Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Whirlwind Props; Opinions Please
- Thread starter TomH
- Start date
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Is weight that important?
Does not make metal bad but it has to be tested. The good news is the BA prop has been tested and has no restrictions if you are running magnetos. RPM restrictions that do exist say with electronic ignition are small and non-issues.
If you don't have it here is the restrictions for the hartzell, not the BA prop (with 7497 blade) and the O360, no restriction (click).
If you are running electronic ignition or the -7496 BA blade you have two very specific and really non-issue RPM restrictions, one at high RPM and one at lower RPM/ higher MAP. Unless you're racing, you're not going to fly at 2,700 rpm continuously. It just not affect the way you normally fly. From the way I read the low restriction is you can't run 23 square which is the only power I could see I would want to run at and could not, but there are so many more likely power settings (map/rpm) combos I could or would run. Again Hartzell has tested it and its a KNOWN. Just because MT or WW don't have restrictions does not mean much, because some have not tested their prop with electronic ignition, which I think is the case with WW and MT.
Check out the TBO or recommend overhaul time on a WW 200RV prop? I forget but its very short. Where do you get it worked on? At the factory requiring you ship the prop in a long, box, which will weigh a good bit with the if you make it out of plywood. Shipping damage? Point you can get a hartzell worked on almost anywhere, but I would go to approved hartzell shops. Usually they are nearby or a hour or three drive almost anywhere in the country. (Read the story on this web sites cover page about a RV8 flyer and his experience flying into the Hartzell's main corporate service center.
Not only is the HC less money you get better service, no doubt cheaper service, longer TBO, no or less RPM restrictions that have been TESTED, better performance (BA prop is faster). The only thing you really have a clear advantage on is the weight. Well a RV6a could benefit from less weight on the nose that is true. However I could benefit in losing 10 lbs off my gut. The weight difference is there, but does that over ride everything else?
Search the archives for Hartzell and Whirlwind or whirl wind. My personal preference is for hartzell simply because they have been in business for so long. Yes older props have AD's but the new BA is AD free and has the benefit of many many many many decades of experience.
The Whirlwind may have no published restriction because it has not been tested, but composites are less prone to harmonics than metal. I do believe they have some cover their tail words about not using electronic ignition.TomH said:
Does not make metal bad but it has to be tested. The good news is the BA prop has been tested and has no restrictions if you are running magnetos. RPM restrictions that do exist say with electronic ignition are small and non-issues.
If you don't have it here is the restrictions for the hartzell, not the BA prop (with 7497 blade) and the O360, no restriction (click).
If you are running electronic ignition or the -7496 BA blade you have two very specific and really non-issue RPM restrictions, one at high RPM and one at lower RPM/ higher MAP. Unless you're racing, you're not going to fly at 2,700 rpm continuously. It just not affect the way you normally fly. From the way I read the low restriction is you can't run 23 square which is the only power I could see I would want to run at and could not, but there are so many more likely power settings (map/rpm) combos I could or would run. Again Hartzell has tested it and its a KNOWN. Just because MT or WW don't have restrictions does not mean much, because some have not tested their prop with electronic ignition, which I think is the case with WW and MT.
Check out the TBO or recommend overhaul time on a WW 200RV prop? I forget but its very short. Where do you get it worked on? At the factory requiring you ship the prop in a long, box, which will weigh a good bit with the if you make it out of plywood. Shipping damage? Point you can get a hartzell worked on almost anywhere, but I would go to approved hartzell shops. Usually they are nearby or a hour or three drive almost anywhere in the country. (Read the story on this web sites cover page about a RV8 flyer and his experience flying into the Hartzell's main corporate service center.
Not only is the HC less money you get better service, no doubt cheaper service, longer TBO, no or less RPM restrictions that have been TESTED, better performance (BA prop is faster). The only thing you really have a clear advantage on is the weight. Well a RV6a could benefit from less weight on the nose that is true. However I could benefit in losing 10 lbs off my gut. The weight difference is there, but does that over ride everything else?
Search the archives for Hartzell and Whirlwind or whirl wind. My personal preference is for hartzell simply because they have been in business for so long. Yes older props have AD's but the new BA is AD free and has the benefit of many many many many decades of experience.
Last edited:
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Whirlwind 200RV
Unlike George, I have experience with the Whirlwind 200RV propeller. He is extremely biased toward the Hartzell for a couple of reasonable reasons, mainly company longevity. But certainly not justifiable reasons to eliminate all other brands. I have seen 3 different props on the same airplane (not mine) and can give you real world experience.
I have the WW 200RV on my ECI equipped I0360 and have excellent results. There were two issues within the first 100 hours that were taken care of quickly and professionally. The first issue involved surging with power application. At 55 hours a significant leak developed. I was tearing down for paint immediately after this flight so it was no major inconvenience. As it turns out a seal was improperly installed during manufacture. This caused the leak and the surging. No other similar issues.
Later, the backplate bracket cracked. This had been a known problem that occurred with the early props. This involved removing the prop, replacing the bracket and reinstalling the prop. I did the process in two hours. WW now has made mods to prevent future problems in this area. There have been no reports of problems since the fix was developed.
I had my prop dynamically balanced. The prop balanced to 0.00, perfect. The guy said he has never had a prop balance to 0. Obviously, everything is extremely smooth.
Performance is excellent. The sweet spot for the prop on my set up is 2400 rpm in cruise. There is another RV7 on my airport with the same engine. His plane is approximately 80 lbs lighter. He has a Hartzell BA prop. Throw in pilot weight difference and we are over 100lbs apart. I can fly away from him with similar power settings.
Robbie Attaway has an RV6 with ECI IO 360 that has been worked. He has the cold air induction, ECI fuel injection system and a few other mods. He first had a Hartzell BA prop and the plane performed fine. He wanted more and purchased the Aerocomposites prop. I know he paid over $12000 for the prop and had two major problems within 25 hours. He returned that prop.
My neighbor has a WW200RV that he wasn't going to be needing for while so Robbie installed it on his 6. In his words, "the plane came alive." He said he gained several knots of airspeed and the smoothness is without equal. He ordered on immediately. He is now has his own WW 200RV and is extremely happy. You can see a picture of Robbie's plane on the WW website. It is the purple one.
I have flown in a variety of environments including non paved runways. The prop looks like new with no chips, scratches or dents. The nickle leading edge protective strip is doing its job.
I would definitely purchase a WW if building a new plane. Keep in minde that although the WW 200RV is relatively new to aviatoin, the company is not new to manufacturing propellors for a variety of uses. You can't go wrong with the Hartzell either. You can go to www.attawayair.com for Robbie's information. He will gladly talk to you about his experiences with all three propellors.
The scoreboard from my experience is as follows. Performance- Whirlwind, Smoothness- Whirlwind, Company longevity- Hartzell, Cost -Hartzell.
Good luck with your decision. Either way you'll have a good prop.
Unlike George, I have experience with the Whirlwind 200RV propeller. He is extremely biased toward the Hartzell for a couple of reasonable reasons, mainly company longevity. But certainly not justifiable reasons to eliminate all other brands. I have seen 3 different props on the same airplane (not mine) and can give you real world experience.
I have the WW 200RV on my ECI equipped I0360 and have excellent results. There were two issues within the first 100 hours that were taken care of quickly and professionally. The first issue involved surging with power application. At 55 hours a significant leak developed. I was tearing down for paint immediately after this flight so it was no major inconvenience. As it turns out a seal was improperly installed during manufacture. This caused the leak and the surging. No other similar issues.
Later, the backplate bracket cracked. This had been a known problem that occurred with the early props. This involved removing the prop, replacing the bracket and reinstalling the prop. I did the process in two hours. WW now has made mods to prevent future problems in this area. There have been no reports of problems since the fix was developed.
I had my prop dynamically balanced. The prop balanced to 0.00, perfect. The guy said he has never had a prop balance to 0. Obviously, everything is extremely smooth.
Performance is excellent. The sweet spot for the prop on my set up is 2400 rpm in cruise. There is another RV7 on my airport with the same engine. His plane is approximately 80 lbs lighter. He has a Hartzell BA prop. Throw in pilot weight difference and we are over 100lbs apart. I can fly away from him with similar power settings.
Robbie Attaway has an RV6 with ECI IO 360 that has been worked. He has the cold air induction, ECI fuel injection system and a few other mods. He first had a Hartzell BA prop and the plane performed fine. He wanted more and purchased the Aerocomposites prop. I know he paid over $12000 for the prop and had two major problems within 25 hours. He returned that prop.
My neighbor has a WW200RV that he wasn't going to be needing for while so Robbie installed it on his 6. In his words, "the plane came alive." He said he gained several knots of airspeed and the smoothness is without equal. He ordered on immediately. He is now has his own WW 200RV and is extremely happy. You can see a picture of Robbie's plane on the WW website. It is the purple one.
I have flown in a variety of environments including non paved runways. The prop looks like new with no chips, scratches or dents. The nickle leading edge protective strip is doing its job.
I would definitely purchase a WW if building a new plane. Keep in minde that although the WW 200RV is relatively new to aviatoin, the company is not new to manufacturing propellors for a variety of uses. You can't go wrong with the Hartzell either. You can go to www.attawayair.com for Robbie's information. He will gladly talk to you about his experiences with all three propellors.
The scoreboard from my experience is as follows. Performance- Whirlwind, Smoothness- Whirlwind, Company longevity- Hartzell, Cost -Hartzell.
Good luck with your decision. Either way you'll have a good prop.
mark manda
Well Known Member
I'd be interested in knowing if 6A's will have their baggage area amount affected by the light prop up front.
rv200 WW 310hrs.
rv200 WW 310hrs.
Latest Experience with Whirlwind
I have an RV-8A with an IO-360-A1B6 and the WW 151 propeller. Last week (June 12) I flew to Ashtabula to have the team at Whirlwind Aviation perform the inspection and update.
In short, the experience I had working with this group was exemplary. Bill Koleno and Greg of Whirlwind and Titan Aircraft provided both customer service and technical skill in working on my propeller that has resulted in improved propeller performance. The propeller cycles instantaneously, is smoother in flight, and exhibits zero play at the hub. They were extraordinarily careful and thorough in inspection, service, and reinstall.
In order to make sure that I could return to Wisconsin on time, they stayed late (beyond 10:00 PM) to finish the prop, and were waiting at the airport for me the next day at 7:00 AM to install it on the plane. They stayed with me, and Bill joined me on a test flight, to ensure that everything was working correctly.
I purchased this propeller with recognition that it was an experimental system that might require additional work to meet the original design specifications. I made this decision because of the technical and performance benefits I believed the prop would deliver. In particular, the 28 lb. weight presumably has an extraordinary effect on the flying characteristics of the 8A when the 200 hp counter-balanced Lycoming is used. In addition, the increased ground clearance, reduced vibration and noise in flight, nickel leading edge for abrasion protection, and enhanced climb rates were things I thought were desirable, particularly from my experiences in owning airplanes before the 8A.
My experiences with the propeller so far have been very positive. It has performed as advertised.
My recent experiences suggest that Whirlwind Aviation is commited to supporting this product. There is no question that I would purchase from them again if the product they offered was something that best suited my application.
Sincerely,
Jay K. Martin
N616LM
I have an RV-8A with an IO-360-A1B6 and the WW 151 propeller. Last week (June 12) I flew to Ashtabula to have the team at Whirlwind Aviation perform the inspection and update.
In short, the experience I had working with this group was exemplary. Bill Koleno and Greg of Whirlwind and Titan Aircraft provided both customer service and technical skill in working on my propeller that has resulted in improved propeller performance. The propeller cycles instantaneously, is smoother in flight, and exhibits zero play at the hub. They were extraordinarily careful and thorough in inspection, service, and reinstall.
In order to make sure that I could return to Wisconsin on time, they stayed late (beyond 10:00 PM) to finish the prop, and were waiting at the airport for me the next day at 7:00 AM to install it on the plane. They stayed with me, and Bill joined me on a test flight, to ensure that everything was working correctly.
I purchased this propeller with recognition that it was an experimental system that might require additional work to meet the original design specifications. I made this decision because of the technical and performance benefits I believed the prop would deliver. In particular, the 28 lb. weight presumably has an extraordinary effect on the flying characteristics of the 8A when the 200 hp counter-balanced Lycoming is used. In addition, the increased ground clearance, reduced vibration and noise in flight, nickel leading edge for abrasion protection, and enhanced climb rates were things I thought were desirable, particularly from my experiences in owning airplanes before the 8A.
My experiences with the propeller so far have been very positive. It has performed as advertised.
My recent experiences suggest that Whirlwind Aviation is commited to supporting this product. There is no question that I would purchase from them again if the product they offered was something that best suited my application.
Sincerely,
Jay K. Martin
N616LM
Larco
Well Known Member
Waiting on appointment confimation
Jay:
I have had several discussions with Greg, John and Bill. My current plan is to fly up next Wednesday and repeat the steps you did, but I have not received a call or response to my e-mail confirming the date. How did you receive a response and from who? Mine is not counterweighted, but I hope to realize the improvements you noticed.
Jay:
I have had several discussions with Greg, John and Bill. My current plan is to fly up next Wednesday and repeat the steps you did, but I have not received a call or response to my e-mail confirming the date. How did you receive a response and from who? Mine is not counterweighted, but I hope to realize the improvements you noticed.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
WOW
Never said the 200RV is a bad prop. Facts are facts. In fact it would be my second choice based on value/performance but admit service concerns me.
Respectfully disagree that "the scoreboard" puts the performance nod to Whirlwind, the Hartzell is faster. I know those that don't like that data say it's not good, but it's the best we have, Hartzell (C2YR-1BF/F7496) wins the speed race @ 8,000', 2,500 rpm & WOT. (two mph faster than the WW 200RV)
(click)
We need a new prop "shoot out" test. Prop manufactures really DON'T want side-by-side or controlled prop test, because than prefer rumor and hearsay that theirs is faster. There is no consumer reports for aircraft props. If you want a fast prop, the Hartzell is as good as it gets, in my opinion. It was made spacifically for the RV's. However prop tip/ground clearance, weight and smoothness are factors, certainly. Some go on looks. There's no doubt a three blade prop, finished in white w/ red tip stripes is sexy, VaaVaaVaVoom. Hartzell is boring GRAY.
But you can get custom blade paint jobs on your Hartzell, any color, pattern or graphic.
A builders prop experience w/ AeroComp, MT and Hartzell (on a RV-8):
http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm
(Note: He used the older Hartzell 2YK/F7666, also his Aerocomp expeirance. When you get into stronger stiffer composite props you lose the smoothness of the wood based prop like the MT. The Hartzell was fairly smooth.)
Never said the 200RV is a bad prop. Facts are facts. In fact it would be my second choice based on value/performance but admit service concerns me.
Respectfully disagree that "the scoreboard" puts the performance nod to Whirlwind, the Hartzell is faster. I know those that don't like that data say it's not good, but it's the best we have, Hartzell (C2YR-1BF/F7496) wins the speed race @ 8,000', 2,500 rpm & WOT. (two mph faster than the WW 200RV)
(click)
We need a new prop "shoot out" test. Prop manufactures really DON'T want side-by-side or controlled prop test, because than prefer rumor and hearsay that theirs is faster. There is no consumer reports for aircraft props. If you want a fast prop, the Hartzell is as good as it gets, in my opinion. It was made spacifically for the RV's. However prop tip/ground clearance, weight and smoothness are factors, certainly. Some go on looks. There's no doubt a three blade prop, finished in white w/ red tip stripes is sexy, VaaVaaVaVoom. Hartzell is boring GRAY.
But you can get custom blade paint jobs on your Hartzell, any color, pattern or graphic.A builders prop experience w/ AeroComp, MT and Hartzell (on a RV-8):
http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm
(Note: He used the older Hartzell 2YK/F7666, also his Aerocomp expeirance. When you get into stronger stiffer composite props you lose the smoothness of the wood based prop like the MT. The Hartzell was fairly smooth.)
Last edited by a moderator:
While some would like to believe that the Hartzell is the fastest prop, there is mounting evidence from new flight test data that this may not be true. I'll take the flight test data offered up by Darwin and Jim that the Whirlwind and some MT models are equal to or better than the Hartzell.
Darwin's evidence is compelling. The only way to settle this scientifically is to switch props on the same airframe or better still a side by side with 2 RVs and then switch props. Times and products change.
Darwin's evidence is compelling. The only way to settle this scientifically is to switch props on the same airframe or better still a side by side with 2 RVs and then switch props. Times and products change.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
We need another Prop fly off
Randy Lervold's excellent test. RV-8 flown with several props Hartzell (older C2YK/F7666), WW 150, WW 200C and WW 200RV. Some of this data dove-tailed off of Vans test (below). Van used some of Randy's data. From Randy's data for the old Hartzell HC-C2YK/F7666-2, it was as fast or faster +/- 1 mph and about 5 mph faster than the WW150 (three blades). This was consistent over cruise and top speed test. The new BA prop is about 3.5 mph faster than the old Hartzell so we can make the assumption that the new BA is faster. Van found the the New BA was faster than the WW 200 RV by +1 mph. I freely admit this is within the tolerance of error. http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Prop.htm#Test results
Van's data: Hartzell BA + 2mph faster > WW 200 RV
(click)
Lazy8: High performance RV-8 flown with the older Hartzell F7666 bladed prop, MT and Aerocomposite. (note there was no doubt that the MT was slower and the Aerocomposite was not faster than the older Hartzell.)
http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm
RV-10 Side By Side MT v Hartzell BA (Note: The MT prop plane had a more powerful engine and was at a higher power setting and was just as fast as the stock engined RV-10 with BA prop. Van estimated the power advantage of the MT prop plane (all things being equal and equal I mean prop) than it should have been up 11 mph faster, accounting for the power the hot engined RV-10 was making.
(click)
All we can go on is what we have. Time and again the MT is much slower. Granted we could use more data on the Aerocomposite and WW150, WW200RV and Aerocomposite.
Ross we need more flight test data, two planes, seven props (two hartzell, two WW, two MT, Aerocomp and what ever else), side by side flying. Switch props and fly again. Prop test are not promoted by prop manufactures, especially if they are not as fast. There's nothing in it for them. The reason prop data is shrouded in mystery, hearsay and hard to come-by is the time consuming nature to test them, on planes under controlled conditions.
The most unbiased results we have as I posted above, Randy and Van; Their test are well documented and seem to be unbiased. Granted Van's test used "normalized" data (with Randy's data) based on a common prop, so there may be some error there. However the MT has consistently been shown to be much slower by other sources. Props tend to vary by 1% or fractions of percent, usually, but the MT is full 2 points to 4% slower in some cases, so a MT being faster than a BA, I am skeptical.
The 200RV was only 2 MPH slower than the BA Hartzell (Van's test), so I can see with a +/- error tolerance they may be comparable. Lets do a fly off. Side by side with two RV's, switch props and side by side again. Or even one RV with the switch made. That would settle it. When it comes to speed the 200RV, in my opinion as I have not tested it my self, is probably close or equivalent to the BA.
The more I learn about prop theory as I have studied it, the more I realize its the interaction of the prop with airframe/engine that's the critical factor separating men from the boys. In other words one prop might show a distinct advantage on one airframe from another airframe. One prop may be technically better, advanced composites for example but it's up to the prop designer to tweak that 1% out of it, by tuning it to that engine/airframe and mission. It's analogise to a fixed prop with the proper pitch.
For Example: If you fly with out wheel pants and your fixed pitch prop is pitched properly, than put wheel pants on, your pitch will be wrong. Airframe drag and prop design are intimately related. Same with power. You add more power you need a new prop, IF you want to be most efficient or optimal. Clearly this has to do pitch and not as much an issue with a constant speed prop, but it illustrates that one prop is not good for every airplane. Many props are generic.
There is no doubt Hartzell tuned the BA just for the RV power, airframe and mission by doing not only theoretical calcs but they test flew it on RV's during development. I am sure WW200RV designer (who wrote and article in the RVator about how he designed it) did consider the RV in his design, but not sure he did extensive flight test? I don't know.
There is no getting around the interaction of the prop and the POWER and DRAG of the airplane its mounted to in actual flight. That is why the BA is good, best in my opinion in performance' not only the thin metal blade has advantage, which is theoretically better for high speed, but it's matched to the airframe. Granted not all RV airframes are the same. So prop test should be done on average RV's with stock engines to super clean high powered RV's. Bottom line what is a few MPH? That is up to the individual and some care some don't.
Do you have the data you reference, I don't recall seeing it. Here are my sources:rv6ejguy said:
Randy Lervold's excellent test. RV-8 flown with several props Hartzell (older C2YK/F7666), WW 150, WW 200C and WW 200RV. Some of this data dove-tailed off of Vans test (below). Van used some of Randy's data. From Randy's data for the old Hartzell HC-C2YK/F7666-2, it was as fast or faster +/- 1 mph and about 5 mph faster than the WW150 (three blades). This was consistent over cruise and top speed test. The new BA prop is about 3.5 mph faster than the old Hartzell so we can make the assumption that the new BA is faster. Van found the the New BA was faster than the WW 200 RV by +1 mph. I freely admit this is within the tolerance of error. http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Prop.htm#Test results
Van's data: Hartzell BA + 2mph faster > WW 200 RV
(click)Lazy8: High performance RV-8 flown with the older Hartzell F7666 bladed prop, MT and Aerocomposite. (note there was no doubt that the MT was slower and the Aerocomposite was not faster than the older Hartzell.)
http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm
RV-10 Side By Side MT v Hartzell BA (Note: The MT prop plane had a more powerful engine and was at a higher power setting and was just as fast as the stock engined RV-10 with BA prop. Van estimated the power advantage of the MT prop plane (all things being equal and equal I mean prop) than it should have been up 11 mph faster, accounting for the power the hot engined RV-10 was making.
(click)All we can go on is what we have. Time and again the MT is much slower. Granted we could use more data on the Aerocomposite and WW150, WW200RV and Aerocomposite.
Ross we need more flight test data, two planes, seven props (two hartzell, two WW, two MT, Aerocomp and what ever else), side by side flying. Switch props and fly again. Prop test are not promoted by prop manufactures, especially if they are not as fast. There's nothing in it for them. The reason prop data is shrouded in mystery, hearsay and hard to come-by is the time consuming nature to test them, on planes under controlled conditions.
The most unbiased results we have as I posted above, Randy and Van; Their test are well documented and seem to be unbiased. Granted Van's test used "normalized" data (with Randy's data) based on a common prop, so there may be some error there. However the MT has consistently been shown to be much slower by other sources. Props tend to vary by 1% or fractions of percent, usually, but the MT is full 2 points to 4% slower in some cases, so a MT being faster than a BA, I am skeptical.
The 200RV was only 2 MPH slower than the BA Hartzell (Van's test), so I can see with a +/- error tolerance they may be comparable. Lets do a fly off. Side by side with two RV's, switch props and side by side again. Or even one RV with the switch made. That would settle it. When it comes to speed the 200RV, in my opinion as I have not tested it my self, is probably close or equivalent to the BA.
The more I learn about prop theory as I have studied it, the more I realize its the interaction of the prop with airframe/engine that's the critical factor separating men from the boys. In other words one prop might show a distinct advantage on one airframe from another airframe. One prop may be technically better, advanced composites for example but it's up to the prop designer to tweak that 1% out of it, by tuning it to that engine/airframe and mission. It's analogise to a fixed prop with the proper pitch.
For Example: If you fly with out wheel pants and your fixed pitch prop is pitched properly, than put wheel pants on, your pitch will be wrong. Airframe drag and prop design are intimately related. Same with power. You add more power you need a new prop, IF you want to be most efficient or optimal. Clearly this has to do pitch and not as much an issue with a constant speed prop, but it illustrates that one prop is not good for every airplane. Many props are generic.
There is no doubt Hartzell tuned the BA just for the RV power, airframe and mission by doing not only theoretical calcs but they test flew it on RV's during development. I am sure WW200RV designer (who wrote and article in the RVator about how he designed it) did consider the RV in his design, but not sure he did extensive flight test? I don't know.
There is no getting around the interaction of the prop and the POWER and DRAG of the airplane its mounted to in actual flight. That is why the BA is good, best in my opinion in performance' not only the thin metal blade has advantage, which is theoretically better for high speed, but it's matched to the airframe. Granted not all RV airframes are the same.
So prop test should be done on average RV's with stock engines to super clean high powered RV's. Bottom line what is a few MPH? That is up to the individual and some care some don't.
Last edited:
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Let it go!!!
Geez George,
Give it a rest. Not everything has to have some "study," chart and graph to make it valid. I explained a side by side fly off and yet you continue to cite Randy's good but solo airplane study. YOU have no experience with WW so why not stay out of the discussion. You've made your point many posts ago. We don't need to read the same stuff over and over.
I think your "engineering degree" is clouding your common sense judgement. Remember that thermometers have degrees and you know where they stick them sometimes.
gmcjetpilot said:
Geez George,
Give it a rest. Not everything has to have some "study," chart and graph to make it valid. I explained a side by side fly off and yet you continue to cite Randy's good but solo airplane study. YOU have no experience with WW so why not stay out of the discussion. You've made your point many posts ago. We don't need to read the same stuff over and over.
I think your "engineering degree" is clouding your common sense judgement. Remember that thermometers have degrees and you know where they stick them sometimes.
George, you might want to search the the MT thread for the posts made there:
Not to get back on topic, but I'll offer my MTV15B (2 blade aluminum blended airfoil prop) to speed test to anyone who already has done speed testing on a Hartzell BA prop. The 3 or 4 airplanes here that are running the (MT) MTV15B prop seem to be running faster than the Hartzell BA's. One guy has the MTV15B on an 8 and swears it is faster than the Hartzell BA prop it replaced. Randy Lervold, are you interested in putting another data point on the chart?
*********************************************************
Darwin has also posted some flight test data which does not support the idea that the Whirlwind is inferior either.
You choose to ignore information that does not support your preconceptions. I'm willing to consider the results of these tests. I have no idea which one will prove superior so I'll wait for the results rather than speculating.
Just my opinion but your reposting of the same old information over and over is somewhat repetitive. How many times have we seen this before?
Many of the previous tests have been less than scientific although some other posts seem to show speed losses with brands other than Hartzell. The results are far from clear cut in my view.
Maybe we can wait for Jim Ayers flight test data on the MT/ Hartzell question? I'd like to think from Darwin's post that the WW is at least equal to the mightly Hartzell BA.
Not to get back on topic, but I'll offer my MTV15B (2 blade aluminum blended airfoil prop) to speed test to anyone who already has done speed testing on a Hartzell BA prop. The 3 or 4 airplanes here that are running the (MT) MTV15B prop seem to be running faster than the Hartzell BA's. One guy has the MTV15B on an 8 and swears it is faster than the Hartzell BA prop it replaced. Randy Lervold, are you interested in putting another data point on the chart?
*********************************************************
Darwin has also posted some flight test data which does not support the idea that the Whirlwind is inferior either.
You choose to ignore information that does not support your preconceptions. I'm willing to consider the results of these tests. I have no idea which one will prove superior so I'll wait for the results rather than speculating.
Just my opinion but your reposting of the same old information over and over is somewhat repetitive. How many times have we seen this before?
Many of the previous tests have been less than scientific although some other posts seem to show speed losses with brands other than Hartzell. The results are far from clear cut in my view.
Maybe we can wait for Jim Ayers flight test data on the MT/ Hartzell question? I'd like to think from Darwin's post that the WW is at least equal to the mightly Hartzell BA.
Last edited:
WW200RV Prop is nice
Well, I finally got my 200RV on and running. It is smooth, pretty and performs beautifully. I'm still in the testing stages but the leap up in performance from my fixed pitch is eye watering to say the least.
I have had excellent help form Greg Anderson at Whirlwind and also, the folks at American Propeller. Both companies have gone above and beyond to help me.
Since I was installing on a flying 8 I have to have the correct spinner/cowl spacing. I measured and took photo's and sent them in and my prop/spinner combo has 1/8" clearance and looks perfect. They had to modify the spinner backing plate to give me the extra space. Delivery was delayed by 1 day because Greg said the first spinner didn't balance right so they did it again and got it right.
I highly recommend Whirlwind and American Propeller for the customer service. I'm still testing and trying the 200RV, but so far I'm a happy camper.
I have only one question that I will direct to Greg tomorrow. Everything I've read says the 200RV has no RPM restrictions except MAX. The manual that came with the prop recommends not operating continously between 2050-2300. I knew that was true on the 151 but didn't think it was for the 200RV. I'll let you know what I find out.
Well, I finally got my 200RV on and running. It is smooth, pretty and performs beautifully. I'm still in the testing stages but the leap up in performance from my fixed pitch is eye watering to say the least.
I have had excellent help form Greg Anderson at Whirlwind and also, the folks at American Propeller. Both companies have gone above and beyond to help me.
Since I was installing on a flying 8 I have to have the correct spinner/cowl spacing. I measured and took photo's and sent them in and my prop/spinner combo has 1/8" clearance and looks perfect. They had to modify the spinner backing plate to give me the extra space. Delivery was delayed by 1 day because Greg said the first spinner didn't balance right so they did it again and got it right.
I highly recommend Whirlwind and American Propeller for the customer service. I'm still testing and trying the 200RV, but so far I'm a happy camper.
I have only one question that I will direct to Greg tomorrow. Everything I've read says the 200RV has no RPM restrictions except MAX. The manual that came with the prop recommends not operating continously between 2050-2300. I knew that was true on the 151 but didn't think it was for the 200RV. I'll let you know what I find out.
I say run what you like and feel comfortable with, all propeller manufacturers have there down side or should i say something that people are not comfortable with. Hartzell has changed hubs on the compact design propeller more times than i like to think due to cracking issues, MT has had grease leak issues that have seem to subsided for now, Whirlwind has the blade inspection/change. I have designed blades for experimental flight and we have built many race props in many configurations, i have talked for hours to Gerd from MT about blade designs and how many blades are the most effecient and there are many theories that can be beat to death about speeds in aircraft with different props, like i said run what you feel comfortable with and the only way to test prop differences i believe is to run diff props on the same airframe under like conditions and see what they come out to be and that still is not going to be truly scientific.
James A Dean
American Propeller Service
James A Dean
American Propeller Service
Opinion: Outstanding
Opinion: Bill Koleno; outstanding individual. Knowledge of product type and WW props; second to none. I consider his thoughts and advice as gospel. I consider him a friend.
Opinion: Greg Anderson; outstanding individual. Knowledge of product type and WW props; second to none. I consider his thoughts and advice as gospel. I consider him a friend.
Opinion: Owner of Titan John Williams; outstanding individual. Knowledge of product type and WW props; second to none. I consider his thoughts and advice as gospel. I consider him a friend.
I have owned many other products of this type before, but frankly these guys inherited an issue that could have easily turned into a red herring. Instead, they developed a cost efective method to address it, were able to facilitate the correction quickly and provide a positive customer service experience for even the most difficult customer around.
I was personally treated as if I were the first and only customer of Ttian/WW. John, Bill, Greg and the staff at Titan LISTENED to me and my concerns, addressed and ELIMINATED them. I will not go into the details of how I was treated, but I consider them as friends and would quickly jump in the RV-8 and demo their product anywhere.
Bottom line: a WW prop will be on my RV-10 and next RV-8.
Thanks guys. Keep up the outstanding work!
BTW: Need more vino!
Opinion: Bill Koleno; outstanding individual. Knowledge of product type and WW props; second to none. I consider his thoughts and advice as gospel. I consider him a friend.
Opinion: Greg Anderson; outstanding individual. Knowledge of product type and WW props; second to none. I consider his thoughts and advice as gospel. I consider him a friend.
Opinion: Owner of Titan John Williams; outstanding individual. Knowledge of product type and WW props; second to none. I consider his thoughts and advice as gospel. I consider him a friend.
I have owned many other products of this type before, but frankly these guys inherited an issue that could have easily turned into a red herring. Instead, they developed a cost efective method to address it, were able to facilitate the correction quickly and provide a positive customer service experience for even the most difficult customer around.
I was personally treated as if I were the first and only customer of Ttian/WW. John, Bill, Greg and the staff at Titan LISTENED to me and my concerns, addressed and ELIMINATED them. I will not go into the details of how I was treated, but I consider them as friends and would quickly jump in the RV-8 and demo their product anywhere.
Bottom line: a WW prop will be on my RV-10 and next RV-8.
Thanks guys. Keep up the outstanding work!
BTW: Need more vino!
Robbie,
You become so eloquent when fueled by "vino"! But Robbie, how about a little testing before we consider that fix is a done deal? Customer service is one thing, and a very important one, but how about a few flight hours before we start recommending that prop to our fellow pilots. Time in service with no issues is very important for aircraft systems.
You become so eloquent when fueled by "vino"! But Robbie, how about a little testing before we consider that fix is a done deal? Customer service is one thing, and a very important one, but how about a few flight hours before we start recommending that prop to our fellow pilots. Time in service with no issues is very important for aircraft systems.
Yukon, time in service with no issues will never happen. Hartzell has numerous AD's on there propellers over the years and everyone still runs them. AD 77-12-06, blade seperation at the retention area is a prime example of one AD that seems to mimic the WW blade problem and we now all have no problem in running that propeller. Propeller are the most stressed part on a aircraft and they are usually the first part that will show service defects because of that.
James A Dean
American Propeller Service
James A Dean
American Propeller Service
Guy Prevost
Well Known Member
You pay your money and you take your chances...
I try not to get sucked into these debates, but here I go anyway...
I debated a long time about props. I had pretty much decided to go with a Hartzell, but didn't want to have to put the battery in the back of my RV-8a. It seems silly to run those big cables that far and I wasn't willing to ground to the longeron either.
I planned on ordering a new BA prop from Van's, but looked hard at used Hartzells. Every single one I looked at had a hub AD requiring Eddy Current inspection every 100 hours.
It was about that time that the recall with the WW-151 happened and American Propeller came on board. Whirwind handled that recall well, and I was much more interested in them as a company now that they had an independant prop shop behind them.
I talked to Kevin at American Prop at some length. I wanted his opinion, because American Prop is a dealer for all the major propeller manufacturers--certified and not. His impression of Whirlwind was very favorable. We spent a lot of time comparing the pros-and cons of all the props they sell and I wound up ordering a WW-200RV. I was influenced greatly by the weight issue, but also by the fact that a Harzell hub as many more wear parts (27 wear parts in total) in it than the McCauley hub on the WW-200RV. The 200RV has never had in in flight failure, and the only issues have been with the spinner bulkhead cracking problem of a couple of years ago. I like the idea of the 200RV having a certified hub that was originally designed to swing MUCH heavier prop blades.
That said, there is some risk with composite props, and carbon fiber in particular. In its laid up form, it's a hard material to get consistent material properties from. In my area of the aerospace industry, we're starting to stray away from carbon pressure vessels for that reason. They're really good unless they're really bad. There's no identifiable reason the bad ones are bad, they just fail in a non-linear fashion. I'm not sure how my experience with pressure vessels compares to our props though. Our props certainly aren't as narrow margin as the vessels I'm talking about, nor do they see the environments.
In summary, there's risks with any constant speed prop purchase. There's not a single constant speed prop out there that doesn't have a long and expensive (and sometimes dangerous) laundry list of issues. After weighing these, I chose a WW-200RV. I didn't really consider the 151, since I also have a single electronic ignition on a fuel injected O-360 and that's right at the upper bounds of what the 151 was designed for. It's right in the middle of what the 200RV was designed for.
Buy the prop you want and feel comfortable with. There are certain well meaning naysayers on the list that will try and browbeat anybody that will listen into making the same choices that they did. FWIW, The general public thinks your foolhardy and crazy for flying in small airplanes--much less building your own! Now like then, make your own decision.
I try not to get sucked into these debates, but here I go anyway...
I debated a long time about props. I had pretty much decided to go with a Hartzell, but didn't want to have to put the battery in the back of my RV-8a. It seems silly to run those big cables that far and I wasn't willing to ground to the longeron either.
I planned on ordering a new BA prop from Van's, but looked hard at used Hartzells. Every single one I looked at had a hub AD requiring Eddy Current inspection every 100 hours.
It was about that time that the recall with the WW-151 happened and American Propeller came on board. Whirwind handled that recall well, and I was much more interested in them as a company now that they had an independant prop shop behind them.
I talked to Kevin at American Prop at some length. I wanted his opinion, because American Prop is a dealer for all the major propeller manufacturers--certified and not. His impression of Whirlwind was very favorable. We spent a lot of time comparing the pros-and cons of all the props they sell and I wound up ordering a WW-200RV. I was influenced greatly by the weight issue, but also by the fact that a Harzell hub as many more wear parts (27 wear parts in total) in it than the McCauley hub on the WW-200RV. The 200RV has never had in in flight failure, and the only issues have been with the spinner bulkhead cracking problem of a couple of years ago. I like the idea of the 200RV having a certified hub that was originally designed to swing MUCH heavier prop blades.
That said, there is some risk with composite props, and carbon fiber in particular. In its laid up form, it's a hard material to get consistent material properties from. In my area of the aerospace industry, we're starting to stray away from carbon pressure vessels for that reason. They're really good unless they're really bad. There's no identifiable reason the bad ones are bad, they just fail in a non-linear fashion. I'm not sure how my experience with pressure vessels compares to our props though. Our props certainly aren't as narrow margin as the vessels I'm talking about, nor do they see the environments.
In summary, there's risks with any constant speed prop purchase. There's not a single constant speed prop out there that doesn't have a long and expensive (and sometimes dangerous) laundry list of issues. After weighing these, I chose a WW-200RV. I didn't really consider the 151, since I also have a single electronic ignition on a fuel injected O-360 and that's right at the upper bounds of what the 151 was designed for. It's right in the middle of what the 200RV was designed for.
Buy the prop you want and feel comfortable with. There are certain well meaning naysayers on the list that will try and browbeat anybody that will listen into making the same choices that they did. FWIW, The general public thinks your foolhardy and crazy for flying in small airplanes--much less building your own! Now like then, make your own decision.
Guy Prevost
Well Known Member
One more data point.
Ooops, forgot this data point.
A local RV-7 owner with an IO-390 and a WW-200RV sold his WW prop and installed a 74" BA Hartzell, hoping that the longer BA prop would improve his performance. I saw him a couple of weeks ago. He told me that his WW-200RV wound up being a couple of kts faster than the 74" BA Hartzell.
Ooops, forgot this data point.
A local RV-7 owner with an IO-390 and a WW-200RV sold his WW prop and installed a 74" BA Hartzell, hoping that the longer BA prop would improve his performance. I saw him a couple of weeks ago. He told me that his WW-200RV wound up being a couple of kts faster than the 74" BA Hartzell.
Information request; certainly not a knock.
We all know Hartzell does in-flight strain gauge telemetry on blades and hubs. Pretty sure the same is true for McCauley and all other certified installations. I know MT does the same or similar for at least some models; a friend assisted a factory engineer with a test series. Has Whirlwind done this sort of data collection for any of their models?
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/1ab39b4ed563b08985256a35006d56af/4cfce91224a85b8586256acd00707ebb/$FILE/ac20-66a.pdf
We all know Hartzell does in-flight strain gauge telemetry on blades and hubs. Pretty sure the same is true for McCauley and all other certified installations. I know MT does the same or similar for at least some models; a friend assisted a factory engineer with a test series. Has Whirlwind done this sort of data collection for any of their models?
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/1ab39b4ed563b08985256a35006d56af/4cfce91224a85b8586256acd00707ebb/$FILE/ac20-66a.pdf
True, James, there will always be issues. However, when customers are having problems after 100 hrs, I think more testing is in order, and not at customer risk and expense.
The millions of flight hours on Hartzells has indeed yielded product improvement. If a certified prop went bad after 100 hours or less, there'd be **** to pay.
Definition of Opinion?
Zonie Yuke:
Wine has nothing to do with it, value does. To each his own, but I stand by my opinion and offer that this kind of value, customer service and product is not available from others. Having owned several other brands of props, including the king of defects, excusec me ADs, I stand by the guys at WW.
Nuf Said and I am finished on this subject!
BTW: IE is also a spelling error! Robby "Hard" Knox
Zonie Yuke:
Wine has nothing to do with it, value does. To each his own, but I stand by my opinion and offer that this kind of value, customer service and product is not available from others. Having owned several other brands of props, including the king of defects, excusec me ADs, I stand by the guys at WW.
Nuf Said and I am finished on this subject!
BTW: IE is also a spelling error! Robby "Hard" Knox
Last edited:
teookie
Member
did not read the whole thread but...
I thought I would throw this out for everyone; the fan blades on the GE90 are composite...
Rolls Royce has been dabling in composite fan blades for years as well, though I don't know which of their models have them.
Ok, I admit I'm stirring the pot... but interesting stuff none the least.
I thought I would throw this out for everyone; the fan blades on the GE90 are composite...
Rolls Royce has been dabling in composite fan blades for years as well, though I don't know which of their models have them.
Ok, I admit I'm stirring the pot... but interesting stuff none the least.
