Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Propellor Choices

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Pulsar-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

blanducci

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Posts: 3
Location: Madison, WI

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

Hello All,



I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years with the Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks using these days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop is appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the in-flight adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and cruise.



During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the prop pitch. This time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a stripped lead screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time, plus two failed electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is always the same - pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch range is limited to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross country longer when top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.



If anyone has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something completely different might be the best solution at this point.



Bill

bernard.wilder2(at)gmail.
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:51 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

Bill,

  

 Love my "P" Tip. The configuration of the tip reduces prop noise.  It is supposed to flex 3 degrees.  Might be my imagination but when I level off and reduce power I think I can feel it flex back and take a bigger bit of air.

   

 BUT - - - - it is fixed.

  

 Bernie Wilder

 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Bill Landucci <bill.landucci(at)tds.net (bill.landucci(at)tds.net)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Pulsar-List message posted by: Bill Landucci <bill.landucci(at)tds.net (bill.landucci(at)tds.net)>

 

Hello All,



I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years with the Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks using these days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop is appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the in-flight adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and cruise.

 

During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the prop pitch. This time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a stripped lead screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time, plus two failed electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is always the same - pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch range is limited to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross country longer when top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.

 

If anyone has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something completely different might be the best solution at this point.



Bill<=============

 y Browse, Chat, FAQ,

 ="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List" target="_blank">http:=====

  http://forums.mle, List Admin.

 =====



[b]

briana(at)xtra.co.nz
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:56 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

Hi Bill,



I also have the PV50. It's done about 460 hours now [12 years old] and I have been wondering about the life. I remember reading in some of the early Arplast documentation [ - - very limited] that the nominal life was 500 hours. It's a great prop, and I agree about the performance improvements being able to adjust the pitch in flight.



Some time ago I also had a motor failure. The motor just wouldn't start and move in one direction. I talked to Arplast and they sold me an "improved" motor. No troubles since. Each annual I open the prop hub, clean out any hardened grease and re-grease. In fact I did that yesterday, and checked the operation. All is OK. The new motor was supplied with the lead screw and bearing. The old bearing was a bit rough and lumpy too. In the meantime I had purchased a replacement bearing locally anyhow. It is a standard [metric] size and was easy to find.



I can't imagine the lead screw stripping. It is fairly substantial.



I was about to write an email to Arplast to ask about the life, and any particular maintenance that might be necessary. If I need to think about a new prop I would still think seriously about the Arplast again.



Brian

On 23/10/2012, at 1:50 AM, Bill Landucci <bill.landucci(at)tds.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Hello All,

 

 I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years with the Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks using these days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop is appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the in-flight adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and cruise.

 

 During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the prop pitch. This time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a stripped lead screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time, plus two failed electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is always the same - pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch range is limited to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross country longer when top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.

 

 If anyone has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something completely different might be the best solution at this point.

 

 Bill

freedom4life(at)xtra.co.n
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:01 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

Hi Bill



I have been using a Constant Speed Airmaster Prop for the last 1500 hrs on 

my Pulsar XP. In the circle of friends that I fly with more than 15 run this 

same propeller.  I have not had to do anything to it other than replace 

brushes.  It transformed my plane and I wouldn't replace it with anything 

else.  The controller is simple to use and brilliant.  There are others in 

the group running this prop so it would be good to hear their experience 

too. I'm not an agent for these but I certainly endorse them.



http://www.airmasterpropellers.com/



Cliff

Hello All,



I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years with the 

Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks using these 

days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop is 

appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the in-flight 

adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and cruise.



During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the prop pitch. This 

time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a stripped lead 

screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time, plus two failed 

electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is always the same - 

pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch range is limited 

to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross country longer when 

top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.



If anyone has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something 

completely different might be the best solution at this point.



Bill

barrynorman(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

I have the GSC Inflight adjustable prop and it's been great for 7 years and 550+ hours. Performance is also great at a third of the cost at only 8.5 pounds.



I believe every Pulsar that has won the old races at Sun and fun had one on it.



Does anyone have results on testing/experience between all these props?



From: "Bill Landucci" <bill.landucci(at)tds.net>

To: "pulsar-list" <pulsar-list(at)matronics.com>

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:50:02 AM

Subject: Propellor Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: Bill Landucci <bill.landucci(at)tds.net>



Hello All,



I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years with the Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks using these days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop is appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the in-flight adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and cruise.



During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the prop pitch. This time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a stripped lead screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time, plus two failed electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is always the same - pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch range is limited to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross country longer when top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.



If anyone has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something completely different might be the best solution at this pobsp;           - List Contribution Web Site -

_p;                     &n====================





 [quote][b]

otto(at)otamat.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

Have look at www.Ivoprop.com I have on Rx914 Ivoprop Magnum 2 blade

high pitch electric pitch adjustable, but forget their CS box - no

good.

otto

OK NUZ-20

Pulsar III

Rotax 914

On 22 October 2012 22:58,  <barrynorman(at)comcast.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have the GSC Inflight adjustable prop and it's been great for 7 years and

 550+ hours. Performance is also great at a third of the cost at only 8.5

 pounds.



 I believe every Pulsar that has won the old races at Sun and fun had one on

 it.



 Does anyone have results on testing/experience between all these props?



 ________________________________

 From: "Bill Landucci" <bill.landucci(at)tds.net>

 To: "pulsar-list" <pulsar-list(at)matronics.com>

 Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:50:02 AM

 Subject: Propellor Choices



 

 Hello All,



 I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years with the

 Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks using these

 days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop is

 appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the in-flight

 adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and cruise.



 During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the prop pitch. This

 time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a stripped lead

 screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time, plus two failed

 electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is always the same -

 pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch range is limited

 to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross country longer when

 top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.



 If anyone has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something

 completely different might be the best solution at this pobsp;           -

 List Contribution Web Site -

 _p;                     &n====================


	


-- 

Otto Souta

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:13 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

Unfortunately GSC no longer  manufacture the in flight adjustable.

 [quote]   ---

barrynorman(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

I was on thier website last night and they still advertise it. Where did you hear they no longer produce it? 

  

Barry



 

   

From: "Keith Palmer" <kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:12:10 PM

Subject: Re: Propellor Choices



ï»¿  P { 	MARGIN: 0px }   Unfortunately GSC no longer manufacture the in flight adjustable.

 [quote] ---

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

I am sure they advised me by email a few  years ago saying they had discontinued them,  when I was checking  something, I had two in flight adjustable GSC props, I was very surprised at the  news ??. 

 [quote]   ---

pilot623(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:18 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

I have to agree with Cliff. My Airmaster CS prop has been in use about 140

hours and as he says, it's simple to use in all phases of flight. I have not

had any maintenance issues. It's a bit heavier than most and certainly more

expensive but I love it and would buy it again. My previous experience was

with the Ivo in-flight adjustable. It worked fine but I did suffer a few

maintenance issues like replacing the internal drive motor twice. I'm no

aerodynamicist but the shape of the blades had me wondering if there were

some more efficiencies that could be had there. I've never operated my plane

with a fixed pitch prop.



Jim Fillman

N623JF

Series 2

Rotax 912S



--

barrynorman(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:56 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

Jim, 

  

What prop did you have before?  Did you get the 2 or three blade version? Was there in improvement in performance over the old one? 

  

Barry



 

   

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:17:53 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>



I have to agree with Cliff. My Airmaster CS prop has been in use about 140

hours and as he says, it's simple to use in all phases of flight. I have not

had any maintenance issues. It's a bit heavier than most and certainly more

expensive but I love it and would buy it again. My previous experience was

with the Ivo in-flight adjustable. It worked fine but I did suffer a few

maintenance issues like replacing the internal drive motor twice. I'm no

aerodynamicist but the shape of the blades had me wondering if there were

some more efficiencies that could be had there. I've never operated my plane

with a fixed pitch prop.



Jim Fillman

N623JF

Series 2

Rotax 912S



--

pilot623(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:34 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

Hi Barry,

  

 I used the 3 blade Ivo medium before. The Airmaster is 3 blade  as well and uses Warp blades. I like the inlaid nickel leading edges but here in  Houston, have to keep a light coat of oil or grease on the nickel to avoid  corrosion. I have seen around 5 mph improvement with the Airmaster. It is fully  feathering but I haven't feathered it in flight. Something about killing a  perfectly happy engine in flight bothers me.

  

 A rotating switch is used to select the Takeoff (5,800 rpm),  Climb (5,500) or Cruise (5,000) setting. There a Hold setting so you can select  your rpm if you don't want to use one of the standard settings. There is also a  Manual mode where you then use a toggle switch to increase or decrease pitch.  This prop only consumes an amp or two vs. the Ivo which consumes more as it  nears the stops, up to 10 amps or so. The Ivo achieves different pitch settings  by warping the blades rather than rotating them in the hub.

  

 Jim



 [quote]         From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of    barrynorman(at)comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:56    PM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Pulsar-List:    Propellor Choices

   

      

Jim,   

    

What prop did you have before?  Did you get the 2 or three blade    version? Was there in improvement in performance over the old one?   

    

Barry



   

       

   

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To:    pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012    12:17:53 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor    Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "pilot623"    <pilot623(at)gmail.com>



I have to agree with Cliff. My Airmaster CS    prop has been in use about 140

hours and as he says, it's simple to use in    all phases of flight. I have not

had any maintenance issues. It's a bit    heavier than most and certainly more

expensive but I love it and would buy    it again. My previous experience was

with the Ivo in-flight adjustable. It    worked fine but I did suffer a few

maintenance issues like replacing the    internal drive motor twice. I'm no

aerodynamicist but the shape of the    blades had me wondering if there were

some more efficiencies that could be    had there. I've never operated my plane

with a fixed pitch prop.



Jim    Fillman

N623JF

Series 2

Rotax 912S



-----Original    Message-----

From:    owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com]    On Behalf Of freedom4life

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:01 PM

To:    pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Propellor    Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "freedom4life" 

-->    <freedom4life(at)xtra.co.nz>

Hi Bill



I have been using a    Constant Speed Airmaster Prop for the last 1500 hrs on

my Pulsar XP. In the    circle of friends that I fly with more than 15 run this

same propeller.     I have not had to do anything to it other than replace

brushes.     It transformed my plane and I wouldn't replace it with anything

else.     The controller is simple to use and brilliant.  There are others    in

the group running this prop so it would be good to hear their    experience

too. I'm not an agent for these but I certainly endorse    them.



http://www.airmasterpropellers.com/



Cliff

Hello    All,



I've been flying N168TM (Pulsar III - 912ULS) for almost ten years    with the

Arplast PV50. The plane is ready for a new prop. What are folks    using these

days with Pulsars? I must admit that the simplicity of a fixed    pitch prop is

appealing, but I'm afraid I may have gotten used to the    in-flight

adjustable's ability to optimize for climb and    cruise.



During the last flight the pitch motor failed to adjust the    prop pitch. This

time the electric motor is spinning freely so I suspect a    stripped lead

screw. In past years I've had that happen one other time,    plus two failed

electric pitch motors. Fortuntately the failure mode is    always the same -

pitch is stuck where you last had it. So as long as pitch    range is limited

to safe flight you're okay, but it does make the cross    country longer when

top speed is 110mph due to engine rpm.



If anyone    has old Arplast parts I'd consider buying. But something

completely    different might be the best solution at this    point.



Bill

_p;                        &n====================





 	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pulsar-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

	
[b]

barrynorman(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:35 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

Jim, 

  

Thanks for the info. Is there an advantage to a three blade vs two blade? 

  

Barry



 

   

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:34:15 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



 P { 	MARGIN: 0px }   Hi Barry,

  

 I used the 3 blade Ivo medium before. The Airmaster is 3 blade as well and uses Warp blades. I like the inlaid nickel leading edges but here in Houston, have to keep a light coat of oil or grease on the nickel to avoid corrosion. I have seen around 5 mph improvement with the Airmaster. It is fully feathering but I haven't feathered it in flight. Something about killing a perfectly happy engine in flight bothers me.

  

 A rotating switch is used to select the Takeoff (5,800 rpm), Climb (5,500) or Cruise (5,000) setting. There a Hold setting so you can select your rpm if you don't want to use one of the standard settings. There is also a Manual mode where you then use a toggle switch to increase or decrease pitch. This prop only consumes an amp or two vs. the Ivo which consumes more as it nears the stops, up to 10 amps or so. The Ivo achieves different pitch settings by warping the blades rather than rotating them in the hub.

  

 Jim



 [quote]   From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of barrynorman(at)comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:56 PM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Propellor Choices

 

  

Jim, 

  

What prop did you have before?  Did you get the 2 or three blade version? Was there in improvement in performance over the old one? 

  

Barry



 

   

 

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:17:53 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>



I have to agree with Cliff. My Airmaster CS prop has been in use about 140

hours and as he says, it's simple to use in all phases of flight. I have not

had any maintenance issues. It's a bit heavier than most and certainly more

expensive but I love it and would buy it again. My previous experience was

with the Ivo in-flight adjustable. It worked fine but I did suffer a few

maintenance issues like replacing the internal drive motor twice. I'm no

aerodynamicist but the shape of the blades had me wondering if there were

some more efficiencies that could be had there. I've never operated my plane

with a fixed pitch prop.



Jim Fillman

N623JF

Series 2

Rotax 912S



--

kdpalmer(at)mweb.co.za
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:50 pm Post subject: Propellor Choices

Barry,

            There is a  stack of information on the net about props it becomes a very interesting  subject once you get started, and one thing least known about by most pilots,  you must have heard the phrase "There are horses for courses"  

  

 Good reading

  

 Keith

 [quote]   ---

pilot623(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:28 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

Barry,

  

 I've always heard that 3 blades are better for takeoff and  climb but worse for cruise speed than 2 blades. I believe this holds true for  fixed pitch. In a constant speed setup, I believe there are still probably some  penalties associated with more blades during cruise. This is all just my opinion  and I'm only an expert on my opinion.

  

 Cliff made an important point in an earlier post about the  braking ability when the prop flattens out. Before I started flying a Pulsar, I  heard many comments about how hard it could be to get it slowed down for landing  but I've never had any problem in that respect. Of course I've always flown mine  with 3 blades and the ability to flatten out the prop for landing. Lastly, I've  always thought 3 blades looked better on a plane.

  

 I have no experience with the GSC in-flight adjustable and  only a few hours behind an Arplast in Tim Rupp's plane. I looked at the  Whirlwind but it required a conventional governor and was quite expensive  compared to Arplast and Ivo at the time. I strongly considered the Arplast  before choosing an Ivo when originally launching my Pulsar. I liked the Arplast  better but was afraid of the fact they were in France and didn't have a solid  support structure in the USA. Bernie Berger and I bought Ivos at the same time  (his was 2 blade magnum for the 914) and negotiated a "volume"  discount. And then for my fire rebuild I bought the Airmaster  from New Zealand, go figure. At least they spoke my language even if their  measurements were all weird.

  

 Hope this provides some insight, at least from my expert  opinion.

  

 Jim

 N623JF

 Rotax 912S

 Airmaster AP332 constant speed 3 blade



 [quote]         From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of    barrynorman(at)comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:29    PM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Pulsar-List:    Propellor Choices

   

      

Jim,   

    

Thanks for the info. Is there an advantage to a three blade vs two    blade?   

    

Barry



   

       

   

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To:    pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012    5:34:15 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



   P { 	MARGIN: 0px }     Hi Barry,

    

   I used the 3 blade Ivo medium before. The Airmaster is 3    blade as well and uses Warp blades. I like the inlaid nickel leading edges but    here in Houston, have to keep a light coat of oil or grease on the nickel to    avoid corrosion. I have seen around 5 mph improvement with the Airmaster. It    is fully feathering but I haven't feathered it in flight. Something about    killing a perfectly happy engine in flight bothers me.

    

   A rotating switch is used to select the Takeoff (5,800 rpm),    Climb (5,500) or Cruise (5,000) setting. There a Hold setting so you can    select your rpm if you don't want to use one of the standard settings. There    is also a Manual mode where you then use a toggle switch to increase or    decrease pitch. This prop only consumes an amp or two vs. the Ivo which    consumes more as it nears the stops, up to 10 amps or so. The Ivo achieves    different pitch settings by warping the blades rather than rotating them in    the hub.

    

   Jim



   [quote]               From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com      [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of      barrynorman(at)comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:56      PM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re:      Propellor Choices

     

          

Jim,     

      

What prop did you have before?  Did you get the 2 or three blade      version? Was there in improvement in performance over the old one?     

      

Barry



     

           

     

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To:      pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012      12:17:53 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor      Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "pilot623"      <pilot623(at)gmail.com>



I have to agree with Cliff. My Airmaster      CS prop has been in use about 140

hours and as he says, it's simple to      use in all phases of flight. I have not

had any maintenance issues. It's      a bit heavier than most and certainly more

expensive but I love it and      would buy it again. My previous experience was

with the Ivo in-flight      adjustable. It worked fine but I did suffer a few

maintenance issues like      replacing the internal drive motor twice. I'm no

aerodynamicist but the      shape of the blades had me wondering if there were

some more efficiencies      that could be had there. I've never operated my plane

with a fixed pitch      prop.



Jim Fillman

N623JF

Series 2

Rotax      912S



--

barrynorman(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: Propellor Choices

Thanks for all the info. Sounds like it comes down to where you want your performance much like gearing a race car. I like mine in cruise because I take a lot of long trips. 

  

Jim, I finally mounted the RV front wheel pant on the Pulsar like yours. Looks good and makes maintenance much easier. 

  

Barry



 

   

 

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:27:58 

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



 P { 	MARGIN: 0px }   Barry,

  

 I've always heard that 3 blades are better for takeoff and climb but worse for cruise speed than 2 blades. I believe this holds true for fixed pitch. In a constant speed setup, I believe there are still probably some penalties associated with more blades during cruise. This is all just my opinion and I'm only an expert on my opinion.

  

 Cliff made an important point in an earlier post about the braking ability when the prop flattens out. Before I started flying a Pulsar, I heard many comments about how hard it could be to get it slowed down for landing but I've never had any problem in that respect. Of course I've always flown mine with 3 blades and the ability to flatten out the prop for landing. Lastly, I've always thought 3 blades looked better on a plane.

  

 I have no experience with the GSC in-flight adjustable and only a few hours behind an Arplast in Tim Rupp's plane. I looked at the Whirlwind but it required a conventional governor and was quite expensive compared to Arplast and Ivo at the time. I strongly considered the Arplast before choosing an Ivo when originally launching my Pulsar. I liked the Arplast better but was afraid of the fact they were in France and didn't have a solid support structure in the USA. Bernie Berger and I bought Ivos at the same time (his was 2 blade magnum for the 914) and negotiated a "volume" discount. And then for my fire rebuild I bought the Airmaster from New Zealand, go figure. At least they spoke my language even if their measurements were all weird.

  

 Hope this provides some insight, at least from my expert opinion.

  

 Jim

 N623JF

 Rotax 912S

 Airmaster AP332 constant speed 3 blade



 [quote]   From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of barrynorman(at)comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:29 PM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Propellor Choices

 

  

Jim, 

  

Thanks for the info. Is there an advantage to a three blade vs two blade? 

  

Barry



 

   

 

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:34:15 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



 P { 	MARGIN: 0px }   Hi Barry,

  

 I used the 3 blade Ivo medium before. The Airmaster is 3 blade as well and uses Warp blades. I like the inlaid nickel leading edges but here in Houston, have to keep a light coat of oil or grease on the nickel to avoid corrosion. I have seen around 5 mph improvement with the Airmaster. It is fully feathering but I haven't feathered it in flight. Something about killing a perfectly happy engine in flight bothers me.

  

 A rotating switch is used to select the Takeoff (5,800 rpm), Climb (5,500) or Cruise (5,000) setting. There a Hold setting so you can select your rpm if you don't want to use one of the standard settings. There is also a Manual mode where you then use a toggle switch to increase or decrease pitch. This prop only consumes an amp or two vs. the Ivo which consumes more as it nears the stops, up to 10 amps or so. The Ivo achieves different pitch settings by warping the blades rather than rotating them in the hub.

  

 Jim



 [quote]   From: owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pulsar-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of barrynorman(at)comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:56 PM

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Propellor Choices

 

  

Jim, 

  

What prop did you have before?  Did you get the 2 or three blade version? Was there in improvement in performance over the old one? 

  

Barry



 

   

 

From: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>

To: pulsar-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:17:53 PM

Subject: RE: Propellor Choices



--> Pulsar-List message posted by: "pilot623" <pilot623(at)gmail.com>



I have to agree with Cliff. My Airmaster CS prop has been in use about 140

hours and as he says, it's simple to use in all phases of flight. I have not

had any maintenance issues. It's a bit heavier than most and certainly more

expensive but I love it and would buy it again. My previous experience was

with the Ivo in-flight adjustable. It worked fine but I did suffer a few

maintenance issues like replacing the internal drive motor twice. I'm no

aerodynamicist but the shape of the blades had me wondering if there were

some more efficiencies that could be had there. I've never operated my plane

with a fixed pitch prop.



Jim Fillman

N623JF

Series 2

Rotax 912S



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Pulsar-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum