Going from the 8468 to the Aluminum Voyager is my question. It appears they are basically identical.

Obviously the composite version is significantly lighter.

Ross4289 wrote:Going from the 8468 to the Aluminum Voyager is my question. It appears they are basically identical.

Obviously the composite version is significantly lighter.

Really interesting question for sure if the data is correct.

I am curious what the cost of is the cost of the 8468 prop ? I am guessing a little cheaper than the aluminum voyager.

Just to compare juice to squeeze ratios !


Josh

I am curious too. I promise to post some Black Mac vs voyager numbers when I do the swap because there are no numbers out there between the two. Just heresay.

Bigrenna wrote:I believe the CF is about weight savings, and that the CF is just a bit more than 12 lbs lighter than the F8468A-6R, which is a significant improvement for those that are worried about CG. Im not sure how folks who "spend the big bucks" wont find the weight savings doing exactly what they want it to do?

My thought was that people swapping from something like the C401 Mac would be hoping for a performance increase, in addition to lighter weight to get their CG closer to where they want it.
If it's just all about the weight, I'm sure people installing the composite Voyager (or either of the MT props) will be happy.

At the risk of some thread drift, I have a couple of questions as I wrestle with trying to understand the difference between the Macs and Hartzells and all the jargon.

Can you guys fact check what I've learned from reading various info online:

1. The C401, which has been commonly referenced in this thread, along with the C402 and others, are considered the "Black Macs," correct?
2. The F8468A-6R is the Hartzel "Top Prop," right?
3. I have the C402 on my 206, which is similar to the C401, but has a slightly different blade, and is 80" diameter. The Voyager is an 86" prop and in aluminum it's actually a bit heavier (~6lbs) than the C402, presumably because of the larger diameter.
4. I noticed that on the Hartzell site, they call 84-86" props "float plane props." It makes sense to me that clearance can become a concern at the larger diameters for us nose draggers. Seems maybe this is less of an issue for those who have their noses in the air.

The combination of slightly higher weight (for the aluminum version) and decreased ground clearance is causing some hesitation for me, assuming all above is correct. The carbon version might be problematic for W&B. So, I'm scratching my head a little.

I have an 82 inch aluminum voyager on my 206. I was told that was the largest diameter certified for a plane on wheels. (Very happy with the performance)

I purchased mine through Donna of Davis aviation along with my IO550 STC. When I purchased this, there was a hub extension to move the center of gravity farther forward, she said a lot of bush operators wanted a more forward center of gravity for naturally aspirated planes. Running a few W&B scenarios I didn’t see this as needed for my use, but lately I have been making trips to pick up 1000 pounds plus of green (coffee), -with just myself in the front, I end up using every trick I can to move the center gravity forward at those loadings and don’t think I would want a lighter Prop . … on the other end of the spectrum, lightly loaded I end up putting 120 pounds of ballast in the rear for short field performance.

My 206 is a little porky (cargo pod, ox system, etc): 2185lbs @ 40"

When I run the math, creating a dummy station at -44" in foreflight with -15lbs it moves my CG aft by about 1/2"

CParker wrote:My 206 is a little porky (cargo pod, ox system, etc): 2185lbs @ 40"
When I run the math, creating a dummy station at -44" in foreflight with -15lbs it moves my CG aft by about 1/2"

Near as I can figure, a 2 blade MT is 11# lighter than my 88" C201 mac.
Substituting the MT moves my CG aft about .5".
----or----
Adding 10# at my extended baggage moves the CG about .5" aft.

For my purposes, the CG shift juice due to the MT prop isn't worth the squeeze,
unless I'm also getting a measurable increase in performance.

I'm also curious just which prop the 8684 is. Is it the schimitar prop? or the rounded tip top prop? I have a very hard time keeping the hartzell props straight. What I don know is that I was very disappointed with the performance of the round bladed top prop on my C180. And I fly with others that have the 80" 3 blade rounded tip top prop on their 206s and they don't even touch my black mac performance wise. With the Pponk STC you can go to 84" on the mac 402, which is what I'm running. I need the 402 because it has the extended hub, and thats required do to the nose bowl shape on some of the older 206s. Its faster and pulls harder then other 206s with the top prop. So this really makes me curious of the performance gains, if any, that you'll see Ross. looking forward to reading about it.

I went from a 86” 401 to the Aluminum Voyager. At 2300 WOT performance increased 2.5%. At 2700 there was a 3.25% increase (7 mph) for me. I didn’t try to measure takeoff or climb differences, but it is my opinion there was a definite improvement in those regions as well.

Was the juice worth the squeeze? If you’re going to fly super heavy and fairly short, for sure. If you have a bunch of disposable income, for sure. There are other mods on my plane that I’d rather have if I have to choose though.

I would like to see some real numbers for comparison. We have these planes, or at least I do, for backcountry use. I often camp and hunt using my 180 to get there. I really don't care if I get 2% increase in cruise speed, I'd take it, but I wouldn't give up much to get it. What is important to me is takeoff roll, and climb rate. If performance in those two realms is no better, I'll save the dough. I'd like to dump some weight off the nose, but at the same time it allows me to load up gear in the back, and obviously heavy is when I want the hard pull off the line and the climb rate.

I have a 86" 401, I'd like to see a comparison to the props in question done with same airframe, same loading, same pilot, same DA.

I can get a variation in true airspeed from one day to the next with seemingly nothing different. Some days I cruise at 124KTS true, other days I get 129KTS true. Perhaps manifold pressure is a fraction different, perhaps rpm is off by 20, perhaps I'm leaned just a bit different, maybe its a small difference in temperature? That 5KT difference is about all anyone is talking about for comparison.

The scimitar needs to be longer to have the same take of performance ( the tips do not make thrust but are effective in reducing tip drag at high tip speeds).
So if speed is what you want cut down your 86 inch blade 80’’ for a 520 and 82 for a 550 anything there after needs a larger scimitar blade for the same result no gain. Without the scimitar anything over 82 inches just equals noise not trust-that has been proven way to many times.
I may need to take some cover now , the long prop guys that spend their money for very little gain may try to crucify the once that speak the truth.

Bigrenna wrote: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.

can you guys help me understrand why my 180k IO520 is only STcd for the 80" on the carbon voyager? 185s IO-520 get the 86". Going from a 88" C401 down to 80" doesnt seem right

Which STC did you use?

Greg-