Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
just think of all the money you'll save from getting all that extra performance....
I have a 3-blade Hartzell on my 180hp Mooney. It does pushnthe CG forward a little bit. Despite what everyone thinks, it runs smoothly and was dynamically balanced back in 2003; I rechecked it a couple years ago, it was still 0.01.
It's also supposed to be slow. Some people call it an air brake. My Owners Manual is pretty clear that at 7500 / 10,000 msl my plane should run ~163-166 mph [pretty near 140 knots]. But I consistently run 145-148 KTAS when I punch everything into the Garmin WAAS box. Typical indicated airspeed at those altitudes is 145mph or a little more. So Mooney and Hartzell apparently know more about propellor design and aircraft performance that the old guys around the airport or the wags on the interweb.
My plane also climbs very well with that extra blade.
Check the plane. Look for STCs supporting whatever prop it has, if it's not original to the plane. Chances are it will do fine.
Oh, the "extra maintenance" is really bad--I squeeze #5 grease into 3 grease ports on the prop instead of two . . . .
If you happen to have gobs of HP, more blades are more better.
With wee bits of HP, sometimes only one will do.
I'd upgrade to a turbine
The Cirrus drivers are already drooling over 4 blade props...
Why stop at 6?
A bigger factor is probably the weight difference and cost difference in most cases.
At 200 hp I'd stay with 2 blades. With 4 cylinders I wouldn't even consider 3 blades.
Not my C150. It is the rear CG that I have to worry about. Guess I have to get a 3 blade.Right except many spam cans have the CG so far forward as it is that its practically impossible to load it out of the aft CG anyway.
Then they flare & land like crap when flying solo with little in the back.
More blades will be less efficient, since the blade is following more closely the disturbed air from the previous blade. The only reason (other than marketing) to go with more blades is if you're diameter limited due to tip speed or ground clearance and a 2 blade prop can't absorb all of the power produced by the engine.
I don't think any number of blades is going to solve Raptor's problems...So you wonder how much more performance Raptor could get ditching the 5 blade he's got, but he's probably diameter limited?
Needs a turbofan. Got it.I don't think any number of blades is going to solve Raptor's problems...
I want my 2 dollars. Or 2 knots in this case. At less cost, and less weight.I think it varies by plane and by prop but generally yes. The thing to keep in mind is while 3 blade are generally slower, we're not talking big differences in speed in most cases. A couple knots usually. Close enough any number of other factors could all but make the difference non-existent when comparing any two similar planes. A bigger factor is probably the weight difference and cost difference in most cases.
Now that is a sexy looking plane...
I'm no expert in aerodynamics, but I'm assuming that's all associated with prop drag slowing the engine when it's not running at higher RPMs. I guess turbo props can have 5 because they have the hp and torque to easily overcome the drag.Interesting sidelight comparing fixed-pitch and constant-speed props ...I'
Up until the early 1970s, the Cherokee 235 and the Cherokee Six 260 came with fixed-pitch props standard, constant-speed optional. The performance charts in the manuals for both of them show the fixed-pitch versions to be two to four mph faster in cruise, but they give it up in takeoff and climb performance.
View attachment 73337