[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


>I'm curious about props also.

Here's another input: mine is a 66" MT on a Franklin 210 HP 6cyl. Pitch is
from 41" to 100". The airframe is an Elite LW (formerly 173)

>I talked to IVO while at Sun-N-Fun and
>told him about my Chevy V-6 installation. Specifically, I asked him whether
>his Magnum blades would have enough bite for my (over) 300 HP V-6.

Please, Kurt, do yourself a favour and forget the IVO. No matter how much
bite the blades may have, unless it has been thouroughly re-engineered by a
professional since I have last seen it anout a year ago, it is far from
adequate to handle 300 hp. After inspection, I have declined to use it on
my 210 hp.

>His input
>was to just put the biggest prop I could on there, perhaps a 72" ?

Unless your reduction gear puts the prop way above the crankshaft line you
should not be able to accomodate 72". You need at least 5, preferentially
6" of ground clearance. Otherwise you risk to scratch the runway when you
land with a slightly bigger angle of attack than usual. We had a guy in a
neighboring hangar with a Cosy that had about 2.5" of clearance. He ruined
two props (MTs!) before he learned to land it with a touch down speed of
not under 100 kt!

> I would love to use an MT prop, but find it really hard to live with the

Well, some people have found it hard to die with a bargain. Seriously: if
you consider the total cost of the project the incremental cost of going to
the MT really isn't that big. What's perhaps even more compelling: since
you have gone to the trouble to fit a 300 hp engine, you should really go
all the way. You NEED a constant speed prop. That leaves you with a choice:
buy an MT or steel an MT. Everything else is like buying a gallon of wine
and carry it home in a 1 qt bottle IMHO.

Sorry, if that's an expensive e-mail. <g>
All the best

Simon Aegerter, Winterthur, Switzerland