Hartzell 90" propeller for sale very good condition

[Smartpdx]

New to this site.

I am wanting to sell this vintage wood propeller

Very good condition

Hartzell Design 707\80 (90), A.T.C. NO. 457 The serial number is 32420 for a 225 HP engine.

90" long x 9" wide hub x 6" deep hub

The decals say Sensenich but I am told they may have put the decals on if they worked on it?

Shipping out of Portland, OR 97218

I am not sure of its value. Please reply advise or best offers. Thank you.

[Smartpdx]

pictures attached

[Dbahnson]

Don't do anything to it at this point, including messing with the decals. It may have been overhauled by Sensenich after manufacture by Hartzell, but that's all part of its normal history rather than some attempt as "restoration" by an amateur.

See this page for the listing, showing usage on several aircraft listings, but they're also basically the same airframe with different names, and wooden propellers from that model are quite common because they were replaced by variable pitch metal propellers with far better performance. Some propellers were removed and replaced, and others were just sold off as surplus due to unanticipated over-supply. Yours has "witness marks" where the metal hub compressed the wood, indicating that was mounted on an engine and used, as opposed to being surplus and never used.

I'd guess that it would sell on eBay for something between $700 and $1000, but it's not a consistent market and could sell for more - or less.

[Smartpdx]

Thank you. I am enjoying the site...very fascinating. I am hoping to find out more about this propellers history, use and realistic value. Best regards,

[Dbahnson]

The likelihood of tracing its individual history is nearly zero. You'd have to stumble across aircraft logs that happened to use and log that propeller serial number. If there were 1000 planes that used that type, the logs are in a thousand different physical locations.

[Mtskull]

I think the wording: ATC 457 refers to the Aircraft Type Certificate, the aircraft in this case being a Stinson Model R.
I cannot help with valuation but can only repeat what others on this forum have said, which is that doing anything to your propeller other than treating it with a light application of furniture wax, will only diminish its value.

[Dbahnson]

I've taken the liberty of merging the two identical threads posted in the "For Sale" and "Identifcation" categories, so all responses are shown but the order may seem confusing.

[Dbahnson]

I think the wording: ATC 457 refers to the Aircraft Type Certificate, the aircraft in this case being a Stinson Model R.
I cannot help with valuation but can only repeat what others on this forum have said, which is that doing anything to your propeller other than treating it with a light application of furniture wax, will only diminish its value.

It can be confusing, but I think the "ATC 457" is the propeller type certificate, not the aircraft type certificate. On this listing here's a screenshot of the model number on the Hartzell page.



Note that it is associated with a Jacobs 225 hp engine. The Stinson model R used a Lycoming model R-680 engine. So I think that this prop, despite its dual manufacturing information was actually used on the Beech 17 and the Cessna T 50. As mentioned above it's a very common wooden propeller model to find since they were produced in very large numbers before being replaced with the variable pitch version.









.

[Mtskull]

It can be confusing, but I think the "ATC 457" is the propeller type certificate, not the aircraft type certificate. On this listing here's a screenshot of the model number on the Hartzell page.



Note that it is associated with a Jacobs 225 hp engine. The Stinson model R used a Lycoming model R-680 engine. So I think that this prop, despite its dual manufacturing information was actually used on the Beech 17 and the Cessna T 50. As mentioned above it's a very common wooden propeller model to find since they were produced in very large numbers before being replaced with the variable pitch version.

That looks pretty conclusive evidence. My mistake....