X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1625218 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:42:08 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.182.187; envelope-from=bartrim@gmail.com Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c29so3284573nfb for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:41:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=U5JP73DZLc/YRLf5ziMXHk0QkUDD5q/6hi8H0jYrePK43oO+etqHBq+PD78PDdOVbU0UTALwBzZ/vUAp+wPwEpOEJDqKSOUkh2C8ngrOg4vi5iMtyRX7r6eqhpMenU1zH4PguEIKzfaajNAccAPpO7pb6lEnS17OrBwmsUjKlXo= Received: by 10.48.210.20 with SMTP id i20mr15900920nfg.1164919306940; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.43.18 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:41:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <324d3e660611301241w3c51175ayc5e6742fc056c8c5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:41:46 -0800 From: "Todd Bartrim" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Windmilling ... was EAA 782 meeting In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_43178_18582004.1164919306903" References: ------=_Part_43178_18582004.1164919306903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I have a 2.17 redrive and I've had the prop windmill on some occasions. During my initial testing I had a few unintentional engine outs as well as = a several intentional engine outs (while circling high above the airport, testing mutiple tank switching, etc.) The prop would windmill maybe about 50% of the time with no obvious reasons as to why it would sometimes and no= t on others. When it was windmilling, it was easy to stop by increasing AOA momentarily. Todd On 11/30/06, Jeff Whaley wrote: > > Thanks Rusty and Finn, glad to hear that they don't tend to windmill =85= I > have the 2.85 drive. > > Can't say I understand why they don't, as the relative force to turn over > the Rotary is significantly less than a Lycoming or any other auto > conversion. > > The Lycoming won't windmill either, but they can be air-started in a dive= . > > Jeff (hoping to never experience either) > > > ------=_Part_43178_18582004.1164919306903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I have a 2.17 redrive and I've had the prop windmill on some occasions. Dur= ing my initial testing I had a few unintentional engine outs as well as a s= everal intentional engine outs (while circling high above the airport, test= ing mutiple tank switching, etc.) The prop would windmill maybe about 50% o= f the time with no obvious reasons as to why it would sometimes and not on = others. When it was windmilling, it was easy to stop by increasing AOA mome= ntarily.
Todd

On 11/30/06, Jeff Whaley <jwhaley@intldata.ca> wrote:

Thanks Rusty and Finn, glad to hea= r that they don't tend to windmill =85 I have the 2.85 drive.

Can't say I understand why they do= n't, as the relative force to turn over the Rotary is significantly less than a = Lycoming or any other auto conversion.

The Lycoming won't windmill either= , but they can be air-started in a dive.

Jeff (hoping to never experience e= ither)

 


------=_Part_43178_18582004.1164919306903--