VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #1  
Old 11-30-2015, 10:35 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,829
Default WW-151-H : Unexpected Issues at Overhaul

I have been a big cheerleader for the Whirlwind 151-H Prop for the RV-3. It provides outstanding performance, gives all the envelope capability of a Constant Speed Prop, is smooth, and best of all ? is light enough for the nose of an RV-3. I found out about it from Randy Lervold?s excellent blog on the building of his RV-3, and have not been disappointed by it in flight. The three-blade prop is not cheap, and there are not a lot of them out in the field. There were some issues early on with the original blades (made with aluminum ferules) when used on IO-360?s, and Whirlwind came out with new blades fitted with steel ferules. This has apparently stopped the problems with fretting between the ferule and the hub. Because there is not a lot of field experience, with the prop, it has a very short service interval set at 350 hours. Ahh?the price we pay for being early adopters.

When we reached 350 hours in about two years of operation, I talked with the prop?s designer, Jim Rust, about going longer based on other?s field experience. He said that he had well over 400 hours on his, and was seeing no issues, so we elected to go longer to help expand the database. We had a similar discussion with Whirlwind, Jim, and Ameritech Propellers in Redding (CA) at 450 hours, and the consensus was that if it wasn?t spitting grease, run it a bit longer. At 500 hours, I found some grease on a blade after a flight, so we called Ameritech, and had them come pick it up.

Unfortunately, the teardown inspection found a problem that Jim and Whirlwind?s Greg Andersen say they have not seen before ? cracks in an aluminum ?cap? that closes out the interior of the blade root inside the hub. This part, shaped like a stove-pipe hat, sits inside the hollow root of the blade, and they found cracks on all three of ours. There was also a slight groove worn into a sealing surface on the hub (unrelated to the cracks), and Whirlwind had a routine sleeve fix for that. Unfortunately, the blades were considered unserviceable, and had to be replaced. If I understand the dynamics of the mechanical assembly correctly, the cracks were not a threat in terms of throwing a blade or massive structural failure ? but it certainly was not something that we wanted to see. Jim Rust made the new blades at his shop in San Diego and shipped them and the hub to Whirlwind in Ohio for the hub machining and reassembly. The prop is on its way back right now, and we should be flying the RV-3 again later this week.

Props are something that have to be right ? the consequences of failure are often catastrophic. I am comfortable that we were not on the way to shedding a blade, and Greg at Whirlwind told me that they have at least one customer with this prop who uses it on a daily commuter, putting on over 2,000 hours to date. They claim to have never seen this problem before, and I have no reason to dispute that. These three blades were all made at the same time ? so was there a manufacturing or materials defect that affected them all equally? Everyone involved finds it hard to believe that the extended time between overhaul would have made a difference, since the overhaul process would not affect whether the part would crack or not ? if it was not cracked when they opened it up, it would just have cracked afterwards. We are flying this on an IO-320 with P-Mags, normal compression. While the prop is now not recommended for use on 360?s with high compression pistons or electronic ignitions, both Greg and Jim think we should be fine in our configuration.

We?re going to fly the prop again (its essentially new), basically because we have yet to find a viable replacement that will give us the performance for the weight that we get from the 151 ? but we are going to open it up at the early service interval and see what we find. Some might say that it is foolish to fly with a design that has been known to crack ? but we frequently repair and fly cracked engine cases ? and we?re going to be flying with all new blades. Meanwhile, we?ll see what might be on the market today that can do the same job at the same weight. Like I said at the start ? this is really a great performing prop ? but we knew going in that we were early adopters and as such, we had to be prepared for surprises. Hopefully, we?ll find that there was something unique to this batch of blades (built in early 2011 I think), and we won?t see this next time ? but we?ll be watching carefully.

Meanwhile, if there are any other WW-151 users out there, it might be time to have a look inside and see if anything is amiss ? that is the real purpose of this post?.to get the word out. Jim at Whirlwind Propellers and Greg at Whirlwind Aviation have been absolutely stellar to work with on this issue, and they have bent over backwards to get us back in the air as quickly and inexpensively as possible. But such are the realities of experimental aviation ? there are always going to be unknowns, and you have to go in with your eyes wide open.

Pictures:
Here is the prop with the cover plate removed. You can see that the blades are secured in the hub by the steel blade ferules ? you can just see the aluminum ring at the very base of the blades that form the brim of the ?stove-pipe hat? that closes out the root end of the blade.


All three blades as removed from the hub. As I understand it, the pitch-change lug (the pin sticking out the base of the blades) is secured deeply into the steel ferule, and there is simply a hole in the aluminum stove-pipe hat that passes over it ? so failure of the aluminum brim doesn?t affect that directly ? although it could clearly create something loose in the hub that could interfere with operation.


Here?s one of the cracks ? basically, the ?brim? of the hat is separating from the top part that extends into the hollow blade root. Certainly not pretty!


Folks ? if you are flying with one of these, get it inspected ? let?s find out if this is an isolated incident, or if we have a systemic problem!
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-30-2015, 10:47 AM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 16,092
Default

Glad this is working out well, and Tsam is gonna get airborne again.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-30-2015, 10:55 AM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 10,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight View Post
cracks in an aluminum ?cap? that closes out the interior of the blade root inside the hub. This part, shaped like a stove-pipe hat, sits inside the hollow root of the blade (snip)
Here?s one of the cracks ? basically, the ?brim? of the hat is separating from the top part that extends into the hollow blade root. Certainly not pretty!
Jim is a good egg. I'm sure he will be all over it.

Do you know the structural purpose of the aluminum top hat? Is it just pressed into the blade butt? Is the tube portion wall thickness somewhat thinner than the brim?
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-30-2015, 11:17 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
Jim is a good egg. I'm sure he will be all over it.

Do you know the structural purpose of the aluminum top hat? Is it just pressed into the blade butt? Is the tube portion wall thickness somewhat thinner than the brim?
I don't know that stuff yet Dan - but I am hoping to get by Jim's shop in a couple of weeks when I am down in San Diego for a visit. Looking forward to sitting down with him and really understanding the design.

Paul
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-30-2015, 11:56 AM
gasman gasman is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 4,131
Default

Interesting how the intersection of the crack is inline with the pin. And the crack that follows the flange favors one direction..... the loaded side of the blade?
__________________
VAF #897 Warren Moretti
2020 =VAF= Dues PAID
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-30-2015, 09:33 PM
1001001's Avatar
1001001 1001001 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Just Minutes from KBVI!
Posts: 1,138
Default

It is always useful when looking into failures to consider both what is similar and what is dissimilar between like failures. Particularly interesting here will be what the (dis)similarities are in the nature of the cracks on each blade.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-01-2015, 12:24 PM
arunnells arunnells is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 130
Default No issues thus far on my WW151H

Paul, my WW151H was just serviced by WW at 356.1 hrs on the hub, and 261.7 hrs on the blades (hub originally had the aluminum ferrule blades), no issues reported by WW. This was used on an O360 A3A (as originally intended by WW, see previous posts for this prop for sale) with Electroair electronic ignition, and for the last 30 hrs of use or so, on a rebuild with 8.5 to 1 pistons and ECI flowed heads with one PMag and one Slick, never over 2730 rpm. Thanks for your informative warning post, much appreciated, best regards, Al.
__________________
RV-6 tip up,190hp,Pmag,ported/flowed ECI heads, WW200 prop,older glass panel,long range tank,SOLD
RV-3A tip over, 170 hp, dual Pmags, 15 gal wing tanks, CN-1,CN-2 wing mods, D10A, XM396, SOLD
Murphy Rebel Elite purchased and flying
DR-107 One Design project with Schuenemann 21 foot wing, wing tanks, 50% done SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-2015, 08:53 AM
Michael Henning Michael Henning is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 546
Default No issues either

I had my WW150C torn down at 50 hours to have a bunch of upgrades done to it. Non destructive testing on the blades was also done.... No issues. Prop is running great. I can't say enough good things about WhirlWind.
__________________
Mike
RV-4 #2750
N654ML
IO-360
WW150C Prop
1018 lbs
Flying
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.