I always wanted to use the term "airscrew". In fact, it might be the name of my next plane...

This is a spin-off on my three bladed 170 query. I'm hoping if I keep posting the same questions under different topic headings people will eventually tell me what I want to hear.

As I mentioned in the 170 post, I don't think I've ever seen a three blade prop on anything with less than 230 or so hp. I've got to assume there's a reason for this. Maybe it's just as simple as the extra cost of a three blade prop doesn't pan out until you get more horsepower?

MTV, I remember you mentioning you were going to put a composite propeller on your 170...what's up with that? What are you gaining, and what are you spending to do it? I see that the composite prop on a Husky runs 10K...not a cheap option, though they are claiming it is impenetrable to water damage, or something close.

ravi,

That's the plan. Prop's on backorder at the moment.

The only real disadvantage I see to that three bladed prop is weight. The Scout has a three bladed prop approved as well, so this isn't unique, though pretty rare, and I have no idea why one would go that way.

Three bladed props tend to be heavier and more costly.

That said, would I automatically remove that one, if I owned that plane? Not unless it was ugly forward CG.

The MT is a good option. I honestly don't know what the retail price of the MT is, I'm working on a trade, so my numbers would be pretty meaningless.

MTV

The fewer the blades, the more efficient it is. That's true whether we are talking about helicopter blades, props or tail rotors or race boat props. It's at the higher power levels that multiple blades are required because of ground clearence and possibly because of gyroscopic forces of long blades and the decreased efficiency when the tips get close to critical mach numbers, to say nothing of the noise. At the speeds we fly, and most airplanes we fly, a two blade will cost less, out perform and weigh less than a three blade.
So why have a three blade? They are quieter usually because they are smaller in diameter so the tip speed is less and the angle of attack is slightly less because you have essentially the same power being put into three blades instead of two, so less pitch is required to hold a given RPM.
They feel smoother because there are three "pulses" that hit the airframe every revolution instead of two, so the frequency is higher, but the amplitude is less.
And honsetly because they have ramp appeal, they look cool compared to a two blade.
I'm no seaplane guy, I've never even ridden in one, but from what I understand about them, that would be the Mecca for three blades if they worked as well as they were supposed to.
I've got a three blade and I'm happy with it because I got a deal on it, wanted the foward CG, and like the increased ground clearance.
I wouldn't trade a good a good working two blade for a three blade, but I wouldn't not buy an airplane if it flew well with a three blade either.