Hartzell BA restriction

[RyanB]

Hi Everyone

I have an RV4 with an O360 180hp motor and a new 72 inch Hartzell BA prop from Vans (PROP C2YR-1BFP/F74972).

The only restriction I can find on this prop is the following:

Restrictions:
The following restrictions apply to the HC-M2YR-1BFP/F7497 propeller on the RV aircraft with Lycoming IO-360-A1A 200 HP engine: ?Continuous operations is prohibited above 24 inches manifold pressure between 2350 and 2550 rpm.?

I know this might be a stupid question in this case but I often get conflicting stories, so due to the fact that I only have an O360 and not an IO360, I will therefor have no restrictions on my engine/prop combo?

Thank you

[scrollF4]

It's tough to beat the words from the horse's mouth. You really need to call Hartzell's Tech Support folks at 937-778-4376. Tell them the prop (including model number), the engine, and whether you're using normal magnetos or electronic ignition/PMag. They will tell you the specific MAP/RPM restrictions for that combination.

[RV8JD]

The snippets below are from the Hartzell Propeller FAA TCDS P-920, Page 8.

The first row in the table fits your situation (I think) and there are no limitations, as long as nothing in Note 9 at the top of Page 8 (reproduced below) apply to your engine. If one of those do, then call Hartzell.

"Note 9: Special Limits

Table of Propeller – Engine Combinations Approved Vibrationwise for Use on Normal Category Single Engine Tractor Aircraft

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."

[RyanB]

Thank you so much guys. I will email Hartzell today with my combo. Thanks for the helpful post RV8JD.

We have a couple combos like mine here in South Africa with a few
people saying different things. Agreed that the best will be from the horses mouth.

Kind Regards

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by RV8JD

The snippets below are from the Hartzell Propeller FAA TCDS P-920, Page 8.

The first row in the table fits your situation (I think) and there are no limitations, as long as nothing in Note 9 at the top of Page 8 (reproduced below) apply to your engine. If one of those do, then call Hartzell.

"Note 9: Special Limits

Table of Propeller ? Engine Combinations Approved Vibrationwise for Use on Normal Category Single Engine Tractor Aircraft

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."

Wonder why there's no M1B listed. Did I miss it?

[RV8JD]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

Wonder why there's no M1B listed.

The -M1B (and -M1A) is listed for the HC-C2YR hubs with F7666A blades and F8477 blades, but not the HC-C2YR-1BFP with F7497 blades. Not sure why that is, but the differences between the -M1A and -M1B are that the prop governor on the M1A is front-mounted and on the M1B it's rear-mounted, and different Mags. I wouldn't think those would have an effect on the hub-prop-engine vibration characteristics.

From Wikipedia (which references the FAA TCDS):

"IO-360-M1A

180 hp (134 kW) at 2700 rpm, Minimum fuel grade 91/96 avgas, compression ratio 8.50:1. Same as the B1E but with a front inlet fuel injector, propeller governor on front of the crankcase and a retard magneto.[2][4]

IO-360-M1B

180 hp (134 kW) at 2700 rpm, Minimum fuel grade 91/96 avgas, compression ratio 8.50:1. Same as the M1A but with a rear-mounted propeller governor and impulse magneto.[2][4]"

[moosepileit]

Do get their guidance. The first 2-blade Hartzell "Claw" for 4 cylinders was owned by a friend on his S-1T Pitts in the '90s.

It repeatedly caused all sorts of magneto issues as it put vibrations on the accessory case area that were new at the time.

The composite 2 blade installations 2 decades and many thousand operating hours later should be well-knowns to Hartzell.

[rzbill]

From the master:

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...93&postcount=4

[RV8JD]

Originally Posted by rzbill

From the master:

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...93&postcount=4

Thanks for the info.

Re: "This is one of a few configurations that is not yet in Note 9 of TCDS P-920."

There have been several revisions to the TCDS P-920 since that post was made by Les Doud of Hartzell on 4/29/2011, the latest being Rev 39 on 7/19/2019. I wonder why they have not added it yet?

[skylor]

Originally Posted by RV8JD

Thanks for the info.

Re: "This is one of a few configurations that is not yet in Note 9 of TCDS P-920."

There have been several revisions to the TCDS P-920 since that post was made by Les Doud of Hartzell on 4/29/2011, the latest being Rev 39 on 7/19/2019. I wonder why they have not added it yet?

Maybe it's "approved" but not certified? If it was "approved" with the LSE Plasma III, then it probably is not considered a "certified" combo since an engine running the LSE ignition is not in a certified configuration.

Skylor