X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Received: from ironman.mail.utexas.edu ([128.83.32.51] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1624350 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:24:54 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=128.83.32.51; envelope-from=mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu DomainKey-Signature: s=main; d=austin.utexas.edu; c=nofws; q=dns; b=8u5VlLi8ckfIMJYBeSleIqUG4IpUde6WqSM4C8JfzRVM1chsXuEVHTxg0dNzGF9hr/A9oUrAU0MXqqhCrLcWtv+zZxY5NQnvirSpKqRLS7zq3n+BI9GLX8fsR7OjXt6ONJhjdjI0If9yBM0dLBsPyzKEKl875KxT7g2w/HkRqvk=; Received: from exb02.austin.utexas.edu (HELO MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu) ([129.116.87.143]) by ironman.mail.utexas.edu with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 09:24:32 -0600 Received: from MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu ([129.116.87.144]) by MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:24:31 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C71493.A1D08121" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Prop windmilling Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:24:30 -0600 Message-ID: <5B59870CA143DD408BD6279374B74C8B02B6700A@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Prop windmilling Thread-Index: AccUTYg7NZhXFq1sS8+eVpuaZrM7YgAQ3y8g From: "Mark R Steitle" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Return-Path: mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2006 15:24:31.0196 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1E0C9C0:01C71493] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C71493.A1D08121 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Finn, =20 Not intending to start a feud here, but it was my understanding that there is less drag created by a stopped prop compared to a spinning prop. If this is true, and if your intention is to maximize your glide in the event of an engine out situation, then it seems that a psru would be an advantage over direct drive. =20 Mark S. =20 =20 ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:02 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Prop windmilling =20 =20 2.176:1 will definitely not windmill at pattern or glide speed for an RV-3 (about 100 mph). Might make a 1/3 turn and stop again if you point it down a bit. And that was with an engine that had rather low compression. Tested several times over Clearwater Airpark. Finn Finn; What prop diameter and pitch? Al =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C71493.A1D08121 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Finn,

Not intending to start a feud here, = but it was my understanding that there is less drag created by a stopped prop = compared to a spinning prop. If this is true, and if your intention is to = maximize your glide in the event of an engine out situation, then it seems that a = psru would be an advantage over direct drive.

Mark S. =

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen
Sent: Thursday, November = 30, 2006 1:02 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Prop windmilling

2.176:1 will = definitely not windmill at pattern or glide speed for an RV-3 (about 100 mph). = Might make a 1/3 turn and stop again if you point it down a bit. And that was with = an engine that had rather low compression.
Tested several times over Clearwater Airpark.

Finn

Finn;

What prop diameter and = pitch?

------_=_NextPart_001_01C71493.A1D08121--