VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Propellers (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   I Don't Get It - FP vs CS (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=80855)

LeeM_2000 02-29-2012 09:47 PM

I want a C/S, but will likely end up with a FP for the cost savings both in initial purchase price and maintenance.

trackdom 03-01-2012 12:04 AM

By the way, who are the best wood propeller manufacturers in USA?
Thanks

ao.frog 03-01-2012 02:17 AM

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....

Flyguytki 03-01-2012 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ao.frog (Post 634792)
.... when a carowner has tried automatic transmission, he'd never want to go back to manual gearshifts anymore...


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

NickAir 03-01-2012 03:46 AM

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.

pierre smith 03-01-2012 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackdom (Post 634787)
By the way, who are the best wood propeller manufacturers in USA?
Thanks

In my opinion, Craig Catto, although they're really composite but the most bang for the buck.

Best,

Mel 03-01-2012 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickAir (Post 634803)

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.

I think you mean "lower pitch" for take-off performance. Lower pitch allows the engine to turn up faster thereby producing more power.

PerfTech 03-01-2012 09:20 AM

Best FP prop
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pierre smith (Post 634813)
In my opinion, Craig Catto, although they're really composite but the most bang for the buck.

Best,

I second that! Craig Catto is one of the nicest, most sincere, helpful and accommodating people you will ever meet and makes a fabulous product. He will work with you to be certain you have the perfect propeller for your airplane. Very hard to improve on that! Allan :D

paul mosher 03-01-2012 09:37 AM

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.

rockwoodrv9 03-01-2012 09:37 AM

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.