Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:46:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from www.dynacomm.ws ([198.22.63.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2623973 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:18:01 -0400 Received: from dynacomm.ws (adsl-68-248-36-185.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net [68.248.36.185]) by www.dynacomm.ws (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h94EHtO08543; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:17:55 -0400 X-Original-Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:17:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Prop for the Super ES Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) X-Original-Cc: "Dan O'Brien" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" From: "Lorn H. Olsen" In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <8C1083EE-F675-11D7-A1B8-000393C2C1A6@dynacomm.ws> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) > . > . > I've narrowed my decision to either an MT or Aerocomposities prop. > Does anyone who has either prop have any regrets? > > Thanks, > Dan O'Brien, Lancair N624LD reserved I have had my http://www.aerocomposites.com/ prop now for about 80 hours. The one thing that I am most impressed about is that it does not have even one small mark on the leading edge from sand and/or gravel. The leading edge of the Aerocomposites is nickel and is supposed to be 10 times the thickness of the MT blades stainless leading edge. So far it is working for me. As far as performance is concerned, I think that the Aerocomposites may be 5 to 8 kts faster then my Hartzell was. This could, however, be just a feeling. Quantitative data in this speed range is extremely hard to verify without prior race results, no other modifications and the exact same atmospheric and flight conditions. -- Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp. 248-478-4301, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.ws LNC2, O-320-D1F, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan