Repeated damage to our props is a fact of life with our Pusher planes. One best get used to owning several props.
By the way, RAF always recommended against metal props and constant speed props. Pusher harmonics were not flight qualified on this plane, though obviously they have been qualified on other planes such as the Cessna Skymaster. I would think a metal prop would weigh much more than a wood/composite and ruin your basic empty weight or W&B.
Don't most Velocitys use a composite/wood MT constant speed prop? I know the Velocity people are quite friendly with the MT prop people in Deland, Florida. A Velocity is balanced quite differently from a Long Ez. The canard and CG are configured for extra weight on the nose. That is why they can sit on all 3 gears without a worry, unlike the LongEz. So what applies to a Velocity does not always apply to a Long. A metal prop on a Velocity I would think is a more viable option, especially with their larger engines, but still, most use the Composite/wood MT 3 blade props.
My take on the prop situation for our planes is that all-wood props were definately the proper choice when the plane was designed. They still are, especially factoring in the price/performance issue. However. wood props with engineered carbon/glass layering (i.e., not just a cosmetic/anti abrasion layer of cloth) is probably the best way to go now. IMHO, their extra cost is offset by greater durability/safety, if not also performance. The next step is an all plastic, coreless prop such as the ones now being made by Sensenich. I can't wait for people to start using these Sensenich props on our planes and report their findings.
