2 Blade Prop Quicker?

[SkyPilot]

Has anybody switched from a 3 blade prop to a 2 blade prop? Any speed increase noted?

[Gone]

Quote: SkyPilot

Has anybody switched from a 3 blade prop to a 2 blade prop? Any speed increase noted?

[SkyPilot]

Have you got a phone number? No idea where tri-city is. I'm from the boonies

[Gone]

Quote: SkyPilot

Have you got a phone number? No idea where tri-city is. I'm from the boonies

[John Pleisse]

Or Norm.. "Testwest" on MS. He knows. I say absolutely, better cruise.

[KSMooniac]

I did the opposite and a 2-blade is faster.

[stevesm20b]

How much faster is the 2 blade over the 3 blade? My new engine and new 3 blade prop are about the same cruise speed as the old engine and old 2 blade. I get about 150 fpm better climb rate with the 3 blade prop.

[Mooneyjet]

A fellow mooney pilot  change his 2 blade for a 3 blade and did agree that his climb performance improved but his overall cruise speed decrease significantly such that he whent. Back to the 2 bladed prop. I think I'm going to stay with the 2 blade myself. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Quote: KSMooniac

I did the opposite and a 2-blade is faster.

[jetdriven]

Plenty of people have lost speed ging from a 2 blade to a 3 blade.  Some of the lucky ones didn't lose much. But no verifiable increases, except perhaps Scott with his MT 3-blade.  I go for performance instead of "standing tall and proud on the ramp" to quote a Beech ad.

[SkyPilot]

Quote: jetdriven

Plenty of people have lost speed ging from a 2 blade to a 3 blade.  Some of the lucky ones didn't lose much. But no verifiable increases, except perhaps Scott with his MT 3-blade.  I got for performance instead of "standing tall and proud on the ramp" to quote a Beech ad.

[KSMooniac]

The metal 3-blade props are heavy!  ~20 lbs more than the 2-blader IIRC.  The MT is the lightest of the bunch, about 12 lbs lighter than a 2-blade McCaulley.

[SkyPilot]

Quote: KSMooniac

The metal 3-blade props are heavy!  ~20 lbs more than the 2-blader IIRC.  The MT is the lightest of the bunch, about 12 lbs lighter than a 2-blade McCaulley.

[jetdriven]

Quote: KSMooniac

The metal 3-blade props are heavy!  ~20 lbs more than the 2-blader IIRC.  The MT is the lightest of the bunch, about 12 lbs lighter than a 2-blade McCaulley.

[M016576]

Quote: jetdriven

What I dont get is the visceral negative reaction from suggesting someone install bladders and lose 30 pounds useful load to fix the leaky tank problem forever.  However, the same group of pilots will happily install a 3-blade Hartzell to lose 3-5 knots and 20 pounds useful load.  I guess bladders don't have "sexy ramp appeal".

[jetdriven]

Not one documented case of bladders leaking in a Mooney.  Not one. Ours are 21 years old, no leaks, and no repairs in the logs.

[GeorgePerry]

To all those who feel obligated to further discuss the merits of Bladders v/s Reseal....Did I mention I prefer bladders!

 

[stevesm20b]

How did this go from 2 Blade Prop Quicker to bladders v/s reseal? 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: stevesm20b

How did this go from 2 Blade Prop Quicker to bladders v/s reseal? 

[stevesm20b]

I didn't notice much difference in cruise speed going from a 2 blade to a 3 blade. I did notice a 150 to 200fpm climb increase over the 2 blade. My 3 blade Hartzell prop conversion was only 14lbs heaver than the 2 blade. I installed a lightweight starter and PlanePower generator to alternator conversion and lost 20lbs. So, now I'm 6lbs lighter than before. Most people report a loss of about 3mph in speed going from a 2 blade to a 3 blade. If anyone has taken off from Big Bear (L35) in the summer in a normally aspirated Mooney, you might be more willing to sacrifice the 3mph in cruise speed for the increase in climb perforance. A person could always install a powerflow exhaust system and/or any number of speed mods to try and make up any loss in speed from the prop conversion.

[jetdriven]

<------  blame that guy!   Yes, the weight penalty with both.

Quote: JimR

Mia culpa.  A parallel was drawn between the weight increases associated with both of these mods. 

Jim

[John Pleisse]

Anybody read that scathing revue of the IO-390/Top Prop mod in this month's MAPA Log? Pretty rough....and editorial liberty was given to publish it. Seemed like the fellow's climb rate was diminished by a wide margin..25-30%. His testing methods were crude, but his losses must exist. He pulled the engine and prop, sent the engine back to have everything checked..... Disappointing to read. Lycoming is spinning their wheels with Mooneys Mods.....this could be a set back.

[Seth]

My former 1967 F model had a three blade prop and was fast for an F - an honest 147/148 high speed cruise.  It even touched 150 now and again in the winter months.

It had the original windscreen and the lower cowl enclousere.  There were other speed mods, rotated calipers, some fairings, and of course retractable step for a 1/2 knot.  It also had bladders

There was NO vibration (sometimes an issue with a three blade on a 200 HP), GREAT Climb, and again, good top speed, even with the twisted wing (67 model year).

That being said, I never flew it with a two blade prop.  The former owner made the conversion.

The general consensus is that most 3 blade props but not all reduce speed by a few knots, and almost always give you better climb performance, and more drag in landing, when you pull power.

-Seth

[scottfromiowa]

"It's Deja Vu...All over again"-Yogi Berra

[rbridges]

Quote: N4352H

Anybody read that scathing revue of the IO-390/Top Prop mod in this month's MAPA Log? Pretty rough....and editorial liberty was given to publish it. Seemed like the fellow's climb rate was diminished by a wide margin..25-30%. His testing methods were crude, but his losses must exist. He pulled the engine and prop, sent the engine back to have everything checked..... Disappointing to read. Lycoming is spinning their wheels with Mooneys Mods.....this could be a set back.