If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dynamic prop balance
My IO-540 with Hartzell compact 2 blade prop is smoother at 2700 RPM
than at cruise (2200-2400 RPM). If I have it dynamically balanced at cruise will it vibrate more at climb power? Does the fact that it's smooth at climb power suggest that the engine/prop combo is okay and there is a problem elsewhere (mounts, etc)? -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Jackson wrote: My IO-540 with Hartzell compact 2 blade prop is smoother at 2700 RPM than at cruise (2200-2400 RPM). If I have it dynamically balanced at cruise will it vibrate more at climb power? Does the fact that it's smooth at climb power suggest that the engine/prop combo is okay and there is a problem elsewhere (mounts, etc)? Prop balancing is done on the ground, with the engine running WOT at whatever RPM is attainable during a static run. For most aircraft, you cannot get the engine up to climb RPM during balancing. Balancing is always a compromise, but doing the balance at ~2000-2200 rpm is better than not doing it at all. If it cant be balanced, then all of the potential reasons are mucho $$$. Bent blade Mistracked blades One blade has bigger angle of incidence than the other Bad motor mounts Wrong prop/engine combination Counter weights on crankshaft Bent crank .... MikeM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 03 May 2004 16:51:07 -0600, mikem wrote:
snip Prop balancing is done on the ground, with the engine running WOT at whatever RPM is attainable during a static run. For most aircraft, you cannot get the engine up to climb RPM during balancing. snip I have checked the vibe level in-flight on numerous occasions, on aircraft that acted "strange" after a standard dy-bal. The newer balancing equipment can log the vibe signature through a wide frequency range and is useful in these cases also. The older CH spectrum analyzer could also do a survey of a range of frequencies. It would seem to me (and forgive me, it's been a few years) that on a constant-speed propeller that achieving cruise rpm is quite do-able. I'm thinking that we useta set the rpm approx. 100 rpm over the desired "cruise" setting using the throttle, and retarded it using the prop control. Our thoughts were that balancing at cruise rpm would tend to reduce the vibration level at the point that the airplane spent most of its time in the air. After several years of balancing inside of a hangar (aircraft securely chained down), a couple of us could guess the IPS to within about .2 on the initial engine run. On most singles, a reduction of less than about .4 IPS (at 1/1) is not noticeable from the pilot's seat. Half-order vibrations are much more noticeable/visible as instrument panel shake, and seem to be a "harder" vibration. Unfortunately, a dy-bal doesn't do much for a half-order vibration. Never had a light/medium twin that "felt" any different, even after a ..7-.8 IPS reduction. A proper dy-bal job performed by a knowledgeable technician is a decent value. We did all the company aircraft mainly because we owned the box... TC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It sounds like you could answer this question.
We had the prop on our 172N dynamically balanced a couple years ago and the plane was smooth as silk. The prop was put back on rotated about 40 degrees from the original position because that is where it was smoothest. This resulted in it always stopping vertical which was a pain using the towbar. That shop went out of business and we just had the engine rebuilt after premature lifter failure. The new shop insisted on putting the prop back according to the service manual instead of the index marks. It's hard to tell with three months of no flying in between but my impression is that it is not as smooth. Another shop I talked to about rotating the prop back agreed that positioning according to the shop manual is important (especially on a 4 jug engine) because of internal torsional vibration and stress issues that do not create noticeable airframe vibration. We don't have anything I would call vibration. It's more of a buzz that you hear rather than feel. Do you think we should have the prop rebalanced? -- Roger Long |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
It sounds like you could answer this question. We had the prop on our 172N dynamically balanced a couple years ago and the plane was smooth as silk. The prop was put back on rotated about 40 degrees from the original position because that is where it was smoothest. This resulted in it always stopping vertical which was a pain using the towbar. That shop went out of business and we just had the engine rebuilt after premature lifter failure. The new shop insisted on putting the prop back according to the service manual instead of the index marks. It's hard to tell with three months of no flying in between but my impression is that it is not as smooth. Another shop I talked to about rotating the prop back agreed that positioning according to the shop manual is important (especially on a 4 jug engine) because of internal torsional vibration and stress issues that do not create noticeable airframe vibration. Have discussed this issue with Lycoming and TCM, also Hartzell and McCauley. The prop people say that from a vibration standpoint, they prefer to have a blade aligned with the front crankshaft "throw". The engine people say that it really doesn't make any difference as far as they are concerned, and that it is an "airframe" issue. Have noticed in a lot of cases with a fixed pitch install (as you've indicated, changing the indexing is easy) that the factory's instructions tend to yield a blade in close to the ideal hand-propping position. On a constant-speed installation, often indexing choices are limited. On some (all?) TCM's, there are indexing pins that limit you to a 180 degree swap. On Lycoming's there is a short prop bolt bushing in the crank that mates up with a matching impression on a Hartzell hub, am thinking on the McCauley's you have more than one option. On the PA31-350 McCauley "conversion" following the instructions causes one blade to point straight down, we always installed them flipped 180 to stagger the 2 downward facing blades. Have indexed a few when balancing, never had an instance where it made a big difference that I recall. We don't have anything I would call vibration. It's more of a buzz that you hear rather than feel. Do you think we should have the prop rebalanced? I guess I always figured if you were going to go the dy-bal route, engine overhaul or prop overhaul/rework (or both) is a good time to get "re"-balanced. Our policy was to charge approx. 1/2 the cost if no adjustment was needed. I have talked to other shops that had the same policy. Another general recommendation for a dy-bal job is to grease the hub (if applicable to a constant-speed prop install) and dress the leading edges and touch-up the paint prior to dy-bal. Just never made a lot of sense to me to start filing and painting soon after a dy-bal. During a engine overhaul on a fixed-pitch application, at the minimum I recommend getting the prop static balance checked while it's off. Hope some of this helps; TC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote: Have discussed this issue with Lycoming and TCM, also Hartzell and McCauley. The prop people say that from a vibration standpoint, they prefer to have a blade aligned with the front crankshaft "throw". With a four-banger, the pistons tend to stop halfway along the bores. That would put the front throw either up or down. That would mean that the prop stops in the vertical position when it's indexed this way. Correct? George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
With a four-banger, the pistons tend to stop halfway along the bores. That
would put the front throw either up or down. That would mean that the prop stops in the vertical position when it's indexed this way. Correct? It's actually about 45 degrees from vertical. A whole tie down row happened to fill up with Skyhawks the other day. While walking to my plane, I noticed that all the props were at the same angle. It looked like someone had gone out and arranged them. Rather a pretty picture actually. -- Roger Long |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Long" om writes:
While walking to my plane, I noticed that all the props were at the same angle. It looked like someone had gone out and arranged them. This *is* done sometimes, isn't it? It's something I've suspected but never investigated. The reason I suspect it is that I think that I've noticed my props having been turned after an FBO has moved it. I assumed that they want the props near horizontal for towing. That would be especially true for a single (tractor) engine plane. --kyler |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Kyler Laird wrote: "Roger Long" om writes: While walking to my plane, I noticed that all the props were at the same angle. It looked like someone had gone out and arranged them. This *is* done sometimes, isn't it? It's something I've suspected but never investigated. The reason I suspect it is that I think that I've noticed my props having been turned after an FBO has moved it. I assumed that they want the props near horizontal for towing. That would be especially true for a single (tractor) engine plane. --kyler Many line service departments have a trick of turning the props vertical (or horizontal, take your pick) after they fuel the plane. It makes it easy to look down a line of tied-down planes and see if any need to get topped off. This works well in a situation where there are standing orders to refuel automatically, which would often be the case at a flight school or club. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 PM |
Ivo Prop on O-320 | Dave S | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 04 03:04 AM |
Prop Pitch Question | Eugene Wendland | Home Built | 2 | April 25th 04 03:22 AM |
IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 6th 03 11:43 PM |
Metal Prop vs. Wood Prop | Larry Smith | Home Built | 21 | September 26th 03 07:45 PM |