![]() |
I want a C/S, but will likely end up with a FP for the cost savings both in initial purchase price and maintenance.
|
By the way, who are the best wood propeller manufacturers in USA?
Thanks |
I'd think that...
.... when a carowner has tried automatic transmission, he'd never want to go back to manual gearshifts anymore...
That's the case for me at least... :D Get a ride in a -7 with a C/S prop: do some short field takeoff and landings, some acro and then decide.... |
Quote:
Again personal preference, I would rather have a manual transmission over automatic any day. But that right theres proves the point. It all what you want, if you want simple, you cant get much more simple than one lever for power, push forward go fast pull back slow down. -david |
C/S or F/P
The simplicity of a fixed pitch has benefits:
- no moving parts - no grease - no leaking Zerk's - no down time for rebuild - no high $$ for rebuild - no problem out performing spam cans w/ your F/P - Top end speeds are same as F/P - There are fixed pitch props that flex flatter at max rpm when airspeed is low, (for better climb performance.) This will never compete with a C/S although appears to be a great compromise. - Tri blade F/P is supposed to provide more thrust at lower airspeed although it may be slightly less efficient. - Tri blade creates higher prop clearance to ground. If a RV pilot wants more performance at take off and climb then you can still stay with a F/P by going with a tri blade and/or a higher pitch. This will limit the top end to a lower speed as a direct trade off for the higher performance on take off and climb. This is common with small power bush planes for reasons mentioned above. |
Quote:
Best, |
Quote:
|
Best FP prop
Quote:
|
C/S
Grease on windshield? High maintenance? I've used C/S props for years and never experienced either problem. Get what you want.
It'll be cheaper to buy a C/S than buying a F/P and changing your mind later. But get what you want. |
additional workload for CS?
I have flown almost always with a FP prop. I flew some in a 182 that had a CS, but I didn't operate the prop since I didn't have experience with one - the plane's owner did the prop adjustments. That was several years ago and I don't remember much about it. How much more complex is it for a low time pilot? If I remember correctly, LSA does not allow it for that reason. I plan to go with a fuel injected engine to reduce the leaning needs and chance of error and engine repairs. The cost is an issue too and my major flight profile is traveling to visit kids and grandkids. I like the idea of increased climb and the ability to slow down getting in and out of smaller airports, but the -9 with a 360 or a 320 will not have any performance problems for sure with either type of prop.
Does the extra knob add that much workload for a low time pilot? It may be a question that may not have an answer more than a standard transmission - vs - auto would have. I appreciate the expertise here - it is hard to find something that people don't know about on this forum! |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 AM. |