You gonna keep it at full length?
As I recall, you were talking a while back about cutting it down to 82 or less.
Longer is better IMHO unless you have tip speed issues.
What's the engine redline?

Thats a sweet looking airplane. Congrats on the milestone.

hotrod180 wrote:You gonna keep it at full length?
As I recall, you were talking a while back about cutting it down to 82 or less.
Longer is better IMHO unless you have tip speed issues.
What's the engine redline?

Your recollection is incorrect

It will likely get cut down to 86" maybe 84". Or maybe it will get left full length. Once we determine what rpm we are currently achieving we will determine the path forward.

2600 or 2800 rpm is the redline depending on engine model.

Congrats!!!

whee wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:You gonna keep it at full length?
As I recall, you were talking a while back about cutting it down to 82 or less.
Longer is better IMHO unless you have tip speed issues.
What's the engine redline?

Your recollection is incorrect

It will likely get cut down to 86" maybe 84". Or maybe it will get left full length. Once we determine what rpm we are currently achieving we will determine the path forward.

2600 or 2800 rpm is the redline depending on engine model.

Any worries about harmonics and possible damage to the crank if you use a non-standard length?

Bagarre wrote:
Any worries about harmonics and possible damage to the crank if you use a non-standard length?

Yes, there is some concern about harmonics. Both 84” and 86” have been field approved on some aircraft with this engine but the numbers are small. However, I had custom forged pistons designed and manufactured so harmonics are mostly unknown at this point regardless of prop length. What I really need is a wood core prop which may happen now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

whee wrote:….now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

First I've heard of that-- got a link for more info?

hotrod180 wrote:

whee wrote:….now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

First I've heard of that-- got a link for more info?

No. They have a Facebook page and an email list which they are using to share the info.

whee wrote:….now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

I think Whirlwind (no, the other one) have been doing that for about seven years now? 2100mm blade disc.

Bagarre wrote:

whee wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:You gonna keep it at full length?
As I recall, you were talking a while back about cutting it down to 82 or less.
Longer is better IMHO unless you have tip speed issues.
What's the engine redline?

Your recollection is incorrect

It will likely get cut down to 86" maybe 84". Or maybe it will get left full length. Once we determine what rpm we are currently achieving we will determine the path forward.

2600 or 2800 rpm is the redline depending on engine model.

Any worries about harmonics and possible damage to the crank if you use a non-standard length?

An Aeromatic Prop has wood blades. You should put one of those on just to troll people

Battson wrote:

whee wrote:….now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

I think Whirlwind (no, the other one) have been doing that for about seven years now? 2100mm blade disc.

They have and their blades are a fair bit less expensive than Cattos. Whirlwind blades have hollow or foam cores. I like that Cattos are wood core due to wood being harmonically robust.

whee wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

whee wrote:….now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

First I've heard of that-- got a link for more info?

No. They have a Facebook page and an email list which they are using to share the info.

That'll be pretty popular mod for people who's Mac prop blades get down below minimum.
I wonder if McCauley's gonna come up with a discount program to compete?

Bagarre wrote:
An Aeromatic Prop has wood blades. You should put one of those on just to troll people

Haha. I’d feel like bad beating up a classic prop like that.

I always wanted an Aeromatic to put on my Luscombe.

whee wrote:.....I always wanted an Aeromatic to put on my Luscombe.

A guy I know has an Aeromatic on his Ranger-powered Fairchild 24.
It works great.....here at sea level.
He just told me the other day that he flew it down to Reno for the air races,
and it didn't work worth a damn at that elevation--
it kept wanting to go into high pitch on takeoff roll.
So for anyone who's gonna be operating at different elevations,
I don't think they're a good choice.

whee wrote:

Bagarre wrote:
Any worries about harmonics and possible damage to the crank if you use a non-standard length?

Yes, there is some concern about harmonics. Both 84” and 86” have been field approved on some aircraft with this engine but the numbers are small. However, I had custom forged pistons designed and manufactured so harmonics are mostly unknown at this point regardless of prop length. What I really need is a wood core prop which may happen now that Catto will soon be selling blades that will fit a McCauley hub.

Whee,
Does the IO360 have the counter weight arrangement specifications for specific propellers? When I was building my IO520...I spent nearly three hours researching Continental specifications at Alaska Aircraft engine on Merrill Field. Took a while to find what I was looking for...a counterweight arrangement without any RPM restrictions for my propellor. Can operate at any RPM under 2700 and up to 2850 for five minutes. May install Insights engine monitor that includes a vibration sensor. Wondering if an Insight engine monitor is on your list of must have instruments?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

hotrod180 wrote:

whee wrote:.....I always wanted an Aeromatic to put on my Luscombe.

A guy I know has an Aeromatic on his Ranger-powered Fairchild 24.
It works great.....here at sea level.
He just told me the other day that he flew it down to Reno for the air races,
and it didn't work worth a damn at that elevation--
it kept wanting to go into high pitch on takeoff roll.
So for anyone who's gonna be operating at different elevations,
I don't think they're a good choice.

The manual tells you that field elevation changes of a few thousand feet require counter weight changes to keep the pitch angle.
There was a nice table that shows how many ounces to add/remove per thousand feet elevation change.

I think this was the real downfall of the prop as counterweight changes are not a pilot doable thing....legally.

Bagarre wrote:...The manual tells you that field elevation changes of a few thousand feet require counter weight changes to keep the pitch angle. There was a nice table that shows how many ounces to add/remove per thousand feet elevation change. I think this was the real downfall of the prop as counterweight changes are not a pilot doable thing....legally.

And even if it was legal, do you wanna have to be monkeying with the counterweights every time you land at a different-elevation strip?

hotrod180 wrote:

Bagarre wrote:...The manual tells you that field elevation changes of a few thousand feet require counter weight changes to keep the pitch angle. There was a nice table that shows how many ounces to add/remove per thousand feet elevation change. I think this was the real downfall of the prop as counterweight changes are not a pilot doable thing....legally.

And even if it was legal, do you wanna have to be monkeying with the counterweights every time you land at a different-elevation strip?

So, it's not EVERY time at different elevations. Only when you need max performance and you've changed elevation by a couple thousand feet. For 99% of fliers, this is never an issue but we all know things are judged based on the 1% o the time they don't work perfectly.

And I never said it was a good solution. In fact, " I think this was the real downfall of the prop".

Just got a Bearhawk in for paint. The more I look it over, the more I'm impressed by the design!!
John

Whoever it is that brought you their plane made a good choice I think.

Glad you are getting to look one over and are liking it.