Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: An O-360 in an experimenta super cubl; what would be the best prop?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Thompson Falls, Mt.
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    An O-360 in an experimenta super cubl; what would be the best prop?

    In an experimental super cub, with an O 360, what would be the best prop for performance? A toothpick or a Catto or?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska Carefree, AZ
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hartzell Trailblazer constant speed. Lightweight and would give cruise performance too.
    John
    Likes algonquin liked this post

  3. #3
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like
    MT Ultra. Light weight, smooth and fantastic performance.

    Kurt
    Likes algonquin liked this post

  4. #4
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Spokane Felts Field, WA/Poplar Grove, (Chicago) IL
    Posts
    5,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    I spent a summer flying behind a MT constant speed. At most I gained 7 MPH in cruise. There is so much drag on a big tire supercub that the CS prop really does not help much. If you want to go fast....small tires....fairings around the struts......cover the gear legs... etc etc. In my OPINION, the CS prop on a Cub is just not worth it. Furthermore, if you are flying with other Cubs you will be slowing down to stay with them....so again....no real benefit.

    If you want "out of the hole" performance a Catto with 84-38 would be one option. A compromise might be 84-42 or 43. Anything more pitch that around 43 or 44 will start to have a pretty dramatic impact on T.O. performance

    Hope my "opinion" gives you something to think about

    Bill
    Very Blessed.
    Likes tcraft128, C-FIJK, FdxLou, Wag2+2 liked this post

  5. #5
    tcraft128's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    St. Marys GA
    Posts
    789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Define "Performance" Climb? Speed?

    Fixed props are like golf clubs, one just wont do everything "best". My "Opinion" is that a Catto 86-36 is a great starter prop for "climb" and a Catto 84-44 for cruise. I also have a whirlwind 82" that pretty much lives on the cub unless I am out playing...and yes, My name is Jay and I have a propeller problem.
    Turning money into noise since 1996

    Our Build here


  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Canyon, tx
    Posts
    389
    Post Thanks / Like
    The longest, flattest and lightest you can find. Spend the rest of your money on a Mooney because that’s the only way you’ll ever get anywhere
    Likes Bill Rusk, Chicken Hawk liked this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like
    i really liked the catto 86/38 on my 0360 cub, short T/O great climb and caused about 95-97mph at 2500rpm which isn't to bad. if your in a cub speed shouldn't be a factor or you bought the wrong plane.
    Likes PerryB liked this post

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hot Springs, SD
    Posts
    360
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wayne Mackey suggested I try the Whirlwind prop a few years ago on my contraption. I liked it so much....I became a dealer for them.
    If ultimate takeoff performance is what your after, get a long flat catto. If better all around performance is what your after, the WW might be for you.
    Likes algonquin, brown bear liked this post

  9. #9
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've been using the Whirlwind 200G ground adjustable on mine with excellent results. The ability to change pitch as desired in just a few minutes is a big plus. From screaming out of the hole with a good 1400 fpm rate of climb to a cruise setting giving 120 mph on floats. They also have a constant speed version if you have the capability to install a governor.

    The Hartzell trailblazer came out after I bought this prop so I can't compare the two. You can't go wrong with the 200G.

    Airmaster is another one to look at: https://www.propellor.com/ It is an electric constant speed. They use the carbon fiber blades from various manufacturers and are developing a constant speed version using the 200G blades to fit on the Lycoming 0-360.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 08-01-2019 at 05:06 PM.
    N1PA

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    Depends on the mission. How much brush are you going to be cutting, are you going to be slinging a lot of mud into the prop, do you do brake lock takeoff on gravel. If so go with a metal prop. If you are going to be flying long distance it would be nice to change the pitch. Ground adjustable is cheaper.
    DENNY

  11. #11
    G44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like
    Keep in mind that a constant speed prop gives you 2700 RPM on take off, this gives you all the 180hp (in theory) as opposed to the what ever HP at a given RPM a fixed pitch prop gives you. As for speed, its not about speed but efficiency. In Bill's case where he gained 7 MPH in cruise that could equate to a lower gallons per hour fuel burn or if he kept the power up 7 more miles per hour at the same fuel burn, either way, a big miles per gallon increase over his fixed pitch prop.

    If you are burning less gas that means you carry less gas for your mission or you extend your range and maybe not needing to carry cans. Also with a constant speed prop, you are able to come up with various power settings that fit your mission. I have been amazed with some of the power setting/fuel flow/MPG combinations I have been able to achieve. Case in point, when I fly my 0-360 powered Husky just out putting around, I fly at an "over square" power setting, say 1,950 RPM and 22 inches of mp. At these power settings I am doing 115 statute miles per hour at 5.5 to 6.0 gallons per hour. That is pretty darn good speed/fuel flow result that only a constant speed prop can give you. If I need to get somewhere quicker I can pus it up and still obtain great miles per gallon results.

    Now it does matter if it is a Scout, Husky or Super Cub, if you can vary your cruise power settings like this and get a full 2,700 RPM on take off then I think it is well worth it. MT Ultra or Trailblazer, either prop is great, having flown both I prefer the MT, I think its a bit smoother and performs a tad bit better but that is just me, John may disagree.

    Kurt
    Thanks CharlieN thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a, bush4, FdxLou liked this post

  12. #12
    sharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pawnee prop will be hard to beat. If you manage the CG of the aircraft, the pawnee will outperform any fixed-pitched options.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sharp View Post
    Pawnee prop will be hard to beat. If you manage the CG of the aircraft, the pawnee will outperform any fixed-pitched options.
    The harmonics of an 0360 are hard on a pawnee prop, even more so if your exp and add a pmag/emag and high comp pistons. the fail point is about 19"'s from the tip. With in a fraction of a second after you lose that much blade your engine will try to depart the airframe.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Whirl Wind Aviation (Ohio) if you want a constant speed, Whirlwind Propellor (California) if you want a lighter weight ground adjustable.

    My take on a Cub? Up to 200HP I’d favor a fixed pitch. Over 200HP I want a constant speed.
    Thanks windy thanked for this post

  15. #15
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cub12 View Post
    The harmonics of an 0360 are hard on a pawnee prop
    Examples? Incidents?

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska Carefree, AZ
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Both my Husky 0360 engines were built up by Lycon, both dynoed at about 220+ HP. Think with the composite constant speed, whether MT or Hartzell there are good advantages to the constant speed. MT has lightweight governor, so if one was using a Pawnee fixed pitch I think the weight difference for the composite constant speed would be a weight loss overall, plus the advantages of constant speed. Unless one just wants low speed performance only, then fixed pitch is the best route.
    John
    Last edited by john schwamm; 08-02-2019 at 01:42 PM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like
    there have been quite a few failures from 0360's and most do fail 19" from the tip, one local fellow here. Brian Sutton at pro pilots i believe has the info your looking for as they did some vibration analysis testing, give him a call. It's one of the reasons the 84" mac for an 0360 is so beefy. The 540 which is what the pawnee prop was built for is counter weighted. Also when you go to a pmag, high comp pistons ect you are again changing the harmonic frequency of the engine. Wood props such as MT's and Catto's are great at absorbing the vibrations but i believe there are cases where the leading edge sheath cracked from the vibration frequencies.
    I know lots of people run the pawnee prop on 360's for many hrs without incident, i am just passing on info to help a fellow pilot make an informed decision.

  18. #18
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    Examples? Incidents?

    Web
    we put them on a bunch of planes(till FAA wanted someone to pony up $$$ for more tests)... no issues

    heard of MANY 82" borers throwing tips & more... on various engines including O-360

  19. #19
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    we put them on a bunch of planes(till FAA wanted someone to pony up $$$ for more tests)... no issues

    heard of MANY 82" borers throwing tips & more... on various engines including O-360
    My observation also.

    Feds want 'engineering data' on Pawnee props in spite of all the previous installs with all the hours on them. Blade failures are so rare that it doesn't come up in conversations.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  20. #20
    Olibuilt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    806
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do you think a 82" Whirlwind Propellor ground adjustable prop turning at full 2700rpm on takeoff could keep up with a fixed pitch 86x36 Catto ?? For Short takeoff.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Thompson Falls, Mt.
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like
    The 86" Catto interests me. The longer the prop the better for efficiency I understand. But if it's basically a wooden prop, does that mean I would have to re-torque it all the time? I had a Sensenich wooden prop years ago, an 80/40 on an O 320 160 hp cub and it did pretty well but it had to be re-torqued all the time and I took it off. So is the Catto different somehow, I hope?

  22. #22
    Olibuilt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    806
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Kid View Post
    The 86" Catto interests me. The longer the prop the better for efficiency I understand. But if it's basically a wooden prop, does that mean I would have to re-torque it all the time? I had a Sensenich wooden prop years ago, an 80/40 on an O 320 160 hp cub and it did pretty well but it had to be re-torqued all the time and I took it off. So is the Catto different somehow, I hope?
    It's been a while I did not remove my spinner. Today I took the time to do it and check my 86'' Catto prop bolts. Torque was right on at 40lbs.

  23. #23
    Wag2+2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    157
    Post Thanks / Like
    I haven’t had any issues with the bolts coming loose. It is less weight (19-20#) than a metal prop and the nickle leading edge will take beating without showing it (in water at least). 82-46 on an O-360 angle valve. Craig is pretty good at estimating what would work best for your setup.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just a heads up, if your building this exp and have a new engine DO NOT try and do the brake in with the catto! find a good course prop for the first bit to seat the rings. in cruise with my 0360 9.5/1 pistons at 2500 rpm i was maybe 55% power.

Similar Threads

  1. FAR 61.31 Is tailwheel endorsment required for "experimenta"l solo flight?
    By qsmx440 in forum The Art and Science of Flying
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-27-2011, 12:42 PM
  2. Prop for 180 hp Super Cub on eBay
    By Steve Pierce in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2005, 08:41 AM

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
  •