Correct B17 Prop Hamilton Sticker

[denmark219]

Not sure if this is the right area, but I wanted to ask if anyone knew what the correct sticker/logo was for the B17 Hamilton Standard Props? I imagine they changed during/after the war. Working on a project and want to be sure I have the correct one. Some of them had nothing in the middle, others had the "WINDSOR LOCKS..." information. Any help is appreciated!!

 

[fubar57]

Check out this thread, it might help you...

AIRCRAFT PROPELLORS - 1945

 

[denmark219]

Wow, thanks for the link. Love the info. I'll see if I can find the answer in there. I'll come back with my answer.

 

[fubar57]

I just posted another prop manual...

AIRCRAFT PROPELLORS - JAN. 44

 

[nuuumannn]

Ooooh, good stuff Geo. I like a good prop manual. Denmark219, prop stickers varied depending on where the blade or prop was overhauled. HS had its own labels, and stickers were produced of the same label but often with the name of the overhaul shop on it and sometimes the overhaul shop put its own stickers on the blades. This is more common today and you'll see that on modern props where the manufacturer's logo has been replaced by a different one from the overhaul shop. Obviously the overhaul places are licenced to do the overhaul by HS. Hope this helps. You could try contacting Hamilton Sundstrand today and asking for a set of stickers; they supply them with parts.

Company History | UTC Aerospace Systems

 

[MiTasol]

Agreed nuuumannn - a good manual
Small but important item though. Overhaul shops are approved by the countries regulator and often have absolutely no links with the manufacturer.
For older equipment in particular the manufacturer will supply manuals to owners in many cases but do not provide any support to shops

 

[Builder 2010]

Manual was great. It would have helped when I was incorrectly labeling the prop governor on my Eduard R-1820 upgrade kits as "a magneto". I did find some reference material that showed it was a governor, but the manual really gave good information about it. What were the relative advantages of the electric prop versus hydrodynamic? Seems to me that hydraulic would be more reliable. I can imagine not having oil opining around in that part of the engine would make for less muss and fuss, but spinning electrical connections aren't fool proof either.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

What were the relative advantages of the electric prop versus hydrodynamic? Seems to me that hydraulic would be more reliable. I can imagine not having oil opining around in that part of the engine would make for less muss and fuss, but spinning electrical connections aren't fool proof either.

Electric props were a bad idea from the get-go! Let me count the ways. Instead of being fail-safe, they're fail-disastrous. If a hydraulic prop fails, it goes to coarse pitch, which loads the engine, (like "lugging" your car engine) but can be relieved by a prompt reduction in throttle. An electric, on the other hand goes to fine pitch which overspeeds the engine and, if not instantly feathered (assuming it responds to feather) will become a runaway, destroying the engine, rendering the plane almost uncontrollable, and eventually flinging the prop off. Beyond a certain RPM the feathering motor can't overcome the aerodynamic forces driving the blades to fine pitch. Boeing Stratocruisers were plagued with this, thanks to Curtiss electric propellers. Sliprings and brushes were a constant headache, and alcohol de-icing was a non-starter with electric props. In precip and at altitude and with a touch of corrosion, intermittent shorting of the sliprings/brushes would cause the propeller pitch to "hunt" and the engine RPM to surge. The only things electrics had going for them were: available earlier, cheaper and simpler to manufacture, and the marketing power of Curtiss-Wright. Ask any mechanic who's had to deal with them. They suck!

 

[MiTasol]

Electric props were a bad idea from the get-go! Let me count the ways. Instead of being fail-safe, they're fail-disastrous.
If a hydraulic prop fails, it goes to coarse pitch,!

Not necessarily correct. Hamilton Standard (and DeH) Hydromatic and bracket props fail safe but some other hydraulic props may not.

Apart from that I agree - I love the Curtis prop as a piece of engineering but only as a display item.