REFLECTOR: CS prop for 260hp and up.

[Keith Hallsten]

>From what I have seen of the designs, the AeroComposites prop appears to be
much more likely to serve 1000+ hours without issues than the MT.  Of
course, it also costs more.  Field experience will be the proof.  

At this point, I don't have a dog in the "CS" hunt.  I'm just watching with
interest!  Catto props are the real champs when it comes to structural
integrity - but without the advantages of a CS prop.

Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: reflector-bounces at tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] On
Behalf Of Pat Shea
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:13 PM
To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list
Subject: RE: REFLECTOR: CS prop for 260hp and up.

<<In my (ever-so-humble) opinion, the MT blades are
too fragile for long-term use on a pusher.>>

Keith,

I've got 125 hours running an MT on a 340HP IO-540. It
accelerates/climbs like banshee and cruises over 205
KTAS. Zero prop issues so far. Of course, to justify
the price, it will need to continue to perform and be
maintenance free for at least another 1000 hours.... 
 
Besides the performance, the other reason I sprung for
the MT was that it had proven itself to hold up in my 
application. My WAG would by 10,000 operational
hours (100 MT XL's X 100 hours).

By "proven" I speak of its structural integrity.
Maintenance is another issue. The 4 cylinder/electric
MT models seem to have the most problems (can you say
TEC), but even the MT 6 cylinder/hydraulic models have
had their share. Still, I prefer to take my chances
with potentially high maintenance given proven
structural integrity then unknown in both categories.
Pls take that w/ a grain of salt since, as someone
said on this board a long time ago, we tend to justify
our own positions/decisions...

Too bad the metal prop guys backed out. The good news
is that in a year from now we should have solid field
reports on the current options for the XL (MT,
Whirlwind, Catto 260HP) covering performance,
durability, and maintenance. 

Pat

  

--- Keith Hallsten <KeithHallsten at quiknet.com> wrote:

> I'm in the same status as Brent.  The photo on Craig
> Catto's website is Dave
> Dent's plane.  Dave reported very acceptable (to me)
> takeoff performance
> with that particular prop on an XL with a 260 hp
> IO-540.  I have arranged to
> buy that Catto fixed-pitch prop to run on my XLFG.
> 
> Craig and Dave determined that that particular prop
> (76" pitch) was slightly
> under-pitched for a retract, but likely ideal for my
> fixed-gear.  My engine
> dyno'ed at about 290 hp.  I believe that Dave has an
> 82" fixed-pitch on
> order from Catto, but I don't know the status of
> that.  Dave had Craig
> repair his damaged MT and is currently operating
> with the CS.
> 
> As I recall, Paul Calhoun is running an 80"-pitch
> Catto on his XLRG.
> 
> Like Brent, I figure that the Catto fixed-pitch is
> worth a try, and I won't
> be out too much money if I later decide to spring
> for an AeroComposites CS.
> It's a good thing to have a spare prop available,
> anyway.  In my
> (ever-so-humble) opinion, the MT blades are too
> fragile for long-term use on
> a pusher.
> 
> Keith Hallsten  

> 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
To change your email address, visit
http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector

Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html