Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.55] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3188912 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:11:43 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:11:43 -0700 Received: from 4.171.174.160 by bay3-dav25.adinternal.hotmail.com with DAV; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 03:11:43 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.171.174.160] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:11:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 7.02.0011.2700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000A_01C42A51.815BC850" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2004 03:11:43.0469 (UTC) FILETIME=[090D51D0:01C42A73] ------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C42A51.815BC850 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That is my concern as well Marv. My goal is to choose a prop which will = allow the engine to turn about the same rpm as my old one under cruise co= nditions but allows me to use the additional power mainly as "afterburner= " for racing or increased takeoff performance. I have had very little ti= me to evaluate how close to this goal I came, but first impression is tha= t it's amazingly close (considering how unlikely this sounds for a fixed = pitch prop). I'll be doing more testing next week to get some hard numbers. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin Kaye Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:52 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive =20 All this talk about 2.85 gear boxes, getting higher into the power curve,= =20 improving cliumb performance, etc, is really interesting. Since 3 of my = 6 =20 initial reasons for going rotary were reliability, I'm wondering what run= ning =20 at these higher power levels is going to do in that regard. I'm pretty =20 convinced that running at 5300-5500 rpms at cruise is a good formula for =20 having an engine that isn't overtaxed and Tracy's experience has borne th= is =20 out. Isn't there any concern out there about increased wear to the rotor= =20 housings, greater potential for catastrophic failure and so on, at these =20 considerably higher constant power levels? I hate to be a wet blanket, b= ut =20 what are the real longterm tradeoffs in operating routinely at 15-20% hig= her =20 power levels? =20 >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C42A51.815BC850 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That is my con= cern as well Marv. My goal is to choose a prop which will allow the= engine to turn about the same rpm as my old one under cruise c= onditions but allows me to use the additional power mainly as "after= burner" for racing or increased takeoff performance. I have had ver= y little time to evaluate how close to this goal I came, but first impres= sion is that it's amazingly close (considering how unlikely this sounds f= or a fixed pitch prop).

I'll be doing more t= esting next week to get some hard numbers.

T= racy

----- Original Message -----=

From: Marvin Kaye

Sent:<= /B> Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:52 PM

To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive

All this talk about 2.85 gear boxes, getting higher into the power curve= ,
improving cliumb performance, etc, is really interesting. Sin= ce 3 of my 6
initial reasons for going rotary were reliability, I'm w= ondering what running
at these higher power levels is going to do in = that regard. I'm pretty
convinced that running at 5300-5500 rpm= s at cruise is a good formula for
having an engine that isn't overtax= ed and Tracy's experience has borne this
out. Isn't there any c= oncern out there about increased wear to the rotor
housings, greater = potential for catastrophic failure and so on, at these
considerably h= igher constant power levels? I hate to be a wet blanket, but
wh= at are the real longterm tradeoffs in operating routinely at 15-20% highe= r
power levels?

<Marv>

=
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>&= nbsp; Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.= html

------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C42A51.815BC850--