X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1377554 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:26:08 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.68.10.86; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2006 11:24:30 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,155,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="1853197186:sNHT53800380" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k8CIOTsW009708 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:24:29 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k8CIORwB002719 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:24:27 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.222] ([64.102.38.222]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:24:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4506FB5B.2030502@nc.rr.com> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:24:27 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: It runs! References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2006 18:24:27.0688 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE747A80:01C6D698] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5.cisco.com; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral Todd Bartrim wrote: > I've always considered that I've got a pretty high risk tolerance > (bullriding, etc.), but this is one that I wouldn't touch. Too high of > risk with too little payback. I believe the timber would be plenty > strong enough if you could ensure balance, but this is not likely. > Odd's are that it would be out of balance which would contribute to > it's demise. Even if it did hold together, I hate to thing about the > loads it would be imposing on bearings in your PSRU & engine. It's a > sh***y job as it is to stand next to a 4000 rpm spinning prop while > setting your static timing. I wouldn't want the engine being shaken > apart while I was doing it. Sure you could get your fence post > balanced, but why? It's probably less effort to find a prop, even if > it's not the one you'd want to fly with. > Todd, you can put together the balancing apparatus with stuff from your junk-bin. A foot of drill rod and two feet of steel angle. A post-it note will serve nicely to help you dial in a perfect balance. It would take an hour or two in the garage to get the balance perfected, and then the static test would be a little less sh***y once you remove the 30mph wind from your face. People who don't build airplanes think I'm crazy for building an airplane. People who build airplanes think I'm crazy for building a plans built, delta wing. Everyone else thinks I'm crazy for carving a propeller. Don't worry, guys. I won't be using a fence post for a test club. I'll use the blank that will become my prop. A fence post would make a horrible propeller blank. It's very hard to control the warp when carving thick wood sections, a major reason for building props from laminated blanks. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |