Return-Path: Received: from out002.verizon.net ([206.46.170.141] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b3) with ESMTP id 3225597 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:19:02 -0400 Received: from verizon.net ([4.12.145.173]) by out002.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040511021902.IYEL9273.out002.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:19:02 -0500 Message-ID: <40A03811.7090407@verizon.net> Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:18:58 -0400 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Tracy's dyno test- universal intake comments References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080903080201040605030801" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out002.verizon.net from [4.12.145.173] at Mon, 10 May 2004 21:19:02 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080903080201040605030801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote: > On a standard day (rare in Florida) I might see 5000 - 5100. But > normally 4900 - 4950. > > So let me get this straight, you're using a carb, and have low > compression, have 3 more inches of pitch, and are still getting > 100-200 more static rpm than me??? Good thing I don't have a gas oven > to stick my head in :-) Hey, I've got three carbs! Anyway, I would have to go out and do a static run-up to get current numbers. > > My climb rate seems to be influenced by amount of fuel I carry. > Difference between 5 and 15 gallons is significant. > > This is a good point, and may explain why I only got 1300 fpm the > other day (completely topped off), when I was getting 1500 with the > Warp (fuel level unknown). I'm almost afraid to ask, but what sort > of climb rate do you get? Somewhere between 1500 and 2000 I guess. Haven't paid much attention to it or done any real testing recently. > Did you get my prop numbers from Clark? The original numbers were > 68x74. Not sure what it is now. > > I had these numbers from before, but have not asked Clark. He did > tell me that Tracy's old prop started out as a 70x73, then was > modified to 68x71. Did you ask for more rpm when you sent it back > for final tuning? If so, you are certainly at less than 74" pitch now. Main reason I sent it back (other than having it finished up) was a wierd flexing problem somewhere between 4500 and 4700 RPM, that limited my RPM - energy going into twisting-untwisting the prop. I know he narrowed the tips, don't know about pitch. Don't be too impressed with my numbers. Tracy and others make a big deal out of recording performance numbers; I just like to fly... We really should do a side-by-side comparison to see what's what. > > Thanks, > Rusty (not a happy guy) > --------------080903080201040605030801 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote:
Message
On a standard day (rare in Florida) I might see 5000 - 5100. But normally 4900 - 4950. 
 
So let me get this straight, you're using a carb, and have low compression, have 3 more inches of pitch, and are still getting 100-200 more static rpm than me???  Good thing I don't have a gas oven to stick my head in :-)
Hey, I've got three carbs! Anyway, I would have to go out and do a static run-up to get current numbers.
 
My climb rate seems to be influenced by amount of fuel I carry. Difference between 5 and 15 gallons is significant. 
 
This is a good point, and may explain why I only got 1300 fpm the other day (completely topped off), when I was getting 1500 with the Warp (fuel level unknown).   I'm almost afraid to ask, but what sort of climb rate do you get?
Somewhere between 1500 and 2000 I guess. Haven't paid much attention to it or done any real testing recently.
Did you get my prop numbers from Clark? The original numbers were 68x74. Not sure what it is now. 
 
I had these numbers from before, but have not asked Clark.  He did tell me that Tracy's old prop started out as a 70x73, then was modified to 68x71.  Did you ask for more rpm when you sent it back for final tuning?  If so, you are certainly at less than 74" pitch now. 
Main reason I sent it back (other than having it finished up) was a wierd flexing problem somewhere between 4500 and 4700 RPM, that  limited my RPM - energy going into twisting-untwisting the prop. I know he narrowed the tips, don't know about pitch.

Don't be too impressed with my numbers. Tracy and others make a big deal out of recording performance  numbers; I just like to fly...
We really should do a side-by-side comparison to see what's what.

 
Thanks,
Rusty (not a happy guy) 

--------------080903080201040605030801--