X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1624757 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:32:31 -0500 Received: from [71.99.171.240] by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0J9K00CBN0NWJH14@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:31:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:31:05 -0500 From: Finn Lassen Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop windmilling In-reply-to: To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: <456F1559.3000207@verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=------------080804000200040504000201 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080804000200040504000201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No argument there. I just stated the facts from my experience. Finn Mark R Steitle wrote: > Finn, > > > > Not intending to start a feud here, but it was my understanding that > there is less drag created by a stopped prop compared to a spinning > prop. If this is true, and if your intention is to maximize your > glide in the event of an engine out situation, then it seems that a > psru would be an advantage over direct drive. > > > > Mark S. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > On Behalf Of Al Gietzen > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:02 AM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Prop windmilling > > > > > > 2.176:1 will definitely not windmill at pattern or glide speed for an > RV-3 (about 100 mph). Might make a 1/3 turn and stop again if you > point it down a bit. And that was with an engine that had rather low > compression. > Tested several times over Clearwater Airpark. > > Finn > > Finn; > > What prop diameter and pitch? > > Al > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/559 - Release Date: 11/30/2006 > > --------------080804000200040504000201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No argument there. I just stated the facts from my experience.

Finn

Mark R Steitle wrote:

Finn,

Not intending to start a feud here, but it was my understanding that there is less drag created by a stopped prop compared to a spinning prop. If this is true, and if your intention is to maximize your glide in the event of an engine out situation, then it seems that a psru would be an advantage over direct drive.

Mark S.

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:02 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Prop windmilling

2.176:1 will definitely not windmill at pattern or glide speed for an RV-3 (about 100 mph). Might make a 1/3 turn and stop again if you point it down a bit. And that was with an engine that had rather low compression.
Tested several times over Clearwater Airpark.

Finn

Finn;

What prop diameter and pitch?

Al
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/559 - Release Date: 11/30/2006
  

--------------080804000200040504000201--