All,

Hartzell Propeller has expanded the application of the 3 bladed Aluminum Voyager. The STC is now approved for Cessna aircraft powered by Continental 470-A (s/n 410000 and higher) -J, -R, and -S engines. This includes models C-J.

I own a Voyager on my 185. I've flown many hours of test for HP in my 185 and did much of the test for this STC. Along with the $1000 off if you are in the RAF you can't go wrong. It is really a great propeller.

Not a sales pitch guys. It's my "not a lurker post" Greg!

Just want to get awareness out to all if you are in the market for a propellor for your O-470.

MW

Sounds like a wonderful prop.

I’d love to see some real world test data on cruise speeds vs the 3 blade MT. I like my MT but I lost a lot of cruise speed with it.

Is Hartzell still working on a composite Voyager? Was told at Oshkosh that it was in the works pending proper demand.

Slow,

Yes we are working on the CV. I did the test flying for the prop. Let me see what I can come up with for data from our tests. I went from MT to Voyager on my 185. They are both great props. I really like the cruise performance of the Voyager.

MW

Agreed on the cruise speed of the 3 blade MT. It pulled really nice but was definitely slow in cruise. I thought it was all about compromise but maybe the Voyager does everything well. (Except the weight).

Ington,

Yes it is all about compromise. I'm working with the flight test engineer to get the data. I agree about the weight difference etc. I had an MT and I love the Voyager.

MW

Composite Voyager is going to be pretty cool! How do you guys think that will stack up against the Trailblazer?

pilotryan wrote:Composite Voyager…

Well, that’s a name we haven’t seen in about two years!

Welcome back! Did you ever get that 185 flying?

The lightweight MT props are nice in theory but having a heavy aluminum prop has advantages. Heard a few people have problems with busted starter adapters with prop kickbacks with the MTs. I have a 78 inch Hartzell on my 180 that weighs 75 lbs. It's in great shape and was recently IRAN'd but when it is time for a new one - I am going with the Voyager. I believe it weighs 77 lbs. Heard too many people reporting significant improvements in performance. Not just cruise either. Seems like everyone who puts one on reports a big " WOW " afterwards. The composite Voyager would be interesting if ever produced but could have the same problems the MT props have with the kickback issue.



Josh

This is a pretty big deal for those that are after a 3 blade for their 180. (Sure makes the airplane look "cool.")

Dog is my Copilot wrote:Heard a few people have problems with busted starter adapters with prop kickbacks with the MTs...

Not to drift the thread, but as a short aside...This is indeed an issue. I'm a huge MT fan (and run one on my personal wagon) but... I've replaced 3 adapters after MT prop installs on different aiplanes since I first started selling MT props back in 2012. For sure it's an issue. Typically this is because of timing issues and possibly light weight starters. I've come to the conclusion that if you go with an MT, it's best to run an Energizer starter (not ISKRA or Skytec) with an "old syle" adapter and a Shower of Sparks ignition. This will retard the timing at start and help avoid kick backs. Another option now is a Surefly mag. This also will control timing at TDC below 400 rpm, has a longer spark dwell and allows for the use of wider gapped plugs. Best of all worlds would be shower on one side, and the Surefly on the other.

RE: the Voyager... the few who I trust who have flown behind them really like them, enough that its peaked my interest. That said, for me, the weight is a deal breaker. The Voyager is 21 lbs heavier than the 3 blade MT at Sta -45, (and 34lbs heavier than the 2B) which will really change the CG. Those that I know who are flying behind Voyagers have relatively stock airplanes (battery in stock location, non gutted interior, stock extended baggage etc...) so the weight on the nose is less of a concern.

When we make these "Utility" birds with moved batteries, CF extended baggage, no rear seats, no interior, big tires, etc etc etc, we dramatically move the CG forward, so having that heavy 3 blade up front is too much of a compromise. To this end, I have also started advocating the 2 blade over the 3. For me, the way the airplane flys with less weight on the nose is more important to the little bit of boost at cruise. Grace over force. This is why I pulled a new 3 blade MT off and went back to the 2.

But again, I've not put on on my own bird and run the paces, so I may be wrong.

Bigrenna, I don't see this as a drift. The initial post was more for announcing that the Voyager is now available for us little O-470 guys.

And I think that it is acceptable to weigh the pros and cons of the new contender against the other top fighters!

Now, here is my "I'm not just lurking" opinion that no one asked for.

I'd like to see how the lower HP stock O-470 performs with the Voyager. The guys I know that have this prop LOVE it. BUT, they all have Pponk or bigger engines. I'm curious to see if the O-470 has the "cajones" to spin that 3-blader up and pull out of a hole, seeing as MT says that the 3-blade MT is too much for the engine.

I took off a 2-blade McCauley that was a tired pile, and installed an MT 2-blader last spring. I like the light weight of the MT, but as Bigrenna also found, the weight delta between the two is not as much as MT likes to tout. My findings were a similar to Bigrenna. I did install the prop while on floats. I felt that the MT pulled up on step quicker and maybe even broke water sooner, but slight decrease in climb. I do not like the MT on floats at cruise. It slowed me down such that the plane would not stay on "step" at cruise, at the same power setting. It easily lost 10 mph. I had to increase power, and fuel burn, to do what I used to do, and with avgas price where it is, I do not like!

Now, on wheels..... the MT is an amazing prop. it pulls hard and It's easily 8 mph faster than before, I'd even embellish a little and say a full 10! For a strictly wheel guy, I fully promote the MT.

I haven't mounted skis on the plane yet, so I can't say anything to that, but the one guy I know did not care for the MT on skis. So I guess I'll just have to see for myself.

I am a little less concerned with CG than Bigrenna, for although I am that "utility" stripped down 180, I always fly with my gear in the extended baggage. And in reality, my "type" of flying is loaded to the ceiling, always full going somewhere, and I want to get there, so If I can go fast and skip a bush village $12+/gal fuel stop, I'll take it.

The wife already said I could buy a Voyager! AFTER I finish recovering her wings for her plane of course. So I guess there'll be a low time MT 2-blader for sale soon.

Full disclosure here folks-

I'm not a Hartzell employee. I've been fortunate to become friends with the owner over the past few years via some very fortunate circumstances. I have a 185 as does he. When we met I had a new MT prop on my 185 which I was very happy with at the time. I did note the the kickback issue as noted above.

Fast forward--I live in close proximity to HP. I was asked if I'd be interested in testing my MT vs Aluminum Voyager vs. Carbon Voyager on my 185 with an IO-520. My compensation was either flight time plus pilot expense and and the prop of my choice or cash. As it worked out on the initial test compensation was about equal to the value of a a new Aluminum Voyager propellor. I chose the Aluminum Voyager at the time see next paragraph.

HP determined they were not happy with the performance of the CV as tested and we went back to the drawing board. Turns out it is harder to replicate the Aluminum Voyager in Carbon than originally thought. HP as well as I am hopeful to see the CV come to market soon. Not my call. If it does, I feel it will be an excellent propellor on many many fronts.

I'm not a sales person nor do I get any compensation whatsoever from whatever anyone buys. I just want everyone to be informed and have a choice. Period.

We all have different missions for our Wagons etc. Propellors like engines are a choice. I feel fortunate to have been involved in true test data and will do my best to answer any questions I can.

V/R

MW

Tangogawd wrote:I'd like to see how the lower HP stock O-470 performs with the Voyager. The guys I know that have this prop LOVE it. BUT, they all have Pponk or bigger engines. I'm curious to see if the O-470 has the "cajones" to spin that 3-blader up and pull out of a hole, seeing as MT says that the 3-blade MT is too much for the engine.

When I had my 182P with it's O470R, it had an 82" Hartzell Top Prop (8068) up front and I thought that was a really nice combination. Thinking about the Voyager, it appears to be a refinement of that 8068 style blade. On the 470s It's a little bit shorter at 80", so maybe a little faster in cruise with similar takeoff and climb performance?

Interestingly enough, I always felt that the 8068 pulled harder than the 2 blade MT that I had on a 260hp IO470.

Bigrenna wrote:Welcome back! Did you ever get that 185 flying?

Thank you Greg, I've still got a lot of band-aid fixing to do. I'm hoping to have the Wagon in the air again around this time next year. When it came time for the first annual in 2018 things were not what they had seemed at all with the airplane and it was pretty much stripped of it's wings, figuratively & literally.

The heavy forward CG is a problem with the heavier Aluminum props for sure. My 180 has the light weight battery up front and that definitely effected the CG. Problem solved with 50 lbs of survival gear in the extended baggage. Would it be nice to have 30 lbs less weight on the nose - definitely. I am just not sure if is worth the risk of the kickback issue when the problem is so easily solved with some survival gear in the rear. For me - it is really about the performance. I know Hartzell has had some issues with lots of prop ADs. I do not believe the Voyager has had these issues. I know my current 78 inch Scimitar has not had anything major needed. I would be curious for a side by side comparison between the 83 inch two blade MT, 83 inch 3 blade MT, and the Voyager. Also for fun lets throw in a BlackMac 406. Let the best prop speak for itself in terms of performance. They all have to be brand new props too. Many guys take their old props off that have been filed down to minimum specs and put a brand new prop on the airplane think the old prop had weaker performance. Have to compare fresh apples to fresh apples.


Josh

Dog is my Copilot wrote:.... I know my current 78 inch Scimitar has not had anything major needed. I would be curious for a side by side comparison between the 83 inch two blade MT, 83 inch 3 blade MT, and the Voyager. Also for fun lets throw in a BlackMac 406....

78" seems kinda short for a 470-50, Josh, even for a 3 blade-- esp on a taildragger.
I know guys that are running 84" or even 86" C401's on their ponked 180's.
What length is the appropriate Voyager for your airplane?
Like you said, gotta compare apples to apples.

hotrod180 wrote:

Dog is my Copilot wrote:.... I know my current 78 inch Scimitar has not had anything major needed. I would be curious for a side by side comparison between the 83 inch two blade MT, 83 inch 3 blade MT, and the Voyager. Also for fun lets throw in a BlackMac 406....

78" seems kinda short for a 470-50, Josh, even for a 3 blade-- esp on a taildragger.
I know guys that are running 84" or even 86" C401's on their ponked 180's.
What length is the appropriate Voyager for your airplane?
Like you said, gotta compare apples to apples.

Eric - I don't think my 78 Hartzell is the ideal prop for my O-520 TS UTS. I think the Voyager would be better performance. Interestingly - I did get to try an 83 inch 2 blade MT prop on it for about 6-7 hours back in 2018. I really didn't see any major significant performance improvements. It might have landed a little shorter but takeoff distance was the same. Cruise - maybe a knot more with the MT prop. For me - the MT prop had a low vibration sound. Triggered a migraine and that was the ultimate deal breaker for me. The CG difference was cool. Best thing about the MT props IMHO. The only other experience I have flying behind an MT prop is in a C175 tailwheel but it is a different prop completely.

The 78 inch prop does have some advantages. I have great prop clearance and as such the prop is in great shape. It came with the airplane - placed in 1994. It has about 1600-1700 hours total on it - but you would think it was brand new looking at it. It came back from an IRAN inspection needing almost nothing. It is also fairly quiet - although I still get noise complaints. Nothing like my friends 88 inch two blade swinging from his 185. Overall, my 78 inch Hartzell does well and I got enough money in the Skywagon for now.


Josh

I replaced my original 86" 2-blade McCauley C58 prop on my IO-520 with the Voyager this fall. 185Midwest/JC helped to push me over the edge vs. waiting for the yet-to-be realized Carbon Voyager. It did add 22 pounds to the nose but what an unbelievable change.

Aside from the known weight increase, I was worried about losing cruise speed over the 2-blade. To my surprise, my speed runs showed the same to an average of 1 knot IMPROVEMENT; ranged from about 0.5 to 3 knot improvement depending on altitude. I was looking for a LOSS so no selection bias here.

Plus...it gets out of the hole SO MUCH better. Unbelievable difference noticed by me, my flying sons, and neighbors who flew with me regularly.

Further, the "braking" action when pulling the power is dramatic...actually the flying style changes for pattern and slow flight a bit with a bit more power maintained (I've made it a net positive of having more aerodynamic braking on-command vs. "coasting" like previously). This could be 2-blade to 3-blade switch alone vs. attributable to the Voyager. I wanted to fly a neighbors 3-blade McCauley as a sanity check but he switched to the Voyager too before I could!

It is probably the single most significant change I've done with the airplane. Two big thumbs up on this one.

I've not owned an MT nor do I have a reason to bash them. What turned me off however was: a) several folks I knew have pulled theirs off for Voyagers...and they all rave about the change, b) the local shop and a few neighbors have had issues with their MTs (mostly blades vs. hubs); the go-to-answer of slapping some JB-Weld or Epoxy on it is easy and convenient but sure is ugly, c) reports that it is slow at cruise, and d) it's short and doesn't sound like a proper wagon!

I held out for a long time. I am happy with my Voyager. Very happy. [Plus, as an RAF "member", you get $1000 off and $250 goes to the RAF].

Dog is my Copilot wrote:.... I don't think my 78 Hartzell is the ideal prop for my O-520 TS UTS.....

I'm not too familiar with the Texas Skyways conversions-
I tried googling them but their website seems short on info.
I'm assuming the O-520 UTS is a 470U with 520 cylinders,
what is the claimed horsepower and at what rpm?

hotrod180 wrote:

Dog is my Copilot wrote:.... I don't think my 78 Hartzell is the ideal prop for my O-520 TS UTS.....

I'm not too familiar with the Texas Skyways conversions-
I tried googling them but their website seems short on info.
I'm assuming the O-520 UTS is a 470U with 520 cylinders,
what is the claimed horsepower and at what rpm?

The Texas Skyways engine I have is a 470U engine with 520 cylinders. I have a heavy VAR crank. Non SB Superior Cylinders. I have never had my engine dyno'd but it supposedly produces 280 HP at 2700 RPN with 26.5 inch MP. That is supposed to be the maximum takeoff MP. The 78 inch Hartzell was compatible with the 520 TS UTS engine. It performs really well with this current prop setup. Only other prop I tried with this airplane is the MT prop. I have flown quite a few other 180/185s and think my 180s does well comparatively. I am guessing the Voyager would be a better prop.


Josh

Anyone have any updates on Voyager, McCauley, and MT prop comparisons?

I did some testing…

Absolutely love, love love the voyager prop. Everyone that I have help install a voyager on their wagon has loved it… with the one exception... perhaps not the right choice for the stock O470. The voyager was 11 miles an hour faster in cruise, but the takeoff and climb we’re not as good as the MT due to the lack of horsepower in the stock engine.

I had one customer, who went from a 2 blade MT, to the voyager, then, with the help of McFarlane, back to the MT.

FWIW, the composite release is just around the corner. I expect good things.

Anyway, here’s the short I made.