X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [76.190.204.56] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.2.2)
  with HTTP id 2868107 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:37:27 -0400
From: marv@lancair.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Prop diameter
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.2.2
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:37:27 -0400
Message-ID: <web-2868107@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <8CA7232D2FA8D27-FD4-431F@MBLK-M14.sysops.aol.com>
References: <list-2866299@logan.com>
 <8CA7232D2FA8D27-FD4-431F@MBLK-M14.sysops.aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for mquinns@aol.com:

  Peter,
  ?I think I remember a Lancair 360 fly off some years ago (10+) between a 68"
and a 70" prop. It was a post to this site but I can't find it in the
archives. The same aircraft flew the 68' and then switched and flew
the?70'?(under the same conditions). I don't remember the numbers but the
general results were the 68" prop was faster but didn't climb as well. The 70"
prop climbed better but was slower. Maybe somebody remembers the test and can
find the results.?
  
  Mark Quinn
  Lancair 360
  Daytona Beach