Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 616955 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:04:39 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-185-127.carolina.rr.com [24.74.185.127]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j0M047Ci003815 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:04:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000a01c50016$3184e280$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Monster vs Monster was [FlyRotary] Re: monster prop shrinking a bit Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:06:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C4FFEC.4877EC00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C4FFEC.4877EC00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageThanks, Rusty. =20 I think I will talk to Clark again, perhaps I misunderstood or something = I said he misunderstood. Or perhaps with my weighty bird he is right on = the money, but compared to a prop the price of a phone call is cheap = {:>). Guess I should fly to Tracy and see if he will loan me his prop = for a flight {:>) Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:47 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Monster vs Monster was [FlyRotary] Re: = monster prop shrinking a bit 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 Hi Ed, 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 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 Cheers, Rusty (svelte monster) ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C4FFEC.4877EC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message=
Thanks, Rusty. 
 
I think I will talk to Clark again, perhaps I=20 misunderstood or something I said he misunderstood.  Or perhaps = with my=20 weighty bird he is right on the money, but compared to a prop the price = of a=20 phone call is cheap {:>).  Guess I should fly to Tracy and see = if he=20 will loan me his prop for a flight {:>)
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 = 6:47=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Monster vs=20 Monster was [FlyRotary] Re: monster prop shrinking a bit

Interestingly, = I talked to=20 Clark yesterday and decided not to trim my prop 76x88 at all.  I = am=20 getting close to 6000 rpm on take off at finally got 6800 rpm at WOT = at 3800=20 MSL.  However, my ROC only approaches 2000 fpm (more like = 1800).  In=20 discussion with Clark, we decided that given my heavier aircraft and = primary=20 interest in take off and initial climb that any increase in rpm (by = trimming=20 the prop) would likely be off set by less initial  thrust (from = less prop=20 disc area).   So I was about ready to send my prop back just = to have=20 the protective wrappings put on it.  
 
 
Hi=20 Ed,
 
Well, that does seem sort of contradictory, unless weight = really does=20 play into 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 (svelte = monster)
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C4FFEC.4877EC00--