X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 987532 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:54:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net Received: from filter01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.68]) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920393706BE for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:53:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.165]) by filter01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.68]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22636-03-31 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:53:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (67-137-78-176.dsl2.cok.tn.frontiernet.net [67.137.78.176]) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DFD370496 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <42A5ED2D.80905@frontiernet.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:53:33 -0500 From: Jim Sower User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Two Engines In One? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030507030706040701030508" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0523-2, 06/07/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20040701 (2.0) at filter01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030507030706040701030508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <... is there a big performance hit for doing something like this ...> Perhaps Ed could shed some light on this, he being the high time single rotor guy on the list. Joe Hull wrote: > Rusty said: > >>You could certainly do that, but a two rotor engine running on one > rotor is supposed to be so rough that you might shut it down just to > keep from >having to put up with it. > > > > In an emergency - trying to stretch a glide - or turn back to the > field I just left - I'll put up with a little or a lot of shaking. As > we've all said before - anything is better than nothing if it helps > keep you in the air longer. Even if you have to do the "turn it on - > turn it off" routine that Ken did to limp to safety. > > > > Still - is there a big performance hit for doing something like this? > > > > Joe Hull > > Bellevue (Seattle), Washington > > Cozy MkIV #991 (working on Engine & Electrical & Finishing) > > http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/JoeHull/index.html > --------------030507030706040701030508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <... is there a big performance hit for doing something like this ...>
Perhaps Ed could shed some light on this, he being the high time single rotor guy on the list.

Joe Hull wrote:
Message

Rusty said:

>You could certainly do that, but a two rotor engine running on one rotor is supposed to be so rough that you might shut it down just to keep from >having to put up with it.  

 

In an emergency – trying to stretch a glide – or turn back to the field I just left – I’ll put up with a little or a lot of shaking. As we’ve all said before – anything is better than nothing if it helps keep you in the air longer. Even if you have to do the “turn it on – turn it off” routine that Ken did to limp to safety.

 

Still – is there a big performance hit for doing something like this?

 

Joe Hull

Bellevue (Seattle), Washington

Cozy MkIV #991 (working on Engine & Electrical & Finishing)

http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/JoeHull/index.html

--------------030507030706040701030508--