Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:52:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b1) with ESMTP id 1254441 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:37:27 -0400 Received: from tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.40]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:32:10 -0400 Received: from a ([65.93.76.2]) by tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20020602213727.IHEA24892.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@a> for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:37:27 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <007e01c20a7d$d39d8220$024c5d41@a> From: "Ian B. Crowe" X-Original-To: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Non standard metal props on Lancair 320/360 X-Original-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:38:25 -0400 Organization: Corvi Trade Consultants Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Re Jim Frantz's message on the above what are the MP/RPM limitations and what are the engine combinations. I have not seen anything in the Lancair literature. I have an IO360 A3B6D 200hp and I did get an unofficial opinion from Hartzell that all would be well and there would be no limitations. They would not give me an official opinion as they had not tested the combination of engine and propellor. I know this engine has 6th and 8th order counterweights which makes it a smoother engine. Does Jim or anyone else know of any limitations on the 68" Hartzell propellor and the IO360 A3B6D engine? I am aware of a limitation on the Piper Arrow with a IO 360 C1C from 2100 to 2350 rpm. This engine is basically similiar to my engine but drives a 74" propellor. Regards Ian Crowe.