Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with ESMTP id 794902 for rob@logan.com; Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:45:58 -0400 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.123]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 01:58:54 -0400 Received: from [4.35.216.182] (lsanca1-ar7-216-182.lsanca1.dsl.gtei.net [4.35.216.182]) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05378 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:06:30 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:06:30 -0700 Subject: CS prop on 235 From: Douglas Weeldreyer To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Bill, In my experience with 235s both with and without CS props I have found a tremendous advantage with the CS. I would agree with everything that Dan has already said about take offs and add the following: Because the 235 flaps are less effective than the 320/360 flaps and the pitch on a fixed prop can not be set to a flater pitch on finalfor more drag, it is difficult to control the approach speed on landings without using a shallow approach. Once on the ground, the prop pitch [optimized for speed] continues to pull the airplane and causes the brakes and tires much more stress. A steeper[safer] approach and shorter stopping distances are possible with a CS prop. Doug Weeldreyer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>