Aero Composites Propellers

On 11 Jun 2004 17:47:07 GMT, (Fastglasair) wrote:

For some strange reason, I just felt like fishing here to see if by
chance there was someone...just one person who might have had some
experience with these guys. I should have known better.

I would have purchased from Whirlwind in El Cajon, CA at Gillespie Field. I put
a 3 blade on my race modified HIO360-C1D6 This is the same type of Prop Wayne
Handley used on his piston driven Raven. They have been around for 9 or 10
years. I would have also considered Hoffman. BTW mine is on a Glasair 1-RG
located in Ogden, UT. I have had it up to 210 Kts true so far, only been flying
it a few months. Also, I enjoyed your Alien story.


Cool man. Did you build it?

BWB

Is it a one story? If so, go in the attic and look which way the ceiling
joists or trusses run. If they are parallel to the wall in question, the
wall may be safely removed.


Thanks Jim. Alread did that. I just knocked out the wall a couple
days ago. Now I have about 1500 square feet to build within.

BWB

Let me put it this way Bill, if I had that kind of money to spend on a prop, it
would not have been spent on the Aero Composites Propeller. I would have spent
it on the best prop I could find for the money and that would have been the MT
Propeller.

So why did you bother to ask here at all? Just to try and start a flame fest
or otherwise show how superior you think you are to everyone else here?


Bob Reed

Yes, preciscely.

In fact I saw an MT on a glassair today and that thing looked
identical to mine. I wonder what the differences are? Gotta do some
reasearch.

I'll tell you why I bought the prop. It was on a Legacy and the owner
put on a Hartzell. The Hartzell weighed 25 pounds more and didn't
make the airplane go any faster. Since I'm going to put a SUPER
charger on it that weighs about 25 pounds, the prop cancelled out the
moment arm. That, plus it was local here and the fact that it went
just as fast as the Hartzell, and I bought it at a DEEP discount, is
why I bought it.

BWB

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:15:41 -0500, Dave Driscoll
wrote:

Bob,

Not that I want to start a flame war, but what is your basis for the
claim that the MT is a superior product? I'm actually quite interested
as I've reviewed them both recently and find that while one certainly
has a more proven commercial record, in my opinion, the other is
technically a far superior product.

Regards,

Dave Driscoll

Which is which Dave? What are you saying? Is the AeroComp better or
is the MT? I can't follow.

BWB

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:29:20 -0400, "AWSOME"
wrote:

Right........... :

Yep....Right.......... :

What's your point? That I didn't buy it? That it doesn't exist?
That I don't know anything about it? That martians are invading the
Earth?

Too much.... Maybe not for RAH however.

BWB

Let me put it this way Bill, if I had that kind of money to spend on a prop,
it
would not have been spent on the Aero Composites Propeller. I would have
spent
it on the best prop I could find for the money and that would have been the
MT
Propeller.

So why did you bother to ask here at all? Just to try and start a flame
fest
or otherwise show how superior you think you are to everyone else here?


Bob Reed

Yes, preciscely.

In fact I saw an MT on a glassair today and that thing looked
identical to mine. I wonder what the differences are? Gotta do some
reasearch.


Look at what most of the Competition Aerobatic pilots are flying and I believe
you will find a lot of MT props.

I'll tell you why I bought the prop. It was on a Legacy and the owner
put on a Hartzell. The Hartzell weighed 25 pounds more and didn't
make the airplane go any faster. Since I'm going to put a SUPER
charger on it that weighs about 25 pounds, the prop cancelled out the
moment arm. That, plus it was local here and the fact that it went
just as fast as the Hartzell, and I bought it at a DEEP discount, is
why I bought it.

BWB

A Deep Discount is a very good reason and I think you will be happy with the
choice under those circumstances.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

I would have purchased from Whirlwind in El Cajon, CA at Gillespie Field. I
put
a 3 blade on my race modified HIO360-C1D6 This is the same type of Prop
Wayne
Handley used on his piston driven Raven. They have been around for 9 or 10
years. I would have also considered Hoffman. BTW mine is on a Glasair 1-RG
located in Ogden, UT. I have had it up to 210 Kts true so far, only been
flying
it a few months. Also, I enjoyed your Alien story.


Cool man. Did you build it?

BWB

Yes I did, took 19 years with a 10 year hiatus in the middle due to a new
business ,marriage and 4 kids.

Cool man. Did you build it?

BWB

Yes I did, took 19 years with a 10 year hiatus in the middle due to a new
business ,marriage and 4 kids.

That's a serious commitment...19 years. How do you like it? Does it
have any peculiar characteristics that you didn't expect in flight?
How's the stall? I mean, how does it break? I hear the Lancair VI
breaks like an anvil let go into free fall. How about the Glassair?

BWB

That's a serious commitment...19 years. How do you like it? Does it
have any peculiar characteristics that you didn't expect in flight?
How's the stall? I mean, how does it break? I hear the Lancair VI
breaks like an anvil let go into free fall. How about the Glassair?

BWB
I am very happy with it. At altitude 9.3 gph with about 200 Kts true. Thats
about 25 statute mpg. I have wing root stall strips which helps control stall
behavior. It falls straight and has good characteristics. The Glasair is still
a friendly aircraft when considering the high wing loading. One must keep up
the air speed on final and never chop the power, at least not with a 3 blade
like mine. That prop is a mean speed brake. As everyone says, slowing it down
takes planning and practice. One very nice benefit of this issue is, I don't
know how I could ever forget to put gear down. I can't slow down enough to put
flaps down or land without the gear out first to slow things down.

Speaking solely about the mechanics of the blade and hub (I haven't
looked very closely at their actuator and its system), in my opinion the
AeroComp is a vastly superior product. This is not to say that MT makes
a bad product, they don't, and they have an enviable product history.
However, in my opinion, AeroComp has a more robust design, is using a
much more sophisticated manufacturing process, and has some impressive
test results in the areas of both product strength and performance. The
only area that is yet a great unknown for AeroComp is how durable is
their product? Time will tell, but based upon the other aspects of
their design, I'd wager that they've got longevity nailed as well.
Money not being an issue, I'd hang a pair of AeroComp's on my plane and
very well may now that they make a pusher in addition to the tractor.

Dave

Badwater Bill wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:15:41 -0500, Dave Driscoll
wrote:



Bob,

Not that I want to start a flame war, but what is your basis for the
claim that the MT is a superior product? I'm actually quite interested
as I've reviewed them both recently and find that while one certainly
has a more proven commercial record, in my opinion, the other is
technically a far superior product.

Regards,

Dave Driscoll



Which is which Dave? What are you saying? Is the AeroComp better or
is the MT? I can't follow.

BWB