iareapilot
I'm New Here
We are to the point of buying our propeller to hang on our IO360A1B6 engine in the 7. Does anyone have experence or thoughts on the 200RV Carbon Fiber Propeller CS vs a Hartzell CS ?
Thanks
Thanks
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
200RV Propeller
- Thread starter iareapilot
- Start date
[email protected]
Well Known Member
Great prop...
The whole assembly is about 17 lbs lighter, the prop is very smooth, fast, and quiet. If you search a bit you can easily find a direct prop performance comparison done with the same RV.
The whole assembly is about 17 lbs lighter, the prop is very smooth, fast, and quiet. If you search a bit you can easily find a direct prop performance comparison done with the same RV.
ronschreck
Well Known Member
The 200RV currently has a 650 hour inspection cycle. Not sure what Hartzel requires. Mine is just like the other Whirlwinds; fast, smooth, and quite.
Which is more important, weight or free speed?
I think if you're wanting the highest speed for a given power setting and lowest fuel flow, the blended-airfoil Hartzell has the rest beat. You've got a company with a longer reputation in Hartzell also.
It depends on what's important to you. For myself, I would go with Hartzell.
I think if you're wanting the highest speed for a given power setting and lowest fuel flow, the blended-airfoil Hartzell has the rest beat. You've got a company with a longer reputation in Hartzell also.
It depends on what's important to you. For myself, I would go with Hartzell.
cdmiller
Well Known Member
What are the data for this statement?
Jakngoan,
I would like to see the data that support your statement about the performance of the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop versus the WW 200 RV. I know of no evidence that supports your statement. What is the basis for your statement about performance and efficiency? For sure Hartzell had been around longer.
Dan Miller
RV-8 WW 200 RV propeller
Jakngoan,
I would like to see the data that support your statement about the performance of the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop versus the WW 200 RV. I know of no evidence that supports your statement. What is the basis for your statement about performance and efficiency? For sure Hartzell had been around longer.
Dan Miller
RV-8 WW 200 RV propeller
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
200RV
I have one on my plane and it is very smooth, fast and efficient. In a head to head fly off with a neighbor, with the same plane, same engine and similar avionics with a Hartzell BA, I was able to pull away from him with matched power settings. And, he was 100 lbs lighter.
Also, there was a comparison done a few years ago.
Another point of interest, when I had mine balanced, it balanced to a 0.00. This is the only prop he had ever got to 0.00.
The overhaul time is like to rise to 1000 hours. There are hundreds out there now compiling time with no known issues.
I'm so impressed, I bought another one for the current project.
I have one on my plane and it is very smooth, fast and efficient. In a head to head fly off with a neighbor, with the same plane, same engine and similar avionics with a Hartzell BA, I was able to pull away from him with matched power settings. And, he was 100 lbs lighter.
Also, there was a comparison done a few years ago.
Another point of interest, when I had mine balanced, it balanced to a 0.00. This is the only prop he had ever got to 0.00.
The overhaul time is like to rise to 1000 hours. There are hundreds out there now compiling time with no known issues.
I'm so impressed, I bought another one for the current project.
200RV vs Hartzell
I have a 200RV. I love it's performance, smoothness ete etc. I suspect that it is largely responsible for my planes relatively fast cruise speeds.... but
6's and 7's tend towards aft CG's. Mine is a typical build and typically is significantly aft baggage limited. I would like to have the extra 19 pounds (or whatever it is) of the Hartzell on the nose to get me some CG margin.
I suggest you run some "what if" Cg numbers between the two props and decide.
I wish Dan Checkoway's CG table was still up. From that I think you will see that Hartzell CG's are typically 1"+ forward of 200rv or fixed pitch CG's. That is significant, especially in an airplane where you just can't adjust the load to move CG ahead - like the 6 and 7.
YMMV. Fly safe
I have a 200RV. I love it's performance, smoothness ete etc. I suspect that it is largely responsible for my planes relatively fast cruise speeds.... but
6's and 7's tend towards aft CG's. Mine is a typical build and typically is significantly aft baggage limited. I would like to have the extra 19 pounds (or whatever it is) of the Hartzell on the nose to get me some CG margin.
I suggest you run some "what if" Cg numbers between the two props and decide.
I wish Dan Checkoway's CG table was still up. From that I think you will see that Hartzell CG's are typically 1"+ forward of 200rv or fixed pitch CG's. That is significant, especially in an airplane where you just can't adjust the load to move CG ahead - like the 6 and 7.
YMMV. Fly safe
Last edited:
Alan Carroll
Well Known Member
It doesn't seem that there has ever been a test where the same airplane was flown with both props (or else it hasn't been reported). Randy Lervold tested the 200RV against the non-BA Hartzell, and reported that the 200RV was 1-2 mph faster and 100 fpm better in climb. Van's tested the BA Hartzell with older 7496 blades against the non-BA Hartzell, and found the BA prop to be 3 mph faster and 60-70 fpm better climb. Its also been suggested that the current-production 7497 blades are less efficient than the original 7496 blades.
So which one wins? Who knows. However, the performance difference seems likely to be pretty minor. My guess would be that build differences between individual aircraft are probably a larger factor.
Gary's RV7A
Active Member
supporting data
Larry Vetterman did a comparison, both props had similar performance (within 1 mph). Difference, Hartzell prop weighs 19 lbs more, has a lower idle speed (100 rpm), no rpm restriction under 2,700 rpms and cost less.
The only advantage the Whirlwind has is the 19 pound difference...
See his website for the detail report. I have no actual knowledge of either prop, so take it for what it's worth, another opinion...
Larry Vetterman did a comparison, both props had similar performance (within 1 mph). Difference, Hartzell prop weighs 19 lbs more, has a lower idle speed (100 rpm), no rpm restriction under 2,700 rpms and cost less.
The only advantage the Whirlwind has is the 19 pound difference...
See his website for the detail report. I have no actual knowledge of either prop, so take it for what it's worth, another opinion...
Alan Carroll
Well Known Member
Good catch, I forgot that one. He did his comparison with the 7496 blades though and not the current 7497 blades.
