X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTP id 1020419 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:23:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.68; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm62aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050624162224.XGLF1983.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm62aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:22:24 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm62aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050624162224.BNXX8050.ibm62aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:22:24 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] test stands for HP measurement was Re: PP debate was Re: Single PP HP? Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:22:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c578d8$e846cbb0$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C578AE.FF70C3B0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C578AE.FF70C3B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That's a really good idea. You could use any prop that was flying on a plane and giving known performance and static rpm as a benchmark and go = from there. It would only give you static rpm which you could use to = estimate power for that rpm, but projecting that to higher rpm's would seem to be more accurate than anything we've got now. How elaborate would something like that be and what would it cost? ... = Jim S. Hi Jim, =20 I'm still churning through the options, but I think it might be easier = to just swap engines on the plane than to recreate all the systems on a = stand. Heck, a single rotor would probably fly the RV-3 just fine. Might make sport pilot rules too :-) =20 Rusty =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C578AE.FF70C3B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
That's a = really good=20 idea.  You could use any prop that was flying on a plane and giving = known=20 performance and static rpm as a benchmark and go from there.  It = would only=20 give you static rpm which you could use to estimate power for that rpm, = but=20 projecting that to higher rpm's would seem to be more accurate than = anything=20 we've got now.

How elaborate would something like that be and = what would=20 it cost? ... Jim S.

 Hi Jim,
 
I'm still=20 churning through the options, but I think it might be easier = to just=20 swap engines on the plane than to recreate all the systems on a=20 stand.  Heck, a single rotor would probably fly the RV-3 just=20 fine.  Might make sport pilot rules too :-)
 
Rusty
 
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C578AE.FF70C3B0--