J

jpharrell

Well Known Member
I was planning on going with a Hartzell CS prop in my 7A but the recent increase in engine prices has forced me to reconsider. I have since been reading up on a Catto 3-blade as an alternative to save on total cost. My bias toward the CS prop was for not for aerobatics or formation flying but mostly for the takeoff performance (without sacrificing cruise) and better control of air speed in the pattern. Can any Catto 3-blade drivers comment on the takeoff, cruise, and braking performance of their 3-blade set-up?
 
Last edited:
Catto 3 blade

I love the Hartzell C/S on my RV7 for the reasons you identified.
It is wonderful compared to the metal Senenich F/P that I had on my RV6..
I believe that, after talking to others and everything I have read, that I would be happy with a Catto 3 blade as a simpler cost effective compromise.
 
jpharrell said:
I was planning on going with a Hartzell CS prop in my 7A but the recent increase in engine prices has forced me to reconsider. I have since been reading up on a Catto 3-blade as an alternative to save on total cost. My bias toward the CS prop was for not for aerobatics or formation flying but mostly for the takeoff performance (without sacrificing cruise) and better control of air speed in the pattern. Can any Catto 3-blade drivers comment on the takeoff, cruise, and braking performance of their 3-blade set-up?
Click to expand...

The first flight with a Catto prop after flying with a MT cs unit was a surprise in the pattern - the airplane did not want to slow down as it did before. But that's just a perception, you adjust and in no time speeds are what you want where you want them. The good news is glide is better.

Take off performance suffers but not much. On a typical day, the airplane got off in an estimated 500-600' with MT and in less than 1000' with Catto. Once up to 100-110 knots or so, the airplane is moving out with Catto. For a max out climb, let the speed build until rpm is around 2500 and climb at that speed. It will be over 1500 fpm initially.

Get the stainless leading edges with Catto. Rain will remove paint from unprotected edges, I found that out flying to OSH last summer. I had the thick plastic tape leading edge protection but it did not protect the 3 inches or so at the tips and that area lost some paint. It was not much rain that did it.

The Catto is high quality, looks great and is light weight. All good things. But I am considering a Fred Felix bi-camber unit for the 8, have not made a decision but Fred is still building very nice props if anyone is interested in bi-camber patented technology. I had one for an experiment with the Subby engine a few years back that did not work out but the guy I sold it too loved it on his 180 hp RV-4. It looked great and was very smooth. Before that I had a 2 blade Felix on a Cozy, it too worked well.

http://exp-aircraft.com/vendors/pagesVen/Felix-Propellers.html
 
I'm happy with my Catto three blades, obviously is a simpler cost effective compromise, but runs very well.

Don't be scared if you see 2150 rpm on take-off.

My two cents
 
On solo take-off, my 3-blade gets me off < 500 feet. After accelerating to 110 mph, I see 2100-2300 ft climb.
Mine is an older prop before Craig applied the metal edges. Right now, I use prop-guard tape and have had no issues when flying into light rain. I do throttle back to ~2100-2200 rpm.
 
Go Catto

I loved my Catto three blade on my RV-8 so much that I have ordered one for my RV-3B! I have flown around 100 hours with the blended airfoil CS prop and also enjoyed that but after flying behind the Catto I would not spend the extra money on the CS.
 
David-aviator said:
Take off performance suffers but not much. On a typical day, the airplane got off in an estimated 500-600' with MT and in less than 1000' with Catto. Once up to 100-110 knots or so, the airplane is moving out with Catto. For a max out climb, let the speed build until rpm is around 2500 and climb at that speed. It will be over 1500 fpm initially.
Click to expand...

David, what elevation are you flying out of? My airport is at 2,500 (roughly) and I'm off the ground in about 400 ft. with my Catto 3-blade. I do have CS prop envy, sometimes, though...watching those guys climb out is awe inspiring! The Catto is more than adequate, but like any fixed pitch it doesn't climb nearly as well as a constant speed.

But, that's a small trade off for the $8,000 in savings.
 
lostpilot28 said:
, but like any fixed pitch it doesn't climb nearly as well as a constant speed.

.
Click to expand...

The only thing that the constant speed did for me was put me back in my seat on take off, otherwise my numbers were as said as good or even better. Cruise test was at 8,000 and airport is at 650msl.
 
I ordered a 3 blade catto for my 8 after...

My buddies 7 with us both (190lbs each), topped off fuel, 180hp stock lyco jumped off the ground in about 500ft using a 2 blade catto.

Field sea level @ 90F
 
Last edited:
What about fuel economy?

How does the Catto 3-blade compare to the CS in fuel burn rate at cruise speeds? Does the CS do significantly better there by letting you go WOT at a lower RPM?
 
jpharrell said:
How does the Catto 3-blade compare to the CS in fuel burn rate at cruise speeds? Does the CS do significantly better there by letting you go WOT at a lower RPM?
Click to expand...
I will give you my thoughts with a caveat. I do not have a constant speed prop nor have I ever spent time behind one. I do have a Catto 3-blade on my 9A though. I am not sure you would see much difference in fuel burn. At least not enough to measure a difference. I routinely plan for 150mph @ 2350 RPM. Typically I cruise anywhere from 6500-12500 depending on which altitude gives me the most favorable winds at the time. This will give me a fuel burn of around 7.0-7.5 gph running 25-50 LOP. I am not sure a constant speed prop would give me anything much better than that. Perhaps the constant speed drivers out there will have information about that.

From what I can tell from your posts, you are trying to decide if your compromise of going to a fixed pitch Catto prop would be worth it compared to a constant speed prop. Well, my answer to that would be a definitive:YES

It is worth the compromise if you consider ALL of the factors including such non-performance factors as: purchase price AND maintenance costs; weight differences; complexity; and even overall maintenance needs.

With the Catto you might see a small decrease in specific performances (i.e. takeoff roll, climb rate or maybe, and I really think it would be a realistic MAYBE, on cruise speed) but the truth is the difference in costs will far outweigh any benefits you MIGHT see with the constant speed prop.

my .02.

Live Long and Prosper!
 
Fuel economy at cruise

To give you measure of comparison my buddy and I have run some comparisons of his -7 with IO-360 and Hartzell CS and my -7 wit O-360 and 3 blade Catto. At cruise power settings and matching speeds we were burning within 0.1 GPH (both running RoP), at WOT his -7 was a couple of MPH faster. On take-off and climb out it is probably very close but I suspect if he really pushed it his performance would be a little better. Best thing about his CS is when he wants to slow down he does whereas mine takes a while.
I doubt you will be disappointed with either selection but as Steve pointed out the cost and simplicity favors the Catto.
 
What about weight?

How much does the Catto 3-blade weigh? I assume it is very light compared to the Hartzell. Does it push the c.g. far enough aft to limit baggage in the 7A.
 
Ever notice how many builders send their props back for a re-pitch? It appears, that there are quite a few. With a C/S, that doesn't happen. A C/S is never a compromise between climb power & cruise. It's the best of both worlds. Best takeoff performance for higher altitude airports, a very noticeable noise reduction in flight, even with ANR headsets; and the ability to slow down fast. I'd never be happy with a fixed prop, except for perhaps an RV-3. But that's me.

L.Adamson
 
weight

Mine weighs 18 lbs, it does cause an issue with the -7 but not sure about the 7A, for the -7 you need to add weight in the form of a sabre spacer in order to keep in cg with 100 lbs of baggage and min fuel. For comparison the sensenich FP prop and spacer weighed 42 lbs.
 
L.Adamson said:
Ever notice how many builders send their props back for a re-pitch? It appears, that there are quite a few. With a C/S, that doesn't happen. A C/S is never a compromise between climb power & cruise. It's the best of both worlds. Best takeoff performance for higher altitude airports, a very noticeable noise reduction in flight, even with ANR headsets; and the ability to slow down fast. I'd never be happy with a fixed prop, except for perhaps an RV-3. But that's me.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

but the C/S is expensive for often uneeded surplus capability. The 3-Blade CATTO gets my -8 airborne easily under 1000ft of runway at DA in the 3500ft range.

Unless I need to take off from a runway that is less than 1000ft any benefit the C/S provides is uneeded and therefore inefficient use of $ particularly true if T/O performance of the F/P is shorter than the shortest runway in which can safetly be landed and any improvement in T/O using a C/S is again unused surplus capability at significant expense.

Other than interesting marketing the ability to take-off from a 500ft runway if you cannot land in 500ft or less isn't operationally relevant.

No question a C/S will provide a larger performance envelope - no debate.

The real question needed to be answered when making the decision is if the Delta in performance /cost is worth it, considering a siginficant portion of the performance improvement is never used.

Figure out these numbers for a F/P and C/S:

ROC / $ (total cost of prop) =

Vmax / $ =

T/O distance / $ =

Landing Distance / $ =

Max Range / $ =

Glide Ratio / $ =

SFC / $ =

Usefull Load / $ =

Average those numbers and compare...

Flying formation won't be a problem if lead is flying a C/S and understands the impact and certainly won't matter if lead is a F/P plane.

Just a thought
 
RV8R999 said:
The real question needed to be answered when making the decision is if the Delta in performance /cost is worth it, considering a siginficant portion of the performance improvement is never used.
Click to expand...

You had better believe it's worth it! It was the first and foremost expensive item that I purchased for my RV project. I'd use basic auto instrumentation before I'd go a FP. That's just how it is. And many other RV builder owners around here (4600' elevation) feel the same. I'd say that 90% of RVs around here, use a C/S. The performance improvement is across the board...........from takeoff to landing. I found this out, years before I ever thought of starting an RV project. My thoughts have never wavered on this subject.

L.Adamson
 
Good call...

jpharrell said:
I was planning on going with a Hartzell CS prop in my 7A but the recent increase in engine prices has forced me to reconsider. I have since been reading up on a Catto 3-blade as an alternative to save on total cost. My bias toward the CS prop was for not for aerobatics or formation flying but mostly for the takeoff performance (without sacrificing cruise) and better control of air speed in the pattern. Can any Catto 3-blade drivers comment on the takeoff, cruise, and braking performance of their 3-blade set-up?
Click to expand...

John,

In a word, YES! In 98' I called Craig Catto asking whether his "Long-EZ" props would have RV applications. At the time I was flying my 150HP RV4 with an Ed Sterba prop. Craig not only loaned me a prop to experiment with, he applied the data to new airfoils applicable to RV power bands/speeds and torque. I flew the loaner (Glasair prop) for almost a year until my first "RV" 2 blade was ready.
The first flight was chased by an 180HP Hartzell RV6. Fighter Pilots being what they are, eventually a 1V1 ensued. The new Catto prop not only proved itself worthy but superior in all arenas except initial takeoff acceleration. Eventually, with practice (going to full throttle before lead) I was able to stay up with the Hartzell on formation takeoffs, amazing considering the HP difference.
Fourteen years later and three Catto props later, Craig's new blade design is even better than the original. My 150HP 2 Blade "RVX" has proven itself alongside many higher HP RV's, again and again with amazing performance. It's aerobatic prowess way outperforms my previous MT FP in the vertical. Here are some numbers:

RVX 150HP 2 Blade Catto NLE (nickel leading edge) Sea Level 80F

Static: 2100
Takeoff 2250 (70 Knot initial climb) 1000 FPM
Climb 2300 (100 Knots) 1650 FPM
Climb 2400 (120 Knots) 1100 FPM
Climb 2500 (140 Knots) 750 FPM

Cruise SL WOT 177 Knots IAS 2850 RPM and smooooth.
Cruise 11,500 WOT 138 KIAS 170 KTAS 2700 RPM

Having flown many Catto Three blades They are well matched for the tri-gear RV's in performance vs ground clearance. The 2 blade has the edge in performance on the 0-320, the three blade a bit better on the 0-360. As far as braking goes, slowing down with a FP prop is directly proportional to "the nut behind the stick". With practice you can acceptably slow down, (not as good as a C/S "airbrake") but safe and proficient. My technique is to insure my engine idle is set at 700 RPM or less. Really helps. Just like in a T-Craft Jet or any other clean airframe, pointing the nose at the runway only increases airspeed and extends your touchdown point. Pulling the nose up, slowing down and using power to control your touchdown point is key.

Either way, a win-win.

V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Mission dependent. Each of us have different criteria for what we want our craft to do.

My skills are average at best. so while I don't normally get landed and stopped in 500'. I do want the extra safety margin a constant speed prop affords me when I'm taking off from a wet Idaho grass strip that hasn't been mowed in weeks. Getting off the lawn in 500' and climbing sharply when the tress are looming large in 7500' DA reduces the puker factor for me. Every foot of altitude is welcomed in the backcountry.

for comparison: RV-7, parallel valve IO-360, 9:1, Emag/Pmag, WW200RV C/S prop. ~1550# GW

climb at 1500'DA 100kts >2000fpm
climb at 4500'DA, 95kts ~1800fpm

cruise @ 9500'... 172-175kts TAS burning 8-8.4gph 2400rpm (1800#GW)
cruise @ 9550'...178-180kts TAS burning 9gph 2450rpm

Top speed recorded 6650' DA, 190kts TAS(gps checked) burning 13.5gph. 2600rpm. BTW only run 2680 rpm on takeoff.

That being said, I think that if 2 RV's(1 CS, other FP)are running lean of peak, side by side in the same conditions and are propped appropriately the speed and fuel burn will be very close.

I can not justify the money I spent on my prop...heck I have no business owning any airplane if I need to justify the cost. But I have the airplane that suits my vision and mission. YMMV
 
Apples to Oranges

I understand the question,outside of both being props,they have nothing in common.If you want a CS than buy one.The difference between Hartzel,Mt,WW constant speed should be a topic unto it self.You now have a complex ship and a cost of 10 grand plus added weight,complexity of the install.
With the nose gear issues of the A models,The Catto has always been my first choice,Craig's new Three blade wrapped in Carbon fiber and nickle leading edges is high on my list,with this prop you will need Saber spacer 6" to 7" as well a bolts,spacer to prop,bolts for the spacer to crank flange. I think a little over $3000. Depending on his production cycle delivery time varies.The other prop I favor is the WW GA200L ground adjustable so you can dial it in.light weight,looks great.A load of these were bought in a VAF group buy back in 2010,I would love to hear comparisons between the two.As my father always said when I was a small boy "Son never try to turn with a Zero,he will turn inside and have your six,out climb him". Their is still one thing a 200hp CS RV can't do and that's handle like an unpainted 150hp with a wood prop.:D
 
jpharrell said:
How much does the Catto 3-blade weigh? I assume it is very light compared to the Hartzell. Does it push the c.g. far enough aft to limit baggage in the 7A.
Click to expand...
My carbon fiber Catto 3-blade weighed 12 lbs.

I cannot say for sure about the 7 but in my 9A I cannot get out of CG fore or aft unless I go to extremes (i.e. no pilot, no passenger and 100 lbs of baggage will push it past the aft limits; burn down to less than 2 gallons of fuel with no baggage and two bubbas up front will allow it to push past the fore limit).
 
Last edited:
rhill said:
The other prop I favor is the WW GA200L ground adjustable so you can dial it in.light weight,looks great.
Click to expand...

I believe that some people think that an adjustable prop, will be a poor mans version of a C/S. They'll just change the pitch, for the occasion. That won't happen. It will still be a compromise between climb and cruise performace. Just like before. The only difference, is not sending it back for a re-pitch or two.
 
Keep it coming

:)I'm loving this dialog because I'm getting a lot of good information. One thought that occurs to me is if I go with a Catto it is a pretty easy upgrade to a CS later as long as my engine is configured for it. I could retrofit the prop and governor, and if I sold the Catto not be too much deeper in debt than going straight to the CS. And if I am happy with the Catto I would be way ahead.
 
John,

I had the same plan--bought an engine capable of a cs prop---6 yrs later and I never felt the need.

You will be happy with the Catto!!!!

Cheers,

db
 
Catto 3 Blade

I've followed discussions for quite some time on Craig's prop. The 3-blade performance is acceptable and a certainly a consideration. The sex appeal on an RV is what gets my attention. The high RPM concerns me for engine life. I guess it all comes down to living this short life on this planet at your fullest. Live is short and sweet... Enjoy it in your RV with whatever option. Flying RV-4 160HP Warnke 72x72. Fast, efficient, never over 2500RPM, pull power and glide forever, slip for braking. Will likely get the 3-blade pitched for engine life and keep the Warnke.
 
F/P Catto vs C/S

Three ways I use to slow my -6 with F/P, or -7 or C/S:

1) Pull some extra "G" force on your turn into a pattern. This slows the plane fast, although not recommended with passengers.
2) Pull up a few hundred feet when entering a pattern after coming in low to bleed airspeed. As all RV's are low wing aircraft, it is smart to be just below pattern alt for safety visibility. (We have had several fatal accidents in my area of this issue, low wing aircraft could not see aircraft directly below and decended on them.)
3) Slipping, at low to moderate speed. I don't like slipping at high cruise speeds, because it seems hard on the A/F, especially if gusty or turbulance is entered. Lower speed slipping, (135 or less,) is handy to quickly reduce A/S for flap deployment.

I don't normally adjust the C/S until final approach in the interest of:
a) Effeceincy b) Landing Preparation for a Go-Around. As noted below, pulling power on a C/S setup does help slow the A/C.
 
Last edited:
NickAir said:
Three ways I use to slow my -6 with F/P, or -7 or C/S:

1) Pull some extra "G" force on your turn into a pattern. This slows the plane fast, although not recommended with passengers.
2) Pull up a few hundred feet when entering a pattern after coming in low to bleed airspeed. As all RV's are low wing aircraft, it is smart to be just below pattern alt for safety visibility. (We have had several fatal accidents in my area of this issue, low wing aircraft could not see aircraft directly below and decended on them.)
3) Slipping, at low to moderate speed. I don't like slipping at high cruise speeds, because it seems hard on the A/F, especially if gusty or turbulance is entered. Lower speed slipping, (135 or less,) is handy to quickly reduce A/S for flap deployment.

I don't normally adjust the C/S until final approach in the interest of: a) Effeciency b) Landing Preparation for a Go-Around.
Click to expand...

The C/S prop will still be acting as a brake, even when the knob "isn't" pushed full forward until final approach. I'd rarely change mine from it's 2350 rpms, until that short final, yet it's all the difference in the world, as compared to the FP for slowing very quickly. In fact, we'd often descend down a mountain canyon at 2000 fpm, with the prop still set at 2350. The plane can still loose airspeed at this descent rate.
 
Higher RPM Engine Wear

David Bell said:
The high RPM concerns me for engine life.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered about engine wear for FP vs. CS. Like many, I run my FP at higher rpms than my CS friends... but surely slowing the prop down and still running WOT is stressing the internals in other ways. Who's motor is going to fare better in real world terms? Obviously the higher rpms are going to run the tach time up faster, so it may be hard to make a decent comparison. Any observations, anecdotal or otherwise?

-jon
 
Keep the main thing, the main thing...

Good posts concerning the pros and cons of a variable pitch prop although the initial thread concerned the viability of a Catto three blade.

Having flown both options well over a thousand hours, many with a Catto prop and 150HP, both have their merits. For low cost, simplicity, lighter weight, fewer inspections and maintenance, aerobatics and 1V1's (which I love) the FP prop and light nose are my preference. C/S is great for initial takeoff acceleration and braking in the traffic pattern but once mastered, the FP is equally simple. Of course the C/S provides the same braking after and engine failure reducing glide significantly, but I digress.

On the short strips of the Idaho back-country, my 150HP FP RV4 performed very well, even on the shorter strips or taking off from Leadville in the summer. For pure overall simplicity and economy, the Catto composite props are a great bargain and provide excellent performance, the new 3-blade design being exceptional. Maybe not the "total performance" a C/S provides but equivalent and viable. I should know, I tested the first one on an RV...

V/R
Smokey



"Bandit@U72"
 
Last edited:
smokyray said:
Good posts concerning the pros and cons of a variable pitch prop although the initial thread concerned the viability of a Catto three blade.

Having flown both options well over a thousand hours, many with a Catto prop and 150HP, both have their merits. For low cost, simplicity, lighter weight, fewer inspections and maintenance, aerobatics and 1V1's (which I love) the FP prop and light nose are my preference. C/S is great for initial takeoff acceleration and braking in the traffic pattern but once mastered, the FP is equally simple. Of course the C/S provides the same braking after and engine failure reducing glide significantly, but I digress.

On the short strips of the Idaho back-country, my 150HP FP RV4 performed very well, even on the shorter strips or taking off from Leadville in the summer. For pure overall simplicity and economy, the Catto composite props are a great bargain and provide excellent performance, the new 3-blade design being exceptional. Maybe not the "total performance" a C/S provides but equivalent and viable. I should know, I tested the first one on an RV...

V/R
Smokey


"Bandit@U72"
Click to expand...

Really good information based on experience, Smokey. Thanks.

In considering the 0320 vrs 0360 with the RV-8, IYHO would the the 2 blade or 3 blade Catto make most sense. The 3 blade looks great, but might the 2 blade work better?

I am focusing a light weight, hot rod airplane. :)
 
Smokey- That is good to hear. I'm waiting delivery on my 2 blade Catto. I'm running 150hp RV6 and have wondered how it would perform out West. I'm currently running with an Aymar Demuth, and am very happy with the numbers I'm getting. I ordered the Catto because I'd like to be able to fly thru light rain if needed. Eager to see how it performs.
 
One additional (small) point

I have a Catto 3-blade on my 7-A. I'm very happy with its performance and I think it looks great. There is, however, a point that hasn't been mentioned: with a 3-blade, it is a hassle to remove the bottom cowl. My friends avoid me, my wife ignores me, even my dog hides from me when I'm looking for help in removing or replacing the lower cowl. I love my Catto but a couple of times a year I turn the air blue with my curses. I recommend the Catto 3-blade but only you have good friends, a strong marriage, or a better dog.
 
Bevan said:
While the cowl may be more of a challenge to remove with a three blade prop on a A model RV, this guy makes it look painless (for him, not the paint).

see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdBW0ATBeJo

Bevan
Click to expand...
My removal is as simple. Maybe even more so since I am just using the standard Van's piano hinges instead of camlocs. After all of the screws are removed from the bottom cowl and behind the prop hub, there are two horizontal hinge pins attaching the top and bottom and two vertical pins securing the bottom cowl to the firewall. As the video shows, as long as the two prop blades on the bottom are set at a 45 degree angle to the ground and the third blade is pointed straight up, the lower cowl will slide down and forward clearing the prop blades. The only thing to be careful about is protecting the prop blade from being bumped by the hinge eyes. These can bang and mar the edge of the prop if you are not careful. If someone is around while I do this I will have them place there hands on the bottom edge of the two lower prop blades and have them act as a protector for the blade as I slide the cowl below the blades. It really is not that difficult, you just have to be careful.
 
Two, Three or not to be...That is the question...

David-aviator said:
Really good information based on experience, Smokey. Thanks.

In considering the 0320 vrs 0360 with the RV-8, IYHO would the the 2 blade or 3 blade Catto make most sense. The 3 blade looks great, but might the 2 blade work better?

I am focusing a light weight, hot rod airplane. :)
Click to expand...

Jim/David,

My experience shows the 0-320 is a better match for the two blade, the 0-360 matches better with three This based on flight testing with my RVX, a 180HP RV7 and a "pumped up" 175HP 0-320 RV8. The RV7 and RV8 I flew were dead-on matched perfect with Craig's new Three blade. My RVX is the same with two. The 3 blade weighs 12 lbs, my 2 blade weighs 8.5. Your call...

Honestly, you can't go wrong.

V/R
Smokey
 
Rumors

Rumor has it that Catto will soon produce their first constant speed prop.
Further inquiries revealed that a customer supplied an MT hub and Catto is producing the blades and setting it up. Should be interesting to see how the project goes. Forgot to ask if it was a two or three blade......sorry, Russ
 
Catto 2 blade versus?

Hi Smokey, I have a question for you concerning the Catto 2 blade. How does it compare to other fixed pitch props? I have a Prince on my RV4 and I used to fly it neck and neck against your old RV4 after you sold it. At that time your RV4 had an MT on it, I guess you sold it that way, and it was a little faster flat out (3mph) but my Prince prop would easily outclimb it. Of course, my 0320 did not have flowed heads, it was a straight 160hp certified engine. How did the Catto compare on your RV4? Do you still have it?

So, is the Catto any better than the other fixed pitch props on the market? Doesn't performance have a lot to do with the way the prop is pitched? I have had nothing but great experience with my Prince and dealing with the owner of the company has been wonderful. It flies well through rain too and came back after repitching from Mr. Prince with a beautiful carbon finish. I tend to think that most of the fixed pitches on the market are pretty similar in performance depending on how you pitch them. Am I wrong?
 
Your mileage may vary...

rrnixonjr said:
Hi Smokey, I have a question for you concerning the Catto 2 blade. How does it compare to other fixed pitch props? I have a Prince . How did the Catto compare on your RV4? Do you still have it?
I tend to think that most of the fixed pitches on the market are pretty similar in performance depending on how you pitch them. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. I tested nine FP props on the Bandit over ten years and quickly discovered "all props are not created equal". The original Catto 2 blade and the 150HP was a great match. Margie Warnkes "Claw" was amazing but fragile in my harsh world of "bush flying". When I reengineered with a 170hp engine, Gary Hertzlers Silver Bullet was the fastest ever, with climb to match. However, leading edge protection in rain became an issue, therefore the MT. It's a good compromise but Craig's newly designed 2 blade is the best I have tested ever, climb and cruise, with LEP. The RVX with 150HP matches the climb of a friends 200HP C/S 7A easily and will keep up with it in cruise to 2600rpm.
If your current Prince-P is working well, keep it. "if it aint broke, don't fix it". However the new Catto 2 blade is impressive across the board. Maybe we can fly together sometime and compare...:)

Seeya!
Smokey
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.