X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:47:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6331251 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:34:10 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.96; envelope-from=olsen25@comcast.net Received: from omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.92]) by qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id psUc1l0081zF43QA9tZcuL; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:33:36 +0000 Received: from OlsenZ1HP ([98.245.158.191]) by omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ptZa1l00p483eG28ktZbTg; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:33:35 +0000 From: "Dan & Kari Olsen" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Propeller choice for Lancair 320 and Back Plate failures X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:33:34 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <00d201ce6c49$f5f2de30$e1d89a90$@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D3_01CE6C17.AB595890" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5sSVEAWvr2ORy8SGSSvEHHlhLq6A== Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01CE6C17.AB595890 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nick, I've got a Lancair 320 with the IO-320-D1B 160hp engine and the Hartzell 70" prop that Lancair and Hartzell approved for this airframe and engine. I'm very pleased with the performance. A friend of mine has the same airframe and engine as I do but has the MT 3-blade prop. When we fly formation at exactly the same power settings, I am pulling away from him at about 3-4kts. We haven't tried a side-by-side climb comparison but the 2-blade Hartzell is definitely a bit faster in cruise than the 3-blade Hartzell, just as prop theory would suggest. When I built the plane I was concerned about spinner wobble and stresses, so I created a little donut inside the spinner that fits snugly around the prop hub. You can see a photo of it here: http://lancair.net/pix/olsen/olsen-construction. After 720hrs on the airplane I have had no problems with spinner or cracking. Cheers! Dan Olsen Fort Collins, CO N320DK, 320 MKII, 720hrs N630DK, IV-P, 20% complete ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01CE6C17.AB595890 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nick,

 

I’ve = got a Lancair 320 with the IO-320-D1B 160hp engine and the Hartzell = 70” prop that Lancair and Hartzell approved for this airframe and = engine.  I’m very pleased with the performance.  A = friend of mine has the same airframe and engine as I do but has the MT = 3-blade prop.  When we fly formation at exactly the same power = settings, I am pulling away from him at about 3-4kts.  We = haven’t tried a side-by-side climb comparison but the 2-blade = Hartzell is definitely a bit faster in cruise than the 3-blade Hartzell, = just as prop theory would suggest.

 

When I built = the plane I was concerned about spinner wobble and stresses, so I = created a little donut inside the spinner that fits snugly around the = prop hub.  You can see a photo of it here: http://lancair.n= et/pix/olsen/olsen-construction.  After 720hrs on the airplane = I have had no problems with spinner or cracking.

 

Cheers!

 

Dan = Olsen

Fort Collins, = CO

N320DK, 320 MKII, = 720hrs

N630DK, IV-P, 20% = complete

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01CE6C17.AB595890--