What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-8 Hartzell alum 2-blade blended airfoil v. Hartzell extended hub composite 2-blade

You would be an idiot to use any other prop for acro/formation than this one:

  • Hartzell Blended Airfoil 2-blade

    Votes: 4 100.0%
  • Hartzell Composite 2-blade

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A used fixed pitch prop from an airboat guy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Any constant speed prop as the prop is a really small part of flying acro/formation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

AV8ER

Well Known Member
Looking for real world experience from those who have flown both of these props. I am not currently interested in other props manufacturers.

This build's YIO-360-M1B, 180hp RV-8's mission is acro and formation flight, neither of which I have experienced in an RV before.

This is what I have been told so far:

AM-JKLWtcrluJdL8qfEZtsGBWN-dNvyWPu9OM7XBsq3xq352XTg_3msgmCQMB6iAoswN6wJ19Iavhf5n5qhFiWMpLxOnxSUiKOS0O4FMKrDzf6DZiQ15YTQ82337953JIbxDCxJDaDd5nF1t1oLaWEjFyLCfqQ=w800-h890-


C2YR-1BFP/F7497
74 in. dia.
Aluminum 2-blade blended airfoil
(I)O-360/390 180-210hp
RV-6A, 7A, 8/8A, 14A
$9,200.00

Blended prop
- no yellow arc
- faster cruise
- cheaper
- limited service life as material is removed at overhauls. Once a station on the prop is outside the tolerance it turns to scrap.
- can use Van's composite spinner
- a well rounded prop for "total performance"


AM-JKLVT1jdel8iRDZMd8EIfeI6LiNAc_imiJhfpii064W22JqEb0IG6oQj2agwytbFdvjpMSV3__hw70pAImhdSPMVa6yNOK7DIP7VQluw3jwW1TNKg4yohcBFO6lA84tvi2kEKixtG9DKyc2FWJktl9tUwhA=w800-h890


G2YR/N7605W-2X
74 in. dia.
Extended hub composite 2-blade
(I)O-360/390 180-210hp
RV-6A, 7A, 8/8A, 14A
$15,315.00

Composite 2-blade
- no yellow arc
- better climb
- gives up a few knots in cruise (2-3 knots slower, but what do you say?)
- lighter and smoother, have heard between 15 and 35 pounds? What is the real weight difference?
- possibly an indefinite life as material can be added to the prop at overhaul
- must use Hartzell polished alum spinner that costs $1,585 (roughly $1200ish more money than the Van's comp spinner)
- prop/spinner combo costs 75% more money to purchase once you include the more expensive Hartzell spinner
- better aerodynamic braking due to its wider cord
- better prop for acro
- better prop for formation as the improved aerodynamic braking is a real advantage

Summary:
The blended airfoil prop has well rounded performance but gives up some short takeoff, climb, and acro/formation performance for its higher cruise speed. The composite prop has shorter takeoff roll, better climb, better aerodynamic braking and is the preferred acro prop.

Now shoot holes in this with your real world experience. I am looking for the flying performance differences and not looking at the dollar to performance "better value" debate as if that was the case we would all have fixed pitch cruise props.

Additionally I know the blended airfoil prop can use a standard Van's cowl but can the composite prop?
 
Last edited:
The replies I received with the same question were:
If Hartzell is sponsoring you and gives you the composite, take it.
If it is coming out of your wallet, the price delta over the metal is not worth it. (don't forget the price of the spinner)

I went with the metal. Hard to beat the performance vs price, but there is a weight penalty.

The other thing I heard were some stories about Hartzell not being able to repair the composite blades, and any damage becomes a replace $ituation.
 
Consider the aerodynamic braking that you consider a plus for the composite prop becomes a big negative if the engine quits.

I’ve seen pilots (more skilled than I, granted) fly great form with FP props. I’d go either fixed pitch, or blended airfoil. No chance I’d spend ~$20k on a composite prop.

Also, consider this, a friend of mine had a midair during a formation flight (he was hit) and his metal prop survived and powered him to the ground. A composite prop wouldn’t have fared as well.
 
I've got the metal prop, and it's nice, but I can't say it's better or worse than any other prop since this is the only one I've flown on my RV-8. One question is flight in rain - any difference there?
 
Pretty good summary I think. I have the composite and concur with the 3-4 kts slower, but warned of that from Hartzell. Glide is not affected if the gov knob is pulled out. Low RPM at full power and 160+ ktas limits low governed RPM due to the pitch limitation of the wide cord. No dressing of the prop needed as the nickel leading edge is really hard, but the aft side of the blade gets chips from stones.

You may have a 4 G limit with the extended hub, ask Hartzell.

BTW - I used the Vans spinner but had to extend the cowl nose. $$$ vs hours - your choice. The extension (sabre or hub) is required to ensure clearance on a James cowl.
 
Last edited:
I’ll suggest that your formation requirement shouldn’t effect your prop choice.

With either, you’re still going to be constantly changing your power. It won’t really matter which one you have on there. You don’t “brake” the airplane with the prop per se, you reduce power therefore thrust.

The only time you “brake” in the sense I think you mean it is when you have to saw the power off, and we all hate doing that.

Sure, there will be some difference between the two props, but I’ll bet it’s minimal in this aspect.

To me, the cost / performance and weight curves are the ones that are more important.
 
I like Hartzell composite

I’ve been running the Hartzell composite for about 3 years and absolutely love it. If it is supposed to be slower I don’t see that. I cruise between 185-190 KTAS depending on LOP or ROP at 2400 rpm. I am also running a BPE IO-360 200hp angle valve which may be contributing to cruise speed. Each to his/her own I couldn’t be happier with my choice.
 
I’ve been running the Hartzell composite for about 3 years and absolutely love it. If it is supposed to be slower I don’t see that. I cruise between 185-190 KTAS depending on LOP or ROP at 2400 rpm. I am also running a BPE IO-360 200hp angle valve which may be contributing to cruise speed. Each to his/her own I couldn’t be happier with my choice.

My RV8 came with a Prince Carbon FP prop and I now have the Hartzell 2 blade composite. I've also flown two other RV8s with the Hartzell BA metal CS props, and I would take the 2 blade composite in a heartbeat again and again. It's ~20lbs lighter (the composite is 42lbs) than the metal BA prop and that's on the nose of your plane! My empty weight is 1047lbs, and I have a 210hp PV IO-360. I cruise at 180-185 KTAS ROP at a DA of ~9k burning 8.5-9gph with ~23in of MP. If it matters, there are also no RPM limitations with the composite prop. I'm pretty sure it's what Mike Stewart, the Redline team, and other formation guys fly behind.

The prop was part of a new engine install to a flying RV8 built to plans for with a FP prop. It had the spacers, etc. shown in the drawings for the FP prop. The Hartzell composite was a bolt-on replacement with zero cowl changes. The spinner is easily adjusted to mate up to the cowl with minimal gap. If you would like pictures, shoot me a PM.

Everyone has to make their own economic decisions, but this prop purchase is one I would make again if given the choice. It's a magnificent prop and a joy to fly behind.
 
Last edited:
The two planes you picture (RV8As) flew to SNF together. I (RV6) and another RV6 also were in the flight. The “red” plane with the composite prop has been flown with both. He had no problem flying formation with the group (he is highly experienced). If you want to have an offline discussion with the pilot, I may be able to arrange such. I am not sure that he is checking posts here these days.

While I have perceived real value in the composite Hartzell, I cannot give comment as I have only flown behind it for a few flights as compared to hundreds of hours behind the blended airfoil metal. It boils down to what is important to you. Weight, speed, acceleration, “braking”, costs. Etc.
 
It’s amazing how little quantitative data there is on this particular choice.
I used the composite for the reasons mentioned previously and more but don’t have anything to compare it to. There are several discussions of FP vs the composite but not the BA aluminum.

This is one of the better ones

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=166153

That review was one of the factors that pushed me over the fence to buy the Hartzell Composite CS prop. I found it very helpful since at the time I purchased mine, it was hard to find any reviews or owners.

It’s pretty hard (and costly) for the average GA RV pilot to do a true, objective, A/B comparison between props. There are too many variables, and unless prop manufacturers are giving you the props, it’s pretty costly. Randy Lervold did one of the best prop comparisons. http://www.romeolima.com/rv8/Prop.htm
 
Last edited:
Another Hartzell Composite data point

Glide test with prop set to fine/coarse limits
Vans IO-360 m1b and prop
PCU5000X governor
RV8-1440# solo
5500-3500 ft altitude
70F OAT
Level flight at 88 MPH to Idle.
Maintain 88MPH in decent
No flaps

Fine Pitch
1700 RPM
1100 fpm average rate of decent.

Coarse Pitch
1000RPM
600 fpm average rate of decent.
 

Attachments

  • B6B201C7-9B1E-412B-88ED-C58F30A14A53.jpg
    B6B201C7-9B1E-412B-88ED-C58F30A14A53.jpg
    597.5 KB · Views: 64
Last edited:
Question about the glide ratio with a constant speed prop - because I don’t know the answer. I assume in this possible scenario, you are gliding power off because your engine has failed. Is a failed engine able to generate enough oil pressure to drive the prop to coarse pitch? Isn’t the governor/power failure mode of a constant speed prop to fine pitch? - unless you have a counter-weighted aero prop? On my constant speed RV’s, pulling the power drives the prop pitch to a finer blade angle (increased drag). If I pulled the prop control all they way back, it would go to coarse pitch, but that’s with the engine running providing oil pressure to hold it there.
I don’t know the answer, but someone does, so please let me know.
 
These props go to coarse pitch with increasing pressure. The purpose of this test was to verify that the prop would go coarse at idle in case of an engine out windmilling prop and how it would effect the decent rate.
 
Back
Top