X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.2) with ESMTP id 4117808 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:10:28 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.42; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100209180953.LQZI16123.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:09:53 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.128.205]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id fu9s1d0084S1t5C04u9sBk; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:09:52 -0500 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=zS9SgV63hfBKgCfMNmcWTXDxxMKGbBeTgNVRdCpsi3s= c=1 sm=1 a=3rEv60Aw7JkA:10 a=Vegc0WxVmH5BHtpNDyThtA==:17 a=ay9E_BcpS_-C06Wmb58A:9 a=pLX_ADY4cXockuLcM5xYF-isM_QA:4 a=Krl3Ml2TsO_4YuUxZ6wA:9 a=sfaVbrLGS-uHV7dT_VoA:7 a=pB2yWv27NpUrO2VSOdYbbtagIrcA:4 a=Vegc0WxVmH5BHtpNDyThtA==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:10:07 -0800 Message-ID: <3267BA1D59B84DB7A7F60A192487D719@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01CAA970.0E8AF720" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6856 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcqpRplnzwF2xnVNSbSAHEC2EqtzzQAa2ugg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CAA970.0E8AF720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed wrote: The new set up gave a noticeable benefit in take off performance (and I = do mean noticeable). However, the top end was relatively unaffected - = although I did measure an approx 4 mph increase in top aircraft speed. =20 OK; Ed - given your expertise on technical explanations, I'd like your = take on why your increased hp resulting from the increased RPM is not giving = you higher top end speed. Is it exhaust back pressure or less than optimum prop, or other? =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CAA970.0E8AF720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ed = wrote:

The new set up gave a noticeable benefit in take off performance (and I = do

mean noticeable). However, the top end was relatively unaffected - = although

I did measure an approx 4 mph increase in top aircraft = speed.

OK; Ed – = given your expertise on technical explanations, I’d like your take on = why your increased hp resulting from the increased RPM is not giving you higher top end speed. Is it exhaust back pressure or = less than optimum prop, or other?

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CAA970.0E8AF720--