In my industry, we've completely moved to condition based maintaince, which sometimes dictates overhaul earlier than you'd expect, but often much later. If you follow a good inspection program, you'll be much safer - and that's not foolish.
Furthermore, the propeller manufacturer mentioned in the post I responded to, Whirlwind, clearly states in their manual:
"NOTE: There is no specified overhaul time. The propeller parts are removed from service when they can no longer meet the Continued Airworthiness Requirements."
So, in this context, the comment could mislead someone away from Whirlwind without being fully informed.
Ok, it appears you are arguing semantics here....
Whether you call it an overhaul or an inspection, the only way to evaluate the condition of a Whirlwind propeller, which it seems you agree is the appropriate way to evaluate condition, is to disassemble it.
I believe that is what Whirlwind recommends at every 400 hours (not specifically an overhaul). Then decisions on part replacement would be made based on condition.
I have been in this business along time and have seen a lot of products for experimental aircraft come to market without having to go through a certification test program. Often times at the expense of the users.
Whirlwind has had their share of development problems just like many others. In this instance, calling for inspections at low service times is not because of lawyers, it is because it is the right thing to do with a critical component that they don't have any long term service history for.
It is false that any TBO limit is set by lawyers. It is based on in service experience, and testing, and then the limit is set conservatively to be sure to cover all scenarios.
As far as being fully informed..... People have bought W.W. propellers without knowing that it has a recommended 400 hour inspection interval. Even if you don't care, and you would be satisfied with an external visual inspection at each condition inspection after passing 400 hours in service (against the manufacturers recommendations), not everyone would.
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic......
It is not possible to say which is better (two blade or three blade) because in some instances a three blade is, and in some a two blade is. It depends on what airplane, what engine, which propeller, etc. There especially is no way to compare best prop choice for an RV-12 with a Rotax, to what is best for other airplanes with Lycomings.
Early in the RV-12 development program the 3 blade ground adjustable from Sensenich was tested to compare performance to their two blade. The two blade out performed it by a large enough margin that the decision was made to not offer it as an option (even though the tooling and plans pages for installing it had even been mostly completed).
Fast fwd a few years.....
Sensenich now has a new design 3 blade for the 912 Rotax. It has been tested by us only a small amount of time but the performance compared to the 2 blade looks to be more promising. Hopefully we will be able to provide a more detailed comparison in the future.
Hopefully this makes it clear that you can't just categorically say whether a 2 blade or a 3 blade is the best choice.