I talked to Hartzell yesterday they are finally over all the hurdles! STC's are complete and they are ready to start taking orders. I'll be trying one out on my wagon later this winter, so I'll have some data to share at some point. What I've been told so far is that the performance is a touch less than the metal, but the weight savings is encouraging.

I'll have more info as Hartzell rolls it out... so far, their plan is to keep the $1k RAF discount, which is great news... JC might weigh in here to share his feedback?

The rub is that they've increased their prices across the board, with the metal Voyager going up $1k yesterday, and the cost of the new composite is not for the feint of heart.

Not my fathers aviation anymore Toto.

So what is the weight difference over the metal Voyager? I was very pleased with the metal Voyager we put on a buddy’s 550 powered 185.

What is the retail price of the composite and metal Voyager?

Kurt

Been a while coming, congrats to Hartzell. I'll be curious to see results/pireps on different configurations - stock O470/O470-50/O550.
If they need an early 180 with an O470R for testing in exchange for a free prop I know a guy...

This is a two-blade, right?

DreadPirateWill wrote:...on different configurations - stock O470...

Unfortunately the stock O470 is not covered by the STC.

C180_guy wrote:This is a two-blade, right?

3B

G44 wrote:What is the retail price of the composite and metal Voyager?

Retail on the Metal 86" Voyager is $19.7k. Composite is $29.9k.

Hartzell is planning on a "buy-back" program for those that want to swap into the composite from the metal. Details are still in the works.

FWIW... my first 170B was $28k.

All-

I’ll have the first one on my plane soon. I’ll update all on tear and performance numbers when Hartzell allows me too

The prop is as I recall 17lbs lighter than aluminum.

I don’t know the price yet sorry about that.

JC

Bigrenna wrote:

DreadPirateWill wrote:...on different configurations - stock O470...

Unfortunately the stock O470 is not covered by the STC.

I guess that'd make performance numbers zero on a prop you can't use there eh? Sounds like if I need a prop before a motor 2B MT would be it, and it'd carry me through a PPonk conversion as well. Pretty steep price too like you said, oof.

Most excellent, did they mention lead time?

Nor sure on lead time. When I find out I will post

JC

I am likely going to buy one of these props but would rather have someone else be the guinea pig. My concerns are the starter adapter failures with the MT props. I know there are ways to mitigate these risks but I also heard the composite Voyager had weighted tips to prevent kickbacks. Any report on the performance side by side vs the Aluminum Voyager ? Also weight difference is 20 lbs correct ?



Josh

Cool tech, just not sure it’s 30 grand worth of cool

As far as kickback, Cirrus’s with IO-550’s have been running lightweight composite props for like 18 years.

Kickback was an issue when you had a lightweight prop, lightweight starter, and a bad impulse coupling.

Switching to the heavier starter that had more torque solved the problem. The lightweight Skytec starters barely turned the engine over.

10 grand for 17 pounds off the nose, hmmmmm, better think long and hard about that everyone especially since the metal Voyager is such a great prop. You may need that weight on the nose if you have a big load in the back. If you “need” the weight off the nose then it may be a good option for 10 grand more. That metal Voyager is pretty darn nice.

Kurt

Ross4289 wrote:As far as kickback, Cirrus’s with IO-550’s have been running lightweight composite props for like 18 years.

Kickback was an issue when you had a lightweight prop, lightweight starter, and a bad impulse coupling.

Switching to the heavier starter that had more torque solved the problem. The lightweight Skytec starters barely turned the engine over.

My experience with my own Skywagon, as well as several customers (with respect to the Skywagon) are a bit different. Too many broken adapters running other composites to feel confident. One member here, who has lamented his own unfortunate experience had broken three... no bueno. If your interested in these stories, thoughts on remedies, or potential fixes, do a targeted search on BCP as the topics have been yapped about here ad nauseam. In short, and just my bubba 0.02, The heavy duty Energizer starter with either a Shower of Sparks, or eMag goes along way... but for me, neither of these was enough to keep the older composite option. I've run a 2B, swapped to a 3B, discouraged back to a 2B, then a the metal Voyager. The voyager ended up on a customer airplane, and I'll be expecting the composite when they start shipping in Jan/Feb. I'll hopefully have more to share with respect to performance in late winter.

The new comp voyager has some engineering baked into the design to elevate some of the adapter breakage worry, and I expect with an eMag and an Energizer, breaks should all but be in the past, but I'm not an engineer nor am qualified enough to speak in an educated manner.

That said, I do have a call planned with folks that run the Top Prop program so I can be able to speak a little less stoopiddly.

185Midwest wrote:Nor sure on lead time. When I find out I will post

JC

I was able to put an order in for a customer today... Lead time is 4-6 weeks. They are shipped black blades w/ white tips (polished spinner)

NineThreeKilo wrote:Cool tech, just not sure it’s 30 grand worth of cool

For sure... however... folks are paying $20k and hogging out gearbox castings to save 20# with Ti Gear... The composite might be a much better way to spend crazy money to loose weight... and... for most of these "gutted" Wagons we're building, the weight loss off the nose is certainly in the right place.

What Hartzell is telling me in the preliminary conversations is that the performance on the composite is a bit less than the metal version. So as Kurt mentioned, if your CG is working fine, then most likely the metal is the way to go.

RE: the composite... Will the juice be worth the squeeze? We'll see. I'll be doing my own testing late winter/early spring so I'll be able to speak first hand then.

Bigrenna wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:Cool tech, just not sure it’s 30 grand worth of cool

What Hartzell is telling me in the preliminary conversations is that the performance on the composite is a bit less than the metal version. So as Kurt mentioned, if your CG is working fine, then most likely the metal is the way to go.

That’s very interesting, can you elaborate?

Curious as to relative costs...
2-blade MT vs 3-blade MT vs composite Voyager vs aluminum Voyager vs Mac C401.