OK, Craig says a 3 blade might be smoother, and of course, balancing can only be worth 0 to plus X? My real unknown is the value of dynafocal. That would require a new mount, new engine and probably a cowl.
Must be something like a "jellicle" cat
Yeah I know that a 3 blade prop is smoother and lots more sexy looking than a 2 blade, but a 2 blade is slightly more efficient than a 3 blade and a whole lot cheaper to buy.
A dynamic prop balance is a lot cheaper than a new prop and has, on mine, made a big difference and that's with a 2-bladed prop. Of course if the dynamic balance wasn't enough and then you got that new prop afterwards, that would be money wasted, I think.
How is the mixture? Any smoothing when you lean or enrichen it?
Ownign both two and three-blade props, I know that they can both be made as smooth as silk with a good dynamic balance. You have several unknowns that, unless you throw money at them, you really don't know how they affect the overall result. Going Dynafocal should help, but it would be a big deal to change. A new prop? Always fun, but unless you have other reasons to change the prop, I think I'd go for a dynamic balance first, and see if that helps.
My friend Bruno, who lurks here, has a catto 3 blade on his rv4 and loves the smoothness, but he also had his jugs ported and flow benched at lycon and his crank balanced. And I suspect he had his prop dun balanced as well. He says it runs like a turbine.
Thanks for the feedback. I will persue your suggestions. Does anyone have first hand experience regarding the advantages of dynafocal vs conical mount ?
Cessna must have done it for a reason !