X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:59:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTPS id 6331634 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:06:19 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=212.227.17.9; envelope-from=nick@beaglepup.info Received: from Asus8 ([62.50.252.138]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKcX1-1UqxIf2gh5-001kV5; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:05:42 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <3F5BCF9585AC4AD492FE580CBFEDAE75@Asus8> Reply-To: "Nick Long" From: "Nick Long" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Propeller choice for Lancair 320 and Back Plate failures X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:02:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01CE6C67.25021D90" 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:Xz8ohIGjsb3Nzo6OflF5RMEnu20fxgFC91e1FyBql6z TfyOMNNHWqu5EqPpgJmSQqAQecsO8A6OIg/Zj9y6inxBsm4lAV TUeHKza6eNpiO/hU2Uf11iamrknsR/7x/P62Rli3IeoenaWtHn S6iPBpeGg6ie/wZLKcAcU3AODtanFS62Tz5rAag092mSCl+b56 bdc6Anf0aWwU0wSglk8Czxo+j5envx/ZS9+8TfKaDaJNJbayGa dod7Nfa20U5lo9SXl6z1VbXdOC0SyQnlSLPPtWDTZBhZCZPwGU rcPrlj06Dze0CZy+ZjC1kMsvmyEsisr8rZk5uFn2biWdiuAHEm 8asV7YKcNd+9H8Wa9Rc8= This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01CE6C67.25021D90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Dan, That=E2=80=99s all useful info. At first, one would be tempted to say = that 3-4 knots is not significant, but if it is repeatable.... I remember years ago some of us wondering why one aircraft was faster = than another and swapping supposedly identical props between supposedly = identical aircraft, then flying in formation and finding one prop was = always 3 or 4 knots better. Nick From: Dan & Kari Olsen=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:47 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Re: Propeller choice for Lancair 320 and Back Plate = failures Nick, =20 I=E2=80=99ve got a Lancair 320 with the IO-320-D1B 160hp engine and the = Hartzell 70=E2=80=9D prop that Lancair and Hartzell approved for this = airframe and engine. I=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99t 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. =20 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. =20 Cheers! =20 Dan Olsen Fort Collins, CO N320DK, 320 MKII, 720hrs N630DK, IV-P, 20% complete =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01CE6C67.25021D90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Dan,
 
That=E2=80=99s all useful info. At first, one would be tempted to = say that 3-4=20 knots is not significant, but if it is repeatable....
I remember years ago some of us wondering why one aircraft was = faster than=20 another and swapping supposedly identical props between supposedly = identical=20 aircraft, then flying in formation and finding one prop was always 3 or = 4 knots=20 better.
 
Nick
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:47 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Propeller choice for Lancair 320 and Back = Plate=20 failures
 

Nick,

 

I=E2=80=99ve got a Lancair 320 with the IO-320-D1B = 160hp engine and=20 the Hartzell 70=E2=80=9D prop that Lancair and Hartzell approved for = this airframe and=20 engine.  I=E2=80=99m very pleased with the performance.  A = friend of mine has=20 the same airframe and engine as I do but has the MT 3-blade prop.  = When we=20 fly formation at exactly the same power settings, I am pulling away from = him at=20 about 3-4kts.  We haven=E2=80=99t tried a side-by-side climb = comparison but the=20 2-blade Hartzell is definitely a bit faster in cruise than the 3-blade = Hartzell,=20 just as prop theory would suggest.

 

When I built the plane I was concerned about = spinner wobble=20 and stresses, so I created a little donut inside the spinner that fits = snugly=20 around the prop hub.  You can see a photo of it here: http://lancair.n= et/pix/olsen/olsen-construction. =20 After 720hrs on the airplane I have had no problems with spinner or=20 cracking.

 

Cheers!

 

Dan Olsen

Fort Collins, CO

N320DK, 320 MKII, 720hrs

N630DK, IV-P, 20% complete

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01CE6C67.25021D90--