Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:11:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from lakemtao02.cox.net ([68.1.17.243] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2624385 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:27:54 -0400 Received: from Dan.cox.net ([68.98.134.125]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031005012751.EGYX17750.lakemtao02.cox.net@Dan.cox.net> for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:27:51 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20031004202655.00b2bd78@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: danobrien@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 X-Original-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:27:44 -0400 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net From: Dan O'Brien Subject: Re: Prop for the Super ES Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_43052859==.ALT" --=====================_43052859==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Kirk wrote: When I worked for Lancair, I did prop testing on the their ES >with the ACI, MT & Hartzell. The ACI was close to the MT and Hartzell in >cruise, but clearly the worst of the 3 when it came to take-off >performance and climb. The Hartzell was a knot or two faster in cruise. >The MT (new simitar blades) performed the best and is currently on their >factory plane. Kirk, thank you for this post. This is very helpful, as it is the first report I've seen about the performance of all three props on the ES that is based on real data. Could you elaborate on what you mean by saying the MT performed best? >I just purchased the Hartzell for my ES because I like the durability and >overall performance. The MT requires more maintenance. Any insights into how much more maintenance the MT requires would be helpful. >Yes, the Hartzell is heavier. My electrical systems, oxygen, AC, etc are >mounted aft in the fuselage to accomodate the difference in weight. I confess to having been scared away from the Hartzell because of reports on this list about the nose-heaviness of the Super ES. Do you think this is a red herring? By my calculation, a reduction of 25 lbs in the prop moves the center of gravity backward roughly an inch, or about 10 percent of the entire CG envelope in the ES. (The effect varies some depending on the initial loading condition, but this is close enough). It's hard for me to judge whether this is big deal. I guess I'm wondering how likely it is that putting 28lbs worth of batteries on the bulkhead behind the baggage compartment will be enough to overcome the nose-heaviness that has been reported. In your experience with the factory Super ES, was there a CG issue when Hartzell was on the nose? If so, what was done about it? Thanks for your help, Dan O'Brien Lancair N624LD Dan O'Brien 1503 Walden Drive McLean, VA 22101 Wk: (202) 326-2151 Hm: (703) 734-4154 Fax: (703 734-1373 --=====================_43052859==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" >Kirk wrote: When I worked for Lancair, I did prop testing on the their ES >with the ACI, MT & Hartzell. The ACI was close to the MT and Hartzell in >cruise, but clearly the worst of the 3 when it came to take-off >performance and climb. The Hartzell was a knot or two faster in cruise. >The MT (new simitar blades) performed the best and is currently on their >factory plane. Kirk, thank you for this post. This is very helpful, as it is the first report I've seen about the performance of all three props on the ES that is based on real data. Could you elaborate on what you mean by saying the MT performed best? >I just purchased the Hartzell for my ES because I like the durability and >overall performance. The MT requires more maintenance. Any insights into how much more maintenance the MT requires would be helpful. >Yes, the Hartzell is heavier. My electrical systems, oxygen, AC, etc are >mounted aft in the fuselage to accomodate the difference in weight.I confess to having been scared away from the Hartzell because of reports on this list about the nose-heaviness of the Super ES. Do you think this is a red herring? By my calculation, a reduction of 25 lbs in the prop moves the center of gravity backward roughly an inch, or about 10 percent of the entire CG envelope in the ES. (The effect varies some depending on the initial loading condition, but this is close enough). It's hard for me to judge whether this is big deal. I guess I'm wondering how likely it is that putting 28lbs worth of batteries on the bulkhead behind the baggage compartment will be enough to overcome the nose-heaviness that has been reported. In your experience with the factory Super ES, was there a CG issue when Hartzell was on the nose? If so, what was done about it?

Thanks for your help,
Dan O'Brien
Lancair N624LD

Dan O'Brien 1503 Walden Drive McLean, VA 22101 Wk: (202) 326-2151 Hm: (703) 734-4154 Fax: (703 734-1373 --=====================_43052859==.ALT--