X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.101] (HELO ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.3) with ESMTP id 871372 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:24:10 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-025-165.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.25.165]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id jBBFNO4p013118 for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:23:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001a01c5fe66$d87babb0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Elippse Propeller Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:23:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C5FE3C.EF6C6B40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C5FE3C.EF6C6B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Todd, Actually, No - not anything significant. Although I now cruise at 5600 = rpm vice 5200 rpm with the 2.17 the fuel burn is identical. I think the = 2.85 puts less load on the engine permitting it to turn faster at the = same fuel burn. Just a theory. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Todd Bartrim=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 3:06 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Elippse Propeller Hi Ed; I know that it has been stated in the past, but refresh my memory. = Have you observed any fuel consumption change from the 2.17 to the = 2.85???? Todd (tough game tonight, so too tired to check the archives) Also looking at the power difference at the two different rpms, I = calculate 160 at 5200 and 180HP at 6000, whether that is accurate = absolute power it shows a possible 12.5% increase. The disc area carved = out by the 74" prop is approx 18% more although its speed is approx 13% = less. So I think more area, more HP and more pitch appears to add up in = my case to considerably better low speed performance. The top speed = appears not to have changed, still a shade under 200 MPH around 197MPH = for both props. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C5FE3C.EF6C6B40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Todd,

Actually, No - not anything significant. = Although I=20 now cruise at 5600 rpm vice 5200 rpm with the 2.17 the fuel burn is=20 identical. I think the 2.85 puts less load on the engine = permitting it to=20 turn faster at the same fuel burn. Just a theory.

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Todd = Bartrim=20
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft

Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 = 3:06=20 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Elippse=20 Propeller

Hi=20 Ed;

I know that it has been stated in the past, = but refresh=20 my memory. Have you observed any fuel consumption change from the 2.17 = to the=20 2.85????

Todd (tough game tonight, so too tired to = check the=20 archives)

Also looking at the power difference at the = two=20 different rpms, I calculate 160 at 5200 and 180HP at 6000, whether = that=20 is accurate absolute power it shows a possible 12.5% = increase. =20 The disc area carved out by the 74" prop is approx 18% more = although=20 its speed is approx 13% less. So I think more area, more = HP and=20 more pitch appears to add up in my case to considerably better low = speed=20 performance. The top speed appears not to have changed, still = a shade=20 under 200 MPH around 197MPH for both props.

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C5FE3C.EF6C6B40--