skippydiesel

17 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

When I spoke to them they were not interested in producing the mechanical vernier version which I think is a better way to go anyway...fine for TO and then set what you want for cruise...nice and simple and no motors or electronics to burn out which is a common thing with all of these CS units. This video is 6 years ago..one would think they may have it done by now. They could have been selling the manual one straight away

 

 

 

 

I think I saw this display at NATFLY Temora ? Seems like eons ago. Sounded/looked to be on the very brink of production. I wonder why it has not progressed to public availability

1 hour ago, blackhawk799 said:

I want to be able to tour around Australia so has to have a reasonable range and endurance , preferably cruise at 90KIAS at least (dont want to be anything under 85) . Preferably Rotax powered. Price range is upto 40k but willing to go up to 50k for the right plane. I know I'm asking too much right?

Right!

But on the bright side there really are aircraft at almost every airfield that have not been flown for (in some cases) years. Just walk in and make some enquiries and you may get a name or two to follow up.

Don't get too excited nearly every aircraft owner thinks his/her plane (even one that is sitting unloved in he long grass) is worth much more than what the market will give them but persistence pays off in the end.

if you do purchase a plane that has sat idle for a long period, budget for a complete strip down & rebuild.

Composite aircraft are likely to be the best bet - no airframe corrosion (metal), moisture damage (wood) UV deterioration (fabric) but the engine will almost certainly need a complete rebuild and any metal components inspected very closely for damage. Brakes may be seized and tyres perished, etc

5 hours ago, kasper said:

Skippy,

 

Sorry for the thread drift away from CS props - I of course am considering a Bolly fixed pitch for the my home built - its not even conceivable to consider a CS for a flex wing cruising at 80knts esp. as the cost of any CS is more than I invested in the whole airframe, instrument and second hand rotax engine!

 

Cheers.

Don't be sorry - this forum is all about sharing ideas/knowledge/experience - I am impressed with the cost (lack of) your aircraft AND you reminded me of Bolly's success in breaking a few world records

On 05/10/2020 at 3:18 PM, blackhawk799 said:

Hi Alan , just saw your post , thanks for the offer. But I am no longer purchasing this plane in NT as the seller has backed out for reasons unknown to me . So I am back to square one looking for my first plane again! Cheers for the offer 

 

BH

Do you have:

A purchase price range ? 

"Mission" objective ?

The above will limit/guide your search eg (very rough)

Fast glass is likely to be $60K + in pre loved and $120 K + in new kit and $140K + in factory build

Mission - STOL mostly "rag & tube" as low as $20K in pre loved

There are Jabs grazing in the long grass or hiding in a dusty corner of a shed, on nearly every RAA airfield - make some enquiries and you might just pick up a reno for a song

15 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

Kasper:
I wrote to Aeropilot and they sent me a letter of approval for the prop change. I'm not sure what other paperwork I'll need to do when I go to sell the aircraft. The local dealer made an arrangement with Aeropilot after I fitted my Bolly, to list those props as an official “option” here in Oz.

The Bolly people were brilliant to deal with. They asked me a series of questions and that led to a reccomendation. They shipped the prop, hub and spinner very quickly.

I purchased the reccomended prop and then set it up. It took a couple of gos to get the right pitch for our aircraft, but that's pretty normal.

Just checked out the Bolly web page - as I thought,  no mention of a CS prop (which is the primary focus of this conversation). I am fairly sure that they had one under development for many years and  that  Robin Austin used a prototype Bolly CS in his record breaking Rotax 912 ULS Sonerai VH-SGS - economy cruise 165 knots - record breaking 238 knots over a 500 kilometre course. With this sort of third party endorsement, I wonder why they did not put the prop into production.

2 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

Ok my opinion is it is not worth the money or the extra weight for the advantage that you get from a CS unit.

 

Kyle Kyle - this is not about bagging a propeller system its about reviewing what is available in the CS market . The arguments for/against CS props is well known (certainly by me) I do not deny the purely factual argument but as I have said before  this is not a need its a want. If you have some CS experience at this end of the light aircraft world,  please give me the benefit (I still want to try an e-prop before committing to a CS)

Thanks Cscothendry - strange!  it would seem you and I are the only forum contributors who have an interest/opinion  about CS props fitted to this class of aircraft.

At this early stage, many moths from making any sort of decision/commitment.

I favour Airmaster because of they are sort of local, have a great reputation and their "system" is easy to fit to any Rotax 912. Unfortunately it is heavy and costly.

MT is a renowned aircsrew manufacturers but doesnt make an electric CS prop for Rotax

Alisport Idrovario is an interesting hybrid

Check out their web site -  Lycoming 115 hp & Continental 100 hp  - amongst  several others

Okay - Disclaimer - just a bush mechanic so some concepts need to be explained in simple terms. 

Is your concern related to radio interference/noise and/or ignition/propeller timing/rpm ?

If radio noise you might want to talk to Kyle of Kyle Communications (this forum) for some sort of suppression/shielding system and/ or change in wiring rout.

To the best of my, admittedly limited, knowledge the slip ring system on an electric prop are all about conducting power to an electric (step or linear ?) motor. In addition there is an rpm sensor that provides information (signal) to the CS controller - not sure how this signal is generated, could be a "hall effect" (magnetic)

Simple electronic ignition systems use hall effect or photo/light crank sensors  to trigger a coil(s)- this could be yours.

Ignition & prop rpm sensors should not be upset by each another as long as they are not in close proximity

Thanks Kyle - my Zephyr is " indisposed" at the moment and is likely to be so for the next 3-6 months (small argument with terra firma). When she is fit again I will be back in touch (get my name on the test que).

In regard to your sales bashfulness - I agree with not making the site a sales venue, however I always hope for it to be a place of information derived from free/open & polite discussion - which includes product availability & performance. So factual information, first hand objective opinion is "gold" in my book. You sir, would seem to aspire to these ideals.

In the immortal words of our least favourite, red headed, fish & chip vendor "Please Explain" - how in conflict?

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

The couple I’ve pitched have a data sheet for the prop set for the aircraft, engine and gear ratio, therefore specific for each set so not listed as general info on the Webb.

Blue- my point is that there is along and impressive listing of positive reviews on the E-prop web site but precious little information to compare my existing props performance with.

One very significant point that is not lost on me is the 6 month return policy - makes doing a trial very attractive (may yet get me involved)

Hi Kyle - so you know I am interested & have checked out the E-Prop:

From the web site

DURANDAL-3
ATEC ZEPHYR 122
Here are my results on my Zephyr:
PA: 26 at 4800 rpm
PA: 27 at 5500 rpm
PA: 24 at 4300 rpm
tiered
4000 rpm : 180 km/h
4500 rpm : 210 km/h
4800 rpm : 225 km/h
5000 rpm : 240 km/h
5500 rpm : 260 km/h
Max in beam: 5600 rpm : 265 km/h
Decorating distance almost identical to the wood-comp but with the E-Props I gain in climbing and cruising speed of 20 Km/h with the same engine speed.
J-M.P. (2015-02-04)

The E-prop gets pretty much glowing reviews but as unusual I have a problem - most are big on subjective comments, have little or no comparative data (befor after) and/or setting  info. So using the above  example, an unusually full  review (still lacking in the aforementioned stuff) that just happens to be applicable to my aircraft:

First impression - WOW!!!!!

Then - no pitch setting, static rpm, climb, or fuel/rpm/speed data.

This concerns me because I could probably pitch my existing prop for a max speed type situation - TO role would be very long and climb out poor but I would get a cracker of a top speed at about 5400 or so rpm.

To be fair I have little doubt that this is a very nice prop and as most attest smooth in operation

Hope I will get some great factual criticism to the following:

Based on being the propeller of choice for the listed aircraft (or just plain popular) I have narrowed my 2 blade, CS propeller selection, for my Rotax 912ULS, to the following manufacturers:

Alisport Idrovario as  fitted to Pioneer aircraft. Available as a 2 blade with  an electric/hydraulic system - 5.8 kg - no weight on actuation/control system .

MT- Propeller as fitted to Pipistral Virus SW. MTV-33-1-A. Available as a 2 blade hydraulic only. 8.7 kg. Very reputable company (Au distributer and service) and the Virus SW has class leading, third party verified, performance with this prop.

Woodcomp SR 3000.2W N as fitted to ( cant remember) Available as a 2 blade hydraulic & electric control systems. 8.5 kg ( + control system ? ) about E4208 plus GTR & freight. Reputable 

Airmaster AP420CTF-SNR70E (Sensenich) - 9.1 kg. Almost local (NZ). Not a prop maker as such. Great reputation. Lots of technical information on web page. About $11 K

Thank you for your alternative suggestion (Kyle)  and technical comment (Nev) however it would seem that there is so much resistance to the idea of having a CS prop on an RAA class aircraft that I will not be getting any answers to the questions I posed.

Okay:

It has been thoroughly established and accepted by me, that the fitting of a CS prop to an RAA type aircraft is a foolish thing to do BUT I still want one and would like to have some assistance in the direction/selection of said foolish acquisition - anyone willing to provide recommendations/comments  as listed:

• Most likely to give a significant performance enhancement - Reduced ground role - Increased climb out - Increased speed for fuel consumed OR  reduced fuel consumption for same cruise speed. Suggestions/Recommendations welcome ?
• Minimal increase in maintenance requirement. There will be some increase in maintenance (annual greasing/inspection, etc) but I would like to minimise this by selecting a manufactures that does not require the return of the CS prop in some ridiculously low interval (some are as low as 2 year, others 6 , some have no return policy. Comments?
• Maximum reliability /safety. Reliable service history and on board system that will accommodate a CS partial/total failure. Comments?
• Minimum weight penalty. I have noticed that, at least some, hydraulic units are very much lighter than electric ones - I dont know why this would be - any suggestions?
• Minimum complexity. I fancy a two blade unit but most manufacturers are offering three. With a bit of digging some are also offering a two blade. Why the bias toward  three blades?

15 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

Skip I personally would not bother with a CS on your aircraft.  The electric I have seen need attention to the commutator surface and brush dust deposits etc. I reckon a 3 place e-prop is the go and good while they have a return policy if not happy. Will no doubt provide improved service. I plan to get one next July. Will be superior to the Fiti prop. IMHO.

I refer you to my previous comment: All true - doesnt stop me lusting after one - as I said its about want not need.

Should I ever have the $$$$ I will purchase a CS prop for my ATEC. Therefore the question is not is this a logical sensible decision but what CS propellers are most likely to give me the best return on my hard earned dollars.

Best return on $$ in this context is:

Most likely to give a significant performance enhancement - Reduced ground role - Increased climb out - Increased speed for fuel consumed OR  reduced fuel consumption for same cruise speed. Suggestions/Recommendations welcome ?

Minimal increase in maintenance requirement. There will be some increase in maintenance (annual greasing/inspection, etc) but I would like to minimise this by selecting a manufactures that does not require the return of the CS prop in some ridiculously low interval (some are as low as 2 year, others 6 , some have no return policy. Comments?

Maximum reliability /safety. Reliable service history and on board system that will accommodate a CS partial/total failure. Comments?

Minimum weight penalty. I have noticed that, at least some, hydraulic units are very much lighter than electric ones - I dont know why this would be - any suggestions?

Minimum complexity. I fancy a two blade unit but most manufacturers are offering three. With a bit of digging some are also offering a two blade. Why the bias toward  three blades?

5 hours ago, Kenlsa said:

More weight, complexity and cost.
Reduced useful load.

Followed by further cost at service intervals.

Further followed by more paths for failure.

And further followed by immediate stress selecting your out landing spot.

Ken

All true - doesnt stop me lusting after one - as I said its about want not need.

9 hours ago, albert997 said:

Pipistrel Uses 5% negative flaps in cruise on their Virus model for additional speed....

As does all ATEC aircraft. Unfortunately I have no data on with/without the slight negative set of the flaps - I just set them to factory specifications, which results in a negative/reflexed flap on 0/nil flap setting.

Both Pipistrel Virus SW & ATEC range have class leading high cruise and very low stall (an unusual combination). The low stall of these aircraft "puts to bed" the idea that reflexing flaps causes a deterioration in stall speed.

On 28/09/2020 at 5:08 PM, Jaba-who said:

Don’t need it! 
(Definitely Don’t need it at the cost of no warranty ) 

As I suggested - this is not a need, for most people/situations, its a want. This want is entirely consistent with wanting a RAA registerable aircraft and most other recreational activities.

Hi Glen - basically black. If you squint, one might suggest, very dark brown. Texture - a little sooty. As for the altitude  - I fly from 3 -10 thousand depending on forecast winds, cloud,  terrain/ and controlled airspace clearance. Only exception is an occasional beach run at 500 ft.

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

In the example (post 2) the take off to 50 feet was only reduced from 415metres fixed pitch to 378meters with the constant speed prop. This is a full hydraulic prop which will keep the engine at maximum horsepower,  2700rpm at all times during the takeoff and climb,  it doesn't get any better. There is improvement but is it really that significant? 

 

Another down side for the constant speed prop is it will mask engine power loss. With a fixed pitch any loss of power (sunken carb float anyone🤔) will result in reduced RPM, with constant speed RPM will stay the same until power loss is significant 

Hi Thruster - In my situation (all TO/Landings are short field)  I would gain only very little, from a CSP on take off role and climb out BUT would hope to se significant improvement in cruise. 

To me there is no question that there would be improvements in engine/prop  performance delivery - the Q is would it be cost effective ? I think the cost, about $8-12 K, is unlikely to be recouped in performance gains  (RAA class aircraft)  but then why are we flying at all?

In regard to your sunken carby float scenario - dont know. I suspect that even with a CSP there would be a power/rpm reduction especially at max rpm TO power. I have my CSP endorsement. from way back in my GA days but have no recollection of such a power loss being discussed or for that matter how any such power loss would be "masked" by a CSP.

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Sorry, but it’s another thing to go wrong,  if you are looking to eek out every last bit of performance from your plane because you are not happy with its current performance, get another plane 🙂

You can only make a pig fly so fast!!!

Very strongly put. Unfortunately, wrong (no offence intended). Consider the following:

Short very marginal strip (this is my situation). 

With a ground adjustable or fixed pitch, you have no option but to select for or pitch your prop for climb advantage or even best climb performance. All TO’s/landings will be short field. Do you agree so far?

This “climb” prop will have a negative impact on cruise performance and therefore fuel consumption/trip - most would find this to be an undesirable ramification of selecting a fine pitched prop. Agreed?

So along comes the solution - a way of having the best of both situations - the ability to select for fine pitch for best short filed/climb performance and then select a courser pitch for best cruise and economy - an inflight adjustable propeller (the most common of which seems to be the Constant Speed).

I have a mate who, like you, pores scorn on having any sort of inflight adjustable prop but then he operates off a long strip, with very good flat approach/departure conditions (no trees, rising ground, power lines, buildings, etc). He has his ground adjustable set for optimum cruise and doesn’t even notice the negative impact this has on his take off roll & climb performance. This works well for him but would have me in the trees.

Another situation, that suites a CS reversing prop, is amphibians – I have no experience but am told that its very handy to have a way of slowing and even backing your aircraft.

Lastly – a lot of motor gliders have feathering props to minimise drag.

The way I see it is there are three penalties that the procurer of an inflight adjustable must accept:

1.      Greater purchase & maintenance cost

2.      Higher weight, usually well forward, so likely to impact on W&B

3.      Increased complexity and potential for failure

Offsetting the above is the potential for greater control over aircraft performance.

I agree with all of the proceeding comments BUT I have this powerful urge to "improve" on near perfection. 

Yes yes I know and understand all the logical arguments for staying with my very nice  2 blade ground adjustable BUT if I had the spare dosh I would certainly look into an electric CSP.

So with all that dealt with, what would be your comments on the following:

• Why do most CSP supplier/manufactures push 3 bladed props for Roptax 912 ULS applications ? Most but not all have  a lighter/simpler two blade unit(s) hidden away somewhere but you have to look for it.
• Why do hydraulic CSP, for Rotax 912 ULS, fairly consistently have lighter installed weight quoted?
• Why does the actuating motor/system have to be in the propeller hub ,when it could conceivably be mounted above the crankcase and deliver its pitch movements through the hollow Rotax 912 propeller shaft?
• Your recommendation(s) on the  "best bang for the buck" supplier?