Whirl Wind Propellers 300/330 Series Clarifications

[WhirlWindPropellersCorp]

Hello Everyone,

We just want to clarify a couple of things about our 300 Series and 330 Series C/S propellers and hub mounting drive lug configuration.

First, the easiest one, all Whirlwind C/S propellers have the standard drive lug configuration (length of drive lug) as called out for Lycoming engines configured for C/S propellers. This standard was set by Lycoming many decades ago. McCauley, Hartzell, MT or any C/S propeller interface to the crankshaft is the same for all Lycoming engines with the exception of 320 vs 360 (5/8 drive lugs 7/16 studs vs ¾ drive lugs and ½ studs- respectively).

Below is a basic overview for our 300 Series and 330 Series of Constant Speed propellers:

-The 300 Series propeller is a light weight and efficient propeller with a 3-blade constant speed system designed for 4-Cylinder Lycoming, non-counterweighted engines (0320-160HP and 0360-180HP), straight valve 0540-260HP, as well as counter weighted angle valve IO-360-IO390 engines. There are some compression ratio limitations with the 300 series propellers.

-The 330 Series 2-Blade propeller has the same 4-Cylinder Lycoming engine applications as the 300 series propellers.

-The 330 Series 3-Blade propeller is basically can go with all the engines already mentioned as well as everything else. Meaning, all the non-counterweighted angle valve IO-360 and all Lycoming IO-540’s through IO-580’s engines. No compression or ignition restrictions with these propellers.

Attached are 300 and 330 propeller application data sheets that go in more detail than the general overview mentioned.

Best regards,
Whirl Wind Propellers

 

[2theskyy]

I have parallel valve IO-360-M1B with 9:1 pistons and told to go with 330-3B, which I did. You mentioned the angle valve 360 but not parallel valve. I assume you just left the parallel valve off by mistake or I missed the info. But the your website shows this info.

 

[WhirlWindPropellersCorp]

I have parallel valve IO-360-M1B with 9:1 pistons and told to go with 330-3B, which I did. You mentioned the angle valve 360 but not parallel valve. I assume you just left the parallel valve off by mistake or I missed the info. But the your website shows this info.

That is correct. The description above is just a very brief, general, outline for the prop applications. The website, the overviews, and our recommendations go into more detail.

 

[markpsmith]

300 vs 330

I was drawn to the 300 because of its light weight for my IO-X-370-CDE1U8 (counter weighted crankshaft, 9.6:1 compression) - and mainly Paul Dye's endorsement. Then as the years passed and I was ready to order I was told the 330 was the fit. But realized that this was a heavier prop and reconsidered.

After some phone calls to Hector who talked to Jim Rust, they said that the 300-3B/A-72 would work for my IO-X-370-CDE1U8. This answer matches their website at https://whirlwindpropellers.com/aircraft/300-series-propellers/ and hopefully that's still the case since it arrives in a week or so.

I would suggest to WW that they clean up their website information to match what they are trying to sell. This has been a constant information battle on contradictory information on which engines and props match. I have had an ok experience with WW and hope that the prop works well. With the fact that they now don't have very many service centers it makes me wonder. Time will tell. I hope it all works out. Maybe I am just reading into the original post more than I should.

Mark
RV-8

 

[Skykingbob]

Frustrating

Most of my pre-propeller purchase time was spent talking with WW….during the process people changed…props changed…..a whole line of props was discontinued…. And information I received changed with each representative I spoke with. Was tired of the conflicts and the low time inspection requirements ……went with a gorgeous 3-blade MT-9……..and a heck of a better buying experience

 

[F1 Rocket]

Very happy so far

I just installed a WW 330 3 blade on my Rocket. This prop replaced a MT MTV-9 that had given good service for the past 15+ years. The primary reason for replacing the prop was that after 15 years, the MT was long overdue for service. So I figured it would be a great time to see what all the hoopla on the 330 was about. So far, I’m very happy with it. It is a solid 4 to 5 kts faster than the MT. I have not had a chance to do any climb testing with it yet, but it pulls at least as hard as the MT did and it’s running very smooth even though I still need to do a dynamic balance. Communication with Whirlwind was not too bad in my opinion. Hector and I had several email exchanges primarily because I needed to match the exact spacing from the cowl that the MT was set for. The shipping was delayed a few weeks but overall I would rate my experience as very good.

 

[scsmith]

Cowl inlet clearance?

One piece of information that would be helpful on the installation drawings is the required clearance to the cowl inlets from the blade trailing edge in coarse pitch.

When I switched from WW 200RV blades to 74HRT blades, the folks in Ohio warned me and sent me a good diagram to help check the cowl clearances, since the HRT blades are much wider. It is very difficult to rotate the blades to coarse pitch on the ground to do a trial clearance check to the cowl, but with the help of that diagram, I was able to modify my cowl so there is no worry of the blades hitting the cowl when in full coarse pitch.

I would think this type of diagram would be standard issue now with the 300 and 330 which also have pretty wide blades.