Prop questions OEM vs. STC aftermarket model

D

drotto

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,162
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
drotto
Not that this will be happening anytime soon, but what would be the advantages to replacing a EOM prop with one of the newer scimitar composite ones? What are the performance gains? How much weight does it save? Well anything else you can think of.

I usually fly a Saratoga with the factory style 3 blade prop on the plane. What advantages would I gain by replacing it?
 
drotto said:
Not that this will be happening anytime soon, but what would be the advantages to replacing a EOM prop with one of the newer scimitar composite ones? What are the performance gains? How much weight does it save? Well anything else you can think of.

I usually fly a Saratoga with the factory style 3 blade prop on the plane. What advantages would I gain by replacing it?
Click to expand...
Vary little, other than a lighter wallet .
 
On a Saratoga? Probably not enough advantages to justify the swap, unless the cost of a new STCd prop is going to be less than what it is going to cost to get the original prop overhauled or repaired.

On older airplanes you might run into parts availability problems or unpleasant ADs that might drive you to looking for a more supportable and AD free prop. Old Bonanzas come to mind as one airplane with not too many good propeller options.
 
I'm in the process of an upgrade with an MT 3 blade composite prop. The weight savings is 40 lbs over a similar metal prop. Some of that 40 lbs may be some of the accessories that are part of the package, prop governor, whatever. It's still listed as a 40 lb savings, plus it moves the CG aft.

I'll be going from a 2 blade to the 3 blade, which should help some with T/O and climb, plus the bit more ground clearance. Three blades look cooler too, some pilots like that factor.
 
sourdough44 said:
I'm in the process of an upgrade with an MT 3 blade composite prop. The weight savings is 40 lbs over a similar metal prop. Some of that 40 lbs may be some of the accessories that are part of the package, prop governor, whatever. It's still listed as a 40 lb savings, plus it moves the CG aft.

I'll be going from a 2 blade to the 3 blade, which should help some with T/O and climb, plus the bit more ground clearance. Three blades look cooler too, some pilots like that factor.
Click to expand...

I was looking at doing that for a 182 and found the weight savings to be around 7 pounds, they didn't offer a two blade composite which surely would saved more weight than the three blade one.
 
I've passively talked to people and think about a 3 blade. My first priorities though are avionics and paint. But, when I talk to people I don't get data on performance improvements. They think or feel that they have better climb or takeoff performance. But can't document it. And there are people who say they don't see any improvements in those areas. Depending on the prop, some gained weight in the front and some lost ground clearance. What everyone says is that it's quieter with less vibration and it looks cool.

If I could get data that indicates significant improvement in takeoff and climb - I'd be more likely to look at it after my other projects are done. At 5500 field elevation and a normally aspirated plane - I would appreciate some improvement in those areas.

Dean
 
My prop OH time is coming up too and I am thinking about going with scimitar blades. Looks cool and possibly cheaper than OEM ( my OEM is 2 bladed which I would never accept )
I did not know that it saves 40 lbs which is a great news for me
 
sourdough44 said:
I'm in the process of an upgrade with an MT 3 blade composite prop. The weight savings is 40 lbs over a similar metal prop. Some of that 40 lbs may be some of the accessories that are part of the package, prop governor, whatever. It's still listed as a 40 lb savings, plus it moves the CG aft.
Click to expand...
Removing 40 pounds from the nose of a GA aircraft would seem to be very undesirable and doesn't guarantee you can increase the useful load.
 
Last edited:
I think CG movement depends on the plane, as to be beneficial or not? The center can vary with types, then how it is 'normally' loaded.

I agree, different mods can change the weight of a plane, but then the certified max weight is likely unchanged without an STC. Look at the 'ArchWarrior', gets heavier but then performs better.
 
MTs got that reversing prop, that would be nice!
 
It really depends on the props you're coming from and going to. For some the advantages are minimal, for some they're more significant. The best thing you can do is talk to other people who've made the exact swap you're looking at and see what they say. A general won't help.

It is worth considering, though. We went with MT 4-bladers on the 414, replacing the old threaded hub McCauley props. The improvement was significant in all areas. 27 lb weight savings (total), significant climb and cruise improvement, better ground clearance (although blades that handle FOD worse), quieter... just not much not to like. I do think that the 340/414 4-bladed MT STC is one of the most dramatic improvements they offer, especially when coming from the old props that were real junk.
 
My prop upgrade experience came with a power upgrade. Going from a 2-blade 88" to a 3-blade 86" prop was only possible with a bigger engine and it's the best money I've spent on my Cessna. Prop change on the same engine? I wouldn't expect much unless your old prop is at minimum spec. In that case a new prop of the same type will make an improvement.

My new EX Cub has an 80" hollow carbon fiber blade CS prop. I'm looking forward to using it. Again, relative to 82" fixed props on typical Cubs? This new prop is only possible because of increased horsepower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top