prop choice - Page 2

Smilin' Jack · #11 05-13-2018, 10:33 AM

As stated Hartzell recommends a 500 hour overhaul if you do acrobatics with the aircraft. Although not reuired by any AD it isnecessary and expensive. Just went through it and at 2300
Dollars it will be an additional 9200 in 2000 hours if engine time. I dont believe the compisite Hartzell have that requirement. So in the ling run a composite might be the way ti go

swisseagle · #12 05-14-2018, 10:22 AM

Hello folks

Does anybody has a Whirlwind 200RV propeller on his plane?
http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/props/rvseries.asp

Considering also to convert from FP ... IO-320, RV7A ... but the MT-Prop is very high $$$

grubbat · #13 05-15-2018, 05:01 AM

I love my BA prop. Purchased from Vans and no regrets. Had a FP prop on my -6 and it was ok but the CS prop gives ultimate performance for the excellent Vans design. Taking off and being at pattern altitude before end of runway is a great way to start my daily RV adventure.

swisseagle · #14 05-16-2018, 05:13 AM

C'on ... nobody runs a Whirlwind 200RV propeller???

jimgreen · #15 05-16-2018, 09:49 AM

Give 'em time, you'll get replies. Time zones etc.
A search of this site should bring up lots of info on this topic

I have an RV200 with about 290 hrs on it. It's a fairly early version, 2011. It was an exceptionally good deal at the time with a group buy through VAF.
IO360, 180hp.
I've been very happy with it, though I've no personal side by side comparison.

Pros are:
Good top speed. According to those who have compared them.
Good vibration damping. The only smoother props seem to be the 3 blade types.
Great looks! Subjective, I know.
V. nice spinner included.

Cons:
Very light, so on an RV7 rear CG is an issue. Can be mitigated during the build.
Paired with PCU 5000 governor it is easy to exceed 2700rpm on take off. This only a problem on take off, and then only on the shortest runways. The governor doesn't seem quick enough for a light weight prop. American Propeller say they can improve that by adjusting the stops when they do my next inspection. I think this may just be a problem with the earlier props.
Short reseal period - 350hrs on mine.

All told, I've been very pleased with it.

swisseagle · #16 05-17-2018, 05:01 PM

Hello Jim

Sorry for my pushing ... and thank you for your informative write up about your RV200 prop!

Interesting this 2700RPM override ... If we get the acceptance by our FAA, we would like to limit the RPM to 2500, this due to very strict noise regulation. Each plane is measured very preciesly and a penalty is given when you have more than 2500 RPM.

By the way, WW sold more than 600+ RV200 props!

db1yg · #17 05-17-2018, 09:29 PM

Hi Dominik,

A couple of months ago I converted my RV9a/180 from a Catto 3 blade fp to the RV200 two blade. I can not add much to Jim's info other than to say it performs very well, is smooth, cosmetically striking, and significantly reduced my take off runs. The lighter constant speed unit by WW was a better match to my 9a than the heavier BA Hartzell with regard to cg impact. My brother has a 7a with the BA Hartzell and a 180 engine and it was a better match to his 7a.

If you look in the archives you can also find some performance comparisons--some slightly favor the Hartzell--some the WW. Either way will put a smile on your face when you push that throttle in!!

Cheers,

db

Reaver · #18 05-21-2018, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by db1yg

Hi Dominik,

A couple of months ago I converted my RV9a/180 from a Catto 3 blade fp to the RV200 two blade. I can not add much to Jim's info other than to say it performs very well, is smooth, cosmetically striking, and significantly reduced my take off runs. The lighter constant speed unit by WW was a better match to my 9a than the heavier BA Hartzell with regard to cg impact. My brother has a 7a with the BA Hartzell and a 180 engine and it was a better match to his 7a.

If you look in the archives you can also find some performance comparisons--some slightly favor the Hartzell--some the WW. Either way will put a smile on your face when you push that throttle in!!

Cheers,

db

Do you have data on your performance with the Catto vs the WW? Takeoff roll, climb rate, cruise speed (relative to fuel burn), etc?

db1yg · #19 05-21-2018, 09:24 PM

Hi Reaver,

I have not done any "scientific" data collection on the performance differences. I do have some "seat of the pants" info. Take off roll is probably 20-25% shorter due to the 2650-2700 rpm vs the 2200 rpm my Catto turned on the ground here in Prescott (elevation 5100'). Initial climb rate is better for the same reason but after the Catto got up to around 2400 rpm on climb out I think it was a little better in rate of climb--probably due to the 3 blade. In cruise a two blade Catto (same pitch and generation as my 3 blade) that I tested was 1 to 2 knots faster than my three blade and the two blade WW RV200 is the same. Efficiency wise goes to the WW RV200 as I can dial it back to 2350 rpm and wot and I can cruise slightly faster on a little lower fuel flow.

The RV200 constant speed is a lot of fun (especially the t/o acceleration) but it is hard to beat the simplicity, quality, and "bang for the buck" that you get with a Catto!!

Cheers,

db

Reaver · #20 05-22-2018, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by db1yg

Hi Reaver,

I have not done any "scientific" data collection on the performance differences. I do have some "seat of the pants" info. Take off roll is probably 20-25% shorter due to the 2650-2700 rpm vs the 2200 rpm my Catto turned on the ground here in Prescott (elevation 5100'). Initial climb rate is better for the same reason but after the Catto got up to around 2400 rpm on climb out I think it was a little better in rate of climb--probably due to the 3 blade. In cruise a two blade Catto (same pitch and generation as my 3 blade) that I tested was 1 to 2 knots faster than my three blade and the two blade WW RV200 is the same. Efficiency wise goes to the WW RV200 as I can dial it back to 2350 rpm and wot and I can cruise slightly faster on a little lower fuel flow.

The RV200 constant speed is a lot of fun (especially the t/o acceleration) but it is hard to beat the simplicity, quality, and "bang for the buck" that you get with a Catto!!

Cheers,

db

That's interesting and useful, thanks! I'm surprised that the takeoff roll was that different. Do you ever fly to lower elevation fields (<2k MSL), and if so do you still see that big of a difference down there?