Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whirlwind prop

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whirlwind prop

    After many attempts to fix both our propellers, which were leaking grease, WW came to the conclusion maybe the 210 was not the proper fit for our engine size and harmonics and have sent a new prop for us to try. It’s their 284 constant speed composite foam core 84 inch swepttip. We were finally able to try it out today and compared to the 80 inch 210, which is still on Dennis’s plane, they performed pretty much the same in cruise. The take off performance was noticeably better though. Its been a while, but WW has bent over backwards working with us trying to get our problems fixed. At one point they even overnighted my propeller back to me. After some time, and we’re sure this prop is going to work for us, they’ll send another one for Dennis. On another note, which might not mean much to the guys, but I think this new 284 is a real beauty/beast. It looks great and really performs.

  • #2
    That sure is a fine looking prop!

    It's never fun to have chronic problems with any system. Good to hear that Whirlwind is so responsive. I hope the new prop solves the issue!

    Bill

    Comment


    • #3
      Do you know what the prop-to-ground clearance is for both 3-point attitude, and "level" attitude (like for a wheel landing)? Probably an optical illusion based on the angle of the photo, but that prop looks pretty long in the picture, and it made me curious... Thanks! (I still think that's a really gorgeous airplane, by the way! One of my favorite paint schemes and color combos.)
      Jim Parker
      Farmersville, TX (NE of Dallas)
      Patrol Quick-Build Serial # P312

      Comment


      • Flygirl1
        Flygirl1 commented
        Editing a comment
        Jim, I think it was 19 off the ground in the 3 point. Didn't check in level yet, but I will. I don't usually do those stick forward high tail, wheel landings, but if it's a problem or even if I think it's a problem I have an easy fix and a good excuse to go to the 850's. ;-) On another note, this prop is 2 lbs lighter than the other one, so right now, my plane and Dennis's weight the same. Thanks, I like the look too.

    • #4
      What flavor of O-360 are you running? I've got a friend with a 200hp angle valve motor that is considering that prop, but next to the one MT reccomends for that engine the WW has way less chord, which seems like it would make less lift at low speed.

      I have a 210 on the way, eventually I guess for my 540.

      Comment


      • Steve W
        Steve W commented
        Editing a comment
        I have the 210 blades in a McCauley hub. Compared to the MT prop I had on my previous build, the 210’s are quite wide (cord). MT may have a different blade on the go sense I dealt with them. I’ll see if I can post a picture.

    • #5

      Comment


      • JimParker256
        JimParker256 commented
        Editing a comment
        Looking at the blades in FlyGirl1's picture and the blades in your picture side-by-side, it looks to me like the MT blade "fattens" more rapidly near the hub, but overall, they appear to be very close from about 1/3 span outward. Guess we'll have to have a side-by-side "fly-off" to see which works better. But in terms of performance per dollar, there's not much contest, in my book.

    • #6
      It's ECI's 185 horse OX-360. The widest part of the 210 is around 9 inches and I believe the 284 is 7 inches and a weight difference of 2 lbs-42 vs 44. Measuring blade to blade it was actually 2.5 in dif, unless I'm measuring to the wrong point. The 210 tip is flat across, while the 284 is swept. If anybody is wondering about prices, W.W. is pretty competitive, but last time we checked Mark came back with a pretty sweet deal on the Hartzell trailblazer

      Comment


      • #7
        Originally posted by Steve W View Post
        picture

        Did you use Whirlwind's spinner?

        Comment


        • #8
          Yes and I wish I didn't. It fit perfect. They talked about me supplying a spinner for static balancing when they built up the prop so I bought theirs at $1600 US. Found out later that they only balance the larger props with a spinner installed. It wasn't done on mine. Other than they initially built the wrong blades for the hub I provided, this was a bit disturbing. Lots of spinners around for a fraction of that amount.

          Comment


          • #9
            Jim, that’s the WW 210 in the picture.

            Comment


            • #10
              Originally posted by Steve W View Post
              Yes and I wish I didn't. It fit perfect. They talked about me supplying a spinner for static balancing when they built up the prop so I bought theirs at $1600 US. Found out later that they only balance the larger props with a spinner installed. It wasn't done on mine. Other than they initially built the wrong blades for the hub I provided, this was a bit disturbing. Lots of spinners around for a fraction of that amount.
              Indeed there are, but will any of them fit/work with the WW prop and mounting flange? Spinner and back plate that is. I'd love not to buy their ridiculously overpriced hub.

              Comment


              • #11
                My hub was a McCauley so I would imagine any spinner with a backing plate to fit a Lycoming would work. WW copied McCauley’s hub and shaved some metal off and their spinner fits perfectly so it should go the other way.

                Comment


                • #12
                  Originally posted by Steve W View Post
                  My hub was a McCauley so I would imagine any spinner with a backing plate to fit a Lycoming would work. WW copied McCauley’s hub and shaved some metal off and their spinner fits perfectly so it should go the other way.
                  In looking for a backing plate and spinner that would work, I found that the spinner/backplate is more prop dependent than engine. For example, Van's kit is set up for a Hartzel, and won't work without a ton of work on a McCauley. All the RV's seems to be running Hartzels, which is intriguing, and I couldn't find a single RV10 with a McCauley on it to see what they used.

                  You go to something like the 540 powered 182's and it's more expensive for a used one in a salvage yard then WW's.

                  If you have any ideas on where to look, I'm all ears.

                  Comment


                  • jaredyates
                    jaredyates commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Lots of RV guys are running the whirlwind also, not sure where they get ther spinners from, but VAF would.

                  • zkelley2
                    zkelley2 commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Everyone I talked to is running the WW one.

                • #13
                  Cherokee 180 and any Piper stuff with Lycoming engines. Most had McCauley props I think. I didn’t take the spinner from the prop I bought because it had a dent and the cost of shipping. They are around.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X