X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:53:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from amcrelay1.faa.gov ([162.58.35.109] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5582902 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:42:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=162.58.35.109; envelope-from=larry.eversmeyer@faa.gov X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,724,1330927200"; d="scan'208";a="37916998" Received: from unknown (HELO amcrthub.faa.gov) ([162.58.35.143]) by amcrelay1.faa.gov with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2012 07:41:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Hydraulic vs. electric CS props X-KeepSent: F2C26D74:C4150009-86257A15:00455BD3; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2FP1 SHF148 July 15, 2009 From: larry.eversmeyer@faa.gov X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:41:44 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMCRTHUB/AMC/H/FAA(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 06/06/2012 07:41:45 AM, Serialize complete at 06/06/2012 07:41:45 AM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0045BD5986257A15_=" X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0045BD5986257A15_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Dan, I don't have the electric but I do have a 3 bladed hydraulic prop. Still building but I have had my prop for several years and been told I should have it torn down do to extended shelf life. I would like to know your thought on where to send it. I' m in Oklahoma City and I think AAR is an approved MT center. Email: larry.eversmeyer@faa.gov office: 405-954-6775 Cell: 405-209-3082 Weekday after 5:00 and all weekend (Phone doesn't work in office) From: "Dan Schaefer" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: 06/06/2012 07:29 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Hydraulic vs. electric CS props Sent by: "Lancair Mailing List" Gary, I've been using a MT electric C/S prop for the last 800+ hours in my early Lancair and find it to be quite smooth and reliable. There are pluses and minuses with either type prop (hydraulic vs electric) so you pays yer money and takes yer chances. Personally, though I come down in favor of electric for my Lancair, it does have a couple of negatives that you should consider. First, the electric installation is probably somewhat lighter as it doesn't use a hydro prop governor, associated oil lines and control rigging. The electric system does use a slip-ring, brush-block and controller but I doubt they weigh much more than a pound altogether (didn't weigh mine - just an eyeball guess). The two negatives I can identify for the electric is: 1. It has a somewhat slower response than a hydro - you have to learn to bring the power in a bit slower than you can with a hydro or the RPM can get too high but that's easy to get used to. 2. If you lose all electric power on board, you're stuck with the pitch setting you have. I'd guess this could be addressed by a small aux. battery for the prop system with an isolation diode (a few amp-hours would likely be sufficient as the motor in the prop draws an amp or two, intermittantly) though this could negate some of the weight advantage. The related plus for the hydraulic prop is that it would keep working as long as the engine was running - and producing oil pressure, of course. Another small thing on the MT electric is the need to find some panel space and depth for the controller. If using the MT P-120-U controller, the faceplate needs about 3.8 x 1 in. with about 7.5 inches behind the panel, including the connector. One last thing - MT has some very good service centers out there - and some not so good. In order not to be sued, be glad to give you an ear full off list if you go with MT. My two cents worth. Dan Schaefer -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --=_alternative 0045BD5986257A15_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan, I don't have the electric but I do have a 3 bladed hydraulic prop.  Still building but I have had my prop for several years and been told I should have it torn down do to extended shelf life.  I would like to know your thought on where to send it.  I' m in Oklahoma City and I think AAR is an approved MT center.

Email:        larry.eversmeyer@faa.gov
office:        405-954-6775
Cell:        405-209-3082  Weekday after 5:00 and all weekend (Phone doesn't work in office)




From: "Dan Schaefer" <dfs155@roadrunner.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: 06/06/2012 07:29 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Hydraulic vs. electric CS props
Sent by: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>




Gary, I've been using a MT electric C/S prop for the last 800+ hours in my
early Lancair and find it to be quite smooth and reliable.

There are pluses and minuses with either type prop (hydraulic vs electric)
so you pays yer money and takes yer chances. Personally, though I come down
in favor of electric for my Lancair, it does have a couple of negatives that
you should consider.

First, the electric installation is probably somewhat lighter as it doesn't
use a hydro prop governor, associated oil lines and control rigging. The
electric system does use a slip-ring, brush-block and controller but I doubt
they weigh much more than a pound altogether (didn't weigh mine - just an
eyeball guess).

The two negatives I can identify for the electric is: 1. It has a somewhat
slower response than a hydro - you have to learn to bring the power in a bit
slower than you can with a hydro or the RPM can get too high but that's easy
to get used to. 2. If you lose all electric power on board, you're stuck
with the pitch setting you have. I'd guess this could be addressed by a
small aux. battery for the prop system with an isolation diode (a few
amp-hours
would likely be sufficient as the motor in the prop draws an amp or two,
intermittantly)
though this could negate some of the weight advantage.

The related plus for the hydraulic prop is that it would keep working as
long as
the engine was running - and producing oil pressure, of course.

Another small thing on the MT electric is the need to find some panel space
and depth for the controller.  If using the MT P-120-U controller, the
faceplate
needs about 3.8 x 1 in. with about 7.5 inches behind the panel, including
the
connector.

One last thing - MT has some very good service centers out there - and some
not so good. In order not to be sued, be glad to give you an ear full off
list if you
go with MT.

My two cents worth.

Dan Schaefer


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

--=_alternative 0045BD5986257A15_=--