X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1350584 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:55:41 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from [192.168.0.248] (cpe-066-057-036-199.nc.res.rr.com [66.57.36.199]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7R4swPr008099 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44F12535.6080403@nc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:53:09 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] prop speed References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Barry Gardner wrote: > That would mean that the rpm they calculate would be too high for an aircraft (except for the first five seconds of takeoff) and the prop length recommended would be longer than an aircraft could use because the longer tip could go supersonic when the forward velocity is added in. > > Anyone want to tackle this or straighten me out? > > No straightening needed. Your course line is perfectly straight. Your conclusions are solid.