What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

prop choice

Adam W

Well Known Member
Hey all

canopy done engine hung yesterday, and on to the cowl. This had me thinking Do i need a propeller to properly fab up the cowl?
and if so, I'm not prepared research wise for that decision
I am constant speed, IO-360 Fuel injected with a cold air superior sump with horizontal intake. from a weight perspective its a slider with a G3X dual screen system and GTN650 planned. no steam gauges.
I guess the look and smoothness of three blade is the wish. question is composite or aluminium? and size?
I'm no expert on the W & B math so any advice here on what is best would be great. I expect the composite CS will be very expensive. I also heard the composite may cause an aft C of G reducing baggage capacity
id appreciate any advice on what prop to go with. my mission will include some shorter grass strips, but not under 1600 feet
im building a 7
 
Adam,
Finished my -7 in Nov., now with 100hrs and counting. I have an IO-360 M1B with an MT 3 blade that I purchased thru Van's. I could not be happier with this combination. The delivery time was about 14 weeks on the prop and I was ready to fit my cowlings long before expected delivery. I rented the Flyboys cowlings installation tool and used the MT dimensions to fit the cowling. When the prop arrived (spinner mounted and painted), I just bolted it on and VIOLA! Perfect fit. Very smooth prop as well as good ground clearance for unimproved strips. My EW came in at 1081# CG 80.4 with dual AFS 5600 displays and autopilot. Pricier than the Hartzel, but if you figure in the spinner assy.and labor, its comparable.
 
MT 3 blade - awesome takeoff and landing performance, couple of knots slower cruise, but super smooth and great 'ramp presence' (I do hate that saying ;))
 
Get a Hartzell BA prop

The -7 was designed around the parallel valve Lycoming 360 and Hartzell CS prop. I have that combo on my -7 and the W&B came out beautifully. It's almost impossible to load it out of limits. Not to mention, it feels perfectly balanced in flight.

Also, I highly recommend a CS prop. Putting anything else on an RV is like buying a sports car and only driving it in 2nd gear. It hurts the pocket book initially. But, it'll make up for it in fuel savings over time (I actually did the math back in the day). And, the performance gains in all phases of flight are substantial.

My 2 cents.
 
Maintain it IAW Hartzell, and it will be the most expensive single item on the aircraft to maintain.
 
My 7A with 0-360 A1A and Hartzell BA prop was a great combination. Well balanced and smooth as glass out of the box.

Roberta
 
The biggest mistake I made on my first RV was putting a FP prop on it. At 300 hours I replaced it with a Hartzell BA prop. To say the change was dramatic fails to capture the impact. I was now flying the plane that I always wanted. As previously posted, the speed range on an RV is so broad no FP prop will come close to meeting the changing conditions.

For those builders that ask me, I say:
- If you want a simple plane for flying around the patch and occasional cross country, or can?t justify the additional cost, pick one of the many FP props out there and fly on. It will still fly like an RV.
- If you want to spend a boatload of money and go fancy, pick one of the composite CS props.
- If you want the very best bang for the buck and are obsessed with high efficiency cruise and top speed, get the Hartzell BA prop.

The brand new Hartzell prop for the current RV-8 build is in the hangar - engine and prop hang in a couple of weeks.

Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

And the debate goes on....
Carl
 
Maintain it IAW Hartzell, and it will be the most expensive single item on the aircraft to maintain.

Please explain. My Hartzell has been trouble free for 9 years & 900 hours. So my only maintenance cost is a little bit of grease once a year.

I know that Hartzell states the recommended overhaul is at 2400 hours or 72 months calendar time. I just had the calendar time discussion a couple of weeks ago. In short, maybe if you plane is kept outside in harsh conditions 72 months maybe valid. However, for most of us 2400 hours is the better guideline.
 
Hartzell blended Airfoil

As stated Hartzell recommends a 500 hour overhaul if you do acrobatics with the aircraft. Although not reuired by any AD it isnecessary and expensive. Just went through it and at 2300
Dollars it will be an additional 9200 in 2000 hours if engine time. I dont believe the compisite Hartzell have that requirement. So in the ling run a composite might be the way ti go
 
Love my BA

I love my BA prop. Purchased from Vans and no regrets. Had a FP prop on my -6 and it was ok but the CS prop gives ultimate performance for the excellent Vans design. Taking off and being at pattern altitude before end of runway is a great way to start my daily RV adventure.
 
Give 'em time, you'll get replies. Time zones etc.
A search of this site should bring up lots of info on this topic

I have an RV200 with about 290 hrs on it. It's a fairly early version, 2011. It was an exceptionally good deal at the time with a group buy through VAF.
IO360, 180hp.
I've been very happy with it, though I've no personal side by side comparison.

Pros are:
Good top speed. According to those who have compared them.
Good vibration damping. The only smoother props seem to be the 3 blade types.
Great looks! Subjective, I know.
V. nice spinner included.

Cons:
Very light, so on an RV7 rear CG is an issue. Can be mitigated during the build.
Paired with PCU 5000 governor it is easy to exceed 2700rpm on take off. This only a problem on take off, and then only on the shortest runways. The governor doesn't seem quick enough for a light weight prop. American Propeller say they can improve that by adjusting the stops when they do my next inspection. I think this may just be a problem with the earlier props.
Short reseal period - 350hrs on mine.

All told, I've been very pleased with it.
 
Last edited:
Hello Jim

Sorry for my pushing ... and thank you for your informative write up about your RV200 prop!

Interesting this 2700RPM override ... If we get the acceptance by our FAA, we would like to limit the RPM to 2500, this due to very strict noise regulation. Each plane is measured very preciesly and a penalty is given when you have more than 2500 RPM.

By the way, WW sold more than 600+ RV200 props!
 
RV200

Hi Dominik,

A couple of months ago I converted my RV9a/180 from a Catto 3 blade fp to the RV200 two blade. I can not add much to Jim's info other than to say it performs very well, is smooth, cosmetically striking, and significantly reduced my take off runs. The lighter constant speed unit by WW was a better match to my 9a than the heavier BA Hartzell with regard to cg impact. My brother has a 7a with the BA Hartzell and a 180 engine and it was a better match to his 7a.

If you look in the archives you can also find some performance comparisons--some slightly favor the Hartzell--some the WW. Either way will put a smile on your face when you push that throttle in!!

Cheers,

db
 
Hi Dominik,

A couple of months ago I converted my RV9a/180 from a Catto 3 blade fp to the RV200 two blade. I can not add much to Jim's info other than to say it performs very well, is smooth, cosmetically striking, and significantly reduced my take off runs. The lighter constant speed unit by WW was a better match to my 9a than the heavier BA Hartzell with regard to cg impact. My brother has a 7a with the BA Hartzell and a 180 engine and it was a better match to his 7a.

If you look in the archives you can also find some performance comparisons--some slightly favor the Hartzell--some the WW. Either way will put a smile on your face when you push that throttle in!!

Cheers,

db

Do you have data on your performance with the Catto vs the WW? Takeoff roll, climb rate, cruise speed (relative to fuel burn), etc?
 
WW and Catto

Hi Reaver,

I have not done any "scientific" data collection on the performance differences. I do have some "seat of the pants" info. Take off roll is probably 20-25% shorter due to the 2650-2700 rpm vs the 2200 rpm my Catto turned on the ground here in Prescott (elevation 5100'). Initial climb rate is better for the same reason but after the Catto got up to around 2400 rpm on climb out I think it was a little better in rate of climb--probably due to the 3 blade. In cruise a two blade Catto (same pitch and generation as my 3 blade) that I tested was 1 to 2 knots faster than my three blade and the two blade WW RV200 is the same. Efficiency wise goes to the WW RV200 as I can dial it back to 2350 rpm and wot and I can cruise slightly faster on a little lower fuel flow.

The RV200 constant speed is a lot of fun (especially the t/o acceleration) but it is hard to beat the simplicity, quality, and "bang for the buck" that you get with a Catto!!

Cheers,

db
 
Hi Reaver,

I have not done any "scientific" data collection on the performance differences. I do have some "seat of the pants" info. Take off roll is probably 20-25% shorter due to the 2650-2700 rpm vs the 2200 rpm my Catto turned on the ground here in Prescott (elevation 5100'). Initial climb rate is better for the same reason but after the Catto got up to around 2400 rpm on climb out I think it was a little better in rate of climb--probably due to the 3 blade. In cruise a two blade Catto (same pitch and generation as my 3 blade) that I tested was 1 to 2 knots faster than my three blade and the two blade WW RV200 is the same. Efficiency wise goes to the WW RV200 as I can dial it back to 2350 rpm and wot and I can cruise slightly faster on a little lower fuel flow.

The RV200 constant speed is a lot of fun (especially the t/o acceleration) but it is hard to beat the simplicity, quality, and "bang for the buck" that you get with a Catto!!

Cheers,

db

That's interesting and useful, thanks! I'm surprised that the takeoff roll was that different. Do you ever fly to lower elevation fields (<2k MSL), and if so do you still see that big of a difference down there?
 
new whirlwind cs

there is a new whirlwind hrt type prop and new blades coming out this summer that you may like. built for 150 to 200 hp . 2 or 3 blade. better climb and take off than the 200rv and equal or better cruise. I might get one for my rv9a.
should be about $9200 or $9300,but dont quote me on that
Jackz
 
I've got the 74HRT (serial number 001) on my 8. Received my signoff following the FAA inspection last Friday so should have a preliminary report soon.

Per the WW Aviation web page, the HRT is for 200 hp+ engines (I'm running an XP 400). Haven't heard if they're developing the HRT for the smaller engines but certainly possible. I can say it's a beautiful prop....I opted for a clear finish showing the carbon weave with painted red tips...have had many compliments in the hanger from visitors including from the FAA (he also wanted to know how much it cost :eek:).
 
I like my WW 200RV. 650 hrs, still looks new. no issues. for my config, I would buy it again.
 
Last edited:
Composite prop - Whirl Wind or Hartzell?

Since Whirl Wind has three CS props listed on the website that seem like they could work I emailed them and they responded that, for RV-6A IO-360 8.5 compression, 200RV 72" is the one.

200RV is $8,665 with fiberglass spinner.

Hartzell is $14,440 with aluminum spinner.

Delta is $5,775.

How's a body to decide?
 
Or, its hard to go wrong with the "standard" Hartzell.

Compact hub Constant-speed prop for (I)O-360 (180/200hp) 74"
Part Number = PROP C2YR-1BFP/F7497
Price = $8035.00
 
Or, its hard to go wrong with the "standard" Hartzell.

Compact hub Constant-speed prop for (I)O-360 (180/200hp) 74"
Part Number = PROP C2YR-1BFP/F7497
Price = $8035.00

Yes, no restrictions with parallel valve 360, proven, durable, only 16 lbs or so penalty over composite. Seems a great choice.
 
Last edited:
650 hrs looks like new

I like this prop.

prop_zpsqxrhtwis.jpg
 
Johnbright
Call whirlwind and ask for bill. He will give you some info on the new prop that is being tested now.Less machining steps and simpler. HRT style blades for a better performance prop
Jack
 
Prop me up...

I am constant speed, IO-360 Fuel injected with a cold air superior sump with horizontal intake. from a weight perspective its a slider with a G3X dual screen system and GTN650 planned. no steam gauges.
I guess the look and smoothness of three blade is the wish. question is composite or aluminium? and size?
I'm no expert on the W & B math so any advice here on what is best would be great. I expect the composite CS will be very expensive. I also heard the composite may cause an aft C of G reducing baggage capacity
id appreciate any advice on what prop to go with. my mission will include some shorter grass strips, but not under 1600 feet
im building a 7

Adam,
Age old question with some good responses. However comma, nobody mentioned the Catto Gen 3, Performance (wood) 3 blade "almost constant speed" and Whirlwind GA.
If Bang for the buck isn't just a buzz word, all of the aforementioned are a better bang for your buck than the Hartzell BA, Whirlwind 200 or MT IMHO.
Why?
Eight Grand for the BA prop and another $300 for the spinner plus $1000 for the governor? The WW and MT with all the bells and whistles are North of Ten Grand. I spent that exact amount total on my used engine (0-360J) and my Catto Gen 2 prop! As a builder, you fully understand it all boils down to the bucks. No Bucks, no Buck Rogers..
Weight a minute...
When I mailed Van's aircraft a check for a preview video in 1987, there were only two RV kits, little internet or phone support and no VAF. Most builders then were building on a budget as certified airplanes were expensive and performance inhibited.
Then, (as now in some circles) out the door cost, low empty weight and performance on a budget were crucial. My goals on both my RV's (RV4, RVX) was a empty weight not to exceed 1000lbs and cost under $30K. **
This required discipline, patience and a bit of scrounging but I assure you is possible. *

Best RV7 ever?
The best RV7 I've flown ever had your identical engine and induction, Sam James cowl and fairings/wheel pants, very little paint and panel and a Catto Gen 3 Three Blade prop with Saber Extension to match the James Cowl. It's EW was exactly 1000lbs. Flight qualities and performance were superb and had my favorite "light nose" feel.It was being sold to a gentleman in South Africa by the builder and I inspected/delivered it to the shipping location. Simply superb.
It recently won a Sport Air Race in South Africa BTW...

CG, Performance and mowing the grass...

The CG and performance/handling on light, IO-360 powered SBS RV's with a FP prop out front is superb. I have always considered fuel as my greatest ally in CG adjustment over the years as it's forward of the CG for a reason. More baggage? Add fuel. Local flying/Aerobatics? Less. Keep it light, less than 1/2 fuel is plenty. Additionally, I have flown both my FP prop RV's off my 1200' grass strip with no worries and have had no problems keeping up with any similarly CS equipped RV's. Where the FP really shines is aerobatics (and dog-fighting if so inclined). I prefer a lighter nose and less flywheel effect and had all my props pitched slightly climb oriented where I could obtain 2800 (or greater) RPM WOT at Sea Level. This allowed me to run WOT at 11,500' at 2650 RPM and enjoy 175KTAS and maintain the age old "48" combination of MP and RPM.

Don't discount a FP composite prop, I speak from numerous hours tweaking, flying, evaluating and paying...:)
V/R
Smokey

*My RV4: 925lbs EW, $22K out the door in 96', RVX 945Lbs EW $30K.
**After 200+ pre-purchase inspections and numerous deliveries on RV's over the past 25 years to include every RV model and several Rockets, my favorites are still the light ones.
 
Last edited:
However comma, nobody mentioned the Catto Gen 3, Performance (wood) 3 blade "almost constant speed" and Whirlwind GA.

It's EW was exactly 1000lbs. Flight qualities and performance were superb and had my favorite "light nose" feel.

The CG and performance/handling on light, IO-360 powered SBS RV's with a FP prop out front is superb. I have always considered fuel as my greatest ally in CG adjustment over the years as it's forward of the CG for a reason. More baggage? Add fuel. Local flying/Aerobatics? Less. Keep it light, less than 1/2 fuel is plenty.

V/R
Smokey

Well said Smokey!
 
The CG and performance/handling on light, IO-360 powered SBS RV's with a FP prop out front is superb. I have always considered fuel as my greatest ally in CG adjustment over the years as it's forward of the CG for a reason. More baggage? Add fuel. Local flying/Aerobatics? Less. Keep it light, less than 1/2 fuel is plenty. Additionally, I have flown both my FP prop RV's off my 1200' grass strip with no worries and have had no problems keeping up with any similarly CS equipped RV's. Where the FP really shines is aerobatics (and dog-fighting is so inclined). I prefer a lighter nose and less flywheel effect and had all my props pitched slightly climb oriented where I could obtain 2800 (or greater) RPM WOT at Sea Level. This allowed me to run WOT at 11,500' at 2650 RPM and enjoy 175KTAS and maintain the age old "48" combination of MP and RPM.

This will be almost my exact setup: keep it light, only prime the parts that need to be primed, IO-360 (180hp) and a Catto FP prop. The main difference is that I'll be using the RV7 more for XC flight than aerobatics; just the occasional light roll, etc. What was/is your fuel burn at that 11,500' and 2650rpm WOT? I was just assuming that I would want a cruise pitch, but am open to being convinced otherwise.
 
This will be almost my exact setup: keep it light, only prime the parts that need to be primed, IO-360 (180hp) and a Catto FP prop. The main difference is that I'll be using the RV7 more for XC flight than aerobatics; just the occasional light roll, etc. What was/is your fuel burn at that 11,500' and 2650rpm WOT? I was just assuming that I would want a cruise pitch, but am open to being convinced otherwise.

I don't often cruise that high or that RPM, but at 8500-9500 MSL, 2500 RPM, I burn 7-7.5 GPH at 155 KTAS with my Catto 3 blade prop (MFG in 2016). Other details in my signature.
 
Last edited:
Ultimate Seven....

This will be almost my exact setup: keep it light, only prime the parts that need to be primed, IO-360 (180hp) and a Catto FP prop. The main difference is that I'll be using the RV7 more for XC flight than aerobatics; just the occasional light roll, etc. What was/is your fuel burn at that 11,500' and 2650rpm WOT? I was just assuming that I would want a cruise pitch, but am open to being convinced otherwise.

Reaver,
I've been flying FP props on RV's for a long time. Performance observations involved many hours of flight testing, traveling and tweaking. (by definition, every flight in an EXP is a test flight:))
Higher RPM at low altitude with a capability to achieve rated RPM at high altitude was always the better call as desired overall performance at lower altitude was achieved as well.

A parallel valve LYC IO-360 is rated at 180HP at 2700RPM, engine mods, high comp pistons and blueprinting notwithstanding.
Inflight, to achieve higher TAS you need to fly higher, therefore a good FP prop will allow you to run wide open above 10,000 feet. For Carbs that's good as the carb throat is most efficient with the butterfly valve (throttle control) streamlined in the slipstream. For fuel injection the same efficiency applies, especially cold air induction.

The Ultimate RV7 I delivered for the South African customer had a digital engine monitor and as I noted in my logbook, "RV7 with lots of Sevens!" 7.7GPH at 177 KTAS 50 LOP at 11,500 2700 RPM. The builder had excellent attention to detail and weight awareness and it was readily apparent inflight.
Additionally the Rod Bower Cold Air induction really worked well as did the San James fairings/plenum.*

It's fast.*


Ultimate Seven

V/R
Smokey

* My own RVX with Carbureted 0-360J, home made aluminum plenum and fairings and prototype Catto Gen 2 Two blade will match those speed/altitude numbers, but at a higher fuel burn, around 9GPH. Hard to get LOP with a Carb...
 
Last edited:
Higher RPM at low altitude with a capability to achieve rated RPM at high altitude was always the better call as desired overall performance at lower altitude was achieved as well.

A parallel valve LYC IO-360 is rated at 180HP at 2700RPM, engine mods, high comp pistons and blueprinting notwithstanding.
Inflight, to achieve higher TAS you need to fly higher, therefore a good FP prop will allow you to run wide open above 10,000 feet. For Carbs that's good as the carb throat is most efficient with the butterfly valve (throttle control) streamlined in the slipstream. For fuel injection the same efficiency applies, especially cold air induction.

People often wonder why their fixed pitch prop RV is slow compared to others (or the perf. #'s quoted by Van's)....

This little tidbit from Smokey is the key.

If you choose a prop pitch to make your engine act the way it did on the C-172 or Pipe Cherokees you have flown, you will not have good performance (climb or cruise).
 
New Whirl Wind "HRT" prop for O-320 and O-360 under 200 HP

Johnbright
Call whirlwind and ask for bill. He will give you some info on the new prop that is being tested now.Less machining steps and simpler. HRT style blades for a better performance prop
Jack

I spoke with Bill Koleno at Whirl Wind Aviation. They have been working on a new HRT type blade for O-320 and O-360 under 200 HP. Lots of testing has been done and an announcement may be made at Oshkosh 2018. It will pull harder on takeoff compared to the 200RV. The hub is the same and the blade ferrules will be machined from a smaller piece of stock for incremental improvement in machining time and material waste; Bill did not mention a design change to the ferrules; number of machining steps is the same.
 
Last edited:
This will be almost my exact setup: keep it light, only prime the parts that need to be primed, IO-360 (180hp) and a Catto FP prop. The main difference is that I'll be using the RV7 more for XC flight than aerobatics; just the occasional light roll, etc. What was/is your fuel burn at that 11,500' and 2650rpm WOT? I was just assuming that I would want a cruise pitch, but am open to being convinced otherwise.

I also have an underpitched catto, but with an IO-320. I always cruise WOT. At 8000' I turn 2740 while LOP and burn about 8.1 GPH for 164 Kts. At 10,000, I am turning 2720 and 7.7 GPH for the same speed or 1-2 Kts slower. At 12,000 I am down to 2680 and about 7.4 GPH. Stock cowl and fairings.

Larry
 
Last edited:
CS Prop FTW

A prop extension is req'd for a SJ cowling which changes your G tolerances - limiting your aerobatic/formation cushion and fun factor. IIRC, adding the 4'' extension reduces max G to +4G's. Also, some people end up adding weight up front to move the CG fwd with a composite prop, negating the composite weight adv.

Braking in the traffic pattern... Fixed pitch props are going to be much harder to slow down. Not an issue in FL at sea level and flat terrain. But, if you're in the mtns and have to kill some altitude and hit your spot on a grass strip while skirting a ridge, it's very nice to have that extra drag. It's also nice to be able to make 2700 RPM on take off role out of, say Telluride, at 12,000' DA. I may not attempt that take off with a fixed pitch prop. Not an issue with a CS.

Same thing for formation flying. A CS prop is way better for braking (overruns, flying with slow a** Cessnas, etc). I'm not sure what Smokey is talking about there. A CS prop is dramatically more desirable for formation flying given the extra braking power and control of the engine available.

In cruise... I have a bone stock RV-7 and IO-360-M1B and I can open it up to 2700 RPM and make similar numbers to the "best" RV-7 mentioned above. Or, I can dial the engine back and run at lower RPMs with higher compressions for a more efficient, and comfortable (noise), cruise than you could with a fixed pitch.

Also, I spoke with someone very high up at Van's (*cough) and he told me that later RV's really needed a constant speed prop to get the most out of them.

The -7 was designed around the aluminum Hartzell CS prop. The weight and balance comes out perfectly. There are no RPM or G limits. And, you have much more control of your engine and performance in all phases of flight.

Going with a CS prop was probably THE best decision I made as a builder. Originally, I was going to go with a used engine and Catto 3 blade to save money. But, I'm soooo glad I ponied up an extra couple thousand bucks for the CS. For the RV-7, there's no comparison.

As you can tell, I have a strong opinion on this :D.

HiNsDeIl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top