Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 616929 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:47:30 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050121234701.FRMC2064.imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:47:01 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Monster vs Monster was [FlyRotary] Re: monster prop shrinking a bit Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:47:19 -0600 Message-ID: <000001c50013$8b592120$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FFE1.40BEB120" 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_01C4FFE1.40BEB120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interestingly, I talked to Clark yesterday and decided not to trim my = prop 76x88 at all. I am getting close to 6000 rpm on take off at finally got 6800 rpm at WOT at 3800 MSL. However, my ROC only approaches 2000 fpm = (more like 1800). In discussion with Clark, we decided that given my heavier aircraft and primary interest in take off and initial climb that any increase in rpm (by trimming the prop) would likely be off set by less initial thrust (from less prop disc area). So I was about ready to = send my prop back just to have the protective wrappings put on it. =20 =20 =20 Hi Ed, =20 Well, that does seem sort of contradictory, unless weight really does = play into it. I specifically asked about losing climb because I would be = losing diameter, and he said I'd be gaining a bunch of thrust, which would more than make up for the slight reduction in diameter. He seemed quite sure that this change would "exceed my expectations". Now that's a pretty = big statement :-) =20 =20 My biggest worry here is that I'll end up cruising at nearly 7000 rpm, = and might not get such great fuel economy. Fortunately, that doesn't matter = to me. This is a toy, pure and simple. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (svelte monster) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FFE1.40BEB120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Interestingly, I talked to = Clark yesterday=20 and decided not to trim my prop 76x88 at all.  I am getting close = to 6000=20 rpm on take off at finally got 6800 rpm at WOT at 3800 MSL.  = However, my=20 ROC only approaches 2000 fpm (more like 1800).  In discussion with = Clark,=20 we decided that given my heavier aircraft and primary interest in take = off and=20 initial climb that any increase in rpm (by trimming the prop) would = likely be=20 off set by less initial  thrust (from less prop disc = area).   So=20 I was about ready to send my prop back just to have the protective = wrappings put=20 on it.  
 
 
Hi=20 Ed,
 
Well,=20 that does seem sort of contradictory, unless weight really does play = into=20 it.  I specifically asked about losing climb because I would be=20 losing diameter, and he said I'd be gaining a bunch of thrust, = which=20 would more than make up for the slight reduction in = diameter.  He=20 seemed quite sure that this change would "exceed my expectations".  = Now=20 that's a pretty big statement :-)   
 
My=20 biggest worry here is that I'll end up cruising at nearly 7000 rpm, and = might=20 not get such great fuel economy.  Fortunately, that doesn't matter = to=20 me.  This is a toy, pure and simple. 
 
Cheers,
Rusty=20 (svelte monster)
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FFE1.40BEB120--