|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

12-19-2019, 07:37 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
|
|
Hartzell Propeller Appliation Guide
I was looking for the aluminum Hartzell limitations (RPM/MAP) for different prop hub/blade models and engine combos, and found this link. The Vans section starts at Chapter is 61-02-59, page 1423 (PDF number) to 1442.
http://hartzellprop.com//services/pr...ication-guide/
Direct Link to PDF.
https://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/...59-0000-WA.pdf
I called Hartzell and asked them a few questions. The main take away is to keep in mind some prop (hub/blade) models and engine models with electronic ignition have not been tested. For those who remember before the BA prop came out Hartzell tested their standard CS prop for 180 HP Lycs (HC-C2YK-1BF/7666-2) with electronic ignitions and found some undesirable vibrations at certain RPM/MAP settings and set a life limit. That lead to the BA 7496 prop. It was better but still had some RPM/MAP limits on non-dampened cranks. Than the BA 7497 blade came out with no restrictions. Keep in mind that not all engines have been tested with electronic ignitions of every possible combinations. If in doubt call Hartzell.
Any one want to chime in with trivia and fun facts. Does anyone have any direct comparison of the BA 7496 vs BA 7497 performance?
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
2020 Dues Paid
Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 12-19-2019 at 07:57 AM.
|

12-19-2019, 08:57 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
I was looking for the aluminum Hartzell limitations (RPM/MAP) for different prop hub/blade models and engine combos, and found this link. The Vans section starts at Chapter is 61-02-59, page 1423 (PDF number) to 1442.
http://hartzellprop.com//services/pr...ication-guide/
Direct Link to PDF.
https://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/...59-0000-WA.pdf
I called Hartzell and asked them a few questions. The main take away is to keep in mind some prop (hub/blade) models and engine models with electronic ignition have not been tested. For those who remember before the BA prop came out Hartzell tested their standard CS prop for 180 HP Lycs (HC-C2YK-1BF/7666-2) with electronic ignitions and found some undesirable vibrations at certain RPM/MAP settings and set a life limit. That lead to the BA 7496 prop. It was better but still had some RPM/MAP limits on non-dampened cranks. Than the BA 7497 blade came out with no restrictions. Keep in mind that not all engines have been tested with electronic ignitions of every possible combinations. If in doubt call Hartzell.
Any one want to chime in with trivia and fun facts. Does anyone have any direct comparison of the BA 7496 vs BA 7497 performance?
|
Can we assume that this Hartzell document quotes the "approved engine/prop" combos for FAA certification and getting 25 hrs. Phase 1 restrictions?
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
|

12-19-2019, 03:39 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 959
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
Can we assume that this Hartzell document quotes the "approved engine/prop" combos for FAA certification and getting 25 hrs. Phase 1 restrictions?
|
I would think the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) should.
TCDS link: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...-920_Rev39.pdf
See Page 8, " Note 9: Special Limits: Table of Propeller – Engine Combinations Approved Vibrationwise for Use on Normal Category Single Engine Tractor Aircraft".
However, note this at the top of page 8:
"The maximum and minimum propeller diameters that can be used from a vibration standpoint are shown below. No reduction below the minimum diameter listed is permissible, since this figure includes the diameter reduction allowable for repair purposes.
The engine models listed below are the configurations on the engine type certificate unless specifically stated otherwise. Modifications to the engine or airframe that alter the power of the engine models listed below during any phase of operation have the potential to increase propeller stresses and are not approved by this list. Such modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of a turbocharger or turbonormalizer, increased boost pressure, increased compression ratio, increased RPM, altered ignition timing, electronic ignition, full authority digital engine controls (FADEC), or tuned induction or exhaust. Also, any change to the mass or stiffness of the crankshaft/counterweight assembly is not approved by this list."
Last edited by RV8JD : 12-19-2019 at 03:49 PM.
|

01-01-2020, 02:13 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
|
|
Thanks Carl.
Az_gila it's experimental aircraft so you can do what you want. Hartzell is covering their Six O'clock.
The good news Hartzell has tested several common prop/eng combos with electronic ignitions on RV's. One can extrapolate or interpolated. It's on the builder in the end.
My feeling always has been if you have a custom fire breathing maxed out turbocharged high compression electronic ignition Frankenstein engine, you might want to go with a composite prop, which is more forgiving with harmonic vibrations and fatigue. Hartzell has a nice composite prop, but it's expensive.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
2020 Dues Paid
|

01-01-2020, 03:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
Thanks Carl.
Az_gila it's experimental aircraft so you can do what you want. Hartzell is covering their Six O'clock.
|
Yes he can do what he wants, but he specifically asked about a 25 hr vs 40 hr phase 1. FAA?s policy has been 40 hours unless engine, prop, and the combo, has some sort of approval. If you bought the multi-thousand dollar cheaper ?experimental? engine from Lycoming, you?ll get 40 hours.
|

01-02-2020, 11:55 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
Yes he can do what he wants, but he specifically asked about a 25 hr vs 40 hr phase 1. FAA’s policy has been 40 hours unless engine, prop, and the combo, has some sort of approval. If you bought the multi-thousand dollar cheaper ‘experimental’ engine from Lycoming, you’ll get 40 hours.
|
Thanks, right. The topic well discussed and opinionated in several threads. I have no dog in the fight. Bottom line you have to prove it to the FAA/DAR. The application guide could be accepted data since it references the Type Cert Spec (e.g.: P-920) See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
Can we assume that this Hartzell document quotes the "approved engine/prop" combos for FAA certification and getting 25 hrs. Phase 1 restrictions?
|
No I think it is a little more complicated but a good start. See below:
TC (Link Carl Posted below) for the Prop Hub (and blades and approved engines), if you read it like a Philly Lawyer, there is a slim chance [my opinion] you have a "certified" combo unless you strictly adhere to all the flag notes, especially 9 and 10, stock Lycoming & Prop combo with approved Governor, certified ignition, exhaust, airbox and no changes of any kind from stock engine and installation of said engine in certified plane.....
Note 10 states the combo must have been part of a certified airplane approval. One might argue Hartzell tested Engine/Prop Combo on RV's. RV is not a certified plane. Again up to you to make the case. The Hartzell Application guide is GOOD INFO for RPM/MAP restrictions along with the TC. If you find the combo in the TC and certified plane TC, e.g.: Piper Arrow, Mooney you have a case.
I have (had) a "Mooney" combo Engine and Prop, but it went out the window with electronic ignition and 4-into-1 exhaust. Again convince FAA/DAR you are a "certified combo" good to go for 25 hours Phase 1. Personally it does not matter and I want freedom to add custom exhaust, ignition, prop Gov of my choice...... etc.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...-920_Rev39.pdf
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
2020 Dues Paid
Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 01-03-2020 at 08:35 AM.
|

01-02-2020, 01:28 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 228
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
I was looking for the aluminum Hartzell limitations (RPM/MAP) for different prop hub/blade models and engine combos, and found this link. The Vans section starts at Chapter is 61-02-59, page 1423 (PDF number) to 1442.
http://hartzellprop.com//services/pr...ication-guide/
Direct Link to PDF.
https://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/...59-0000-WA.pdf
I called Hartzell and asked them a few questions. The main take away is to keep in mind some prop (hub/blade) models and engine models with electronic ignition have not been tested. For those who remember before the BA prop came out Hartzell tested their standard CS prop for 180 HP Lycs (HC-C2YK-1BF/7666-2) with electronic ignitions and found some undesirable vibrations at certain RPM/MAP settings and set a life limit. That lead to the BA 7496 prop. It was better but still had some RPM/MAP limits on non-dampened cranks. Than the BA 7497 blade came out with no restrictions. Keep in mind that not all engines have been tested with electronic ignitions of every possible combinations. If in doubt call Hartzell.
Any one want to chime in with trivia and fun facts. Does anyone have any direct comparison of the BA 7496 vs BA 7497 performance?
|
As one other data point for the RV-10, I wholly recommend the 2 bladed composite (8301) blades and the "B" hub! I checked the document, and did not see it listed.
Before I bought my propellor (through Van's), I talked to an engineer at Hartzell about it quite a lot, because I was worried about the AL blades with my engine. I have 10 to 1 pistons and dual electronic ignitions (LSE's). The engineer told me that the 8301 blades would be a great match for the 10. Kahuna had done extensive testing for Hartzell with the strain gauges, and data collecting on his 540 and the 2 bladed composite and TRIED to tear them up, and the combination was bullet proof.
The Hartzell guy said no worries with the high compressions pistons and no RPM restrictions. Also this prop is anywhere from 8 to 11 POUNDS lighter than the AL blades.
I have 170 hours on the plane so far with no complaints on the combination. It's been great.
__________________

Larry Anderson
Indianapolis
RV-Super 8 N88XT SOLD
RV-10 QB N38LA Flying
Helicopter Instructor Pilot
Standardization I.P.
Instrument Examiner
U.S. Army Retired
EMS Pilot for LifeLine
At IU Health Retired :-)
Although Exempt,
Donated for 2020
|

01-02-2020, 10:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 5,297
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
Can we assume that this Hartzell document quotes the "approved engine/prop" combos for FAA certification and getting 25 hrs. Phase 1 restrictions?
|
It may not help anyways. My FAA guy saw that I had a non-certified ignition on my engine and wouldn't give me the 25 hours, as the engine was no longer "Certiifed." Hopefully you have better luck.
Larry
__________________
N64LR - RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
N11LR - RV-10, Flying as of 12/2019
|

01-03-2020, 09:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 542
|
|
Hartzell Propeller Appliation Guide
My IA buddy, who helped me build, told me the minute I hung the certified engine on my -9A, it became experimental. The FAA inspector agreed, saying Van's aircraft were not on the engine's original certification document. An interesting note though, the inspector said there are two ways to return it back to a certified engine; (1)an IA must certify no experimental modifications and all ADs are complied with, OR (2) sent it to certified shop for complete overhaul. Dan from Reno
|

02-02-2020, 06:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 452
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
|
In the Hartzell application guide on pages 1424-1442 it lists many of the props for Vans aircraft. For engine model it denotes IO-XXX, (I)O-XXX, or O-XXX. Does this imply that the prop would be dependent on the fuel delivery system, injected(I) vs carb(O)?
__________________
Brian J.
Boston, MA
RV8 Based at ORH - Purchased
RV8 - The Project #83313 - Under Construction
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 AM.
|