Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 121 to 144 of 144

Thread: Catto Vs Borer floatplane

  1. #121

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like
    Related to the title of the post ——- how does a Catto prop hold up on a float plane? Leading edge, finish, erosion, etc. I just bought a Sensenich GA and plan to use it on floats. Looking for input.

    Jim

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Carey Gray View Post
    Gordon, Has anyone looked at a prop and how the angle changes at different stations?
    "I refuse to get in a battle of wits with an unarmed man" Danny Partridge, The Partridge Family, a long time ago.
    I've been waiting to use that line for years. Now, you want to take that away from me. I may never forgive you, but I might.
    Whatever happens online, to me, is not to be taken too seriously.
    Don't want to risk getting my shorts in a knot.
    I suggest calling Catto like I did . I listened to the BS too long so I did something about it. Fanboys don't want to know the truth , they just want to go on believing Catto is outperforming the others with lesser pitch through some superior process.

    Nothing superior or magic , the prop increases pitch towards the root , not a constant pitch distribution as with other propeller manufacturers, in particular the Borer which it is being compared to. This is why I say Borer is "honest" whereas
    Catto is not.

    Whether or not it outperforms any other is irrelevant what is important is knowing which prop to consider if replacing an existing. IF some poor chap were to choose a Catto 82 44 to replace a 82 44 Borer he might very well not be able to spin the prop appropriately for application. He would need a Catto 82 4o or 42 to match the same , would have wasted time and money .

    Many apparently just want to contiune in the delusion Catto are doing the same with a 38inch pitch as others do with a 44inch . Catto is not doing as others, apparently they have their own method , you can call that what you want, honest it is not .

    But hey, if you are too afraid to call them for yourself, carry on as you have , I expect you will.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TcraftF21 View Post
    Related to the title of the post ——- how does a Catto prop hold up on a float plane? Leading edge, finish, erosion, etc. I just bought a Sensenich GA and plan to use it on floats. Looking for input.

    Jim
    Many have said the nickle leading edge helps out very well, better than aluminum in fact. I had a T-craft for 10 years, used both a Sensenich metal and Warp Drive with Nickle leading edge equally over that period. The Warp Nickle did not show any signs of wear, the Sensenich had a number of nicks that had to be cleaned up .

  4. #124
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
    .... Fanboys don't want to know the truth , they just want to go on believing Catto is outperforming the others with lesser pitch through some superior process. .....This is why I say Borer is "honest" whereas Catto is not...... Catto is not doing as others, apparently they have their own method , you can call that what you want, honest it is not . But hey, if you are too afraid to call them for yourself, carry on as you have , I expect you will.
    Yup, no insult or attack going on there.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  5. #125
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    ...Not quite the same thing, but if you check the C180 TCDS you'll find that it approves various props for each model 180.
    Along with the model / size prop, it also specifies the min/max pitch stops.
    I noticed one day that some of the different props have different mins/maxs specified at different stations-- even when they're the same manufacturer and length.
    Earlier post (#99) from this thread.
    I guess Mac is being dishonest and cheating on themselves,
    by using different stations to specify angles for different model props.
    Those bastards!
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Yup, no insult or attack going on there.
    I was kind of tired of being called Bitchin or accused of having my undies in a knot, the unarmed witted man and numerous other insults. I should have vacated something sooner to be honest . When someone can only hurl insults , and is too afraid to listen to logic or have a civil conversation , even make that simple phone call .

    Like I said it's been insults and BS for a while . I get this is more the Catto is superior thread than, let's actually compare, didn't realize I was walking into the sermon , trying to preach to the congregation as it were .

    But hey, I fly the spam can draggy 172 , what would I know , right?

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Earlier post (#99) from this thread.
    I guess Mac is being dishonest and cheating on themselves,
    by using different stations to specify angles for different model props.
    Those bastards!
    I wonder do you have a catto too ?

    Mac do have different angles for pitch distribution BUT because the prop twists , the camber and chord changes they are required to use slightly different angles at each station . End result each station is effectively the same pitch along the blade . This is what a prop shop told me, been in the business 50 years now. Could know a thing or two.

  8. #128
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    771
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's angle of attack versus chord line like a wing that creates lift, or thrust for props.

    For those that like to read:

    http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_tec..._propeller.htm

    For those that like sound and pictures:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzhPkrx_q2U

    Numbers may have meaning but comparing these two props via their manufacturer's stated diameter and pitch isn't straightforward. In the end it's engine power vs observed static rpm, rate of climb, and cruise airspeed that matters to the pilot and not something stamped on the prop hub.

    Gary

  9. #129
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post

    The angle HAS to change at different stations, including for a uniform "true" pitch because the distance those stations travel circumferentially increases farther out on the blade. So the angle is going to be something like the arcsin of the pitch divided by the circumference at a particular station. - -
    Exactly. It's fairly easy to calculate using Bartoli's Principle.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Thanks tripper thanked for this post

  10. #130
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    2,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    This one?

    or this one?


    Images plagiarized from http://bado-shanai.net/Map%20of%20Ph...Relativity.htm I've no clue what they mean.


    Then again, maybe it's turbo encabulator time again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag
    Last edited by Gordon Misch; 04-05-2018 at 10:26 PM.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  11. #131
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well that blew up in my face. I had no idea there was a Bartoli, or that he had any principles. I was sitting around, bored, and came up with this wonderful idea to yank your chain a bit. The "Bartoli's Principle" was a complete fabrication on my part. I pulled the name out of thin air. I figured it was a complete dead end and you'd naturally have to ask "What is it?" Then I would gleefully anounce to the world that it was something I created just to mess with you. And I was so proud of myself.

    ** I actually took a few minutes trying to invent a name that sounded plausible as that of an early physicist/scientist/mathematician. Damned if I didn't succeed.
    Last edited by PerryB; 04-05-2018 at 11:02 PM.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Likes J5Ron, skywagon8a liked this post

  12. #132

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think this one needs to go to bed...put to rest....put out to pasture...whatever...being a teacher I understand the math, however it cannot be as simple as the pathagrian therum so to speak. We got three planes sitting here at Valdez, all similar but different...

    All three running a form of O320. All Running 84x37 at times-All running 31” BW- none of our engines are basic 150hp engines.

    Plane 1- Exp Producer- off the ground fast...100’ Plane on the heavy side empty—-1200 if I remember. Cruise 90@2400
    Plane 2-Exp super Wide Cub - off the ground fast 90’ Plane is Light empty-1045—Cruise 88@2400
    Plane 3-Cert PA18- off the ground 85’ -90’ Plane is 1150 empty-cruise85@2400

    There are many variables that you can not punch into a calculator in terms of cruise or takeoff factors...wings, drag, cruise weight...by the way my cub seems to cruise the fastest when heavy...myself and passenger, gear, two or three deer, and I am grabbing 90+ if I get her trimmed just right...kinda like being on step...can’t put that in a calculator.

    I would love To have Mr. Catto show up at the Valdez Fly inn with a pile of demo props....love my 84x37....but would like to try a 84x35....82x39....

    cheers everyone....
    Thanks Rob thanked for this post
    Likes Rob liked this post

  13. #133
    Rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    AZ06
    Posts
    662
    Post Thanks / Like
    Amen brother Ron,

    I can't believe this one is still running? I offered a simple solution way back at post # 94. The Props being discussed here vary as much as as the tides in a year. The simple fact that NONE of them run at exactly 100% should be all the reason a person needs to realize that they will not all perform equally. Suggesting that they should all measure out the same and reconcile is a convenient way to ignore that they are not all created nor consequently will they perform equally. And that's just the props, let alone all the other individual characteristics of an airplane or how the atmosphere may affect each propellor differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revr View Post
    Hey Guys,

    just wondering if anyone has switched form a borer to a Catto on a floatplane?
    Catto suggests a 84X36 for a 150hp super cub on floats and a 84X37 for 160hp,

    the also said that some guys run the 36 with 160 hp

    any info would be appreciated.

    Thanks
    That was the question... Maybe he should have asked if 'A' catto was a better fit than 'B' Catto?

  14. #134
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    771
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not much info on float ops. Still waiting for that after the water gets wet in Alaska and Canada. On-step performance then climb and cruise.

    Gary

  15. #135
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    2,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ron and Rob, agreed. No doubt the pitch numbers are proprietary for each manufacturer, and are valuable mostly for comparing within one line of props, but not necessarily between manufacturers or maybe even prop models. The word "honest" is an unfortunate choice in this case, because of its implications of other than objectively accurate.

    Just for grins, a few minutes ago I calculated the angle at various stations for my 8242 Mac, assuming it's a perfect screw at each station and assuming my assumptions are correct (Perry, don't say it - you had your chance). Tomorrow I'll go measure and report how close (or not) the actual prop is to those hypothetical angles.

    This can be very interesting stuff, except if emotions muddy the discussion.

    And Ron, thanks for correcting my spelling of puhtagureein.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  16. #136
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    All three running a form of O320. All Running 84x37 at times-All running 31” BW- none of our engines are basic 150hp engines.

    Plane 1- Exp Producer- off the ground fast...100’ Plane on the heavy side empty—-1200 if I remember. Cruise 90@2400
    Plane 2-Exp super Wide Cub - off the ground fast 90’ Plane is Light empty-1045—Cruise 88@2400
    Plane 3-Cert PA18- off the ground 85’ -90’ Plane is 1150 empty-cruise85@2400

    There are many variables that you can not punch into a calculator in terms of cruise or takeoff factors...wings, drag, cruise weight...by the way my cub seems to cruise the fastest when heavy...myself and passenger, gear, two or three deer, and I am grabbing 90+ if I get her trimmed just right...kinda like being on step...can’t put that in a calculator....
    J5ron, Just for the fun of it using any of your three airplanes, keeping them as light as possible place enough ballast at the tail post to move the flying CG back to 20" (rear CG limit). Then tell us what the take off distance and the cruise speed are.
    N1PA

  17. #137
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Then again, maybe it's turbo encabulator time again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag
    This one cleared it all up. If you had posted this at the beginning we could have reduced most of the heated discussion.
    N1PA

  18. #138

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    This one cleared it all up. If you had posted this at the beginning we could have reduced most of the heated discussion.
    I bought a 84 34 Cato and itís performance is not that impressive Iím not sure why but itís not that great

  19. #139

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Beartooth Fencing View Post
    I bought a 84 34 Cato and it’s performance is not that impressive I’m not sure why but it’s not that great
    Please expand...airplane, hours power ...details...thanks

  20. #140

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    It’s an experimental supercub. With 30 hrs since a major. It’s an o320 a2 b I’ve got another Cato off a o340 that came off a carbon cub that’s 50 pitch I like it way better than this 34 pitch . The 34 gets off the ground quicker but that’s about it .
    Thanks J5Ron thanked for this post

  21. #141

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    This one cleared it all up. If you had posted this at the beginning we could have reduced most of the heated discussion.
    Agree wholeheartedly. I assume this is how you come to the conclusion a 38 " pitch prop mysteriously can cruise close to what a borer 45 pitch can . If this works for you
    excellent.

    Since a 38" pitch cannot cruise like a 45", obviously the 38" is not correct. Catto even explained this clearly, so for simplicity I just add 3-4" to their published numbers and carry on.

    I think what is at issue here is simply those that don't want to admit Catto is misrepresenting the actual effective pitch for cruise, instead want to believe there is some kind of superior
    design process happening that beats out all the other "lesser" propellers.

    Catto is a descent prop indeed, for experimental that is. Has a number of characteristics that make it a good choice for those that use it . For any "experimental" that requires a better
    performing climb prop the Catto offers a fantastic solution, especially the longer props with a finer pitch. No other make a 84"-90" that I am aware of , for out of the hole performance
    it's the prop to have. For others that require certified, a bit more cruise and the weight for C cof G considerations there are plenty of other options.

  22. #142

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Beartooth Fencing View Post
    It’s an experimental supercub. With 30 hrs since a major. It’s an o320 a2 b I’ve got another Cato off a o340 that came off a carbon cub that’s 50 pitch I like it way better than this 34 pitch . The 34 gets off the ground quicker but that’s about it .
    A 34" pitch Catto has to be considered as a 37/38" pitch for cruise considerations. That seems like a poor option for any O-320 IMHO. It should come out of the hole amazing and literally hang off the prop in climb, BUT when you level out this will seriously overspend the engine most definitely . So tremendous pull , poor cruise .

    A Catto prop that matches the Borer 82 42 commonly used on the O-320 150HP is the the 84 36 . The 84 37 catto is best suited for the 160HP . A friend of mine with 3000 hours of cub time has the Borer 82 43 on his 160HP also has the Catto 84 37 .
    The Catto is only 2150 static yet pulls and climbs slightly better, in cruise the Borer cruises slightly better .

    If you what better cruise Catto also offers 82" props. The 82" 42 may be a better choice , the longer props are literally geared for climbing and do that well .

  23. #143
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    2,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Ron and Rob, agreed. No doubt the pitch numbers are proprietary for each manufacturer, and are valuable mostly for comparing within one line of props, but not necessarily between manufacturers or maybe even prop models. The word "honest" is an unfortunate choice in this case, because of its implications of other than objectively accurate.

    Just for grins, a few minutes ago I calculated the angle at various stations for my 8242 Mac, assuming it's a perfect screw at each station and assuming my assumptions are correct (Perry, don't say it - you had your chance). Tomorrow I'll go measure and report how close (or not) the actual prop is to those hypothetical angles.

    This can be very interesting stuff, except if emotions muddy the discussion.

    And Ron, thanks for correcting my spelling of puhtagureein.
    Is it tomorrow yet? I computed 9 1/2 degrees at the prop tip, and just now measured it at a little over 9 deg. Over 30 deg near the hub. Nothing precise or particularly definitive about this, just thought it could be fun to compare measured angle with computed angle.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  24. #144

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    For the local Alaska guys, Reeve’s is stocking the Whirl Wind ground adjustable prop. There’s one on the wall for all to see. A Whirl Wind engineer is scheduled to be at the Airmen’s show, too.
    Likes jrussl liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Catto composite prop survey on Catto website: take it
    By slowjunk in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-09-2015, 02:00 PM
  2. CATTO PROPS
    By 96chevtruck in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 08:29 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •