What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Props: From Wood to Catto - initial impressions

rcsilvmac

Well Known Member
I fly an RV-6A with O-320-E2A. I have flown about 150 hours on this plane with a Sterba 68x78 wood prop. I had been contemplating upgrading this prop and had been closely watching threads on this topic but it was really hard for me to get clarity on the impact of this change. Would the plane really be faster, more efficient, dare I say - safer? With all the other maintenance I had been doing the prop just wasn't the top priority.

Lo and behold, a Vans Classified ad popped up with a prop off another RV-6 O-320, and the owner was just a short flight away. Of course who can miss a great excuse to fly, so off I went to "take a look." Of course you know what happened - I got to meet another fantastic Van's RV-6 owner (a regular on this site) and I flew home behind a new (to me) prop.

I thought it would be useful to share an initial PIREP. The prop is a recently refurbished Catto 70" / 70" pitch Glass/Carbon Composite prop. It ended up bolting right onto to my prop extension. After careful ground run ups and a fast taxi, I did a quick pattern, completed another round of ground checks, and flew home. What follows is my first impressions. I am not equipped to do detailed side by side comparisons so I apologize in advance for a subjective review, not an objective one.

First thing I noticed is the throttle control was much more linear. The lighter prop spins up and down quicker. To me this is safety margin, for instance when finely tuning power while on descent. Also adding to safety is that my plane seems to accelerate faster and rotate sooner. Not dramatic, but noticeable in my first couple takeoffs. I definitely think this prop makes my plane more responsive, and hence, potentially safer.

Next item I noticed was this prop was pitched to allow higher RPMs. Static RPM was 2275. In flight on my return trip I was able to hit 2800 rpm in straight and level at 4000' MSL. At that altitude I would only achieve 2600ish with my wood prop. I have a red line on my tach at 2700 and I never worried about hitting it with the wood prop, whereas I was already past it on my first flight home. Of course with the pitch I was also able to hold cruise speed at lower RPMs. This means I now have the choice of greater speed or lower cruise RPM, both nice improvements.

Finally is value. I may be selling this plane in the next year, so value was an important consideration. My Sterba prop has worked well for all the hours on this plane so far (750) and I didn't NEED a new prop. As I considered spending the money I wondered if it would increase the value of my plane to a potential buyer to at least cover the cost of the prop. From a looks standpoint the Catto prop was beautiful (although I need to paint the cowling). The prop change has also made the plane more responsive, faster and/or more efficient. To me, it was worth the investment and any future purchaser would appreciate that I spent the money on the upgrade. What do you think?
 

Attachments

  • 63434652214__79D3EFD2-ACF2-4534-B6F1-7CEE6CD15E2D.jpg
    63434652214__79D3EFD2-ACF2-4534-B6F1-7CEE6CD15E2D.jpg
    543.6 KB · Views: 137
  • IMG_0116.jpg
    IMG_0116.jpg
    289 KB · Views: 128
  • IMG_0147.jpg
    IMG_0147.jpg
    232.3 KB · Views: 138
Last edited:
I have done a lot of testing with these props. 2650 static is way too high. 2250-2350 is about where they should hang out depending on the prop requirements.

2650 on the ground is more like 3000 in the air. At least that is what we were seeing at Reno during races.

Glad you are happy. But you may want to do more testing. Something sounds off.
 
Next item I noticed was this prop was pitched to allow higher RPMs. Static RPM was 2650. In flight on my return trip I was able to hit 2800 rpm in straight and level at 4000' MSL. At that altitude I would only achieve 2600ish with my wood prop. I have a red line on my tach at 2700 and I never worried about hitting it with the wood prop, whereas I was already past it on my first flight home. Of course with the pitch I was also able to hold cruise speed at lower RPMs. This means I now have the choice of greater speed or lower cruise RPM, both nice improvements.

I left the paragraph intact for context, but don't understand the bolded statement.
 
I left the paragraph intact for context, but don't understand the bolded statement.

My understanding was the Lycoming O-320 could deliver additional performance at RPMs higher than the 2600 I was seeing on my old prop - hence by being able to drive higher RPMs (to 2700) I can achieve greater performance. I also felt, albeit only after 1 flight, that I was able to maintain ISO IAS at lower RPM, hence gained efficiency.

Does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
My understanding was the Lycoming O-320 could deliver additional performance at RPMs higher than the 2600 I was seeing on my old prop - hence by being able to drive higher RPMs (to 2700) I can achieve greater performance. I also felt, albeit only after 1 flight, that I was able to maintain ISO IAS at lower RPM, hence gained efficiency.

Does that make sense?

Yes. Thanks for the clarification.
 
I have done a lot of testing with these props. 2650 static is way too high. 2250-2350 is about where they should hang out depending on the prop requirements.

2650 on the ground is more like 3000 in the air. At least that is what we were seeing at Reno during races.

Glad you are happy. But you may want to do more testing. Something sounds off.

I was thinking the same thing.
Either there are errors in some of the info you provided because of typos, or other info is just plain not possible.
 
I was thinking the same thing.
Either there are errors in some of the info you provided because of typos, or other info is just plain not possible.

Yes, I put the wrong static number in. I apologize for confusion and have corrected the original post. We actually saw 2275 RPM static.
 
Enjoy

If you are happy and safe, that’s all that matters I guess. I think you might have a custom built catto to a clients specs Here is what the factory states best in class for your 6A w/ 150hp lycoming engine. Also it is my understanding your prop is wood, covered with composite materials. Have fun !
 

Attachments

  • 4600C166-9AC0-47E1-86BB-A73AEF9F3911.png
    4600C166-9AC0-47E1-86BB-A73AEF9F3911.png
    249.1 KB · Views: 196
When I took my catto prop in for a pitch change and refurb he changed the torque setting to 35 ft-lbs. You might want to call him.
Also, now I don’t get above 2700 on my o-320.
Wilson Hoffman
 
Back
Top