Rolls Royce Hucknall

[Lawvar]

My father has a propeller from Rolls Royce Hucknall he has had it for over 50 years.
I have decided to do some detective work and try and find out more.
It's about 10ft 2" long mahogany and as far as I know never been touched.
There are NO bolt holes so presume it either unfinished or developmental ?
I'm going to get it down off the wall as there are numbers on the boss but I can't make them out properly.
Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

I have now photos some ref numbers and dimentions

length of propeller 10ft 6inch
Blade width at widest point 12 1/2 inch
Boss hole 2" 5/16
Boss depth 6"3/8
Boss diameter 10" 1/4

Main number 225ips_nbeam
J
P1750

Hard to be 100% correct to try and get better I would have to get up outside in good light to be sure.

[Dbahnson]

The numbers are essential and often lead to a definitive ID. Photos are very helpful as well.

Was Hucknall just the airfield?

[Lawvar]

Than you for taking the time to help

An airfield was established at Hucknall in 1917 for the Royal Flying Corp. In 1934 Rolls-Royce leased two hangars at the site and established a testing programme there for aero engines and ancillary equipment (Rolls-Royce Flight Establishment). At this time the site was confined to the south of the current site, alongside the Watnall Road. Over the following years the site expanded northwards driven for the most part by the demands of the war and the development of the turbojet. The wing test hangar building was built in 1944. Both the south (no.1) and the north (no. 2) hangars were designed for piston engine testing, but the north hangar was then used for jet engine testing.

[Lawvar]

[Lawvar]

[Mtskull]

I think I see the script: 225 HP SUNBEAM stamped on the hub. This suggests to me that this propeller was designed for the Sunbeam Mohawk engine; IMHO the most likely intended application would have been for the Shorts model 184 seaplane (note the similarity in design to the propeller in the photo).
As it lacks bolt holes, presumably it was rejected or became surplus to requirements during production and became somebody’s souvenir.
I cannot offer any suggestion as to how it might have found its way to RR Hucknall….

[Dbahnson]

I think I see the script: 225 HP SUNBEAM stamped on the hub. This suggests to me that this propeller was designed for the Sunbeam Mohawk engine; IMHO the most likely intended application would have been for the Shorts model 184 seaplane (note the similarity in design to the propeller in the photo).
As it lacks bolt holes, presumably it was rejected or became surplus to requirements during production and became somebody’s souvenir.
I cannot offer any suggestion as to how it might have found its way to RR Hucknall….

Yes, I think that's the case. Note also the absence of metal sheathing, which is nearly essential for seaplane operation. So it was more likely a production reject than a surplus item.

[Lawvar]

I have now photos some ref numbers and dimentions

length of propeller 10ft 6inch
Blade width at widest point 12 1/2 inch
Boss hole 2" 5/16
Boss depth 6"3/8
Boss diameter 10" 1/4

Main number 225ips_nbeam
J
P1750

I did edit the original post so i should have pointed that out SORRY Guys

Any idea on collectability or value ?

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR HELP

[Lawvar]

I've been trying to think why a seaplane propeller would be at Rolls-Royce Hucknall ?
The Royal Flying Corp were based at the airfield from 1917 do you think the prop could have been for the Short type 184 bomber operated by the Royal Flying corp ?
Or am I reading too much into this.
THANK YOU again for your expertise

[Mtskull]

I think maybe you are reading too much into the fact that the propeller was at RR Hucknall; I can’t envisage any circumstances in which it would have served as anything other than a decoration.
The propeller was clearly never completed so it follows that it was never issued. Re. the RFC connection, the Shorts type 184 was operated by the RNAS, not the RFC.
Most likely your propeller was rejected during manufacture, or possibly became obsolete before it was completed: Shorts 184 aircraft were found to be underpowered with the 225 HP engine and were quickly upgraded with more powerful engines and four-bladed propellers.
Somebody would probably have got hold of it for a few bob, or pinched it from the scrap pile just because they liked the look of it. Understandably so; it is a beautiful piece.

[Lawvar]

Thank you very much for ALL you help i would not have stood a chance of discovering any of this without you BOTH.
My dad is over the moon knowing more about this propellor which has been in our lives for over 50 years.
Can you give a stab at valuation for us ?
Thanks in advance and a Happy Christmas

[Dbahnson]

Can you give a stab at valuation for us ?

As a collector I would be offering something around $700 to $800, primarily because it was almost certainly a factory reject and also was not associated with a particularly noteworthy aircraft. I think you'd find more than that if marketed on eBay, for instance, but if it's been in your family for that length of time I wouldn't recommend even worrying about value, as it will change significantly over time, and it's difficult from an insurance standpoint to determine a payout in the event of a loss anyway.