|
>>Could you elaborate on what you mean by
saying the MT performed best?
I will refer you to Tim Ong at Lancair to get the
performance numbers. Generally, the MT w/ simitar blades had the
best take-off performance, climb-performance and the same cruise speeds as
the Hartzell. The ACI wouldn't develop full RPM until after liftoff, even
after adjustments were made. I won't try to remember what the numbers were
and give you inaccurate info. Please contact Tim.
>>Any insights into how much
more maintenance the MT requires would be helpful.
I'm referring to nicks and blade maintenance. MT's composite blades
don't hold up as well as Hartzell's aluminum after you put some time on
it.
>>I confess to having been scared
away from the Hartzell because of reports on this list about the nose-heaviness
of the Super ES. 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?
I thought the same thing. I initially
planned for a TSIO-550 in my ES, but have since decided on an IO-550 w/ some
treatment from Lycon. I've flown an ES w/ the TSIO up front and all the
"stuff" in back - it was a wonderful flyer. Ed Rosiak in CA has this
setup. The TSIO-550 install had a 4-blade MT on it. I've also flown
some hours on an ES w/ an IO-550 and Hartzell on the front. It felt nose
heavier than Lancair's ES (MT on the front) but not a huge
difference.
Kirk Hammersmith
|