Doug,
I know that the folks in Alaska have used this prop for years with no issues. However since you live in NY you may have difficulties with the approval. Look at NOTE.9 on the Type Certificate: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/3c9ce4689ef4ac398625726d006193be/$FILE/P12EA.pdf
There is a maximum approved 78" diameter vibration limit on the 0-360.
I have a FA 337 for the installation that has been run on for 20 years on the engine.
Also the Borer is a 82” prop but 10# heavier.
really wondering is there a performance increase with that prop other than 10# loss on nose.
From experience in the field which is probably from AK that would really know.
Doug
This is the "Borer" prop.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/bea3a1655efbdf3486257666004a73fe/$FILE/P-857.pdf
I do not see a significant difference in weights.
Given the diameter limit on the prop TCDS, an inspector, DAR, or DER would be overstepping their authority giving an approval for that prop on a 160 hp engine. Once done, it can’t be undone except by AD, but the person approving it could be in big trouble.
That prop pitched to 45 inches on a strong O-360 pulls really hard, AND gets 104 mph cruise on a friends widebody EXP -18 with extended wings and 31’s. He throttles wwwaaaaaayyyy back to not outrun the stock supercubs when flying alongside friends.