New Catto 86" prop
- Thread starter mongo
- Start date
Mi. ( Yooper)
Mongo,
That sounds So SWEEEEET !! What you runnin for an engine with that Prop ? I am seriously considering one of Craigs Props for My project, I have an O320 with a little of Bart at Aero sports magic installed, about 175 HPs..... can I run a prop like that on an o320 B2B ??
Rick
That sounds So SWEEEEET !! What you runnin for an engine with that Prop ? I am seriously considering one of Craigs Props for My project, I have an O320 with a little of Bart at Aero sports magic installed, about 175 HPs..... can I run a prop like that on an o320 B2B ??
Rick
Iflylower
Registered User
Memphis, TN
Talk to Craig Catto. He's getting a real good feel for which prop will turn with what engine.
Chad Jensen
Registered User
Oshkosh, WI
Looking forward to seeing your results! I had a three blade Catto on my RV, and LOVED it. Craig is a true craftsman, and KNOWS what he is doing. 8)
Bobby Breeden
Registered User
Spruce Creek, Florida. Sterling, Alaska
Results
I have had a lot of experience with the Catto 90" props and they are really, really awesome. They pull great and they cruise faster than the metal 90" props. Although, I do have a few questions about the 90 inchers that I hope the results of the 86" will answer.
I have always wondered if the supersonic air over the tips of the prop is detrimental to performance. With an 0-375 it is easy to make the prop bark when the plane is sitting still with the brakes locked, although 'still' is a relative term because the brakes are not powerful enough to hold the plane still at full-power on anything but asphalt.
I am hoping that the air accelerating over the tips will not be supersonic on the 86" prop because then it will give an accurate comparison of whether or not the supersonic air is detrimental to the performance of the tips of the prop. It is pretty clear that longer props give a higher thrust and a lower cruise so the best prop will be the one that is the most efficient at the longest length.
Maybe the 86" Catto is the answer... Can't wait!
I have had a lot of experience with the Catto 90" props and they are really, really awesome. They pull great and they cruise faster than the metal 90" props. Although, I do have a few questions about the 90 inchers that I hope the results of the 86" will answer.
I have always wondered if the supersonic air over the tips of the prop is detrimental to performance. With an 0-375 it is easy to make the prop bark when the plane is sitting still with the brakes locked, although 'still' is a relative term because the brakes are not powerful enough to hold the plane still at full-power on anything but asphalt.
I am hoping that the air accelerating over the tips will not be supersonic on the 86" prop because then it will give an accurate comparison of whether or not the supersonic air is detrimental to the performance of the tips of the prop. It is pretty clear that longer props give a higher thrust and a lower cruise so the best prop will be the one that is the most efficient at the longest length.
Maybe the 86" Catto is the answer... Can't wait!
dougsappllc
Registered User
Interesting tip speed calculator link. http://www.hoverhawk.com/propspd.html
Indicates that a 86 inch Catto is still sub sonic (.916 mach) at 2700 rpm on a 50 F day. It is interesting what effect OAT has on these numbers.
Indicates that a 86 inch Catto is still sub sonic (.916 mach) at 2700 rpm on a 50 F day. It is interesting what effect OAT has on these numbers.
Here's a toast to quiet props!
Last edited:
dougsappllc
Registered User
If I ordered today what is the wait time on a 86" Catto prop?
mongo
Registered User
In speaking with Craig Catto which if your interested you should,they tested this prop against a Boer 84-42 on a 0-375 and it was far better.
Shorter takeoff, tail came up quicker and easier, and improved climb
Along with 20lb weight reduction.
Cruise was slower as you would imagine but only about 6-7mph I think he said 92mph @2400rpm
My calculations show the following using an stock O-360 for power
82-42 = 640 Thrust@2500
84-42 = 677 Thrust@2450
86-38 = 749 Thrust@2450
90-32 = 857 Thrust@2400
Shorter takeoff, tail came up quicker and easier, and improved climb
Along with 20lb weight reduction.
Cruise was slower as you would imagine but only about 6-7mph I think he said 92mph @2400rpm
My calculations show the following using an stock O-360 for power
82-42 = 640 Thrust@2500
84-42 = 677 Thrust@2450
86-38 = 749 Thrust@2450
90-32 = 857 Thrust@2400
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
Mongo,
So, there is an honest 20 pound weight reduction between a McCauley 82 inch prop and this prop???? Or are you talking the difference between this prop and a Pawnee prop? I have a hard time believing this propeller could be 20 pounds lighter than a "Borer" propeller.
But, maybe....
MTV
So, there is an honest 20 pound weight reduction between a McCauley 82 inch prop and this prop???? Or are you talking the difference between this prop and a Pawnee prop? I have a hard time believing this propeller could be 20 pounds lighter than a "Borer" propeller.
But, maybe....
MTV
Ruffair
GONE WEST
Lower Chena
mongo
Registered User
Ok so I got it on but the weather is crap so I haven't flown it yet, but I have messed around on the ground.
It is as smooth,and a bit quiter than my 84/42
It definitely pulls harder and revs up much quicker
I think I may have missed the pitch by an inch 86/38 maybe should have got a 86/37 ,but its is still very early.
Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk
It is as smooth,and a bit quiter than my 84/42
It definitely pulls harder and revs up much quicker
I think I may have missed the pitch by an inch 86/38 maybe should have got a 86/37 ,but its is still very early.
Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk
