N962GT
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2020
- Messages
- 174
- Location
- orig Northville, Mich
- Aircraft
- YG4 Air Command Tandem
- Total Flight Time
- 800 hrs
Dear Reader:
Rating engine performance is done by coupling a type of brake to the engine and measuring the resultant force. The braking device can be a pump and pressure gauge, a wheel and drum mounted to a spring-loaded torque measuring device, or a propeller with the measurement taken from the engine mounting by a spring scale.
It is a fact the efficiency, or “feeling” of a propeller in flight is not necessarily 1:1 compared to its static thrust results. This may be difficult to understand and even harder to quantify, especially given that in nearly all static thrust testing of the myriad propellers available the results are fairly equivalent. Many folks have tested numerous propellers statically under like conditions and arrived at similar peak thrust numbers with all types of props.
But jump into the aircraft take her for a lap around the pattern and the feedback variation can be more than significant.
Back to static thrust results, it can be concluded that engine power performance can be scientifically quantified & compared – much as any bench brake and dynamometer setup – by simple, static thrust testing. Thus results comparing various power plants, setups, tuning, gearing, propeller speed/ pitch/ diameter are significant and repeatable.
But if you want flight performance to match given static thrust results you’re going to have to talk to others, or do your own expensive trial-and-error testing of various props for your own setup.
When it comes to propeller efficiency and performance in static testing the numbers don’t lie about engine power, but they can be very deceiving for some props when it comes to their actual, in-flight performance reality.
For our purposes, gyrocopters, Warp Drive has a considerable static v flight performance ratio. Add to that its solid composite construction and unlimited lifespan and you have what I personally consider to be the best of the best for pusher gyros where the likelihood of FOD prop strikes is considerable. I’ve had a ½ box wrench go through a prop and it left a 1/8” nick in the leading edge which I fixed in 15 minutes with repeated super glue and baking powder catalyst layers, following by sanding. Have that with a hollow anything prop and you’re replacing a blade.
But my friend Steve Henry has tested way more prop types than I ever will in his constant quest to beat out everyone in the country at STOL events. For his tractor STOL plane he has compared Prince, Warp, NR, and a host of others. He likes NR the best.
NR props have had their problems on pusher gyros, however. One CFI out of Texass flying an MTO lost a blade for no apparently reason (sic). Several of my friends with Tango Gyros have experienced delamination of the gel coat at the blade root.
But they do perform perhaps better than any other prop. Bear in mind they have a life of 700 hrs.
One of my customers reports excellent performance on the Mohawk Aero Co. (MAC) YG2 (Yamaha Genesis Phazer 80 HP) with a 72” DUC prop. It is twice as expensive as most other popular brands, but lighter than Warp and more resilient than NR.
When issues cropped up with NR/ Luga another customer running a MAC YG4 140 HP switched to Aero Prop. His static results were always the same, across the board, regardless of Warp, NR or Aero at 600 lbs. But the Aero Prop was very sensitive to pitch adjustments losing thrust with steep prop-limited RPM changes on either side of optimal pitch, and that flight performance did not match thrust all that well.
My own, personal YG4 gyrocopters have only ever run Warp props – which I have always been exceedingly happy with. I look forward this summer to doing my own comparisons with an NR prop.
(Mohawk Aero has been a Warp Drive dealer for 6 years, and started direct-shipping of NR props to customers in 2018.)
((Please visit www.Mohawkaero.com or email [email protected] for more information.))
Rating engine performance is done by coupling a type of brake to the engine and measuring the resultant force. The braking device can be a pump and pressure gauge, a wheel and drum mounted to a spring-loaded torque measuring device, or a propeller with the measurement taken from the engine mounting by a spring scale.
It is a fact the efficiency, or “feeling” of a propeller in flight is not necessarily 1:1 compared to its static thrust results. This may be difficult to understand and even harder to quantify, especially given that in nearly all static thrust testing of the myriad propellers available the results are fairly equivalent. Many folks have tested numerous propellers statically under like conditions and arrived at similar peak thrust numbers with all types of props.
But jump into the aircraft take her for a lap around the pattern and the feedback variation can be more than significant.
Back to static thrust results, it can be concluded that engine power performance can be scientifically quantified & compared – much as any bench brake and dynamometer setup – by simple, static thrust testing. Thus results comparing various power plants, setups, tuning, gearing, propeller speed/ pitch/ diameter are significant and repeatable.
But if you want flight performance to match given static thrust results you’re going to have to talk to others, or do your own expensive trial-and-error testing of various props for your own setup.
When it comes to propeller efficiency and performance in static testing the numbers don’t lie about engine power, but they can be very deceiving for some props when it comes to their actual, in-flight performance reality.
For our purposes, gyrocopters, Warp Drive has a considerable static v flight performance ratio. Add to that its solid composite construction and unlimited lifespan and you have what I personally consider to be the best of the best for pusher gyros where the likelihood of FOD prop strikes is considerable. I’ve had a ½ box wrench go through a prop and it left a 1/8” nick in the leading edge which I fixed in 15 minutes with repeated super glue and baking powder catalyst layers, following by sanding. Have that with a hollow anything prop and you’re replacing a blade.
But my friend Steve Henry has tested way more prop types than I ever will in his constant quest to beat out everyone in the country at STOL events. For his tractor STOL plane he has compared Prince, Warp, NR, and a host of others. He likes NR the best.
NR props have had their problems on pusher gyros, however. One CFI out of Texass flying an MTO lost a blade for no apparently reason (sic). Several of my friends with Tango Gyros have experienced delamination of the gel coat at the blade root.
But they do perform perhaps better than any other prop. Bear in mind they have a life of 700 hrs.
One of my customers reports excellent performance on the Mohawk Aero Co. (MAC) YG2 (Yamaha Genesis Phazer 80 HP) with a 72” DUC prop. It is twice as expensive as most other popular brands, but lighter than Warp and more resilient than NR.
When issues cropped up with NR/ Luga another customer running a MAC YG4 140 HP switched to Aero Prop. His static results were always the same, across the board, regardless of Warp, NR or Aero at 600 lbs. But the Aero Prop was very sensitive to pitch adjustments losing thrust with steep prop-limited RPM changes on either side of optimal pitch, and that flight performance did not match thrust all that well.
My own, personal YG4 gyrocopters have only ever run Warp props – which I have always been exceedingly happy with. I look forward this summer to doing my own comparisons with an NR prop.
(Mohawk Aero has been a Warp Drive dealer for 6 years, and started direct-shipping of NR props to customers in 2018.)
((Please visit www.Mohawkaero.com or email [email protected] for more information.))
Last edited:
but the max speed will only be ~70. You also mentioned that your friend Steve Henry was experimenting with STOL performance, where I would think static thrust would be the main consideration due to the low airspeed. Just thinking out loud. Thanks.
