What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Two to Four?

Fenderbean

Well Known Member
Hi guys on my path to enlightenment this popped in my brain today. I do have some idea bout props like this from an RC stand point and wondering if applies to real world.

Is it true to say less blades equals more efficient?
More blades give a braking effect on spool down?
More blades less the noise?
More blades more thrust with less RPM?

Besides the sexy factor what would be the bonus of a three/four blade over a two in something like the RV-10/IO540 combo

Any thoughts on Carbon vs aluminum playing in here or Cost?
Links to any threads is always help full, thanks up front!
 
prop

Three blade climb will be a bit better but cruise will like be a few knots slower than a two blade.

The -10 is nose heavy already; putting an aluminum three blade up front would make it worse.

Three blade makes removing the cowl more challenging...HOWEVER, if you split the bottom cowl down the middle, cowl removal becomes a non issue. This mod is probably one of the best ones that I did. It is straight forward and did not take very long to complete.

...and yes, the three blade looks really nice when sitting on the ground with the engine off. Once you start it, it makes no difference as you can't see the blades.
 
Three blade climb will be a bit better but cruise will like be a few knots slower than a two blade.

The -10 is nose heavy already; putting an aluminum three blade up front would make it worse.

Three blade makes removing the cowl more challenging...HOWEVER, if you split the bottom cowl down the middle, cowl removal becomes a non issue. This mod is probably one of the best ones that I did. It is straight forward and did not take very long to complete.

...and yes, the three blade looks really nice when sitting on the ground with the engine off. Once you start it, it makes no difference as you can't see the blades.
Are carbon fibers lighter or heavier typically? I'm planning on building a plane for speed, I want to travel cross country and get there as fast and with least amount of fuel used I can. You are correct the look doesn't play into it for me personally. I will keep the split cowl idea in mind, im planning on the show planes cowl and intake system.
 
I want to travel cross country and get there as fast and with least amount of fuel used I can. .

You can get one of these, but not both at the same time. -:)
Sometimes I can get to a destination sooner by going slower — a lower power setting almost always improves the miles/gal — if the lower power setting lets me skip a fuel stop.
 
You can get one of these, but not both at the same time. -:)
Sometimes I can get to a destination sooner by going slower — a lower power setting almost always improves the miles/gal — if the lower power setting lets me skip a fuel stop.

You beat me to it... there is a sliding scale with "fastest" on one end and "least fuel" on the other. I'm a big fan of climbing up high and cruising there without stopping.
 
LOL yeah I understand, I guess I made that sound wrong. Completely understand im not going to be firewalled on throttle thinking im going to be save gas. I really just looking for the best combination in a prop that gives overall speed at the lower power settings like you do when its trimmed out throttled back, leaned and cruising. Something tells me this maybe like a lot of things here, no best solution.
 
Wide open throttle does not mean low efficiency - just use it to climb up high in thin air and get where you are going. I always cruise wide open throttle, lean of peak with a 2-blade constant speed prop and get great efficiency.
 

Attachments

  • screenshot-N16GN-SN13208-16.0.A3.6283-20200919-154742-282-en_US.png
    screenshot-N16GN-SN13208-16.0.A3.6283-20200919-154742-282-en_US.png
    727.3 KB · Views: 229
**** 6.3 man with that I would be willing to add a couple gph for more speed. I didnt know you could get that kind of fuel burn on a 540
 
**** 6.3 man with that I would be willing to add a couple gph for more speed. I didnt know you could get that kind of fuel burn on a 540

Heh... I wish... that's an IO360 in my RV9A, and that pic shows me cruising 20 knots below Vne and getting 25 miles per gallon doing it. The point I was trying to make is to use altitude to limit your manifold pressure, not the throttle plate, and you'll be more efficient everytime while still keeping good speed.
 
Heh... I wish... that's an IO360 in my RV9A, and that pic shows me cruising 20 knots below Vne and getting 25 miles per gallon doing it. The point I was trying to make is to use altitude to limit your manifold pressure, not the throttle plate, and you'll be more efficient everytime while still keeping good speed.

DOH! lol almost made me give up on my search a for diesel alternative there LOL
 
Back
Top