Ground adjustable prop vs C/S

[Block]

orig on my 320 rv6 I had a sensenich cruise prop but I wanted more takeoff performance,went to a catto 3 blade which worked out ok and looked good,downfall was harder to remove cowling and I am in a shared hanger w a high wing next to me whose wing was to close for comfort to my prop,next came a whirlwind ga which turned out pretty good ,easy to dial in ,good looking and smooth,but if my engine had setup for constance speed that's the way to go if you have the xtra money

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Chattin35

Going with a constant speed prop was one of, if not the, best building decisions I made and I almost didn't do it. Yeah, it hurts the pocketbook up front. But, I think you'll actually come out ahead in the long run fuel savings.

I've talked about more of the reasons to go with a C/S in other threads. But, I think putting a fixed pitch on an RV is like buying a Corvette and only driving it in 2nd gear. C/S really opens up the performance envelope and gives you a lot more flexibility.

If maintained I.A.W. the manufacturer, it will be the most expensive (per hour) single item on your aircraft to maintain.

And IF you get metal in your oil, it will be in your prop also................

[gasman]

Originally Posted by dtw_rv6

Don?t underestimate the value of a light aircraft. An RV loaded to gross weight is an albatross compared to a sub 1000lb aircraft with minimal fuel load on board. Fighter jet versus 18wheeler.

Soooo true... My 6A is light, and when I am low on fuel (local flight) the plane is a real joy to fly. The lighter it gets, the more fun it is. 320 Sen metal fp.

A typical flight my manual trim knob does not need to be moved more than 1/4 inch for take off, cruse and landing. And many flights, not touched at all. No adjustment needed during flap extension.

[bizpilot]

I own a D95A travel Air,(IO-360 B1B?s) and 1/2 a RV14A IO 390. The props on the Travel Air ( new 3 years ago) don?t have a AD for overhaul at every 500 hours any more, but still have a RPM restriction of no continuous operation between 2050 and 2350. We have no such restriction on the Hartzell C/S 2 blade on the 14A.
My question is, is this RPM range possibly a restriction on any RV 4cylinder with a Hartzell?

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Given the very good climb rates of RV's , even with a fixed-pitch cruise prop, I'm not sure what the advantage of a ground adjustable prop is. A constant-speed prop would be great for maximum versatility, sure, but I don't see a practical day-to-day value in having a ground-adjustable prop.

The only scenario I could think of is if you just occasionally fly out of very short and very high density altitude strips. Then you might wish you could manually adjust the prop before that one takeoff. I'm skeptical of how often one would even need or want to do that though.

[rv7charlie]

Maybe the f/p maker hits exactly what you want; maybe not. A good gnd adj can let you hit your desired 'sweet spot' for your a/c.

[Christopher Murphy]

Originally Posted by alpinelakespilot2000

Given the very good climb rates of RV's , even with a fixed-pitch cruise prop, I'm not sure what the advantage of a ground adjustable prop is. A constant-speed prop would be great for maximum versatility, sure, but I don't see a practical day-to-day value in having a ground-adjustable prop.

The only scenario I could think of is if you just occasionally fly out of very short and very high density altitude strips. Then you might wish you could manually adjust the prop before that one takeoff. I'm skeptical of how often one would even need or want to do that though.

The advantage is you can adjust the pitch to the best setting for your aircrafts weight , speed, operating conditions where as when you buy that catto it is what it is for the most part. You can get a larger heavier prop extention to help with CG. I really like my Sensi GA
Cm

[sibriggs]

The main advantage of the CS is the ability to set low pitch for takeoff and climb, then set it for efficient cruise once at altitude. When I built my RV9 I considered the CS but chose the Sensi GA because the RV9 has such a short ground roll and climb is 1500 to 2000 fpm (even with the GA set at High Pitch) there is no need for the CS adjustments.

I flew with a CS for many years in both singles and twins and wouldn't trade my GA for a CS, even if it was paid for by someone else. In fact, cost never factored into it. Performance was the deciding factor for me.

I challenge anyone considering a CS and not flown behind a GA (set for optimum cruise), to do so before they make a choice between the two.

Steve

[rzbill]

Originally Posted by bizpilot

I own a D95A travel Air,(IO-360 B1B?s) and 1/2 a RV14A IO 390. The props on the Travel Air ( new 3 years ago) don?t have a AD for overhaul at every 500 hours any more, but still have a RPM restriction of no continuous operation between 2050 and 2350. We have no such restriction on the Hartzell C/S 2 blade on the 14A.

My question is, is this RPM range possibly a restriction on any RV 4cylinder with a Hartzell?

Restrictions are based on engine/prop combination (not airframe) and are specified by the prop manufacturer, if specified at all.

By that rule, some RVs have restrictions and some do not. Simply because the engine/prop combinations chosen by the individual builders can be different.

As example, the stock YIO-360-M1B and Hartzell BA pair sold by Vans for the RV7 does not have rpm restriction.

However, if one chose to install an IO-360-A1A and McCauley from an old Mooney, that pairs restriction would remain in effect.

[Northernliving]

I'm also interested in PIREPs from either the WhirlWind or Senenich composite ground adjustable props.