X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:11:30 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.170] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTP id 2866126 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:31:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.200.170; envelope-from=air.peter@googlemail.com Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so1470625wfa.25 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=ucy9yi7Y5WzT63/qvxJyWTh+7A91stvfrdqJZxdH3kfpty4i2Jv9lR26SetvtHpJNCcbvPG0f3Vzwt9kpIPagB+qF8zls0l78vaTTfQd6/5YdYlFguLlT1grDX5Q83FtnTV83G5O9OQQI5BZTMXoqwVFTe8jT5DL8OEBLhAJJYo= Received: by 10.142.141.21 with SMTP id o21mr1903082wfd.102.1208813429333; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.225.17 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:30:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <7650ccdb0804211430w2b0e793bqeb8d913d19e2020f@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:30:28 +0200 From: "Peter Sokolowski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Prop diameter In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_13616_25897326.1208813429326" References: ------=_Part_13616_25897326.1208813429326 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Randy and all who responded, this is exactly the information I am looking for. I was in contact with Hartzell and they gave me the info as you described - to reduce the prop to 72", and yes, it is the F7666 original prop. Unfortunately it comes with a spinner (chromed) which is a bit to large for the original cowling. - Have you done anything with respect to clearance ? - What is your prop clearance in inch ? - Can you provide any performance data (e.g. climb, speed...) ? Again, thanks to all other responses who gave me a bit more technical insight with respect to 2 and 3 blade configuration and their dis-/advantages. Someone told me, that the 2 blade configuration has less drag and therefore is the preferred choice. I can follow your argumentation with respect to diameter and drag (as electrical engineer) - I assume it is a bit more complex to conclude what is more efficient 2 blade with (less) drag with larger diameter or 3 blade with less diameter but more drag due to more blades ? OK, it is an academic question but isn't that why we are doing all of this building ? Looking forward to more interesting discussions, thanks and take care Peter, 360 MKII, 90% 2008/4/21, marv@lancair.net : > > Posted for "Randy" : > > I'm running a Mooney Prop cut to 72" on my 360. It's the Hartzell compact > hub with F7666-4 blades and a prop extension. Runs great. I have no > clearance problems. This was the prop most people used before Hartzell > come > out with the F7068 prop, and Lancair started selling them some years > back. > Randy Stuart > LNC-2 > > -- > For archives and unsub > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > ------=_Part_13616_25897326.1208813429326 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Randy and all who responded,

this is exactly the information I am looking for. I was in contact with Hartzell and they gave me the info as you described - to reduce the prop to 72", and yes, it is the F7666 original prop. Unfortunately it comes with a spinner (chromed) which is a bit to large for the original cowling.
- Have you done anything with respect to clearance ?
- What is your prop clearance in inch ?
- Can you provide any performance data (e.g. climb, speed...) ?

Again, thanks to all other responses who gave me a bit more technical insight with respect to 2 and 3 blade configuration and their dis-/advantages.
Someone told me, that the 2 blade configuration has less drag and therefore is the preferred choice. I can follow your argumentation with respect to diameter and drag (as electrical engineer)  - I assume it is a bit more complex to conclude what is more efficient 2 blade with (less) drag with larger diameter or 3 blade with less diameter but more drag due to more blades ?

OK, it is an academic question but isn't that why we are doing all of this building ?

Looking forward to more interesting discussions,

thanks and take care

Peter, 360 MKII, 90%

2008/4/21, marv@lancair.net <marv@lancair.net>:
Posted for "Randy" <randystuart@hotmail.com>:

 I'm running a Mooney Prop cut to 72" on my 360. It's the Hartzell compact
 hub with F7666-4 blades and a prop extension. Runs great. I have no
 clearance problems. This was the prop most people used before Hartzell come
 out with the F7068 prop, and Lancair started selling them some years back.
  Randy Stuart
 LNC-2

------=_Part_13616_25897326.1208813429326--