X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:59:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTP id 5877792 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:38:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.48; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id P3Ln1k0051YDfWL55AdVzF; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:37:29 +0000 Received: from MarkRavinskiPC ([66.30.31.1]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PAdU1k00W01T6pe3gAdVZA; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:37:29 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Hartzell vs other props for 320/360 X-Original-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:37:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01CDC1C5.8D1F28C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01CDC1C5.8D1F28C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, Consider a fixed pitch. Constant speed blades are a compromise at any setting in order to try to = do everything well. I switched from a Hartzell to a Cato fixed composite blade. There are many advantages. They are much less expensive. They save 50 lbs. They run smoother. At any speed over 140 kts they outperform the Hartzell. In the event of a propstrike, much less damage is done. The disadvantage is a loss of low speed performance. I get uncomfortable going into runways shorter than 2500 ft or so now. 1800 is the limit and you have to watch takeoff performance closely. Regards, Mark Ravinski 360 1534 hrs From: Craig Schulze=20 Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:21 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Hartzell vs other props for 320/360 Does anyone have any comparison data for Hartzell vs the other props? I = am looking for the fastest prop in cruise and am currently using the = F8468D-14 on my Lancair 320. I am wondering if anyone has flown that = and then gone to an Aero Composites or Whirlwind. Thank you, Craig Schulze ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01CDC1C5.8D1F28C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig,
Consider a fixed pitch.
Constant speed blades are a compromise at any = setting in order=20 to try to do everything well.
I switched from a Hartzell to a Cato fixed = composite=20 blade.
There are many advantages.
They are much less expensive.
They save 50 lbs.
They run smoother.
At any speed over 140 kts they outperform the=20 Hartzell.
In the event of a propstrike, much less damage is=20 done.
 
The disadvantage is a loss of low speed=20 performance.
I get uncomfortable going into runways shorter than = 2500 ft or=20 so now.
1800 is the limit and you have to watch takeoff = performance=20 closely.
 
 
Regards,
Mark Ravinski
360   1534 hrs

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:21 AM
Subject: [LML] Hartzell vs other props for = 320/360

Does anyone have any comparison data for Hartzell vs the other = props?=20  I am looking for the fastest prop in cruise and am currently using = the=20 F8468D-14 on my Lancair 320.  I am wondering if anyone has flown = that and=20 then gone to an Aero Composites or Whirlwind.

Thank you,
Craig Schulze
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01CDC1C5.8D1F28C0--