X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [161.88.255.139] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1c.2)
  with HTTP id 1224559 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:00:34 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Hartzell vs. MT
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1c.2
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:00:34 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1224559@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <00643705-E5D3-4B96-98AC-84A5FC677344@airforcemechanical.com>
References: <list-1224098@logan.com>
 <00643705-E5D3-4B96-98AC-84A5FC677344@airforcemechanical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for Kevin Kossi <kevin@airforcemechanical.com>:

  I toiled over the same decision and heard: The MT propeller is not  nearly
efficient as the Hartzell on the Legacy.  If you want to see  some real data,
look at the Reno Air Races.  Dave Morss has an MT  propeller.  He used his
propeller except for the last race, and put a  Hartzell on his plane.  The
difference is staggering!!
  
  Apperently the Hartzel for the Legacy was specifically desighned for  the
Legacy.
  
  I also looked at the Aero Composites Prop and found it's construction
  amazing.
  
  It's a hard decision, as there does not seam to be any hard  engineering 
data
to compare side by side.
  
  
  Kevin Kossi
  NYC
  Legacy 50%