Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:36 AM - Re: 2 blade (Jim Stone)
2. 07:02 AM - Cleveland vs. Grove brakes (Frazier, Vincent A)
3. 07:50 AM - Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin (Jim Stone)
4. 08:42 AM - Re: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin (Boyd Braem)
5. 09:03 AM - Re: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin (LesDrag@aol.com)
6. 09:28 AM - Re: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin (Bob & Toodie Marshall)
7. 06:54 PM - Re: 2 blade (Jim Stone)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Good point and one I haven't considered. The "cool" factor wouldn't be
near that of the 3 blade but if performance was equal and the price
significantly cheaper, it might be a valid option. But, how do we get
some performance comparison data?
Jim Stone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David.vonLinsowe
Subject: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe"
<David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
Jim,
You may want to consider a MT 2 blade. I found the vibration level very
close to their 3 blade.
I just test flew my 6 with the Hartzell "Blended Airfoil" blades today.
Big difference in vibration between it and the 2 or 3 blade MT. I ran
into the vibration at 950 and 2700 rpm, other than that it was smooth.
I also have to say that the Hartzell hasn't been dynamically balanced
yet, but the MTs weren't either.
Dave
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Greg and all,
Well, we just had a major shift back in favor of the MT because of your
post. You seem to agree with Mark F. on the issue. Thanks so much for
taking the time for a detailed response. Your experience will
undoubtedly help many Rocket builders in the future.
I am going to give a little more time to this thread (the weekend)
hoping to hear from a few more MT guys before making the "final
decision".
Jim Stone
Back on the fence
PS. Some guys are contacting me personally and I appreciate that very
much. Sometimes a call is easier than writing a book. Call me and I'll
call you back on my nickel, 502 254-3214.
************************************************************************
****************
Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
************************************************************************
****************
=
==
==
==
==
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cleveland vs. Grove brakes |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
SNIP Can anyone share their experience with Cleveland vs. Grove brakes and wheel
parts ? Has anyone experienced any differences in:
performance ?
weight ?
quality ?
fit ?
Thanks in advance for your input :-)
Larry E. James SNIP
Aren't the Grove brake calipers a little thinner than the Clevelands? If so, that
should make it much easier to put your wheel pant/gear leg intersection fairings
on.
I have Clevelands and my intersection fairings are gonna have a big bump in them.
Vince
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
I've been doing some more research on the various props and this morning
talked with Hartzell and found out some very interesting information.
There is a service bulletin out where the owner needs to do a 150 hr
eddy current inspection if aerobatics are being performed. Yes, a
wingover is considered by Hartzell to be aerobatic. This reoccurring
inspection was news to me and is the reason for my including the link
below. There is a history of the hubs cracking, leaking grease and even
separating from the aircraft. I highly recommend you guys read this
one.
Jim Stone
http://www.hartzellprop.com/pdfs/sb227r2.pdf
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Hartzell's SB and the AD on certain hubs states (stated?) that in lieu
of replacing the hub with a newer version you are supposed to do the
recurrent inspection (there is a list of serial numbers of affected
hubs, or you can just call Hartzell and ask). For a time, Hartzell
would sell you a replacemnt hub for half-priice. As far as I can
remember (1 1/2 yrs ago), with the "new, improved" hubs there was no
aerobatic limit (except the 4 g limit on the prop extension).
On Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Jim Stone wrote:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> I've been doing some more research on the various props and this
> morning
> talked with Hartzell and found out some very interesting information.
>
> There is a service bulletin out where the owner needs to do a 150 hr
> eddy current inspection if aerobatics are being performed. Yes, a
> wingover is considered by Hartzell to be aerobatic. This reoccurring
> inspection was news to me and is the reason for my including the link
> below. There is a history of the hubs cracking, leaking grease and
> even
> separating from the aircraft. I highly recommend you guys read this
> one.
>
> Jim Stone
>
> http://www.hartzellprop.com/pdfs/sb227r2.pdf
Boyd.
RV-Super 6
Venice, FL
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
The Service bulletin states that the Rev. B hub is not affected. 1997 and
later manufacture.
Jim Ayers
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall@osb.net>
Hello Rocketeers, Do not panic, Read the Hartzell AD very carefully, The
very first thing it says , applicable only to props built before 04-97 which
do not have the suffix letter B at the END of the HUB and PROP serial
numbers, So if you do have an older prop you may have a compliance issue,
pull your spinner and look for the Number, And then continue reading very
carefully, those of you on the fence may opt for a new hub/ prop design,
personally my Hartzell is very smooth in most ranges and my wallet has quit
running out of the hangar when I throw it in before I go fly. I have no AD
issues on mine, Happy flying and keep the dirty side down most of the time!
Bob,N999RM----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: Hartzell two blade Service Bulletin
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> I've been doing some more research on the various props and this morning
> talked with Hartzell and found out some very interesting information.
>
> There is a service bulletin out where the owner needs to do a 150 hr
> eddy current inspection if aerobatics are being performed. Yes, a
> wingover is considered by Hartzell to be aerobatic. This reoccurring
> inspection was news to me and is the reason for my including the link
> below. There is a history of the hubs cracking, leaking grease and even
> separating from the aircraft. I highly recommend you guys read this
> one.
>
> Jim Stone
>
> http://www.hartzellprop.com/pdfs/sb227r2.pdf
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Thanks for the personal comparison Greg,
I hesitate to admit this, but I am now considering the Aero-composite 2
blade prop with my second choice going to the Hartzell 2 blade. I think
this prop could very well be the best on the market today. No ADs or
service bulletins, almost no wear in any of the hubs they have torn down
to inspect (including one with over 900 hours). This prop is truly made
to last the life of the airframe. It takes rocks and rain far better
than the MT composite and Hartzell aluminum blades. Nothing erodes,
corrodes or pits the leading edges which by the way has a 20 year life
expectancy (Nickel cobalt alloy). TBO is 5yr or 2000 hours. The TBO is
described as a disassemble inspect and then reassemble, very likely with
the same parts. All performance comparisons indicate in favor of ACI.
They have a custom spinner assembly too. They are becoming so popular
that there is a 3 month lead time. 2 blade price is 9,500, 3 blade
price is 12,500. As compared to MT or Hartzell, they recommend 2" less
length (78"for 2 blades) to get the same thrust, this is good of course
for tail draggers as it affords another inch of ground clearance.
Weight is only 38 lbs for 2 blades and about 50 for 3 blades.
Not to spread any rumors but Sam James knocked the tips off his MT the
other day after hitting the brakes too hard trying to avoid another
aircraft (this is second hand info, feel free to correct the story). He
had a child in the back seat and had become accustom to having his
heavier bride back there. I guess the tail just lifted off the ground
and onto that expensive prop. He ordered an Aero-composite prop
apparently to replace the MT.
Hope the info I learned today and passing along helps some of you guys
about to make the same decision.
Jim Stone
(Wasting precious building time researching props)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Stone
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Greg and all,
Well, we just had a major shift back in favor of the MT because of your
post. You seem to agree with Mark F. on the issue. Thanks so much for
taking the time for a detailed response. Your experience will
undoubtedly help many Rocket builders in the future.
I am going to give a little more time to this thread (the weekend)
hoping to hear from a few more MT guys before making the "final
decision".
Jim Stone
Back on the fence
PS. Some guys are contacting me personally and I appreciate that very
much. Sometimes a call is easier than writing a book. Call me and I'll
call you back on my nickel, 502 254-3214.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of u2nelson
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
OK Jim, here is a positive post for the MT.
I had a Hartzell two blade on my Rocket, now I have a 3 blade
MT. The 3
blade MT is a few LBs lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell, but those LBs
are
where you need to reduce the most, way out front of the engine. Here
is a
performance comparison, and this is with some careful flight testing
using
GPS algorithms to eliminate any wind variables, and all points were
repeated
multiple times to gain confidence. 10,000 MSL cruise speeds, 2100 RPM
and
full manifold pressure, about 21.5 inches; Hartzell 203 knots, MT 201
knots. MT may be a tad slower, but not by much, you can easily gain and
loose 3-8 knots just on hot day, cold day. Run the RPM up to 2120 and
I'm
back at 203 so really its a wash. Acceleration on Take off, maybe
slightly
better with the 2 blade, but again on timed climbs to 10K, the time was
with
in seconds of each other and any difference is in how fat is your
pencil.
Deceleration, surprisingly better with the MT, I can now fly a much
steeper
final and landing rolls are shorter with the MT. Must be because the MT
goes flatter.
So why would I part with more bucks and go with the MT. ITS
VERY SMOOTH.
Like an electric motor up there. That two blade would shake you like
crazy
at any RPM between 2150 and 2300 and I used to run around at 2400 RPM to
stay out of it. I could for high altitude cruise, set 2100 as the power
is
low enough to keep the vibration away, but it was still there a bit.
Those
are very usable RPM ranges, power setting wise, but unusable from a
vibration standpoint. It was not a balance issue, it is a power issue,
as I
could take the power off, leave the RPM alone and the vibrations go
away.
What I believe is happening is the fuselage has a natural frequency that
is
coincident with the 2 blade power pulses at 2200 ish RPM. With the 3
blade
you get 1/3 more power pulses, that are 1/3 less strong, so the effect
is no
fuselage interaction with the prop.
201 vs. 203 knots?, do the math, I now arrive about 1 minute later after
flying 1 hour, but I arrive refreshed, not beat up and my airplane is
also
in better shape long term maintenance wise.
Ultimately, both props do the job quite well, but I would have to
recommend
the 3 Blade MT if you have the money.
BTW full grunt top speed also went down a couple with the MT, but those
numbers are classified :)
Greg Nelson
N144X
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Thanks Larry,
Sure would like to hear why.
Jim Stone
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Schneider
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider"
<lschneider39@cox.net>
I am an RV6 guy, But a friend of mine has a HRII. he had a Hartzell 2
blade
and now an MT 3 blade, He loves the MT! Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3
blade,
> both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for
the
> best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the
Hartzel
> 2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
> mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
> blade MT.
> Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
> Jim Stone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> f1rocket@telus.net
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
>
> I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken
Fowler
> (you
> know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
> his three
> blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
> lighter, the
> engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
> So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
> avionics.
> Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
> Jeff
>
> Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
> <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > three-blade, smee-blade.
> >
> > Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but
smoother.
> > Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
> >
> > I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all
with
> 2
> > blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who
cares?
> All
> > three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
> "Wow, if
> > only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
> >
> > The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
> cheaper
> > than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but
really,
> all of
> > them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> > maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
> account of
> > an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid
for
> my new
> > Hartzell.
> >
> > One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
> suppose
> > that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing
inverted
> flat
> > spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
> >
> > YMMV, I could be wrong.
> >
> > Vince Frazier
> > 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> > F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> > <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
> >
> > SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> > counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
> some
> > money.
> >
> > I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> > Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
> satisfaction.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jim Stone
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
=
==
==
==
==
=
==
==
==
==
=
==
==
==
==
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|