hunt/trapak88
MEMBER
But yes I know what your saying
A longer prop with finer pitch is going to win the climb race, should also win the pull test too . That said, Catto admitted to me the other day the 84-37 does not do best in a pull test. Apparently it needs to move in order to work efficiently ,even other less capable props can pull better in a static but not win the race out of the hole or perform better in climb .
Are Catto measured in inches or is the number a pitch angle? Majority of props are measured in inches, I do believe Catto is set up on degrees which makes comparisons even more difficult. All things being equal more pitch (inches) the faster a ship can go for any given diameter as long as the engine is in the range. A friend tried a 84-37 catto on his stock O-320 could only get 2150 static , The Borer 82-43 managed 2350 static . The Catto is a little longer but the 37 if inches should have exceeded the Borer , I can only assume this is degrees .
Propeller choice are like pickup truck choices... The one you have sure is better. Mine are better btw, hahha
But the real question is: Can a WW GA200L 82 for an O-360 could beat a Catto 86-36 on takeoff??
Propeller choice are like pickup truck choices... The one you have sure is better. Mine are better btw, hahha
But the real question is: Can a WW GA200L 82 for an O-360 could beat a Catto 86-36 on takeoff??
Catto prop. On my plane, same day, within 30 mins.
Good point on everyone’s favorite...one area that I have seen as a positive with the Catto is when loaded it seems to perform best....my 84x37 seemed very similar on my plane to a 82-42. The two props performed similar in take off...however when loaded....people and gear the Catto was hands down better...just an real world observation.
I can't see that
Props are built with various airfoils spinning forward. Some of them produce better lift (thrust) than others as noted. Part of the magic and difference in performance.
Gary
Perhaps the engine which was using oil hadn't been broken in hard enough? Is this engine using too much oil? If broken in properly, running at the low power shouldn't change the oil consumption.My concern is that at 19" and 2300rpm I am along way from square and not working my engine hard enough. I have had oil usage problems before because I was too easy on the engine. Fixed it by flying hard for 20 hours. It's difficult to work a big engine hard when you don't want to fly fast.
Not sure why I am thinking this but maybe I need a longer prop? Or am I overthinking again.
Perhaps the engine which was using oil hadn't been broken in hard enough? Is this engine using too much oil? If broken in properly, running at the low power shouldn't change the oil consumption.
By the sounds of your performance numbers you seem happy with your new prop. Did you notice much CG shift aft? That would be part of the - rips off the ground - fast cruise.
I bought a new 172 and sent a friend to Kansas to pick it up. I told him to push the throttle to the firewall and leave it there monitoring only the 2700 rpm red line until he got home. By the time that he had arrived home the throttle had been able to be pulled back from the stop by a reasonable amount. That engine always ran beautifully and it was one of those infamous 0-320-H engines. I'm a big fan of break-em in hard.Thanks for the heads up reminder about breaking in "hard enough." I'm just about to do just that, I do believe this engine originally was not lapped in well, always burned more oil than average . It never changed oil
consumption over 600 hours, just on the high side. I will certainly run the new one hard enough to lap in the rings well, hopefully prevent this with the new cylinders, pistons and rings going in this time around .
I bought a new 172 and sent a friend to Kansas to pick it up. I told him to push the throttle to the firewall and leave it there monitoring only the 2700 rpm red line until he got home. By the time that he had arrived home the throttle had been able to be pulled back from the stop by a reasonable amount. That engine always ran beautifully and it was one of those infamous 0-320-H engines. I'm a big fan of break-em in hard.
Mine went on the first production set of EDO 2130 floats as soon as it got home. I wish that I still had it as it was a great airplane.My aircraft is a 172, on floats . It is not certified though, makes for some interesting upgrades . My new panel will look like this soon, saving 20lb in the process.
Even if the rings mate low MP and BMEP can allow combustion and oil blowby. That loads up the piston ring lands and piston skirt with carbon. Look at a used piston and ring set. Are all the ring faces worn shiny or do some of the lower rings show only partial wear? How about carbon tracing and scoring along the piston face especially below the rings and around the wrist pin hole where side thrust is minimal? Extended MP in the lower 20's is my choice as a minimum unless landing. Otherwise 65-75% cruise always.
Air cooled motorcycles are prone to problems from puny break-in riding. Baby it now and burn or blow out the baby's oil later.
Gary