Prop PIREP

[Jakes Simmons]

     Thought I would try to give a pirep on the Hartzell two blade, scimitar prop I recently installed on my ‘76 Ranger. 
     The short version: unless SOMEBODY ELSE is paying for it, I think the original Hartzell paddle shaped two blade with non AD hub is the best and smoothest, the three blade Hartzell is fine if balanced and pulled back in cruise, and the scimitar two blade doesn’t offer enough of an advantage for an out of pocket cost.

     Now the long version: Purchased my Ranger @ 18 months ago and it came with the three blade Hartzell with about 400 hours on it. Like probably a lot of Mooney’s with the “3”, insurance paid for it during a previous owner’s gear up in the 90’s. My previous Mooney experience was time in two separate “daily driver”, 60’s vintage, M20C’s with O360’s. These both had original props, never routinely balanced, and I was amazed how turbine smooth they were. And they scooted. My Ranger was never as smooth as I remember those two Mooney’s. And then I got a ride in Oasis Aero’s 180 horse M20C after dropping my Ranger off for tank resealing, once again the difference was evident in vibration levels. 
     After returning to the home shop, I had the prop dynamically balanced and it measured out at 1.2. Prop guy said they shoot for anything under 2.0 and he wouldn’t be able to get it much better then it already was. Did a bunch of research online, talked to prop shops, and gathered the understanding that not all O360’s like the three blade and with a four cylinder engine, there can be a mild resonance issue causing vibration. Because I was thinking about this a lot, and I remember the smoothness of previous aircraft, I think the “vibration” of the three blade took up a larger role in my head than existed in real life. Every time I flew, I noticed vibration. Also had the prop “flipped” on the mounts. No change.

     Cut to, the Ranger is in for an annual, I was offered the chance to buy a brand new Hartzell with spinner before the next price increase, at cost. Wow, that swept edge looks cool! It’s gotta be better right? It’s got all the latest aerodynamic research, probably be hard to keep my Ranger under 200 kts with all that cash spinning off the front. So I did it. Flew it briefly...eh. But it was new, still needed to be dynamically balanced after the grease settled, so I flew it to its recently changed home base. Twelve flying hours later, brought it to Tiffin Aire in Ohio. Super nice folks! They changed the oil, alternator belt, added grease slowly to the prop, then spent a bunch of time with me going through the balance process. 

     So it’s better, but I wouldn’t say 12k better after all is said and done. Bruce Jaeger flew my Ranger recently and explained to me all Mooney’s are noisy, all Mooney’s vibrate, my airplane was actually just fine, stop whining, wear a good ANR headset and enjoy your fine ride. He said the Mooney is designed differently than a Beechcraft and tends to transmit more engine commotion to the fuselage tubing. He then flew a perfect abbreviated approach and GREASED the landing with barely a moment’s float. I figured he knows his stuff.

     With the three blade, my Ranger performed better under 100 kts. Take offs were noticeably quicker and shorter, it climbed strongly at lower airspeeds. If I had to routinely operate out of shorter strips or to get over obstacles, it would be my prop of choice. After 100 kts, I have not noticed a significant difference in climb performance. In cruise, the vibration levels were actually not all that bad when operated high at 2350 rpm. It seemed to do about 10% better in the pattern in terms of airspeed control and getting slowed down.

      My new two blade super cool looking scimitar is not a smooth prop. It is better than the three but not by so much I believe it’s worth the price. During climb is when it’s mildly annoying and I pay attention to fly coordinated. Cruise, it’s smoother, but it is more of a higher frequency vibration than the three blade. At best, 3-4 knots faster, I have all the 201 mods save wingtips and flap fairings. Pattern work is tougher but it does go fast when pointed downhill. It is zero percent quieter, boy, Mooney’s are loud. 
     Today, I did cardinal heading speed runs at different altitudes. Here are the final averages if interested in comparing;

OAT 65F 26.5 MP 2670 rpm, 3000 ft MSL ... 151 kts

OAT 61F 23.2 MP 2650 rpm, 6500 ft MSL ... 148 kts

OAT 50F 20 MP    2550 rpm, 10.5k ft MSL ... 145 kts

””.                            2350 rpm.    “”.                      144 kts

OAT 48F 18 MP    2550 rpm, 12.5k ft MSL ... 144 kts

” “.                           2350 rpm, “ “.                       141 kts

leaned for best power, average gps speed over four cardinal headings after speed stabilization wait.

 

So stick with your balanced three blade or two blade if it’s already on there. If somebody else is paying for it, look for a good paddle shaped two blade or look “cool” like me with the scimitar.

on a side note: The Spatial Interior by Jaeger does work, there really is a noticeable increase in shoulder room and his brightening of my interior makes the cabin feel bigger all around. Fly safe.
     

[Niko182]

1 hour ago, Jakes Simmons said:

     Thought I would try to give a pirep on the Hartzell two blade, scimitar prop I recently installed on my ‘76 Ranger. 
     The short version: unless SOMEBODY ELSE is paying for it, I think the original Hartzell paddle shaped two blade with non AD hub is the best and smoothest, the three blade Hartzell is fine if balanced and pulled back in cruise, and the scimitar two blade doesn’t offer enough of an advantage for an out of pocket cost.

     Now the long version: Purchased my Ranger @ 18 months ago and it came with the three blade Hartzell with about 400 hours on it. Like probably a lot of Mooney’s with the “3”, insurance paid for it during a previous owner’s gear up in the 90’s. My previous Mooney experience was time in two separate “daily driver”, 60’s vintage, M20C’s with O360’s. These both had original props, never routinely balanced, and I was amazed how turbine smooth they were. And they scooted. My Ranger was never as smooth as I remember those two Mooney’s. And then I got a ride in Oasis Aero’s 180 horse M20C after dropping my Ranger off for tank resealing, once again the difference was evident in vibration levels. 
     After returning to the home shop, I had the prop dynamically balanced and it measured out at 1.2. Prop guy said they shoot for anything under 2.0 and he wouldn’t be able to get it much better then it already was. Did a bunch of research online, talked to prop shops, and gathered the understanding that not all O360’s like the three blade and with a four cylinder engine, there can be a mild resonance issue causing vibration. Because I was thinking about this a lot, and I remember the smoothness of previous aircraft, I think the “vibration” of the three blade took up a larger role in my head than existed in real life. Every time I flew, I noticed vibration. Also had the prop “flipped” on the mounts. No change.

     Cut to, the Ranger is in for an annual, I was offered the chance to buy a brand new Hartzell with spinner before the next price increase, at cost. Wow, that swept edge looks cool! It’s gotta be better right? It’s got all the latest aerodynamic research, probably be hard to keep my Ranger under 200 kts with all that cash spinning off the front. So I did it. Flew it briefly...eh. But it was new, still needed to be dynamically balanced after the grease settled, so I flew it to its recently changed home base. Twelve flying hours later, brought it to Tiffin Aire in Ohio. Super nice folks! They changed the oil, alternator belt, added grease slowly to the prop, then spent a bunch of time with me going through the balance process. 

     So it’s better, but I wouldn’t say 12k better after all is said and done. Bruce Jaeger flew my Ranger recently and explained to me all Mooney’s are noisy, all Mooney’s vibrate, my airplane was actually just fine, stop whining, wear a good ANR headset and enjoy your fine ride. He said the Mooney is designed differently than a Beechcraft and tends to transmit more engine commotion to the fuselage tubing. He then flew a perfect abbreviated approach and GREASED the landing with barely a moment’s float. I figured he knows his stuff.

     With the three blade, my Ranger performed better under 100 kts. Take offs were noticeably quicker and shorter, it climbed strongly at lower airspeeds. If I had to routinely operate out of shorter strips or to get over obstacles, it would be my prop of choice. After 100 kts, I have not noticed a significant difference in climb performance. In cruise, the vibration levels were actually not all that bad when operated high at 2350 rpm. It seemed to do about 10% better in the pattern in terms of airspeed control and getting slowed down.

      My new two blade super cool looking scimitar is not a smooth prop. It is better than the three but not by so much I believe it’s worth the price. During climb is when it’s mildly annoying and I pay attention to fly coordinated. Cruise, it’s smoother, but it is more of a higher frequency vibration than the three blade. At best, 3-4 knots faster, I have all the 201 mods save wingtips and flap fairings. Pattern work is tougher but it does go fast when pointed downhill. It is zero percent quieter, boy, Mooney’s are loud. 
     Today, I did cardinal heading speed runs at different altitudes. Here are the final averages if interested in comparing;

OAT 65F 26.5 MP 2670 rpm, 3000 ft MSL ... 151 kts

OAT 61F 23.2 MP 2650 rpm, 6500 ft MSL ... 148 kts

OAT 50F 20 MP    2550 rpm, 10.5k ft MSL ... 145 kts

””.                            2350 rpm.    “”.                      144 kts

OAT 48F 18 MP    2550 rpm, 12.5k ft MSL ... 144 kts

” “.                           2350 rpm, “ “.                       141 kts

leaned for best power, average gps speed over four cardinal headings after speed stabilization wait.

 

So stick with your balanced three blade or two blade if it’s already on there. If somebody else is paying for it, look for a good paddle shaped two blade or look “cool” like me with the scimitar.

on a side note: The Spatial Interior by Jaeger does work, there really is a noticeable increase in shoulder room and his brightening of my interior makes the cabin feel bigger all around. Fly safe.
     

At 14k, you didnt consider the MT?

[Jakes Simmons]

Shoot, I was unaware there existed an STC for the M20C with 180. I’ll have to check it out. Nothing was on the MT site last I looked.

[0TreeLemur]

Al Mooney said it best...

[chriscalandro]

2 hours ago, Jakes Simmons said:

Shoot, I was unaware there existed an STC for the M20C with 180. I’ll have to check it out. Nothing was on the MT site last I looked.

It isn’t. 

[carusoam]

Great details, Jake!

Thanks for sharing them...

Best regards,

-a-

[Tim Jodice]

On 9/4/2020 at 7:22 PM, chriscalandro said:

It isn’t. 

Out of curiosity I called Peter at MT Propeller and asked if it was possible to put a MT prop on a M20C. He said it is possible it would need to be flown to them in Deland, FL and would need to have a field approval done that would cost $3-4,000.

Most would consider that not practical but it is possible. I suppose it depends on what makes you happy. In the short time I have had mine 2 people have said they would never spend almost $14,000 for a prop. Yet 1 has a $40,000+ panel that I would never buy. 

[chriscalandro]

4 hours ago, Tim Jodice said:

Out of curiosity I called Peter at MT Propeller and asked if it was possible to put a MT prop on a M20C. He said it is possible it would need to be flown to them in Deland, FL and would need to have a field approval done that would cost $3-4,000.

Most would consider that not practical but it is possible. I suppose it depends on what makes you happy. In the short time I have had mine 2 people have said they would never spend almost $14,000 for a prop. Yet 1 has a $40,000+ panel that I would never buy. 

I wonder why they haven't applied for the STC for the C?  There must be a reason it wasn't included with the E...

[Tim Jodice]

3 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

I wonder why they haven't applied for the STC for the C?  There must be a reason it wasn't included with the E...

Carburetor? Parallel valve? Those are the only differences i can think of.