & cons.
acwrench
Class G
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta

propeller choice?

Post by acwrench »

Anyone with experience with CS or Fixed Pitch like to give me their 2 cents worth? It's getting time to choose. I will have an IO-320 160HP and will probably go with e-mag electronic ignition.
What are the numbers like for both? Is the extra money worth 2KTS.
I plan on x-country now and then. Short field and 4000' strips has to be there as well.

Pat in Calgary

User avatar
jim_geo
Class C
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:58 pm
Location: KCVO

Post by jim_geo »

You might want to look into to those E and P mags a little more closely. Maybe make a few calls to some engine builders. Other than saying that (and I'm not saying they're bad) I think I'm stayin out of this one.

Spike
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by Spike »

Im going to move this one over to the propeller forum. It might get you some more hits.

As for myself, Im going with a O-320 160HP and will be choosing the FP prop. I dont have any empirical reasons why. For me the cost benefit analysis falls in the FP camp. Ill save ~50lbs and quite a few thousand dollars and Ill lose some climb rate. However, Im willing to accept a ~1500 FPM climb rate after a 500 ft take off roll. Oh the tragedy :mrgreen:

If money and weight were free, Id get the CS, but since they arent I dont particularly want to die on that hill.

I really think its mostly personal.

-- John
http://www.rivetbangers.com - Now integrating web and mail!
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

I will chime in on this one.

It does come down to money. A CS is cool to have. I plan on going CS, It DOES NOT make practical sense. The cost far outweighs the benefits.

I am getting one because I want one. That is all. Right now, it would be the Hartzell Blended Airfoil if I had to make a decision.

The emag-air PMag is my choice of ignitions systems. It should not be used with the Superior lightweight sump. There are some known problems there. Aside from that I haven't heard about any bad experiences.

:) CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

Here is the thread where we learned about the sump problem:

http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/for ... ag+problem

8) CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

User avatar
jim_geo
Class C
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:58 pm
Location: KCVO

Post by jim_geo »

After thinking about my C.S. response to the E-P mag choice I decided I should be more specific. I'm sorry that I high jacked this thread about props, but I don't think the prop is the problem. Personally I am all over a mag that does what the E-P mags do or at least what the endeavor of the company that makes them is trying to do. In fact at one point they were my first choice. Problem is (and this is verifiable at their web site) the mags are made in production runs. So far each run has been different. Not the least of which the next run is going to be significantly different both in size and internal design. While talking to a few different engine builders I was told during the course of each conversation that there wasn't one E-P mag they've heard of that wasn't subject to a recall at some time. That was enough for me. The flip side of all this is choosing your prop, engine and ignition combo is a real journey. Have fun on your trip.
Last edited by jim_geo on Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Dan A
Class D
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Cheney, WA USA

Post by Dan A »

I went with a Whirlwind 200RV C. S. prop. Expensive? Yes. But Since I am working to fund this project and it doesn't have to go for other things like house payments or utilities, I went whole hog and bought what I think has turned out to be a great choice. It performs great.
dan

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

Dan, what is the deal with hubs cracking? It seems that you are thrilled with your decision. What was all that hub "hub bub" all about back around a year ago? Did the dust all settle down with a decision?

:? CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

Dan A
Class D
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Cheney, WA USA

Post by Dan A »

CJ,
As I recall there were a few minor problems with the 151 3 blade series. leaking grease and that. But I don't recall any cracked hubs. They use McCulley hubs and get most of their parts from Cessna. After a few hours most of leaking stopped and there were no more problems that I know of with that series. My 200RV prop was assembled in San Diego before the company was sold to Titian Aircraft. I had a blade loosen up a little after about 5 hours. No sign of grease. I called Greg at the new shop (Whirlwind Aviation) and he sent me a set of shims and explaned how to add them. I added a .004 shim and it has been great since then. The blade design makes it verey quiet compared to the Hartzell and the prop is about 22 lb. lighter. The blades are carbon fiber composite with a nickel leading edge. So they are good in rain. I've already flown in rain and it shows no signs of wear. In fact looks as good as the day I put it on. Whirlwind Aviation is easy to work with and will do everything they can to make sure you are satisfied.
Hope that helps.
Dan

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

That is a shining reflection and good to hear!

They are one of my choices and I want to keep an eye on them.

:) CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

Dan A
Class D
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Cheney, WA USA

Post by Dan A »

CJ,
I'm tenativly planning on going to OSH this year. If I see you there I will be happy to take you up and show you how it flys with the WW prop.
Dan

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

Thank you Dan!

However, I am not planning on going this year. My time is best spent here building although... it is always fun to go!

I plan on going every other year stating last year. This means only odd years for the time being.

If I do go, I wil be sure to look you up. It is always nice to meet people and say hi!

:) CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

User avatar
aparchment
Class C
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:43 pm

prop choices

Post by aparchment »

So guys, I am bringing the prop choice back up.

I am wondering why people are thinking about using the Whirlwind 200RV over the Hartzell blended airfoil. Is the weight the primary consideration for you taildragger guys? Is the performance better from the whirlwind?

BTW, I am going IO-360, injected, forward induction, 9:1 compression.

Any comments?

Antony

User avatar
bullojm1
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: KDMW
Contact:

Re: prop choices

Post by bullojm1 »

aparchment wrote:So guys, I am bringing the prop choice back up.

I am wondering why people are thinking about using the Whirlwind 200RV over the Hartzell blended airfoil. Is the weight the primary consideration for you taildragger guys? Is the performance better from the whirlwind?

BTW, I am going IO-360, injected, forward induction, 9:1 compression.

Any comments?

Antony
Antony,

I am in the same situation you are with the consideration of the WW 200RV. Here is what I know:

Hartzell:
$6100
60 Lbs
2000 Hour / 6 year inspection
Metal Construction, some operating limitations with non-counterbalanced engines.
10's of 1000's of operating hours

WW:
$7500 (includes spinner)
40 Lbs
500 hour inspection
Carbon Fiber construction, few (if any) operating limitations.
No where near as many operating hours in the field as the Hartzell.

I did some R&D on Dan Checkoway's weight and balance database ( http://rvproject.com/wab/ ) and the only issue I see with using the WW in a RV-7 is the CG will become too far aft when you have a heavy passenger, heavy pilot and low fuel. Other than that, the CG is in a respectable range.

What I like about the WW is its lightweight and doesn't have any operating restrictions. Also, I *think* that if you had a a prop strike, the prop would break off first and you wouldn't need an engine breakdown (something to look at for them nosewheelers ;)).

What I don't really like is how few of them are in the field and the short inspection intervals. Not to mention its a little over a grand more.

I think that Guy Prevost chose the WW 200RV - I would be interested to know his thought process.
Last edited by bullojm1 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Bullock
http://www.rvplane.com
RV-7 | Superior IO-360 | Whirlwind 200RV
Garmin GTN650 | GRT Dual Sport SX EFIS
Status: FLYING!

Dan A
Class D
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Cheney, WA USA

Post by Dan A »

Mike, I have the 200RV on my "8". The plane will land at the 3 point position without any trouble. --Something the Hartzell guys would like to do. I have a friend here who just finished his 8 with the blended airfoil Hartzell and we sometimes fly together. Performance wise, we are side by side at the same settings. Not more that a knot or two difference. I climb a little better than he because of the lighter weight. My empty weight was an even 1100 lbs. HIs is about 1150 or so. (More avionics and the heaver prop). I like the WW as it is light and efficient. I understand that the Whirlwind company is going to extend the inspection time to a higher number (maybe 1,000 hrs) because there are few problems with that prop. I would expect it to go to a higher number than that in the future when more time are on the props.

I guess it is up to the preferences of the individual who is forking out the bucks as to which he wants. I do think if you are planning on landing on un improved strips you would want to consider the hartzell as it may be easier to remove rock nicks. But then again a little epoxy and micro ballons works great on the composite.


That's my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps!

Dan N742DA

Dan A
Class D
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Cheney, WA USA

Post by Dan A »

Mike, I have the 200RV on my "8". The plane will land at the 3 point position without any trouble. --Something the Hartzell guys would like to do. I have a friend here who just finished his 8 with the blended airfoil Hartzell and we sometimes fly together. Performance wise, we are side by side at the same settings. Not more that a knot or two difference. I climb a little better than he because of the lighter weight. My empty weight was an even 1100 lbs. HIs is about 1150 or so. (More avionics and the heaver prop). I like the WW as it is light and efficient. I understand that the Whirlwind company is going to extend the inspection time to a higher number (maybe 1,000 hrs) because there are few problems with that prop. I would expect it to go to a higher number than that in the future when more time are on the props.

I guess it is up to the preferences of the individual who is forking out the bucks as to which he wants. I do think if you are planning on landing on un improved strips you would want to consider the hartzell as it may be easier to remove rock nicks. But then again a little epoxy and micro ballons works great on the composite.


That's my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps!

Dan N742DA

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

Mike, a minor clarification on the Hartzell...

There are operating restrictions with YOUR engine!

If one chooses the counterbalanced IO-360-A1B6 or the IO-390, there are no restrictions at all.

That is one of the main reasons I am going counterbalanced. I don't like restrictions and am willing to foot the bill for it.

If anyone is interested in the WW, contact Bob Honig (the guy who did the governor group buy) from American Propeller in Redding, CA for information. He is a great guy and I am sure he would talk turkey. He is a dealer for them and Aero Composites.

:) CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

User avatar
bullojm1
Chief Rivet Banger
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: KDMW
Contact:

Post by bullojm1 »

captain_john wrote:Mike, a minor clarification on the Hartzell...
There are operating restrictions with YOUR engine!
CJ,

I forgot about that...I updated my post to reflect the counterbalanced engine lack of restrictions.

I can totally see the WW 200RV being a big advantage for the RV-8's, as they typically have a CG too far forward (typical solution is to put the battery in the aft baggage compartment).

With the RV-7's, the CG issue is the opposite, so a Hartzell might be a better choice from the CG perspective.
Mike Bullock
http://www.rvplane.com
RV-7 | Superior IO-360 | Whirlwind 200RV
Garmin GTN650 | GRT Dual Sport SX EFIS
Status: FLYING!

User avatar
captain_john
Sparky
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
Location: KPYM

Post by captain_john »

I swear that Van didn't like people pumping up the -6's with 200hp engines, so he made the -7 tail heavy to handle it.

Now, people seem to be more interested in installing 180hp engines rather than following that old trend!

I dunno, just my guess.

Any way you slice it, the -7 needs the weight on the nose.

I am just hoping that I don't over do it! I am putting everything up front!

Metal C/S prop and IO-390 engine!

8) CJ
RV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!

User avatar
Speed3Guy
Class E
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Re: prop choices

Post by Speed3Guy »

bullojm1 wrote:
I think that Guy Prevost chose the WW 200RV - I would be interested to know his thought process.
Here's my thought process. I liked the idea of a lightweight prop, to keep the entire aircraft as well as the nose lighter. I do not want to put the battery in the back of my RV-8a. I just don't like the idea of running cables all of the way back there, etc. This was further incentive to keep the nose light.

I agonized over the decision and almost bought a Hartzell Blended Airfoil even though I really wanted the WW 200RV. I also did a bunch of shopping for other props. While shopping I called about several used Hartzells (non-Blended Airfoil) and every single one had an AD requiring an eddy current inspection every 100 hours. Arghh.

By this time American Propeller had come on as a Whirlwind vendor. I called them and spoke to a fella named Kevin. I put a lot of weight in his opinion, since he could have sold me any make of prop. (They sell MT, Hartzell, Aerocomposites, Whirlwind, etc.) Kevin's opinion was basically that you take your chances with any constant speed prop (and gave the recent AD on Hartzell hubs as an example). He also said that the McCauley hub used on the WW200RV is a certified hub, has far fewer wear parts than the others (I believe Hartzell's had 27 wear parts), and that there have been no WW200RV failures. He even went so far to say that if it was his money, it was the prop he would buy. Since the 200RV was the prop I really wanted, I went with it. It's incredibly light and a work of art. I haven't flown behind it yet, so I can't speak to-wards flying qualities.

Cheers,
Guy
Guy Prevost
Albuquerque, NM
RV-8a Flying!
http://websites.expercraft.com/geprevo/

Post Reply