What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Whirlwind props

Ifly12

Active Member
I am looking for any opinions or experiences with whirlwind props as I am considering an rv that is so equipped.

Thanks,

john thach
 
WW200RV

I have one on my 90hr RV7A and really like it, but I have no point of comparison on my plane to anything else...

Jeremy
 
light weight props...

I love mine... shaves about 18 pounds off of the nose, it is fast, great climb performance, is very smooth, and responsive to throttle inputs. only down side is really more about light weight props in general... without the inertial mass of a heavier prop they tend to need a higher idle rpm and the blades accelerate very quickly with throttle input which can challenge the governor if you are overly aggressive with the throttle.
 
If you search you will find old references to failures - however, since we haven't heard of any recent failures with props properly upgraded, it is reasonable to believe that they have their issues worked out.

That said, the Whirlwind seems to be the lightest, fastest C/S prop for the buck out there. Note the qualification of "C/S" - many people seem to feel that the Cato FP prop is faster in cruise. It is also lighter than any C/S prop, and less expensive.
 
Last edited:
No Problems

I've got almost 600 hours on my WW200RV and it's a great prop. Coming up on inspection time but I've heard great reports from folks who have flown up to Ohio and had it done.

It's smooth, performs well and it's a great looking prop.
 
I have about 240 hours on my 200RV. I love it--it's fast, quiet, light, and smooth. Also, with regards to the above comments, the WW151 3 bladed props did have some issues (since corrected) but the 200RVs have never had any problems. The 200RV uses a McCauley hub.
 
That said, the Whirlwind seems to be the lightest, fastest C/S prop for the buck out there.... It is also lighter than any C/S prop, and less expensive.

Lighter yes, which is a big advantage. Faster and cheaper, no. Larry Vetterman did what seems to be the only direct comparison of the Whirlwind with the Hartzell blended airfoil on the same airplane under the same conditions, and the results are a wash in terms of performance:

http://www.vansairforce.net/vetterman/vettermanexhaust.htm#prop

The price shown on WW's website for the 200RV is two thousand dollars higher than Van's OEM price for the Hartzell.
 
Just some relevant data

The WW200RV prop (to the best of my knowledge) was optimized for an RV-8 with a standard cowl and a 200 HP engine at 8000' (assumed 150 BHP) turning 2700 RPM.

I can't tell you to what extent being off-spec diminishes the performance of the prop, but it does and in several ways.
Thus the RV7A with 180 HP is not the "perfect" application for that prop. If there are now models for specific RV's I haven't heard of it.
 
I switched from a Blended airfoil to a 200RV and was surprised at the performance deference. The main reason for the switch was weight. A O-360 and constant speed on an RV-4 was to nose heavy. The Whirlwind fixed the issues I had and the performance gains were a big plus. Time will tell if durability will be comparable.
 
Almost 1000 trouble free hours

I love this prop! It does everything I ask of it, and that's a lot. I do a lot of formation and aerobatics and find the prop to be responsive and powerful. See a photo tour of my 650-hour inspection HERE.
 
Lighter yes, which is a big advantage. Faster and cheaper, no. Larry Vetterman did what seems to be the only direct comparison of the Whirlwind with the Hartzell blended airfoil on the same airplane under the same conditions, and the results are a wash in terms of performance:

http://www.vansairforce.net/vetterman/vettermanexhaust.htm#prop

The price shown on WW's website for the 200RV is two thousand dollars higher than Van's OEM price for the Hartzell.

Not the only comparison - see this RV-8 prop comparison. EDIT - hehe, Ironflight beat me to it! /EDIT That is the study I was referring to, and in that the 200RV edged out Hartzell on the same plane. Different planes or slight differences in testing technique may account for the difference in results. Don't know how much difference the blended airfoil makes.

Price - I was referring to retail prices, which are "about the same" between WW & Hartzell, and thus was assuming price about the same. There was a group buy of the 200RV a while back that may (or may not) have equaled the Van's special price for Hartzell, which is much better than "retail price." So, I guess it's whatever you can get it for. If the RV deal is better, go with it.

Don't get me wrong - I fly a Hartzell on my plane because that's what it came with, and it's a fine prop. But, if I were ever to replace my IO-320 with an IO-375, I would probably also switch to a WW 200RV to offset the weight & balance change of the heavier motor and sell the whole engine-prop combo.

P.S. Please don't PM me for my engine just yet - not doing anything in this economy!
 
Last edited:
More on the 151 "issue"

There was a single plane, that subsequently ate a number of props after causing some minor fretting on a 151. None of the returned blades axhibitted the issue.

I have almost 200 hours on the 151 and it is smooth and solid, it has barely broken in, still tight on cycle when really cold. Top quality stuff from WW.

And there were never any "failures", they never lost a blade or a piece of a blade or anything like that. Some early 200 model props had spinner bulhead cracks, which has been resolved (WW Provides the spinner assembly for the prop), and the aforementioned 151 fretting issue. Some areorbatic props with improperly assembled counterweights had issues with those.
 
Added Bonus

The WW200RV comes with the backing plate and spinner mounted and all ready for priming and painting. This is a time and money saver.
 
I Love my WhirlWind

I love mine, what I like the best is how quiet it is. Weight saved is wonderful too of course, but there is a drawback to the lighter prop: You can't idle as slowly as you can with a heavier prop. Essentially you have a lot less flywheel. I have no doubt that this effects short field landings negatively.

Hans
 
I have a love/hate relationship with my WW prop. I chipped the trailing edge of my WW prop with my head and had to replace one blade. That's another story that was posted previously. The trailing edge of the prop is just resin but carbon fiber forward of that. I'm guessing all composite props are more fragile than metal ones. Unless you do something stupid then chipping the trailing edge probably isn't the norm.

I've now flown it over 45 hours and am pretty happy with it. The big advantage for me was to keep the CG centered instead of forward on my RV-9A since it's over 15 lbs lighter than a metal CS prop. Keep in mind that with WW you have to send them back to the factory for a mandatory overhaul every 5 years or so. Now that the wound is healed I'm in the love part of the relationship. Plus it looks cool on the airplane. What more could you ask.
 
Brings up a good point on CG. Most RV7's end up more tail heavy than not empty (unless you take drastic measures to prevent it) and this can impact your baggage carrying capability...I would not want a lighter prop on my nose.
 
Brings up a good point on CG. Most RV7's end up more tail heavy than not empty (unless you take drastic measures to prevent it) and this can impact your baggage carrying capability...I would not want a lighter prop on my nose.

But it will be just about perfect for those of us planning a 9A with a 360 upfront.
 
Not the only comparison - see this RV-8 prop comparison. EDIT - hehe, Ironflight beat me to it! /EDIT That is the study I was referring to, and in that the 200RV edged out Hartzell on the same plane. Different planes or slight differences in testing technique may account for the difference in results. Don't know how much difference the blended airfoil makes.

Randy's comparison was between the 200RV and a Hartzell with the older 7666 blades. The 200RV came out 1 to 2 mph faster than the Hartzell. Van's suggested in an Rvator article that the blended airfoil blades are about 3 mph faster than the 7666 blades. Bob Axsom and I both recently switched from the 7666 to the 7496 (blended airfoil) prop, and both of us saw about 3 mph gain. So, in my mind this is all consistent with Larry Vetterman's conclusion that there is little if any difference in speed between the two props. I'm not sure what the final price for the group buy was for the 200RV but I think it was still a few hundred higher than Van's Hartzell price.

As far as I can tell the 200RV is a great choice, particularly for weight savings. This could make for a big difference in flying qualities of the RV-8.
 
Randy's comparison was between the 200RV and a Hartzell with the older 7666 blades. The 200RV came out 1 to 2 mph faster than the Hartzell. Van's suggested in an Rvator article that the blended airfoil blades are about 3 mph faster than the 7666 blades. Bob Axsom and I both recently switched from the 7666 to the 7496 (blended airfoil) prop, and both of us saw about 3 mph gain. So, in my mind this is all consistent with Larry Vetterman's conclusion that there is little if any difference in speed between the two props. I'm not sure what the final price for the group buy was for the 200RV but I think it was still a few hundred higher than Van's Hartzell price.

As far as I can tell the 200RV is a great choice, particularly for weight savings. This could make for a big difference in flying qualities of the RV-8.

That's great info - perhaps someone should blend those two writeups and host them on this site in case either of their sites are discontinued - perhaps make it a sticky? This is the kind of solid info that all experimental flyers are keen to have easy access to.
 
of course, moving the CoG rearward (getting weight off the nose) will also lower drag and increase speed...
 
Back
Top