X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:35:57 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [107.14.166.229] (HELO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTP id 6959133 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:19:18 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=107.14.166.229; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1294] helo=lobo) by cdptpa-oedge01 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 22/D9-17372-251D2B35; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 15:18:42 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: "Lancair" , "Charles Brown" References: Subject: Re: Two-blade or three-blade prop for I-550 X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:18:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01CF951E.357066B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01CF951E.357066B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Only a 1% difference ? Given the costs involved . . . is it worth it ? Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Charles Brown=20 Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:38 AM Subject: Re: Two-blade or three-blade prop for I-550 I've enclosed the spreadsheet provided to me by Les Doud of Hartzell. = In 2009 his phone number was Phone: 937-778-4262 . He believes that the = 3-blade is more effiicient than the two blade even in cruise. I have a = hard time believing that, and my airplane with 3 blades has not lived up = to the prototype Legacy's performance with the 2-blade as documented in = the CAFE report; and the 3-blade is heavier and more expensive to buy = and overhaul. Of course, my airplane is probably not as clean as the = prototype. But the 3-blade prop sure looks cool.=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: "frederickemoreno@gmail.com" Date: June 29, 2014 8:01:58 AM CDT Subject: Two-blade or three-blade prop for I-550 I have a chart somewhere from Hartzell which shows the = theoretical projection of prop efficiency vs speed for two vs three = blade, and the three blade is the winner by a small tweak, a per cent or = two at the higher speed. Several years old, but I do not think the = part numbers have changed for the recommended Lancair props.=20 Fred Moreno=20 =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- I've enclosed the spreadsheet provided to me by Les Doud of Hartzell. = In 2009 his phone number was Phone: 937-778-4262 . He believes that the = 3-blade is more effiicient than the two blade even in cruise. I have a = hard time believing that, and my airplane with 3 blades has not lived up = to the prototype Legacy's performance with the 2-blade as documented in = the CAFE report; and the 3-blade is heavier and more expensive to buy = and overhaul. Of course, my airplane is probably not as clean as the = prototype. But the 3-blade prop sure looks cool.=20 From: "frederickemoreno@gmail.com" Date: June 29, 2014 8:01:58 AM CDT Subject: Two-blade or three-blade prop for I-550 I have a chart somewhere from Hartzell which shows the theoretical = projection of prop efficiency vs speed for two vs three blade, and the = three blade is the winner by a small tweak, a per cent or two at the = higher speed. Several years old, but I do not think the part numbers = have changed for the recommended Lancair props. =20 Fred Moreno ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01CF951E.357066B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Only a 1% difference ?
Given the costs involved . . . is it = worth it=20 ?
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Charles=20 Brown
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 = 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Two-blade or = three-blade=20 prop for I-550

I've enclosed the spreadsheet provided to me by Les Doud of = Hartzell.=20  In 2009 his phone number was Phone:=20 937-778-4262 .  He believes that the 3-blade is more=20 effiicient than the two blade even in cruise.  I have a hard time = believing that, and my airplane with 3 blades has not lived up to the=20 prototype Legacy's performance with the 2-blade as documented in the = CAFE=20 report; and the 3-blade is heavier and more expensive to buy and = overhaul.=20  Of course, my airplane is probably not as clean as the = prototype.

But the 3-blade prop sure looks cool. 





From: = "frederickemoreno@gmail.com= "=20 <frederickemoreno@gmail.com= >
Date: = June 29, 2014 = 8:01:58 AM=20 CDT
Subject:=20 Two-blade or=20 three-blade prop for I-550


I have a chart somewhere from Hartzell which shows the = theoretical=20 projection of prop efficiency vs speed for two vs three blade, = and the=20 three blade is the winner by a small tweak, a per cent or two at = the=20 higher speed.   Several years old, but I do not think = the part=20 numbers have changed for the recommended Lancair props.
 
Fred Moreno
=

I've enclosed the spreadsheet provided to me by Les Doud of=20 Hartzell.  In 2009 his phone number was Phone: 937-778-4262 = .  He=20 believes that the 3-blade is more effiicient than the two blade even = in=20 cruise.  I have a hard time believing that, and my airplane with = 3 blades=20 has not lived up to the prototype Legacy's performance with the = 2-blade as=20 documented in the CAFE report; and the 3-blade is heavier and more = expensive=20 to buy and overhaul.  Of course, my airplane is probably not as = clean as=20 the prototype.

But the 3-blade prop sure looks cool.=20






From: "frederickemoreno@gmail.com"=20 <frederickemoreno@gmail.com>
Date: June 29, 2014 8:01:58 AM=20 CDT
Subject: Two-blade or three-blade prop for I-550


I = have a=20 chart somewhere from Hartzell which shows the theoretical projection = of prop=20 efficiency vs speed for two vs three blade, and the three blade is the = winner=20 by a small tweak, a per cent or two at the higher speed.   = Several=20 years old, but I do not think the part numbers have changed for the=20 recommended Lancair props.
 
Fred=20 Moreno


------=_NextPart_000_007F_01CF951E.357066B0--