Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:13:43 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1940690@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <ted@vineyard.net>
Received: from vineyard.net ([204.17.195.90] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.3)
  with ESMTP id 1940669 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:02:47 -0500
Received: from direct (FSY4.VINEYARD.NET [66.101.65.4])
	by vineyard.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F65D91701
	for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:02:46 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-Message-ID: <001b01c2ae6a$0f6f1620$04416542@direct>
From: "Ted Stanley" <ted@vineyard.net>
X-Original-To: "Mail List Lancair" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: re: Scimitar Prop vs. Original Hartzell Prop - Comparison
X-Original-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:08:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
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

Dave -

VERY nice, but I'd be curious to see the same comparision using true
airspeed rather than indicated airspeed. My guess is that you would see an
even more dramatic improvement.

Now I have wonder how the Hartzell simitar prop stacks up against the Aero
Composites prop ....

I'm looking forward to seeing more data.

Thanks!

Ted Stanley