Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:33:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 355604 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:20:03 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.33; envelope-from=radialpower@cox.net Received: from [10.0.1.2] (really [68.228.79.153]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040807041931.DLX18508.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@[10.0.1.2]> for ; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:19:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-27--271453122 X-Original-Message-Id: <002CF88E-E829-11D8-A8EF-0003936AFD3E@cox.net> From: Barry Hancock Subject: Re: [LML] Prop pitch with engine failure X-Original-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:19:40 -0700 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) --Apple-Mail-27--271453122 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Aug 6, 2004, at 6:14 PM, Ted Noel wrote: > > The only way to reverse this behavior is to have a massive spring in > the hub to force the prop to coarse pitch at engine out. Then the > pistons use engine oil to drive the prop to fine pitch. This spring > increases complexity (cost) and weight Sure, it costs more...but in relative terms it's pennies. The notion that a run away governor is somehow a more prevalent/important emergency doesn't wash with me. At least at partial power you have a ton more options. Seems to me you design for the best performance in the likely worst case scenario. Total power loss is about the worst thing you can have in a controllable aircraft, IMHO, anyway. The comment I read earlier about roads not making a good place to land because of obstacles may be true in SOME cases. However, unless it's a two lane road with power lines going *across* it, I like my chances of being able to land on even a two lane road better than something soft...even with power lines running on both sides. This information, plus a dollar and your own mug, *might* get you some coffee at 7-11..... Barry N122LL --Apple-Mail-27--271453122 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Aug 6, 2004, at 6:14 PM, Ted Noel wrote: ArialThe only way to reverse this behavior is to have a massive spring in the hub to force the prop to coarse pitch at engine out. Then the pistons use engine oil to drive the prop to fine pitch. This spring increases complexity (cost) and weight Sure, it costs more...but in relative terms it's pennies. The notion that a run away governor is somehow a more prevalent/important emergency doesn't wash with me. At least at partial power you have a ton more options. Seems to me you design for the best performance in the likely worst case scenario. Total power loss is about the worst thing you can have in a controllable aircraft, IMHO, anyway. The comment I read earlier about roads not making a good place to land because of obstacles may be true in SOME cases. However, unless it's a two lane road with power lines going *across* it, I like my chances of being able to land on even a two lane road better than something soft...even with power lines running on both sides. This information, plus a dollar and your own mug, *might* get you some coffee at 7-11..... Barry N122LL --Apple-Mail-27--271453122--