Jump to content

E-Props ...who has first hand experience with these


Recommended Posts

Amphibman question:

On your SeaRey (I think you have a Classic not Adventure or Elite), did you need a spacer or were you able to bolt the 4-blade e-prop directly to the flange? Have you found any drawbacks or anything you don't like about the e-prop on a SeaRey? May order one. Thanks

Edited by Amphibian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Gday, Finally the results of testing the EProp in comparison to Bolly and Kool (Luga), using manifold pressure to set engine power exactly equal for each. Once again surprising results that

First tests with the variable pitch propeller     

All CSU (I gather thats what your commenting on Bruce) are expensive. I personally dont think they are worth the cost for the performance for our type of aircraft.   Posted above is the std

Posted Images

I have the SeaRey LSX built from a kit by me in my shed.

I was the first to use an e-prop on a SeaRey and changed from the IVO.

The people at e-prop were extremely helpful in guiding me to the right prop to use - which ended up being the 69" 4 blade offset blades configuration.

I just bolted it straight onto the flange when I took the IVO off. 

I have had the e-prop on now for more than 160 flying hours - rain and shine.

Most of my operations would be considered as "harsh"  as I do numerous salt water landings in less than ideal conditions with water going through the prop on occasions. I also do a lot of off runway landings in paddocks and on dirt roads - even though the engine and prop are essentially out of the way - there is still a lot of debris generated that goes through the prop.  Having said all of that I cannot see any damage to the prop. 

In a nutshell - still very happy with it.

  • Helpful 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the IFA prop, I'd like to see a cable or more likely a cable-lever operation.

An adjustable fine and coarse stop with perhaps spring assist to fine in case of any dramas......

My 2 cents worth. It would be good to see a lightweight and affordable unit on the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No pricing yet of course as I said on the Eprop IFA or CS units. I dont think it is going to be cheap but I suppose when you see the pricing of the Airmaster and others..who knows. Anyway as soon as I know something I will post it here

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

No pricing yet of course as I said on the Eprop IFA or CS units. I dont think it is going to be cheap but I suppose when you see the pricing of the Airmaster and others..who knows. Anyway as soon as I know something I will post it here

 

A very important consideration is that it has to be light!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

This is a nice E-Prop video about how to fit one; it uses a 912 / SkyRanger as an example.

(You can get rough english subtitles  in the YouTube window.)

 

 

 

And this is a video by Frederic Peuzin about his visit to the factory to have his Jodel measured up for a new E-Prop:

 

 

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites

And, in case anyone interested missed it last year, this is Mark's video on the same subject on YouTube:

 

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if anyone noticed but thats the first time I have seen that video. That looks like to me the new constant speed hubs and blades on the desk in the last 3/4 of the video

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes Gary  The CS prop hasnt been released yet they are in testing and longevity phase. maybe mid to late 2021 for release...got no idea of price yet but they will do manual IFA, Electric....which is what those looked like and a hydraulic version

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Nice video - I look forward to the documented performance in all phases of flight.

 

Would be interesting to see the CS performance, along side the ground adjust ,  same aircraft/conditions. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

 

Would be interesting to see the CS performance, along side the ground adjust ,  same aircraft/conditions. 

Me too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with Anne "the CEO of Eprop tonight and she directed me to this new page which there is the link below

 

I gives some more info but no release date or pricing. It looks like it is motorized for this unit being tested

 

https://aircraft.e-props.fr/glorieuse.php?language=en

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some further information from Eprop

 

The first version of GLORIEUSE is electro-hydraulic, with a system like Flybox in the cockpit.
Thereafter, the mechanical part will be compatible with all actuator solutions.
A mechanical system (for engines with hollow gearboxes) will be considered later on. No release schedule yet...

We are in the middle of a test campaign and we still have technical solutions to validate.

A variable pitch propeller will allow shorter take-off and a better rate of climb, but not a higher maximum speed. 
Ground adjustable pitch E-Props are already the fastest on very fast aircraft, as VL3, Shark, WT9...

Please see here =>   https://blogen.e-props.fr/archives/9362/e-props-better-than-variable-pitch-propellers/
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kyle,

 

Academic  (until real world test results available) but this comment does not enhance the reputation of E-Prop (at least for me):

 

"A variable pitch propeller will allow shorter take-off and a better rate of climb, but not a higher maximum speed. 
Ground adjustable pitch E-Props are already the fastest on very fast aircraft, as VL3, Shark, WT9..."

 

Most of us are well aware that a fixed in flight prop can be configured for maximum Cruise speed (there are limits) however this is usually at the expense of Take Off & Climb performance . The corollary is also  true.

 

I would go one step further and suggest that the fixed pitch prop setting, for most aircraft, has been decided on the basis of expected aircraft use and will most often be a compromise, leaning either toward TO or Cruise performance. Of course some will be optimised for TO/Climb others for Cruise. Whatever the pitch setting selected, it will bring with it performance limitations that may frustrate the pilot and could even be dangerous in some situations.

 

I would expect a well designed in flight adjustable to give the aircraft the best of both ends of the flight envelop (yes yes I know that in real life this may not be quite true). To achieve this, it may be desirable to have 2-3 blade aerofoil configurations to select from. This would facilitate an inflight adjust that will be better for 1. TO 2. Best of Both and 3. High Speed Cruise (a bit similar to the fixed pitch situation).

 

I would direct you to the experience of Robin Austin (my aerodynamic hero) http://www.worldrecordplane.com/. Robin describes how he experimented with a range of fixed pitch props, which failed to match the potential of the airframe/engine. Eventually using an experimental CS, that allowed full expression of the aircrafts potential flight envelope and several World Records

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi Kyle,

 

Academic  (until real world test results available) but this comment does not enhance the reputation of E-Prop (at least for me):

 

"A variable pitch propeller will allow shorter take-off and a better rate of climb, but not a higher maximum speed. 
Ground adjustable pitch E-Props are already the fastest on very fast aircraft, as VL3, Shark, WT9..."

 

Most of us are well aware that a fixed in flight prop can be configured for maximum Cruise speed (there are limits) however this is usually at the expense of Take Off & Climb performance . The corollary is also  true.

 

I would go one step further and suggest that the fixed pitch prop setting, for most aircraft, has been decided on the basis of expected aircraft use and will most often be a compromise, leaning either toward TO or Cruise performance. Of course some will be optimised for TO/Climb others for Cruise. Whatever the pitch setting selected, it will bring with it performance limitations that may frustrate the pilot and could even be dangerous in some situations.

 

I would expect a well designed in flight adjustable to give the aircraft the best of both ends of the flight envelop (yes yes I know that in real life this may not be quite true). To achieve this, it may be desirable to have 2-3 blade aerofoil configurations to select from. This would facilitate an inflight adjust that will be better for 1. TO 2. Best of Both and 3. High Speed Cruise (a bit similar to the fixed pitch situation).

 

I would direct you to the experience of Robin Austin (my aerodynamic hero) http://www.worldrecordplane.com/. Robin describes how he experimented with a range of fixed pitch props, which failed to match the potential of the airframe/engine. Eventually using an experimental CS, that allowed full expression of the aircrafts potential flight envelope and several World Records

My take on what Mark provided is that the propeller pitch is set for best speed attainable WOT S&L and then the adjustment the other way provides the best (Better for) climb pitch available.  Therefore extremely straightforward to use.  A very 'KISS' arrangement with I like; mind you I don't think I'll ever have a need for one; but you never never know.  Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

My take on what Mark provided is that the propeller pitch is set for best speed attainable WOT S&L and then the adjustment the other way provides the best (Better for) climb pitch available.  Therefore extremely straightforward to use.  A very 'KISS' arrangement with I like; mind you I don't think I'll ever have a need for one; but you never never know.  Cheers.

 

There is little practical gain in having an In-Flight-Adjustable, of the type/limitation described ("A variable pitch propeller will allow shorter take-off and a better rate of climb, but not a higher maximum speed.) UNLESS your airframe is the limiting factor in cruise performance and you just want to enhance STOL.

 

Ground adjustable pitch E-Props are already the fastest on very fast aircraft, as VL3, Shark, WT9..."  This statement suggests to me that these "very fast aircraft"  fitted with a GA E-Prop pitched for max cruise are likely to have  reduced TO acceleration, resulting in long ground role (long runway required), anemic climb (terrain/obstacle clearance concerns) and only come into their own in level flight.

 

( FP props: For Rotax 9 series engines, using a prop pitched for cruise has the added concern of potentially operating the engine in a RPM range that is below that recommended for climb, which may negatively impact on service life )

 

The last  point is why I suggest that 2-3 propeller blade profiles should be offed, thereby giving the  "fast aircraft" owner the option to improve their aircrafts performance at both ends of the envelope.

 

Is it my imagination or is E-Prop mainly focussed on STOL type aircraft ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

To be brutally honest I really dont think any ulralight "needs" as CS prop..the cost well outweighs the advantages

 

Kyle:

 

1. Few of us would be in RAA aircraft ownership,  if cost benefit was the reason for doing so, or was even a high point in our consideration - look at all the electronic panels that people are installing,  sometimes staggering cost (a $10 k prop is just pocket change compared to some of these systems).

2. Some aircraft actually derive considerable benefit, all depends on the potential of the airframe/engine in use. Again I suggest you check out Robin Austins Sonerai, VH- SGS. True an extreme example but just shows what can be done - from memory 40 knot stall - 160 knot cruise  - 174 knot max speed,all using a standard Rotax 912 ULS (small carby mods) that will easily comply with RAA weight standards

3. I agree that your comment  "dont think any ulralight "needs" as CS prop" is generally correct, for say 80% of ultralights, especially the more "draggy" airframes but there are plenty that can achieve a 120 knots (Rotax 75% power) and quit a few are heading up towards 35 knots and a smidgen above this to the 145 knot area. I am not counting the very expensive north of $200 k exotics who's performance  claims are very suspect anyhow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

A customer sent me some info today. He has a RANS S-7 short tail version. attached is the pic. 92kts cruise @ 5200 rpm Thats 8 kt increase in cruise speed

 

 

IMG_9405.thumb.jpg.b1113fd47932c51d906a69b26b2f4cf8.jpg

Yes just landed.

sent Today at 4:26 PM

All good so far. I think the recommended setting was perfect.

 

sent Today at 4:26 PM

Bit lumpy air so I don’t have accurate figures yet. But looking like 8 Knots increase cruise. Climbing well but feels very very different.

 
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some further info

 

 

 

 have been doing a few circuits. Climb rate is best at 70knots 1100fpm. Previously best at 50knots 1100fpm. 40knot climb is much less at around 600 fpm

sent Today at 6:08 PM

Pretty happy with it. Much easier to start. More responsive to throttle. Taken weights off the back for balance. Feels very different

 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as the cost, my problem would be with the weight of the prop plus mechanism. But surely there would be an increase in the max speed, in comparison to a fixed pitch prop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...