What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Propellers for IO-390-EXP119 on RV-14

Bernie

I'm New Here
I am close to ordering my engine/propeller combo from Vans. I am building the tailwheel version of the RV-14. If I am reading it right, the Vans website recommends one Propeller from Hartzell and one from MT. The Hartzell prop is the 72" two blade aluminum blended airfoil priced at $8760. The MT prop the 72" three blade composite priced at $15,300. Thoughts and comments from those in the know would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Bernie

RV-14, 140587, N914BF reserved, building for two years
RV-4, SN3630, N904BF modified for my 6'7" frame, flying since 5/2020
 
74-in. Prop on 14A

The 74 inch 2-blade composite prop from Hartzell is very nice. :D

Glad to hear that. I just ordered one to go with the IO-390-EXP119 for my RV-14A. I had to make a quick decision and for a 14A I didn't think ground clearance would be an issue. I thought that the longer prop would be more efficient and give me more to work with if we have to dress it out. I could be completely wrong, but when you have to make a decision fast, you don't over-analyze.
 
The standard Hartzell two blade BA prop is, IMO, the best value choice. While the composite Hartzell and MT props are nice, the huge price increase along with no data that they provide any performance gain over the standard prop moves them out of my decision process.

I build three RVs with this prop, and will use it again on the current build.

Carl
 
I thought that the longer prop would be more efficient and give me more to work with if we have to dress it out. I could be completely wrong, but when you have to make a decision fast, you don't over-analyze.

There's no dressing out big dings or cutting down the tip on a composite blade.
 
I am close to ordering my engine/propeller combo from Vans. I am building the tailwheel version of the RV-14. If I am reading it right, the Vans website recommends one Propeller from Hartzell and one from MT. The Hartzell prop is the 72" two blade aluminum blended airfoil priced at $8760. The MT prop the 72" three blade composite priced at $15,300. Thoughts and comments from those in the know would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Bernie

RV-14, 140587, N914BF reserved, building for two years
RV-4, SN3630, N904BF modified for my 6'7" frame, flying since 5/2020

I bought the Hartzell for my 14 when the mad rush started on June 29th.
 
The standard Hartzell two blade BA prop is, IMO, the best value choice. While the composite Hartzell and MT props are nice, the huge price increase along with no data that they provide any performance gain over the standard prop moves them out of my decision process.

I build three RVs with this prop, and will use it again on the current build.

Carl

If around 100 pounds of additional static thrust qualifies as "no performance gain", then your position might be valid. In my experience, the Hartzell composite prop is awesome for getting off the runway and is really nice in formation flying too.
 
Last edited:
My two cents...

I built a 14 and am using the 72” Hartzell BA prop. Great prop, great performance. I’d definitely stay with 72” on the 14, whereas 74” is fine on the 14A.

Bear in mind that you will be taking the cowling off many many times, and it is a good bit more difficult with a 3-blade prop. Getting it back on, especially.

But they are sexier.
 
I built a 14 and am using the 72” Hartzell BA prop. Great prop, great performance. I’d definitely stay with 72” on the 14, whereas 74” is fine on the 14A.

Bear in mind that you will be taking the cowling off many many times, and it is a good bit more difficult with a 3-blade prop. Getting it back on, especially.

But they are sexier.

So why the 72” on the -14 (taildragger)? I know the 72” is recommended for the -7, but I think the -14 sits up taller than the -7. I may be selling my -7 Q.B. kit and switching over to the -14, so this subject is of interest to me. I already have the 72” and it’d be nice if in fact it’s a good choice for the -14. That’d keep me from having to sell my 72” and then having to buy the 74”. So us there no real performance differences in the two props?
 
So why the 72” on the -14 (taildragger)? I know the 72” is recommended for the -7, but I think the -14 sits up taller than the -7. I may be selling my -7 Q.B. kit and switching over to the -14, so this subject is of interest to me. I already have the 72” and it’d be nice if in fact it’s a good choice for the -14. That’d keep me from having to sell my 72” and then having to buy the 74”. So us there no real performance differences in the two props?

I have the 74” on my -14 and measured tip to ground clearance at 13” in level attitude
 
Drop test

So why the 72” on the -14 (taildragger)? I know the 72” is recommended for the -7, but I think the -14 sits up taller than the -7. I may be selling my -7 Q.B. kit and switching over to the -14, so this subject is of interest to me. I already have the 72” and it’d be nice if in fact it’s a good choice for the -14. That’d keep me from having to sell my 72” and then having to buy the 74”. So us there no real performance differences in the two props?


I spoke with both Vans and Hartzell about this before ordering my prop. While the ground clearance may seem more than adequate, the issue was ground clearance and the drop test done by Vans, video on their website. For me, one more inch of blade on each side wasn’t worth ignoring strong advice from both parties. And they couldn’t tell me then (four years ago) what if any difference there would be in performance. Maybe they can tell you now.
 
I spoke with both Vans and Hartzell about this before ordering my prop. While the ground clearance may seem more than adequate, the issue was ground clearance and the drop test done by Vans, video on their website. For me, one more inch of blade on each side wasn’t worth ignoring strong advice from both parties. And they couldn’t tell me then (four years ago) what if any difference there would be in performance. Maybe they can tell you now.

I’ll contact Vans to see if they have any updated information/recommendations. Thanks!
 
Getting the cowling on/off

I have a WhirlWind 3 blade on my 14 and the performance seems close or better than the data I've seen with the 2 blade. This is only my opinion. What I can see and the point of writing this is getting the lower cowling (I assume that is what builders think could be an issue) on or off is very easy even with one person. What does help is I have the Anti-Splat fairing guard that I can use to slide the cowling up or down the fairing. I think even if I had a 2 blade I would use this.
 
3 blade prop & anti splat

Would you send a picture of this "anti splat" devise?
Is anyone using a Catto 3 blade?
 
There's no dressing out big dings or cutting down the tip on a composite blade.

Actually the composite props are surprisingly repairable. The details of what can and can't be done are outlined in Hartzell manual 170, and they have a few videos to demonstrate also. Much easier than one might think.

Cutting down the tips? Don't think I would try that one....
 
If around 100 pounds of additional static thrust qualifies as "no performance gain", then your position might be valid. In my experience, the Hartzell composite prop is awesome for getting off the runway and is really nice in formation flying too.

Can you point me to the performance data that demonstrated a 100 lb increase in static thrust for the composite vs. metal Hartzell prop? Is this for a two or three blade Hartzell?
 
Hartzell composite Props

Our local FBO services Cirrus and I'm told that Cirrus uses Hartzell composite on their ships. Lots of data on that prop, and it's the same one recommended for the RV-14A
Cheers:)
 
I have read (with no supporting proof, to be fair) that the 3-bladed prop mated with the EXP engine is considerably smoother. Can anyone with actual experience with either the MT or Hartzell version chime in on this issue?
 
I have read (with no supporting proof, to be fair) that the 3-bladed prop mated with the EXP engine is considerably smoother. Can anyone with actual experience with either the MT or Hartzell version chime in on this issue?

I would expect 3 to be quieter/smoother than a 2. Comes down to frequency of the air pushed by the prop. Three puffs of air vs two puffs of air per rotation is one way to look at it. My electrical engineering brain looks at it as a full vs half-wave rectifier.

Hartzell has an article.

https://hartzellprop.com/are-more-propeller-blades-better/#:~:text=In%20a%20single-engine%20aircraft%2C%20the%20propeller%20blade%20wake,revolution%20for%20the%20same%20amount%20of%20total%20thrust.
 
I would expect 3 to be quieter/smoother than a 2. Comes down to frequency of the air pushed by the prop. Three puffs of air vs two puffs of air per rotation is one way to look at it. My electrical engineering brain looks at it as a full vs half-wave rectifier.

Hartzell has an article.

https://hartzellprop.com/are-more-propeller-blades-better/#:~:text=In%20a%20single-engine%20aircraft%2C%20the%20propeller%20blade%20wake,revolution%20for%20the%20same%20amount%20of%20total%20thrust.

Thanks for posting that link. The article was very informative. So to sum up this thread it seems like the two-bladed prop is the best value for the money. The three-bladed prop gives about the same performance but gives a smoother and slightly quieter ride. However the weight savings of the composite prop is offset slightly by the need for forward ballast to keep the CG from moving too far aft.

For me the comfort factor is significant. I also recall Flightchops’ was claiming his RV-14 had slightly better climb rate and top speed with the Hartzell 3-blade. I’ll probably go for the 3-blade composite. After all, you’re typically dropping $150K when all is said and done. What’s another $13K in the grand scheme of things?
 
CG

I was also very concerned using a composite prop (3-Blade WW) and Earth X batteries (2 on the firewall) but between the back-up pad mounted governor and EFII electronics, VPX and other added weight my CG's worked out pretty well and even 100 lbs of baggage the numbers worked. I do notice that when I load the baggage area to 100 lbs it's very easy to hold the nose off after landing for a considerable amount of time. That prompted me to rerun the W&B and the same CG as before. Any others see this? Stall speed, no flap and full flaps right on the numbers.
 
I was also very concerned using a composite prop (3-Blade WW) and Earth X batteries (2 on the firewall) but between the back-up pad mounted governor and EFII electronics, VPX and other added weight my CG's worked out pretty well and even 100 lbs of baggage the numbers worked. I do notice that when I load the baggage area to 100 lbs it's very easy to hold the nose off after landing for a considerable amount of time. That prompted me to rerun the W&B and the same CG as before. Any others see this? Stall speed, no flap and full flaps right on the numbers.

My -14A has a rearward C/G compared to the Vans factory plane with a 2 blade composite prop and now a single EarthX on the firewall (not an EXP-119 engine). The airplane as you noted is much easier to flare and hold the nose up on landing and to me handles more to my liking overall. Yes, there are conditions now where the rear C/G can be exceeded, but I have never been in a situation that came even close to and of the conditions. Eg: with a 200lb passenger and fuel around 5gal I would be limited to 90+ pounds in the baggage area.
 
The standard Hartzell two blade BA prop is, IMO, the best value choice. While the composite Hartzell and MT props are nice, the huge price increase along with no data that they provide any performance gain over the standard prop moves them out of my decision process.

I build three RVs with this prop, and will use it again on the current build.

Carl

Agree on the performance - - the Hartzell composite is likely 2-3 knots deficit from the BA. I have one. I was warned by Hartzell about it but liked the weight reduction. The side benefit is the nickel leading edge - it does not erode from sand and light FOD like the aluminum. The Whirlwind CS is more efficient based on others back to back testing. Equal to the BA.
 
Back
Top