X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6097426 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:19:06 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.201]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 5EBBA1C000048 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mta005a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mta005.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.234.145]) by mtaomg-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 09CD9E000082 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:18:31 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: <98bf.7d2baa51.3e682ba6@aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:18:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: which engine/prop for 360 MKII? To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_98bf.7d2baa51.3e682ba6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1362547111; bh=8hKA2SFBXAhgHzVSgT/SjgOcHhLdZCVGYE4cUokLEGU=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=d12U5qxy4inaCNfnXhFNVICexLBfJAUeOt2TwdX/zBGmjSUra79vhEtSJgCtrUtw1 UKSEtKnvllh9Z7KQqoZu4VHfVbrJusfIzQZ0mjBNvqXGZ2nCjdUXA05z5ndyHGK1LR cTZ7gu47QXgHSRwZvTsyS+OzgDHfMmHr8V8DMXv0= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:404121216:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c95136d1a764df --part1_98bf.7d2baa51.3e682ba6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Wrong. The 320 uses a 70" Hartzell CS prop that is based on an 84" prop= =20 minus 7" a blade. The 360 uses a 68" Hartzell CS prop and each matches t= he=20 different "harmonics" of those different engines. The 320 and the 360=20 Hartzell CS props are not interchangeable. =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 In a message dated 3/5/2013 3:35:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, =20 tfsent@att.net writes: =20 Hartzell designed a 2 blade prop specifically for the 320/360 that is only= =20 68" so it has more ground clearance and has scimitar tips. =20 =20 ____________________________________ From: Bill Harrelson To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:07 AM Subject: [LML] Re: which engine/prop for 360 MKII? =20 =20 =20 Miro, =20 As you probably know, your airframe was originally designed for the=20 Lycoming 320 engine series. So many folks have put Lycoming 360s in these= =20 airframes that they are now almost universally knows as Lancair 360s. Ther= e is NO=20 difference in the airframe, it=E2=80=99s still the one designed for the 32= 0. Don=E2=80=99t=20 discount an O-320 or IO-320 in your engine choices. I have an O-320 on=20 mine and find that it has plenty of power, is well balanced and incredibly= =20 efficient. The larger, heavier engines will give you a bit better climb bu= t=20 only a slightly faster cruise at the cost of at least another gph of fuel.= As=20 a matter of fact, if I could set up the race, I would bet that I would be= =20 faster in my 320 than any 360. (I=E2=80=99d set it up to be a long race an= d I=E2=80=99d go=20 non-stop whereas the 360 would need to stop for fuel). There is nothing=20 wrong with the 360 engines in this airframe. It=E2=80=99s just that you sh= ouldn=E2=80=99t=20 exclude the 320. Depending on your mission profile, it could be a better f= it.=20 =20 I have an MT two blade prop on mine and am quite satisfied with it. In=20 general, a 3 blade prop will give you a slightly better static thrust=20 (slightly shorter t.o. and maybe a little better initial climb) the 2 blad= e will be=20 slightly more efficient in cruise giving you a slightly better TAS and=20 more efficiency. Just a guess, but I think that many people who choose a 3= =20 blade prop do it just for looks. IMHO that=E2=80=99s not really a good cri= teria. Just=20 something else to consider. =20 Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs N6ZQ IV 200 hrs. =20 --part1_98bf.7d2baa51.3e682ba6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Wrong.  The 320 uses a 70" Hartzell CS prop that is based on an 8= 4"=20 prop minus 7" a blade.   The 360 uses a 68" Hartzell CS prop=20 and each matches the different "harmonics" of those different engines.= The=20 320 and the 360 Hartzell CS props are not interchangeable.
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 3/5/2013 3:35:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 tfsent@att.net writes:
=
Hartzell designed a 2 blade prop specifically for the 320/360 = that=20 is only 68" so it has more ground clearance and has scimitar=20 tips.

From: Bill Harrelson=20 <n5zq@verizon.net>
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Sent:=20 Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:07 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: which engine/pr= op for=20 360 MKII?

Miro,
 
As you probably know, your airframe was= =20 originally designed for the Lycoming 320 engine series. So many folks hav= e put=20 Lycoming 360s in these airframes that they are now almost universally kno= ws as=20 Lancair 360s. There is NO difference in the airframe, it=E2=80=99s still = the one=20 designed for the 320. Don=E2=80=99t discount an O-320 or IO-320 in your e= ngine=20 choices. I have an O-320 on mine and find that it has plenty of power, is= well=20 balanced and incredibly efficient. The larger, heavier engines will give = you a=20 bit better climb but only a slightly faster cruise at the cost of at leas= t=20 another gph of fuel. As a matter of fact, if I could set up the race, I w= ould=20 bet that I would be faster in my 320 than any 360. (I=E2=80=99d set it up= to be a long=20 race and I=E2=80=99d go non-stop whereas the 360 would need to stop for f= uel). There=20 is nothing wrong with the 360 engines in this airframe. It=E2=80=99s just= that you=20 shouldn=E2=80=99t exclude the 320. Depending on your mission profile, it = could be a=20 better fit.
 
I have an MT two blade prop on mine and = am=20 quite satisfied with it. In general, a 3 blade prop will give you a sligh= tly=20 better static thrust (slightly shorter t.o. and maybe a little better ini= tial=20 climb) the 2 blade will be slightly more efficient in cruise giving you a= =20 slightly better TAS and more efficiency. Just a guess, but I think that m= any=20 people who choose a 3 blade prop do it just for looks. IMHO that=E2=80=99= s not really=20 a good criteria. Just something else to consider.
 
Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs
N6ZQ  IV 200 hrs.
 


=
--part1_98bf.7d2baa51.3e682ba6_boundary--