*_ESAB or Lincoln for TIG welder. Believe it or not, you don't need a million bells and whistles with TIG but you want enough flexibility. Don't cheap out on amperage. Get as high amp model as your electrical can handle. You may even need to run a heavier electrical line to be sure you can feed the welder all the power it needs. Welding tips and tricks has an awesome store with all kinds of goodies including the TIG finger which you're going to want. He also has a lot of good tutorials. Make sure you get large gas bottles so you don't run out of gas every 5 minutes then have to go and refill them every other day. Don't cheap out on the helmet either. You only have 2 eyes._* Doo Daa. 💯👈
Love how honest this video is. Tests a new propeller that claims all this technology then it performs exactly the same. He didnt sensationalize or anything. Interested what other people thought of that?
I agree, interesting to see the computer modelling, but reassuring that conventional blades perform well enough that we don’t need to panic that we are losing out to new designs 😅
I have a NR prop on my flying Kitfox 4 with 80 HP 912, and have another one on my Kitfox 4 build project with 100 hp 912. I'm happy with them. Maybe not the very best prop out there, but pretty good. I think it would be fair to mention that the engine that lost the blade was a 160 HP Lycoming, and the power pulses on it are much harder on a prop then the 915 high rpm going through a gear box. Never heard of any Rotax engines losing blades. Yrs ago, Warp drive had some blades fly out of the hub, and they are one tough prop. It was good to watch the comparison. Thanks Trent! JImChuk @@FlyingDarkLord
What's interesting is static thrust doesn't tell the whole story. It's easier to design/test blades without computer models for static thrust, but what about at 20-40-60-80kts? That's where CFD would give better insight for designing an optimal propeller to function within the "envelope" so to speak.
I’m just bringing you guys along as craig and I try to see if he can come up with a perfect prop for the 915, this prop obviously is designed for the 916 and with a twist that has a peak efficiency that’s a good bit above my cruise speed so right now it’s just getting baseline numbers and confirming there’s no fitment issues. It’s always fun trying new things (at least when done in a safe way)
When it comes to props the gains in efficiency between a modern blade design vs a 1940s design is minimal. from what I know the 1940 designs were over 85% efficient. Today’s modern cad designed blades are barely over 90%. What has changed a lot is the sound profile and vibration tuning.
I love nerdy videos, like you said that guy is on another level! loved that cfd test diagram so cool! Crazy the amount of thought/ tech that goes into props!
I have long wondered about this "bigger is better, brute-force" mentality you have in 'Murica. I have an ancient Avid Flyer (the grandmother of the Kitfox) that we built in 1987. It has only a wee little 64hp Rotax 582, it's THIRD engine! Beginning with a 532, graduating to a 582 and when that unit started showing signs of wear (500+ hours) the third one was recently installed. It beats the socks of anything in our area regarding sort-field performance - even the aircraft I fly the most these days, a 6-seat H-295 Helio Super Courier! The 1987 Avid Flyer is LIGHT - hence it's great performance. My home base is Isafjordur, in the West Fjords of Iceland. Where we fly to: The Hornstrandir are of the West Fjords of Iceland.
I had a B model Avid Flyer with a 532. Pull starter, so no electrical starter or battery. 445 lbs empty. Would get to 500' AGL from standing start in 32 seconds, starting from 1500' elevation. Outclimbed my 650 llb Kitfox 4 with 80 HP 912. Weight is the killer of performance.
@@jimchuk8511 I had a 532 powered Kitfox 1, and it's climb, landing length AND cruise was pretty awesome, even as compared to my 100+ hp powered RANS S-7S, a pretty clear example as to how keeping things light really pays off for sure!
I've hiked around hornstrandir and it's lovely, but there are lots of areas in the US that are 5000'+MSL runways, 12000' peaks and very hot in the summer; sometimes the extra power is needed to have acceptable performance at that altitude and temp
It's 'merica and it's not bigger is better and brute force mentality. If you don't understand why more power would be needed for a STOL plane then Im guessing you don't understand STOL planes. Last, stay in Iceland. We don't want people with your rotten tude here.
Back in the early '90's I had a small computer program from Hartzell where every blade profile could be simulated along with pitch, diameter and blade numbers and I found it fascinating to play with all the variables. What really stood out was the similarity to a turbocharger impeller in regards to efficiency islands within the maps. The prop doesn't work very well until it gets to its' 'happy speed' but this is also pretty close to where the tips are going supersonic....so in our case we were building an auto-engine conversion that had the ability to spin to 6000 rpm for max power but then the prop became inefficient if the rpm were dropped below about 4500 for cruise using the gear reduction ratio we'd chosen. Aero engines don't run a real wide rpm range for prop efficiency reasons and while a small Rotax is fine cruising along over 5000 rpm... a Big Block Chevy isn't so happy being run constantly up there and I'd much rather use 4500 take-off so we could cruise about 3000 which made a lot more sense to me. Props are very interesting devices!
You realize that the Rotax is already geared? The Rotax isn't a big block, it's more like a snow mobile engine - it likes to run at high RPM. If you ran the Rotax at 3000 RPM, Trent wouldn't be able to take off...
@@realulliYou seem to have missed the point I was trying to make....that the propeller is a very speed dependent device that only works within a narrow rpm range that is up near its' maximum speed. So of course a little snowmobile motor spinning a large diameter prop needs to be geared to spin it to the proper rpm which is going to be up near the tips going supersonic.
Heating your hangar: you could use infrared heating - hang a few panels from the ceiling like your lights, and heat just where you are working. Much lower running cost than trying to heat the whole space.
Catto is a very well respected prop designer and manufacturer. I love learning that he is putting effort in non-planar prop tip design. As a note, Lonnie Prince (Prince Aircraft Co) has been selling his P-tip props for quite some time now. From what I can see, they are a form of non-planar tip claiming similar merits. I can believe, however, the Catto may be taking the idea to the next level.
We shall see, coming from a 2000 hour+ Prince user (love it), the real difference of course is Lonnie only offers fixed pitch. BUT, after many years of flying with various ground adjustable props (Warp, Kiev, Luga, Whirl Wind, to name a few) the simplicity and lightness (my 78" Prince is lighter than any of the others I've tried) is appreciated. I think Catto is on to something.
Love, love, love all the nerdy stuff with that Cato prop. Only understood about 10%, but very cool anyway. It would be cool to have a prop like that on my ACA Explorer, but it's a certificated aircraft anyway.
Very interesting vid on the new prop. I just put an eProp, STOL prop on my RANS S6-S with a Rotax 921UL engine. This is an all carbon fiber 4 blade prop, ground adjustable that weighs 8.8 lbs. It pulls quite well and might be worth a try if you are still in the mood to experiement
Hey Trent. For the rod holder may I suggest printing it out of white or a light color as the black will triple or quadruple the inside temperature of the rod tube and may compromise your rods etc inside the tube. White PVC pipe with a white or cream coloured 3D print reel holder may be best. Great idea though good luck
Trent, I had a friend buy a low profile ski rack that he uses for his fly rods. They sit in the middle of his shell so you can’t see them but are still perfect for quickly clamping his rod. Just another idea for you!
Love the nerdy! So cool to have computer modeling and relate it to actual practices. My architect friend who is a computer whiz at architectural rendering, walk thru interiors, is now building a RC sailboat and using his skills to make molds, fabricate hull and figure out the mechanical layouts of servos......another world. Me, sticks and strings.....ha ha Love your content Trent!
Great video on the prop. Huge market here for ground adjustable props that are simple to change like the nw Catto. I've been wondering why someone hasn't made them like this or similar. There is another manufacturer that has a prop that can be adjusted by simply inserting a wrench through the center of the spinner and turning it one way or the other. Anyway keep us posted on the prop info. Thx Trent.
Spinners on slow ga aircraft are actually mostly to direct airflow into the cowl nacelle for cooling. For this reason I believe it’s a required component for a Piper Cherokee.
Would be interesting to see a 3 blade version. Much improved vibrations, but a little less efficient. Improved blade tips could bring efficiency close to 2 blade?
Re fly rods in the pipe = how do you stop the rod getting damaged from the vibrations? Any foam in there? I can imagine the line guides and tips rattling against the blank while driving.
You maybe should put the screw of your clamp all the way through the printed part and melt the nut in from the other side, so the stress of the clamping force is mostly on the screw and not on the vertical layers of that printed shaft.
The late Bernie Warnke designed the "almost constant speed" prop in the late '80's/'90's. I test flew many of his props in my RV-4. The current ones are replicas of his design.
Very cool. Love to see the experimenting. However, at least at this point, it doesn't seem like that new prop is buying you much. Looking forward to seeing how things progress, though. And how cool is it that you're actually helping Catto test their new prop!
This was interesting to watch. The only thing I think could have maybe changed it up, and I don't even know if it would have matter, the spinner cone. During your control test, you had the cone on, with the new prop test the cone was off, could have effected .1-.3 gph as well. Never know. Next time you guys test it, leave the cone off for both.
I fly a Highlander with a stock Yamaha Apex and SkyTrax gearbox. Very similar power to your 915. I use the NR SR118-2000 like yours except it’s only two blades, I’m extremely happy with its performance but you’ve motivated me to pull out my three blade hub and extra blade and see what happens to my takeoff performance. If you have a two blade hub for your NR, I recommend you try that too.
I think there's something about the apex/skytrax combo that prefers the 2 blade setup, I have 2 friends that have tried the 3 blade and went back to 2, but its definitely worth testing to see!
What camera are you using during your intro?? Every time I see it I wonder what it is??? Once you work out what your shim pack is when optimized, it would be trivial to make a single shim of the correct dimension for the application
Does the CFD program account for the amount of flexion on those blades when fully loaded? Looked like a lot of bending or was that just a trick of the camera? If that deformation is real, it seems to me that would be a loss of efficiency.
I'm a bit puzzled to see that a "cruise propeller" is performing in a very similar way as the original 3 blade. I also don't understand why anyone would want a longer 2 blade propeller on a bushplane.unless you like to trim all the bushes on the runway :-). Woulden't a propeller tuned towards cimb performance be more suitable for the type of flying you do?
It's brilliantly amazing to see this advanced development. I started visualizing the moment of the disc collapsing into two cones and immediately felt compelled to model the two vortex cones pressure areas as the disc size decreases and the lowest pressures of each cone crosses. It's difficult to imagine how changes between the propellor blade centerline(s) behave. That said, the bending moment of each blade culminating a net force at the fulcrum may allow a trunnion mount hub and center pin to lever a barrel against a pawl resulting in automatic cone reduction resulting in reduction of the converging cones back to the desirable larger disc where the lowest pressure vortecs remain far ahead if the propellor flange. Me thinx✌🏻👶🏻🚬
Is the current 3 blade still a constant speed prop? With changing to the new 2 blade ground adjustable, how would your back country flying be effected?
You would be better off using something other than ABS pipe for the rod holders. ABS pipe will warp and bow when exposed to the sun as it has extremely poor resistance to UV. PVC would be a better choice, as it is more stable in the sunlight. You can also sand and paint the PVC if you dont like the standard white colour PVC comes in, as well, you should be able to find PVC with the exact same outer diameter as the ABS pipe you are using.
Sure, I’ll upload it to my printables account. It’s really only made to fit on roof racks with 1x2” extruded aluminum cross bars (like my Sherpa rack) but I’m sure you could find a way to modify it to fit other cross bars.
@TrentonPalmer Awesome thanks! I don't have any racks yet. I have been looking to make a custom set up for my Ram without having to have a camper top on and not loose functionality of my bed cover.
As someone who has had an unplanned engine off emergency landing, I can safely say that Quicksilver ultralights have a steep glide angle. Like falling slightly sideways!
Wouldn't you need to fly a longer distance for the flight computer to establish a more accurate reading.. just an observation as my car takes a good 5miles to reset lol keep up the cool vids.
Is it possible that the lack of the nose cone would have an adverse effect on the flight performance of the new prop? I have no idea what kind of help that cone actually does for prop/plane performance... I just realized that you had a cone on there with your three blade, but not with the Catto prop... I have no experience with engineering; assume I know nothing.
80" ROTAX 915/916 Cub Type $4,150 Available for ROTAX 915/916 with 8mm or 5/16 bolts Includes hub, blades, hub internals for pitch change and instillation bolts. Spinner $875
There is nothing new under the sun Trent. Propeller science is old. As I expected, besides being quieter Cato's design did not do much different at the same power (fuel burn is a very good measure of power) in terms of giving you a much better/faster cruise speed and my prediction is it won't in future either. Many people get all confused with engine RPM as they treat it as power setting which it obviously isn't. For the same power and same diameter in general you will be within 2 knots of speed at same fuel burn. That is my prediction and I would love to see if Cato can redefine what i understand. I doubt it. The main thing would be it will be quieter because of the modified tips. The tips create efficiency usually at slower airspeeds for wings (prop blades being wings that usually are operating at very high airspeeds at the tips). If you really want to see better efficiency that is somewhat significant, try and in-flight adjustable specially with your non-linear torque curve from the turbo charger. That will make a difference but it isn't allowed by regulation for Sport Pilots although MOSAIC is likely going to allow single lever operation. There is another prop from France called E- prop that has some mighty claims as well. That is also a lot of marketing and confusion although it does have one difference and that is between sea level and say 7000 feet the prop does not unload as much as others. Other than that it's so called ESR effect is a bunch of marketing when you really get down to proper numbers and measurements. Same power setting with same airplane in same conditions.
Trent why do you keep fussing with these fixed pitch props? Airmaster makes an incredible light weight electric constant speed prop designed for the 915. You’d have better STOL and cruise on the fly in one prop plus feathering. You wouldn’t run a fixed clutch in your snowmobile would you? Of course not!
The main problem is where the added weight is located that is moment-arm. I don’t think he likes not having enough elevator authority with a constant speed on the nose and the airframe is largely drag limited as it is. His speed and fuel consumption was largely the same with the 75” MT on the front before.
The weight and moment arm won’t add that much. He’s not doing completion much anymore. You could put a 1 pound weight near the tail wheel and offset everything and you wouldn’t even notice it. If he hasn’t installed them already, VG’s on the horizontal stab would help pitch authority. He flies often at higher altitudes, albeit still lower agl but if you do a cross country between 10 to 15,000 feet drag is significantly diminished and a CS prop will add 10kn to your cruise up high. I get full 5,800 rpm’s on takeoff with mine no matter the altitude. The MT it’s a different beast and you have no real control over its pitch. It’s also hydraulic and may be heavier.
I have run 9 different props, including 3 different in flight adjust/constant speed props, and with my drag profile and the amount of power/torque my engine makes I have not found the constant speed props to be worth their weight. My current prop replaced my MT constant speed and the ground adjustable pulls harder on takeoff, climbs better and cruises the same speed on less fuel. I also owned an air master, it was a nice prop but not for my demands. Again, if I had a less draggy plane or a lower horsepower engine it would be a different story.
This prop is not for your airplane. One like it maybe, but not this one. So don't be discouraged by the numbers. This way of designing eliminates the testing and tweeking routine. Either you did the math right and it works perfect, or you didn't and then it's straight back to the drawing board, or screen in this case. The sound is sexy. No two ways about that. Vibration is a nasty tennant though, keep that in mind. Trust your gut, but check your fasteners.
wouldn't this test be more effective if the tail of the plane was off the ground/level w/ the prop? aren't you losing a bit of torque through the angles or am i an idiot?
Static testing is just that. It is the in flight testing that is important and as we see there is nearly no differents as that would depend of temperature, attitude, barometric pressure.
No because they're doing A-B comparisons. The force vector is consistent between runs. They might be able to get a few more lbs of force if everything was lined up but it doesn't impact the comparison. And I wouldn't want to risk the prop hitting the ground if things were to start to move around.
*_ESAB or Lincoln for TIG welder. Believe it or not, you don't need a million bells and whistles with TIG but you want enough flexibility. Don't cheap out on amperage. Get as high amp model as your electrical can handle. You may even need to run a heavier electrical line to be sure you can feed the welder all the power it needs. Welding tips and tricks has an awesome store with all kinds of goodies including the TIG finger which you're going to want. He also has a lot of good tutorials. Make sure you get large gas bottles so you don't run out of gas every 5 minutes then have to go and refill them every other day. Don't cheap out on the helmet either. You only have 2 eyes._* Doo Daa. 💯👈
Love how honest this video is. Tests a new propeller that claims all this technology then it performs exactly the same. He didnt sensationalize or anything. Interested what other people thought of that?
I agree, interesting to see the computer modelling, but reassuring that conventional blades perform well enough that we don’t need to panic that we are losing out to new designs 😅
I have a NR prop on my flying Kitfox 4 with 80 HP 912, and have another one on my Kitfox 4 build project with 100 hp 912. I'm happy with them. Maybe not the very best prop out there, but pretty good. I think it would be fair to mention that the engine that lost the blade was a 160 HP Lycoming, and the power pulses on it are much harder on a prop then the 915 high rpm going through a gear box. Never heard of any Rotax engines losing blades. Yrs ago, Warp drive had some blades fly out of the hub, and they are one tough prop. It was good to watch the comparison. Thanks Trent! JImChuk @@FlyingDarkLord
What's interesting is static thrust doesn't tell the whole story. It's easier to design/test blades without computer models for static thrust, but what about at 20-40-60-80kts? That's where CFD would give better insight for designing an optimal propeller to function within the "envelope" so to speak.
I’m just bringing you guys along as craig and I try to see if he can come up with a perfect prop for the 915, this prop obviously is designed for the 916 and with a twist that has a peak efficiency that’s a good bit above my cruise speed so right now it’s just getting baseline numbers and confirming there’s no fitment issues. It’s always fun trying new things (at least when done in a safe way)
When it comes to props the gains in efficiency between a modern blade design vs a 1940s design is minimal. from what I know the 1940 designs were over 85% efficient. Today’s modern cad designed blades are barely over 90%. What has changed a lot is the sound profile and vibration tuning.
I love nerdy videos, like you said that guy is on another level! loved that cfd test diagram so cool! Crazy the amount of thought/ tech that goes into props!
I have long wondered about this "bigger is better, brute-force" mentality you have in 'Murica.
I have an ancient Avid Flyer (the grandmother of the Kitfox) that we built in 1987. It has only a wee little 64hp Rotax 582, it's THIRD engine! Beginning with a 532, graduating to a 582 and when that unit started showing signs of wear (500+ hours) the third one was recently installed. It beats the socks of anything in our area regarding sort-field performance - even the aircraft I fly the most these days, a 6-seat H-295 Helio Super Courier!
The 1987 Avid Flyer is LIGHT - hence it's great performance. My home base is Isafjordur, in the West Fjords of Iceland. Where we fly to: The Hornstrandir are of the West Fjords of Iceland.
I had a B model Avid Flyer with a 532. Pull starter, so no electrical starter or battery. 445 lbs empty. Would get to 500' AGL from standing start in 32 seconds, starting from 1500' elevation. Outclimbed my 650 llb Kitfox 4 with 80 HP 912. Weight is the killer of performance.
@@jimchuk8511 I had a 532 powered Kitfox 1, and it's climb, landing length AND cruise was pretty awesome, even as compared to my 100+ hp powered RANS S-7S, a pretty clear example as to how keeping things light really pays off for sure!
I also had a Kitfox 1 with 582 and just under 500 lbs empty. It performed quite well. Light weight is the key. @@portnuefflyer
I've hiked around hornstrandir and it's lovely, but there are lots of areas in the US that are 5000'+MSL runways, 12000' peaks and very hot in the summer; sometimes the extra power is needed to have acceptable performance at that altitude and temp
It's 'merica and it's not bigger is better and brute force mentality. If you don't understand why more power would be needed for a STOL plane then Im guessing you don't understand STOL planes. Last, stay in Iceland. We don't want people with your rotten tude here.
Back in the early '90's I had a small computer program from Hartzell where every blade profile could be simulated along with pitch, diameter and blade numbers and I found it fascinating to play with all the variables. What really stood out was the similarity to a turbocharger impeller in regards to efficiency islands within the maps. The prop doesn't work very well until it gets to its' 'happy speed' but this is also pretty close to where the tips are going supersonic....so in our case we were building an auto-engine conversion that had the ability to spin to 6000 rpm for max power but then the prop became inefficient if the rpm were dropped below about 4500 for cruise using the gear reduction ratio we'd chosen.
Aero engines don't run a real wide rpm range for prop efficiency reasons and while a small Rotax is fine cruising along over 5000 rpm... a Big Block Chevy isn't so happy being run constantly up there and I'd much rather use 4500 take-off so we could cruise about 3000 which made a lot more sense to me. Props are very interesting devices!
You realize that the Rotax is already geared? The Rotax isn't a big block, it's more like a snow mobile engine - it likes to run at high RPM. If you ran the Rotax at 3000 RPM, Trent wouldn't be able to take off...
@@realulliYou seem to have missed the point I was trying to make....that the propeller is a very speed dependent device that only works within a narrow rpm range that is up near its' maximum speed. So of course a little snowmobile motor spinning a large diameter prop needs to be geared to spin it to the proper rpm which is going to be up near the tips going supersonic.
Stoked to see you playing with 3D printing and TIG welding, both are very handy skills to learn.
Heating your hangar: you could use infrared heating - hang a few panels from the ceiling like your lights, and heat just where you are working. Much lower running cost than trying to heat the whole space.
Catto is a very well respected prop designer and manufacturer. I love learning that he is putting effort in non-planar prop tip design. As a note, Lonnie Prince (Prince Aircraft Co) has been selling his P-tip props for quite some time now. From what I can see, they are a form of non-planar tip claiming similar merits. I can believe, however, the Catto may be taking the idea to the next level.
We shall see, coming from a 2000 hour+ Prince user (love it), the real difference of course is Lonnie only offers fixed pitch. BUT, after many years of flying with various ground adjustable props (Warp, Kiev, Luga, Whirl Wind, to name a few) the simplicity and lightness (my 78" Prince is lighter than any of the others I've tried) is appreciated. I think Catto is on to something.
Just got mine today, can't wait to try it out. Thanks for the video Trent.
Love, love, love all the nerdy stuff with that Cato prop. Only understood about 10%, but very cool anyway. It would be cool to have a prop like that on my ACA Explorer, but it's a certificated aircraft anyway.
Very interesting vid on the new prop. I just put an eProp, STOL prop on my RANS S6-S with a Rotax 921UL engine. This is an all carbon fiber 4 blade prop, ground adjustable that weighs 8.8 lbs. It pulls quite well and might be worth a try if you are still in the mood to experiement
Hey Trent. For the rod holder may I suggest printing it out of white or a light color as the black will triple or quadruple the inside temperature of the rod tube and may compromise your rods etc inside the tube. White PVC pipe with a white or cream coloured 3D print reel holder may be best. Great idea though good luck
Good morning from Minnesota! Great episode!
Trent, I had a friend buy a low profile ski rack that he uses for his fly rods. They sit in the middle of his shell so you can’t see them but are still perfect for quickly clamping his rod. Just another idea for you!
Prop design is pretty amazing today. We flew a hand made wood prop we bought off Rutan it came off his varieze😆.
Back in the saddle (air) again! Cool.
Love the nerdy! So cool to have computer modeling and relate it to actual practices. My architect friend who is a computer whiz at architectural rendering, walk thru interiors, is now building a RC sailboat and using his skills to make molds, fabricate hull and figure out the mechanical layouts of servos......another world. Me, sticks and strings.....ha ha Love your content Trent!
Great video on the prop. Huge market here for ground adjustable props that are simple to change like the nw Catto. I've been wondering why someone hasn't made them like this or similar. There is another manufacturer that has a prop that can be adjusted by simply inserting a wrench through the center of the spinner and turning it one way or the other. Anyway keep us posted on the prop info. Thx Trent.
Have you tried the DUC Props yet? I love mine. Increase in climb and cruise.
Maybe add a quick release mechanism like a bike seat or tire quick release for the clamp on your rod protector.
Isn't the cruise test faulty because you don't have a spinner on?
was thinking the same - the missing spinner will definitely be detrimental to the efficiency ot the new 2 blade setup
At that speed it probably won't be a big enough difference to reliably measure.
Spinners on slow ga aircraft are actually mostly to direct airflow into the cowl nacelle for cooling. For this reason I believe it’s a required component for a Piper Cherokee.
Would be interesting to see a 3 blade version. Much improved vibrations, but a little less efficient. Improved blade tips could bring efficiency close to 2 blade?
Thanks for the video and sweet fly rod holder
Re fly rods in the pipe = how do you stop the rod getting damaged from the vibrations? Any foam in there? I can imagine the line guides and tips rattling against the blank while driving.
If its that sensitive for the shim the torque applied to the bolt would have an effect.
You maybe should put the screw of your clamp all the way through the printed part and melt the nut in from the other side, so the stress of the clamping force is mostly on the screw and not on the vertical layers of that printed shaft.
Man you should check out a Wood “almost constant speed” prop. They are fixed but have some special flexing properties. Also lightweight
The late Bernie Warnke designed the "almost constant speed" prop in the late '80's/'90's. I test flew many of his props in my RV-4. The current ones are replicas of his design.
Very cool. Love to see the experimenting. However, at least at this point, it doesn't seem like that new prop is buying you much. Looking forward to seeing how things progress, though. And how cool is it that you're actually helping Catto test their new prop!
I suppose you will be trying the new “Torroidal” Props when they become available.
When is the under floor heating coming?
This was interesting to watch. The only thing I think could have maybe changed it up, and I don't even know if it would have matter, the spinner cone. During your control test, you had the cone on, with the new prop test the cone was off, could have effected .1-.3 gph as well. Never know.
Next time you guys test it, leave the cone off for both.
Doubt it will be 0.3 GPH. I would be very surprised by that.
I fly a Highlander with a stock Yamaha Apex and SkyTrax gearbox. Very similar power to your 915.
I use the NR SR118-2000 like yours except it’s only two blades, I’m extremely happy with its performance but you’ve motivated me to pull out my three blade hub and extra blade and see what happens to my takeoff performance.
If you have a two blade hub for your NR, I recommend you try that too.
I think there's something about the apex/skytrax combo that prefers the 2 blade setup, I have 2 friends that have tried the 3 blade and went back to 2, but its definitely worth testing to see!
What camera are you using during your intro?? Every time I see it I wonder what it is???
Once you work out what your shim pack is when optimized, it would be trivial to make a single shim of the correct dimension for the application
Does the CFD program account for the amount of flexion on those blades when fully loaded?
Looked like a lot of bending or was that just a trick of the camera?
If that deformation is real, it seems to me that would be a loss of efficiency.
I'm a bit puzzled to see that a "cruise propeller" is performing in a very similar way as the original 3 blade. I also don't understand why anyone would want a longer 2 blade propeller on a bushplane.unless you like to trim all the bushes on the runway :-). Woulden't a propeller tuned towards cimb performance be more suitable for the type of flying you do?
Or a smaller diameter three bladed, constant speed….🤔
look into river quivers or trsxle fly rod tubes.
It's brilliantly amazing to see this advanced development. I started visualizing the moment of the disc collapsing into two cones and immediately felt compelled to model the two vortex cones pressure areas as the disc size decreases and the lowest pressures of each cone crosses. It's difficult to imagine how changes between the propellor blade centerline(s) behave. That said, the bending moment of each blade culminating a net force at the fulcrum may allow a trunnion mount hub and center pin to lever a barrel against a pawl resulting in automatic cone reduction resulting in reduction of the converging cones back to the desirable larger disc where the lowest pressure vortecs remain far ahead if the propellor flange. Me thinx✌🏻👶🏻🚬
Will that fly-fishing rod setup possibly be adaptable to your Kitfox, Trent?
Is the current 3 blade still a constant speed prop? With changing to the new 2 blade ground adjustable, how would your back country flying be effected?
My current one is a ground adjustable as well. I did have a constant speed and found the performance gains were not worth the weight penalty
Bare mind I have never flown a plane before but I love the look of the 3 blade
I prefer a 3 blade also, they are smoother in flight too which is nice, but the 2 blade does sound better
You would be better off using something other than ABS pipe for the rod holders. ABS pipe will warp and bow when exposed to the sun as it has extremely poor resistance to UV. PVC would be a better choice, as it is more stable in the sunlight. You can also sand and paint the PVC if you dont like the standard white colour PVC comes in, as well, you should be able to find PVC with the exact same outer diameter as the ABS pipe you are using.
Like those rod holder ideas. Pretty sweet
Keep up the good work Sean!
This is awesome! I love stuff like this.
Think you might put the final .stl for the rod holder up for sale? I love this idea and have a 3D printer at work lol
Sure, I’ll upload it to my printables account. It’s really only made to fit on roof racks with 1x2” extruded aluminum cross bars (like my Sherpa rack) but I’m sure you could find a way to modify it to fit other cross bars.
@TrentonPalmer Awesome thanks! I don't have any racks yet. I have been looking to make a custom set up for my Ram without having to have a camper top on and not loose functionality of my bed cover.
www.printables.com/model/818309-vehicle-fly-rod-holder
As someone who has had an unplanned engine off emergency landing, I can safely say that Quicksilver ultralights have a steep glide angle. Like falling slightly sideways!
No torque wrench on the pitch block?
Did you hear that Brandon at Kitfox was in an accident last weekend? Might be good to check in with him and see how he’s doing.
Wouldn't you need to fly a longer distance for the flight computer to establish a more accurate reading.. just an observation as my car takes a good 5miles to reset lol keep up the cool vids.
Trent - video description seems to be for a different video
That prop is really cool tech.
doesnt ABs filament weaken due to UV rays
What about a four blade like the S African bird?
Is it possible that the lack of the nose cone would have an adverse effect on the flight performance of the new prop? I have no idea what kind of help that cone actually does for prop/plane performance... I just realized that you had a cone on there with your three blade, but not with the Catto prop... I have no experience with engineering; assume I know nothing.
Gonna need one of those rod holders for my side by side please!
www.printables.com/model/818309-vehicle-fly-rod-holder
5:07 what if quadro moves? 🙈
Then I push the brakes in on the plane and pull the throttle back 🤙
Trent, why not a Warp Drive prop? You would never worry about it coming apart.
I'd say have him design a toroidal propeller for your Fox and enjoy all the major benefits....
How is your law suit going with the FAA?
Dude, you have too much money!!!😂😂😂👍
I don't see a difference between the two props, what's the price??
80" ROTAX 915/916 Cub Type
$4,150
Available for ROTAX 915/916 with 8mm or 5/16 bolts
Includes hub, blades, hub internals for pitch change and instillation bolts.
Spinner $875
Doesn't it matter that there was no spinner when testing the new prop? It seems like that would be worth some speed.
Surprised he attaches the pitch block with two bolts and doesn't use a torque meter or safety wire for the bolts.
Very cool stuff.
BERP stands for British Experimental Rotor Programme... certainly not French.
As a fellow left-hander I now understand why you are the way you are....haha
There is nothing new under the sun Trent. Propeller science is old. As I expected, besides being quieter Cato's design did not do much different at the same power (fuel burn is a very good measure of power) in terms of giving you a much better/faster cruise speed and my prediction is it won't in future either. Many people get all confused with engine RPM as they treat it as power setting which it obviously isn't. For the same power and same diameter in general you will be within 2 knots of speed at same fuel burn. That is my prediction and I would love to see if Cato can redefine what i understand. I doubt it. The main thing would be it will be quieter because of the modified tips. The tips create efficiency usually at slower airspeeds for wings (prop blades being wings that usually are operating at very high airspeeds at the tips). If you really want to see better efficiency that is somewhat significant, try and in-flight adjustable specially with your non-linear torque curve from the turbo charger. That will make a difference but it isn't allowed by regulation for Sport Pilots although MOSAIC is likely going to allow single lever operation. There is another prop from France called E- prop that has some mighty claims as well. That is also a lot of marketing and confusion although it does have one difference and that is between sea level and say 7000 feet the prop does not unload as much as others. Other than that it's so called ESR effect is a bunch of marketing when you really get down to proper numbers and measurements. Same power setting with same airplane in same conditions.
Fun stuff !
Trent why do you keep fussing with these fixed pitch props? Airmaster makes an incredible light weight electric constant speed prop designed for the 915. You’d have better STOL and cruise on the fly in one prop plus feathering. You wouldn’t run a fixed clutch in your snowmobile would you? Of course not!
The main problem is where the added weight is located that is moment-arm.
I don’t think he likes not having enough elevator authority with a constant speed on the nose and the airframe is largely drag limited as it is.
His speed and fuel consumption was largely the same with the 75” MT on the front before.
The weight and moment arm won’t add that much. He’s not doing completion much anymore. You could put a 1 pound weight near the tail wheel and offset everything and you wouldn’t even notice it. If he hasn’t installed them already, VG’s on the horizontal stab would help pitch authority. He flies often at higher altitudes, albeit still lower agl but if you do a cross country between 10 to 15,000 feet drag is significantly diminished and a CS prop will add 10kn to your cruise up high. I get full 5,800 rpm’s on takeoff with mine no matter the altitude.
The MT it’s a different beast and you have no real control over its pitch. It’s also hydraulic and may be heavier.
I have run 9 different props, including 3 different in flight adjust/constant speed props, and with my drag profile and the amount of power/torque my engine makes I have not found the constant speed props to be worth their weight. My current prop replaced my MT constant speed and the ground adjustable pulls harder on takeoff, climbs better and cruises the same speed on less fuel. I also owned an air master, it was a nice prop but not for my demands. Again, if I had a less draggy plane or a lower horsepower engine it would be a different story.
@@TrentonPalmer everyone, including myself, is raving about the eprop for rotax. Nothing so far beats that. They also make a CS.
@@MatthewDeis Indeed, it's just hard to get past how UGLY it looks!
Static thrust has been proven to have almost no correlation to dynamic thrust.
Yes, and very long ago!
I like to think you are the head of marketing at square space
This prop is not for your airplane. One like it maybe, but not this one. So don't be discouraged by the numbers. This way of designing eliminates the testing and tweeking routine. Either you did the math right and it works perfect, or you didn't and then it's straight back to the drawing board, or screen in this case. The sound is sexy. No two ways about that. Vibration is a nasty tennant though, keep that in mind. Trust your gut, but check your fasteners.
wouldn't this test be more effective if the tail of the plane was off the ground/level w/ the prop? aren't you losing a bit of torque through the angles or am i an idiot?
Static testing is just that. It is the in flight testing that is important and as we see there is nearly no differents as that would depend of temperature, attitude, barometric pressure.
No because they're doing A-B comparisons. The force vector is consistent between runs. They might be able to get a few more lbs of force if everything was lined up but it doesn't impact the comparison. And I wouldn't want to risk the prop hitting the ground if things were to start to move around.
Anybody installing them on cubs? Very interesting. I run all cattos
the best advice I got was "learn from other's mistakes, because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself!"
What would Mike Patey run? He'd likely make his own prop. 🙂
Will you be flying with a spinner? That will affect your fuel consumption for sure 👍
No it won’t not at those speed.
Horseback riding lessons fun stuff ! A whole different world helps me block out the rest of the world when I do horse lessons .
Horses.... Fastest way to convert money to shit😂
Sounds quieter
A major benefit of that style tip, at least on my Prince P-tip prop.
Only 20K more to reach half million subscribers!!
Share this TIG learning process so some of us out here can learn along with you!
Probably should have heated the floor in the hanger.
That’s a next fall project! Haha
Cliffhanger, Dude. Uncool.
So, the Ukrainians (Hungarians?) can build a decent prop.
BERP - British Experimental Rotor Programme, not French.