Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:22:16 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com ([66.75.160.18] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.3) with ESMTP id 1941274 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:53:10 -0500 Received: from walter (bak-24-161-206-40.bak.rr.com [24.161.206.40]) by orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.3) with SMTP id gBTIr9D01010 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 10:53:09 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Message-ID: <002b01c2af6b$c8200ba0$28cea118@bak.rr.com> From: "Walter Dodson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re:Scimitar Prop comparison X-Original-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 10:54:56 -0800 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 I, too, am having some difficulty with the numbers given in the climb comparison. If the rate of climb went up from 1250 fpm to 2000 fpm that indicates a 62.5% increase in climb performance. The excess horsepower needed to improve the rate of climb this much cannot come from a few percentage points increase in prop efficiency. I smell a testing flaw here. Walter Dodson IV-P in flight test