X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:51:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTPS id 6330596 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:17:50 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=212.227.126.171; envelope-from=nick@beaglepup.info Received: from Asus8 (gateway05.m3-connect.de [88.79.237.15]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LoekB-1UNGnS1HMB-00glLf; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:14 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <7432812A5A8241D1B515AEB3645C5CD2@Asus8> Reply-To: "Nick Long" From: "Nick Long" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Propeller choice for Lancair 320 X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:16:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0166_01CE6C2E.70F78C50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3505.912 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3505.912 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130618-0, 18/06/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:DSDE7wXlsCE5VP6nZs9jbqv3/SUt+xZwIZYf6etX/T7 Klz/DnS26MficcSv9j7FJJGcU0t+D7A5xz4RPtfCsHU05a5u4W FiYawDDV3FzTRHnHoKgGcpWmKFWFNIRJrtIcdv9Sq+qyv0j803 gxxhl80QhgH66u8m4IDaOo1uMIhJ0QAqbpIgLuwQ2UzzhraDSc MOLojh7B5oYG1kJpxWj7uxSiQSpEyl2uvDHaM2sEwt2uRy7BOe hTqjSXAtVJnU0Zj3MZNkwVDjBXP/MK+DJX1PtMMcep4MnRSCNH W/1jX9e8gM3ab/Gtb8a5I5al8h2UGF4K7Eq9nnH6FRF3Rx96NX ztHucGg1qae2iv6PKyHo= This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0166_01CE6C2E.70F78C50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Everyone, With the discussion on MT backplates, this my be a good time to = introduce myself and ask for the group=E2=80=99s opinion on something. I have a Lancair 320 and I need a new prop. There=E2=80=99s no point = beating about the bush: the reason is that I did a bad landing and had a = prop strike. The engine is a Lycoming IO-320-B1A (ex Twin Comanche) and the current = propeller is a Hartzell 2 blade. It seems that some people are using the = MT 3 blade instead, so I want to consider this as an alternative. As far as I understand it, the MT prop is a little lower cost, it is = significantly lower weight, and it is 3 inches smaller diameter. On the = face of it, all these things sound good. On the other hand, I have had = people telling me that they always seem to need new blades at overhaul = time =E2=80=93 they develop cracks at the blade root. What I = haven=E2=80=99t had anyone tell me is what the performance difference = might be. In theory, a smaller diameter means less thrust, but the = difference could easily be outweighed by design differences. What does the group think? Has anyone experience of switching from one = to the other? Thanks, Nick Long From: Silvio Novelli=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:37 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Re: MT Spinner backing plate No problems with mine, three blades Lyc IO 320, 100 hours. Silvio Novelli Lancair 320 PP-XSN +55 (14) 9614-3129 On 18 Jun 2013,w 25, at 8:45 AM, Dan Ballin wrote: Just wondering if anyone else has had this issue. I noticed cracks (3 of them) in the spinner backing plate of my = counterweighted MT prop for my Legacy. I have been keeping an eye on it = because Ralph Love has had two plates crack on him. I have had the prop = about a year, it was dynamically balanced. Of interest both Ralph and I = have Performance engines that have been inspected and altered ie bad = parts out good parts in. Dan LEG2 N386DM ------=_NextPart_000_0166_01CE6C2E.70F78C50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Everyone,
 
With the discussion on MT backplates, this my be a good time to = introduce=20 myself and ask for the group=E2=80=99s opinion on something.
 
I have a Lancair 320 and I need a new  prop. There=E2=80=99s = no point beating=20 about the bush: the reason is that I did a bad landing and had a prop=20 strike.
 
The engine is a Lycoming IO-320-B1A (ex Twin Comanche) and the = current=20 propeller is a Hartzell 2 blade. It seems that some people are using the = MT 3=20 blade instead, so I want to consider this as an alternative.
 
As far as I understand it, the MT prop is a little lower cost, it = is=20 significantly lower weight, and it is 3 inches smaller diameter. On the = face of=20 it, all these things sound good. On the other hand, I have had people = telling me=20 that they always seem to need new blades at overhaul time =E2=80=93 they = develop cracks=20 at the blade root. What I haven=E2=80=99t had anyone tell me is what the = performance=20 difference might be. In theory, a smaller diameter means less thrust, = but the=20 difference could easily be outweighed by design differences.
 
What does the group think? Has anyone experience of switching from = one to=20 the other?
 
Thanks,
 
Nick Long
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: MT Spinner backing = plate
 
No=20 problems with mine, three blades Lyc IO 320, 100 hours.

     Silvio = Novelli
Lancair 320=20 PP-XSN
+55 (14)=20 9614-3129
 

 
On 18  Jun 2013,w 25, at 8:45 AM, Dan Ballin wrote:
 
Just wondering if anyone else has had this issue.
I = noticed cracks=20 (3 of them) in the spinner backing plate of my counterweighted MT prop = for my=20 Legacy.  I have been keeping an eye on it because Ralph Love has = had two=20 plates crack on him.  I have had the prop about a year, it was = dynamically=20 balanced. Of interest both Ralph and I have Performance engines that = have been=20 inspected and altered ie bad parts out good parts=20 in.

Dan
LEG2  N386DM
 
------=_NextPart_000_0166_01CE6C2E.70F78C50--