X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:38:42 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm38-vm9.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([72.30.239.25] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6956830 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:55:13 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=72.30.239.25; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.215.143] by nm38.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2014 00:54:39 -0000 Received: from [98.139.211.202] by tm14.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2014 00:54:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp211.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2014 00:54:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 153060.50911.bm@smtp211.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: HqgAi.gVM1n2Xg96tLR3qGdm0klqibdNzc7u4R0_g5pSame p5aZLVmBqu5GfyTIdr.kyXz9VBrJD0yplvvRvkAbfrojKKvyUXzVQVGuMWX1 .xmLI8tFyo5OhvQogcsdcH2c25.E7y_LDmehBO5d5nWMuKnTDyd1fURGQ_dZ QyZ_gt1OuJYXOulFQQACzEPHVdMpo9yWWBaZL2P.ApM8u_02n2__EUoNxRXh PEgSd.td7oyLAx6sFOb4KfgnzUbhzm0kGrwkiBJw7cSHdEFork1EZrOygUm6 3s0uT8wgDXbF4MrzdY0AYlJZUI5N5KHKzG4TvuLbGpU4cm789reJsFrjRMX2 G172YAYrzHXpgrdujVr8nLDVtlwO34CgfSnVxdPuL8VYp0TqJucRC4snAm0H bzy._WpS2nZ7PHJ2A3dFEA55WvRbx8EtGEQikE6mwwRLxBBXk6xYdYIq.Ezu JUMUZooxTqm0nFZ2j_O_VEjiVgVZD.O1W32r6TBVtk98LwdFXwxEZ3iskJEa ne3N8susX5XtnEzJnZSVy6Y2FHUNtEmhW5J6V X-Yahoo-SMTP: 076hgjCswBC.G6e0vm7vgvZ9JJ0zmeBo_Oyw X-Rocket-Received: from [192.168.1.65] (chris_zavatson@172.14.16.72 with xymcookie [98.138.86.130]) by smtp211.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2014 17:54:39 -0700 PDT Subject: Re: [LML] Two-blade or three-blade prop for I-550 References: From: Chris Zavatston Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-D82440D6-356E-4127-BF4B-0FEB007F956D X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <1138D01C-73DB-49E3-BF0D-BBCAB7998B77@yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:54:37 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-D82440D6-356E-4127-BF4B-0FEB007F956D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Fred, Please post if you ever find it. I would love to see the assumptions (power= levels, etc) vs. results. Chris Sent from my spiffy iPhone On Jun 29, 2014, at 6:01 AM, "frederickemoreno@gmail.com" wrote: > I have a chart somewhere from Hartzell which shows the theoretical project= ion of prop efficiency vs speed for two vs three blade, and the three blade i= s the winner by a small tweak, a per cent or two at the higher speed. Seve= ral years old, but I do not think the part numbers have changed for the reco= mmended Lancair props. > =20 > Fred Moreno --Apple-Mail-D82440D6-356E-4127-BF4B-0FEB007F956D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Fred,

Please post if you ever find it. I would love to see the assumptions (power levels, etc) vs. results.

Chris

Sent from my spiffy iPhone

On Jun 29, 2014, at 6:01 AM, "frederickemoreno@gmail.com" <frederickemoreno@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a chart somewhere from Hartzell which shows the theoretical projection of prop efficiency vs speed for two vs three blade, and the three blade is the winner by a small tweak, a per cent or two at the higher speed. Several years old, but I do not think the part numbers have changed for the recommended Lancair props.

Fred Moreno

--Apple-Mail-D82440D6-356E-4127-BF4B-0FEB007F956D--