Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b8) with ESMTP id 329472 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:49:56 -0400 Received-SPF: error receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from EDWARD (clt25-78-058.carolina.rr.com [24.25.78.58]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i6LLnNiB026072 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003401c46f6c$9668acd0$2402a8c0@EDWARD> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Tracy Report Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:49:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C46F4B.0F24D940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C46F4B.0F24D940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageNo, I know the formula you are talking about. I think it may = have been one of the Rvator compilations (like the 18 year or something = similar). I think I have one - I'll check it out. =20 But, 20-30HP has bound to make a difference !! Ed Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Tracy Report Since Tracy and I had the same static rpm with the previous props = (which were the same made by Performance Prop), I expect I would have = the same static he is getting if I had the 74" which I believe he = indicated was around 6200 rpm or about 1000 rpm higher than with the old = 2.14 and 68x72" prop. That 1000 rpm increase will translate into approx = 30HP more for take off and move the torque from 345 lb-ft to 455 lb-ft = or a gain of approx 110 lb-ft torque for take off. According to my = spreadsheet that would move the take off HP from around 155 up to 185 = for a standard day - in the cooler weather of all, it will be even more = impressive. Talking to Tracy about the difference between his B and C setups got = me all excited again. Sounds like he was REALLY happy with the = performance difference. =20 There's a fairly simple formula I saw once that converts excess HP to = climb rate, given the weight of the plane. Do you have that? It would = be interesting to see what 30 extra HP would do. =20 Cheers, Rusty (I need a runway) ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C46F4B.0F24D940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
No, I know the formula you are talking = about. =20 I think it may have been one of the Rvator compilations (like the 18 = year or=20 something similar).  I think I have one - I'll check it = out.  =20
 
But, 20-30HP has bound to make a = difference=20 !!
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 = 2:19=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Tracy=20 Report

 Since Tracy and I had the same = static rpm=20 with the previous props (which were the same made by Performance = Prop), I=20 expect I would have the same static he is getting if I had the 74" = which I=20 believe he indicated was around 6200 rpm or about 1000 rpm higher than = with=20 the old 2.14 and 68x72" prop.  That 1000 rpm increase will = translate into=20 approx 30HP more for take off and move the torque from 345 lb-ft to = 455 lb-ft=20 or a gain of approx 110 lb-ft torque for take off.  According to = my=20 spreadsheet that would move the take off HP from around 155 up to 185 = for a=20 standard day - in the cooler weather of all, it will be even more=20 impressive.
 
 
Talking to=20 Tracy about the difference between his B and C setups got me all = excited=20 again.  Sounds like he was REALLY happy with the performance=20 difference. 
 
There's a=20 fairly simple formula I saw once that converts excess HP to climb = rate, given=20 the weight of the plane.  Do you have that?  It would be = interesting=20 to see what 30 extra HP would do. 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (I=20 need a runway)
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C46F4B.0F24D940--