What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Catto Prop reTorque

roadrunner20

Well Known Member
I read a post last week about the Long EZ that threw it's catto prop after having slight vibration warnings prior to breakup.

I have 34 hours TT on my 7A.
I starting receiving a slight vibration on the floorboard on climbout. This was odd as I never experienced any in the past 32 hours. On downwind, throttling down to ~1300/1400, I noticed a vibration once again. The next flight, this ocurred again. Usually, throttling down creates a very smooth operation with this 3 blade.

Anyway, I pulled the prop today. All looked good although the torque values were off. They were all running about 30-35f lbs. They were torqued as Catto req to 45. This is my first wood/comp prop and I was surprised they were off that much. I thought by having the aluminum backplate, it would not be so sensitve to environment conditions.

Is this a common?
 
How long has it been since you torqued the prop? What were the wx conditions then and now? Wood props (Cattos have a wood core) are very prone to changed with changing temps/ humidity. Although, I doubt that going from 45 to 35 ft/lbs would make that much difference as to cause a vibration.

FWIW, from day 1 I've noticed a vibration when throttling down from about 1800 to 1400 RPM or so. I re-torque several times per year, and the torque is never off by very much.
 
I've noticed the same vibration as Jeff mentioned. Haven't checked the torque yet but plan on doing that at the 50 hr mark. That's very soon!
 
Dan,
Loss of prop bolt torque equates to loss of clamp force, which can equate to slippage between the friction faces of the prop and prop drive flange. If your vibration is the result of low clamp force and slippage, you'll see the evidence when you examine the faces and the bushing holes in the back of the prop. The faces will look smeared, rubbed, fretted, even burned. The bushing holes will be elongated, not tight any more, and the prop will slide on and off them quite easily.

If you didn't see any of this during your inspection, your vibe source is something else.

BTW, anytime you have the prop off, clean the friction faces carefully. Anything that reduces coefficient of friction between the two surfaces is bad. That includes oil, dust, oxide films, you name it. Also be sure the propeller bolts screw in by hand or with only very light wrenching. If the bolts are dragging badly in the holes you won't get the correct clamp force.

The good news is that a maple core prop allows clamp force to be much higher than traditional yellow birch or mahogany propellers. Lots of margin.
 
DanLandry said:
I read a post last week about the Long EZ that threw it's catto prop after having slight vibration warnings prior to breakup.

I have 34 hours TT on my 7A.
I starting receiving a slight vibration on the floorboard on climbout. This was odd as I never experienced any in the past 32 hours. On downwind, throttling down to ~1300/1400, I noticed a vibration once again. The next flight, this ocurred again. Usually, throttling down creates a very smooth operation with this 3 blade.

Anyway, I pulled the prop today. All looked good although the torque values were off. They were all running about 30-35f lbs. They were torqued as Catto req to 45. This is my first wood/comp prop and I was surprised they were off that much. I thought by having the aluminum backplate, it would not be so sensitve to environment conditions.

Is this a common?

Dan,

Don't know if the post you read is the same incident, but Marc Zeitlin lost his Cato about 2 weeks ago flying Cozy MKIV. Go to:
http://www.cozybuilders.org/Desert_Center/index.html
for pictures and the story. The departing prop nearly took the right winglet with it when it left. The airplane has been since ferried home with some temporary duct tape repair.

Previously, in this experimental business, I built a LEZ and Cozy and both had wood props. The torque must be checked monthly until the wood stabilizes. Also, if you live in desert country, the wood really dries out even after things settle down, you need to check the torque on a regular basis. There have been a number of prop departures, mostly in the west dry country.

There also is quite a difference in opinion about how much torgue is appropriate. Some manufacturers say 30-34 foot pounds, others will say as high as 45. I've had a Bruce Tift prop, a couple from Fred Felix, and 2 from Performance props. They all had different torque specs, so I don't know what the answer is. I do know guys in the canard world are talking about it.

I doubt the current vibration is from your prop. Once they start vibrating for that reason, it won't be long and they are gone. :) But do check it. These props have a lot of good features, but a down side is the torque must be checked more often than just at the annual condition inspection.

dd
 
David-aviator said:
Dan,

Don't know if the post you read is the same incident, but Marc Zeitlin lost his Cato about 2 weeks ago flying Cozy MKIV. Go to:

Previously, in this experimental business, I built a LEZ and Cozy and both had wood props. The torque must be checked monthly until the wood stabilizes. Also, if you live in desert country, the wood really dries out even after things settle down, you need to check the torque on a regular basis. There have been a number of prop departures, mostly in the west dry country.

There also is quite a difference in opinion about how much torgue is appropriate. Some manufacturers say 30-34 foot pounds, others will say as high as 45. I've had a Bruce Tift prop, a couple from Fred Felix, and 2 from Performance props. They all had different torque specs, so I don't know what the answer is. I do know guys in the canard world are talking about it.

dd


You're correct Dave in that it was a Cozy and not a LEZ.

I originally put the the prop on in May, which is the start of the humid season here. The prop may have swelled with the mosture content of the air. We just started the dry season & that would mimic the time I noticed the vibration. The vibration I'm getting is very slight but noticable due to the usual smooth operation of the 3Blade. I had not checked the torque since I first installed it on May. I'll be flying this weekend & will give a followup report.
Craig Catto recommends 45 f lbs.


Pierre Smith or Scott Will, What has been your experience?
 
Last edited:
I've been flying my Catto for 3 years now, and I continue to check the torque regularly, just as I did with wood props. I have never found the torque off.
Different prop manufacturers give different torque values because of different woods. Some of the many laminate props like Warnke will stand torque values up to the maximum value of the bolts.
 
Hi Dan,

Haven't checked the torque as of yet but after I fly tomorrow, I'll let you know if I feel the vibes (I think I do on climbout and a little on descent). Was planning to check at 50 hrs and that is coming up pretty quick. I safety'd the bolts with .040 wire.

Did you end up getting the prop repitched? My engine is only turning 2650 max at 8000' and full throttle.

Goes for paint Feb 1 or thereabouts (keeping fingers crossed).

Scott
 
Scott Will said:
Hi Dan,

Haven't checked the torque as of yet but after I fly tomorrow, I'll let you know if I feel the vibes (I think I do on climbout and a little on descent). Was planning to check at 50 hrs and that is coming up pretty quick. I safety'd the bolts with .040 wire.

Did you end up getting the prop repitched? My engine is only turning 2650 max at 8000' and full throttle.

Goes for paint Feb 1 or thereabouts (keeping fingers crossed).

Scott


Hi Scott,
My safety wire was intact with no slippage. The prop definately shrunk.
I didn't get the prop repitched. I too am getting 2650 wot. I originally thought I was pitched at 78 but was incorrect. I'm pitched to 76 as you are.
I still don't have the intersection fairings on. I decided to buy them from Fairings, etc. Mine came out crappy. I'll let you know once they're on. I should be receiving them within the week.
 
Prop torque

I have a three-blade ELIPPSE prop made by Craig on my Lancair; it is fiberglass over wood. I typically torque my prop bolts to 25 lb-ft. BUT, I use Belleville spring washers under the bolt heads to maintain the clamping pressure, since the prop is driven by friction, not the so-called drive lugs. Klaus has cautioned me about too much torque, since it can crush the wood fibers. Those washers are the best thing you can do for your prop, especially if you live in an area subject to temperature and/or moisture extremes. Desert climates with high heat, low moisture days can dry out the moisture in the blades, so that when the day cools, the prop has shrunken slightly. Shrunken prop, less clamping. That is where the washers shine. They will maintain the clamping force over as much as .04", depending on washer stacking. Vance Jaqua before his death wrote an informative article about his analysis of their use which I've copied below. Sorry, the graphics never came through:

Paul Lipps (an innovative prop designer referenced in a previous issue
of Contact Magazine) contacted me after reading the treatise on bolt
preload. He indicated that he was employing an assembly of spring
washers for installation of his composite over wood propeller He
solicited my comments on this approach, and suggested that this would
be a good basis for some analysis and an informative article. Since I
had previously of some reference to this practice, I agreed with him on
both counts, and started searching out reference materials

It is always a source of amazement for me, how things which are very
simple on the surface, have a very complex nature when examined
closely. Propeller bolts are just such an enigma. For a metal prop,
things are virtually that simple. Just follow the usual bolt practice,
and torque them up just short of yield, and the just keep them from
backing out. For a wood (or primarily wood core composite) propeller,
the "wicket" gets stickier than the proverbial tar baby. The crushing
strength, and "crushing" modulus of most woods used are relatively
modest, and the usual bolt torque tension loads would severely damage
the wood structure. This is further aggravated by the dimensional
changes of the wood as moisture is absorbed and released.

PROPELLER LOADS

Just how tightly do we have to secure a propeller? What are the forces
and loads that are trying to take the prop off your airplane? The first
thing you think of is the thrust forces that are pulling (or pushing)
the plane around the sky. These loads are the least of our problems.
Another, more troubling load is the gyroscopic precession as the plane
direction is changed by pitch and yaw. With the lighter weight wood
props, this is seldom a serious problem. However a big metal constant
speed prop can react a load of as much as 600 ft lbs with a yaw rate of
one radian per second. This can be a serious problem if one engages in
violent aerobatics. The fabled Lomchavok uses this precession force to
turn the stalled airplane end over end (and broken crankshafts have
been know to occur).

The big need is for the clamping force, which acts much like the
clutch disk in a manual transmission automobile. Although the classic
prop hub has the drive lugs, the primary drive force is still this
"clutch" action. If it were not for this friction, the prop would
cyclically slip back and forth in the hub. The situation is further
aggravated by the large displacement four cylinder engines typically
used in aircraft. With only two power pulses per turn the peak torque
values are higher than the rated steady values, and are actually
cyclically reversed twice each turn. Once the shrinkage has reduced the
preload, the cycling can induce alternating slippage at the flange
face. The resulting heat further dries the wood, and a totally charred
prop hub can result.

I have personally seen the result of just such a scenario. The
Continental IO-240 has a small prop flange designed for metal
propellers, aggravating this situation. On a flight to a local fly-in,
engine roughness was noted as the destination approached. An expedited
landing was initiated without problems, but as the engine was cut the
propeller looseness could be visually seen. The hub of the wood prop
was charred, and delaminated. A replacement was borrowed for the trip
home, and the damaged prop now hangs on the wall as a visual reminder.
This application normally employs a 4-inch prop extension, and an
extension transitioning from the Continental hub to an S.A.E. number 2
flange was mandated for all subsequent installations.

The preload on a wood propeller must be moderated to avoid a crushing
failure of the wood. The crushing strength of wood varies with species
and density, ranging from about 1700 psi for maple down to about 840
psi for spruce. The rather aptly named "crush plate" for most props has
about 18 square inches in bearing. Most of the wood varieties selected
for propellers are on the high end of this range. Staying a bit below
the high end at a target value of 1000psi, this would equate to a total
clamping force about just under 18,000 lbs, or about 3000 pounds force
for each of the six bolts. As stated in a previous article on
preloading bolts, and as a general truism, determining preload on a
bolt using a torque wrench is a very inexact measure. You might at
first think that this is a relatively simple treatment of the analogy
to driving a force up the inclined ramp representing the pitch of the
thread. Sorry! No cigar. The component of the effective ramp angle is
so obscured by the other friction forces, that it is totally ignored in
the usual prediction, As most of you are aware, the coefficient of
friction varies widely with surface finish, and degree of lubrication,
as well as the properties of the two materials in rubbing contact. The
usual assumption in this case is smooth steel to steel, lightly
lubricated. Lightly lubricated generally means that you wiped off any
visible liquid, but did not clean with any degreaser, which is about
what you would do to avoid rust. Torqueing a bolt involves at least two
surfaces turning against friction. The thread , of course, and the
washer face of the bolt. The thread friction has a multiplier because
of the vee angle of the thread, which is a much larger driver than the
lead angle of the thread. Lumping all these forces and coefficients
together for a 0.3 to 0.4 at the radius "arm" at the washer face of the
bolt gives us a pretty good WAG estimate. The attached table of
suggested torque value for the different classes of bolts in automotive
use, is probably targeting about 75 percent of the allowable yield
strength in the thread roots. These would also be typical of the values
used for metal props, but would vigorously crush a wood prop.
con't next submission.
 
prop torque, con't

prop torque, con't

looking at recommendations in engine manuals and propmakers, we see
torque values for the typical 3/8in prop bolt in wood props ,from about
150 to 250 inch pounds. Using 200, and our above stated scheme that
would be about 200/(0.22r*.35f)= @2600 lbs (not to far from my straw
man case above). In spite of the "drive lugs (bosses) " on the SAE
hubs, the primary drive forces, and especially the torque reversals
from four cylinder engines, are taken in friction. The clamped wooden
propeller acts very much like the friction clutch in your "stick
shift". Sensenich uses birch for their wood props, and produce a high
quality product with more experience in this field than almost anyone.
One of their recommendations for torque is the number of degrees turned
after initial "bottoming". They are seeking a compression of 0.006 inch
per inch of hub thickness. The modulus of elasticity for compression
perpendicular to the grain varies greatly with wood species, and even
at various points within the same log. Working values for the birch
used by Sensenich would appear to be between 200,000 and 300,000
psi/in/in. This would suggest a preload of roughly 1500 psi under the
"crush plate" which is pretty close to the crushing limit stated for
birch in the files of wood properties. With the beam deflection in the
crush plate, the effective area under each bolt would be less than 2
square inches, or a bit under 3000 lbf per bolt. Pressure on the
"clutch plate" driving the prop would be on the order of 36000 pounds.
With about a 0.4 friction and a 2.5in radius this would drive about
3400 ft lbs of torque without slipping - well over the steady state
value for most likely engines,

However, the result of this situation is a spring loaded system, the
primary spring being wood. A 0.006 in. per in shrinkage with moisture
change would completely relieve the spring force. Actually it is even
worse than that, since wood will notoriously "take a set" further
reducing this spring load value

SPRING WASHERS

As mentioned earlier, Paul was installing his prop with spring
(Belleville) washers. This is an approach that I had heard of being
applied to wood props on the McCulloch drone engines used on
gyrocopters, and one that I had often thought was a good idea for
retaining clamping forces in use. The spring washers can provide high
spring forces in a very compact package, and with a variety of stacking
techniques, provide tailored combinations of force and deflection. They
also provide visual monitoring of the preload on the bolt. The spring
washers he chose, were from McMaster Carr (a well known supplier of
industrial hardware). Two p/n 9712k32 . and one 9712K29 washers were
stacked in parallel under each bolt. In parallel, the spring forces are
additive. The specifications of these washers are:

Gardner# I.D. O.D. height thick deflection load flat load McMstr#

1187-105 0.406 1.188 0.125 0.105 0.016 1950 2812 9712K32

1000-105 0.406 1.00 0.118 0.105 0.010 1830 2657 9712K29



With 25 ft-lb torque (300 in-lb), the washers were not "flat", which
is as it should be. The specified total load for flat should be almost
8300 pounds, and the bolt load for 300 in-lbs torque would be expected
to be about 3600 pounds, or bit less than half the bottoming load. and
even a bit short of the 5700 rated displacement load. It would seem
that this stack is a bit on the "stiff" side. A tailored stack of
washers in combinations of parallel and series arrangement would
provide the desired preload with greater deflection possible without
losing too much preload. A selection of hardened flat washers should
also be included to protect the softer aluminum "crush" plate.

Checking a recent catalog from McMasters-Carr, I ordered an
assortment of the spring washers with ID values suitable for 3/8 inch
(typical propeller bolt size) bolts. I think That I will be excused
from any copyright usage I printing the selected portion of the
McMasters- Carr cataloge showing the variety of possible choices for
our 3/8 inch bolts. If you are using 7/16 inch or ? inche bolts there
are a similar number of choices 0n the subsequent page. Prices, are of
course, subject to change, but are quite reasonable for the potential
benefits derived.

Specifications of typical spring washers are:

ID OD Thick height deflect load flat load qty part# price qty part#ss
price

The units selected for testing - shown to scale on a 3.\/8 inch bolt

And the force/ deflection characteristics are"


The spring washers may be "stacked" in various combinations to match
the force and deflection characteristics that may be desired. Stacking
in parallel = like Dixie cups. Will increase the loads for a given
deflection. The forces are directly additive for this stacking
arrangement. To provide more working travel for a given force change, a
series stack can be used (point to point or "flare" to flare) The
series stack tends to be a bit unstable, with the points and flares
slipping out of alignment,O>C>Baker one of our KIS bulders suggested a
larger washer inserted at the flare to flar intersection to stabilize
the assembly (attached figures show this arrangement'. The force to
flatten the discs is the same, but the travel to get that load is now
doubled.

[Image removed]

Two washers in series with the central stabilizing washer.

[Image removed]

A four Belville stack combining series and parallel stacking.

With combinations of assemblies, a great number of force to
displacement 'curves" can be provided. For our purposes, we decided
that a fairly large displacement, with a rather "flat" force curve
would be desired. What this would mean is that the wood could change
dimensions (shrink or swell) over a fairly wide range without a large
change in clamping force. For a birch prop with 3/8 in bolts, the
characteristics of four number 428 washers in a series/parallel setup
appeared the most promising. The total assembly would probably consist
of a flat steel washer against the aluminum, the first two bellvilles
point down, the second two points up, and a flat washer under the bolt
head. This system appears to be nearly flat with roughly 200 inch
pounds of torque, and close to 3000 pounds of clamping force for each
bolt. Total deflection would be over .050 inch, and even a 010 change
in shrinkage would result in little loss in preload, Different bolt
diameters, and different wood hardness values would probably favor a
different selection.



The local bearing forces of the sharp edges of the Bellville washers
dictate the use of steel washers to protect the aluminum "crush plate",
and probably also the washer face on the associated bolt head or nut.
This total "stack" would add fairly measurably to the selected bolt
length for your installation.

[Image removed]

These curves were generated using wrench angle as an indication of
inches of compression. and reading wench torque value at each point.
This is admiditly a bit crude, but the direction and rough magnitude
can be seen. The four Belville stack of two 423 Belvilles in parallel
on each side of the stabilizing washer shows a great travel range with
low fall of in clamping force.



The result of such an installation would appear to be clearly a win,
win situation. Weight and cost is quite minimal, and there do not
appear to be any significant failure modes that have been increased by
this system.
 
Hi Paul,
Didn't know you posted on this forum. Good to hear from you. As we talked before, I'm gonna incorporate the Bellvilles into the M14 install. If you have a complete copy of Vance's article with charts and graphs, would you mind dropping a copy to me at danhorton(at)elmore.rr.com?
 
Followup

sprucemoose said:
FWIW, from day 1 I've noticed a vibration when throttling down from about 1800 to 1400 RPM or so. I re-torque several times per year, and the torque is never off by very much.

Jeff,
The re-torque may have made a very slight difference.
Although. it may just be my impression.
I. as you, am getting the same slight vibration when throttling down.
I can now move on. I believe it's probably due to the transition...
Thanks for the input from everyone.
 
Bellville washer stack

Hi Paul, a very interesting article. I'm not enough of an "engineer" to dispute anything here, and it sounds logical enough. If this is a workable concept, then could the "re-torquing" simply consist of comparing the installed height of the stack against the original installation, using a depth micrometer? If you find during inspection that the stack height had "grown" due to fiber crushing or settlement, then you would simply run the bolt in until reaching the original stack height? Or, if no measurable change in height is noted, then there is no reason to put wrench to bolt.
One of the drawbacks that I see to this scenario is that the bolt is never "bottomed-out" solidly during this installation. In situations where I have seen Belleville washers used, usually some kind of "shoulder" bolt is employed and the
Belleville washer then simply provides a preload to keep a part in place, but have some movement available for it. The bolt, however, is solidly torqued in place.
 
Last edited:
captainron said:
Hi Paul, a very interesting article. I'm not enough of an "engineer" to dispute anything here, and it sounds logical enough. If this is a workable concept, then could the "re-torquing" simply consist of comparing the installed height of the stack against the original installation, using a depth micrometer? If you find during inspection that the stack height had "grown" due to fiber crushing or settlement, then you would simply run the bolt in until reaching the original stack height? Or, if no measurable change in height is noted, then there is no reason to put wrench to bolt.
One of the drawbacks that I see to this scenario is that the bolt is never "bottomed-out" solidly during this installation. In situations where I have seen Belleville washers used, usually some kind of "shoulder" bolt is employed and the
Belleville washer then simply provides a preload to keep a part in place, but have some movement available for it. The bolt, however, is solidly torqued in place.
Hi, Ron! I just torque my bolts to 25 lb-ft. When removing the bolts, it's not like it is without these washers. Usually you just break the torque with a short turn and the bolt is free. With these washers, you have to turn the bolt several times with the torque gradually reducing the more it is turned. You may bottom out on a metal prop but not really on a wood prop because the fibers take up the force in their springiness until the fibers start to crush. It would be nice to see some of the more experimental types out there do some testing based on Vance's analysis and then report back to the forum on their results!
 
I know I'm chiming in pretty late on this, but getting the correct torque apparently requires good technique. If you don't reach the correct torque in one smooth motion then you end up getting static friction and the torque may appear higher than it really is. Even old bolts can increase the apparent torque on the wrench. Some (and probably all) manufacturers recommend lubricating threads, nuts and torquing surfaces as well. Perhaps when it was originally torqued it was not done properly?

I read a post last week about the Long EZ that threw it's catto prop after having slight vibration warnings prior to breakup.

I have 34 hours TT on my 7A.
I starting receiving a slight vibration on the floorboard on climbout. This was odd as I never experienced any in the past 32 hours. On downwind, throttling down to ~1300/1400, I noticed a vibration once again. The next flight, this ocurred again. Usually, throttling down creates a very smooth operation with this 3 blade.

Anyway, I pulled the prop today. All looked good although the torque values were off. They were all running about 30-35f lbs. They were torqued as Catto req to 45. This is my first wood/comp prop and I was surprised they were off that much. I thought by having the aluminum backplate, it would not be so sensitve to environment conditions.

Is this a common?
 
Primer on backing plate...

Thanks for the pointer to that video. Craig said in the video, no "Krylon" on the backing plates. I assume he meant any kind of paint or primer; that the backing plates should be raw aluminum. Is that correct? Since I'm not at the airport I had to look up a picture of my prop installation to remember if I primed the backing plates. Here's a picture of my installation. I obviously have primer on the plates. I believe its the NAPA Primer on my backing plates.

Been flying 100 hours now, but I assume the safe thing to do would be to remove the prop and inspect the primer and probably strip it.

Dang, I just finished my condition inspection and did re-torque the prop bolts. But did not remove the prop.

Michael-

R32sx2J.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think the issue discussed was that any paint on the backing plate would turn to dust and act as a lubricant or abrasive. Bare aluminum is the correct installation.
 
That was a great webinar thanks for mentioning it Glen. Interesting angle/lost torque percentage math.
 
Paint on backing plate...

Did anyone else make this mistake?

Suggestions on how to get the primer off my plate? MEK maybe?

Michael-
 
Either lacquer thinner or MEK should take that primer off. (I primed my spinner plates, but discovered the mistake prior to installing the prop. Primer came off quite easily.)
 
He didn't mention anything about paint on the crush plate in the video. I just ordered a 20# crush plate from saber and he mentioned something about primer. I know you don't want to have any paint where the bolt contacts the surface because that can cause slippage, but should it not have any primer at all?

I think the issue discussed was that any paint on the backing plate would turn to dust and act as a lubricant or abrasive. Bare aluminum is the correct installation.
 
That was a great webinar thanks for mentioning it Glen. Interesting angle/lost torque percentage math.

that was very enlightening. Also, the tip about making sure there is no slack in the safety wire was good too. I know sometimes, working with that fat safety wire, I have had a smidge of slack in mine before.
 
Back
Top