Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.107] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3190115 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:14:36 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:14:36 -0700 Received: from 4.171.150.25 by BAY3-DAV77.phx.gbl with DAV; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:14:35 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.171.150.25] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Rev-3 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:14:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 7.02.0011.2700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01C42AF1.29801000" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2004 22:14:36.0002 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1777C20:01C42B12] ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C42AF1.29801000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you really want the Oh S***! performance factor, the 2.85 is the right= way to go. I'm still willing to sell you my old prop but you can skip t= hat step if you want. Seems like a lot of expense for a short term impr= ovement in top speed. The Warp Drive prop will probably equal the Perfor= mance Prop on takeoff performance. Spend that money of the new engine mo= unt! I also agree with everyone else that the reduction in engine life is not = a big real world factor with the 2.85 drive. Still will be well below th= e threshold of catastrophic failure modes and I doubt that I'll ever wear= a rotary engine out in this life time. =20 Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Duffy Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 11:28 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Rev-3 Greetings, After yesterday's measurements, and a night of thinking about it, I'm goi= ng ahead with the -C drive and 74" prop. I haven't exactly decided how I= 'll handle the left offset that's in the mount, but where there's a will,= there's a way. The drive order has been confirmed by the nice lady at R= WS, and I'll pull off the Warp prop later today to double check the hub m= easurements for my Performance Props order tomorrow. Due to the lead tim= e for the drive and prop, I'll spend the Summer flying with Tracy's old p= rop, and trying to settle on a final intake. Cheers, Rusty (not exactly getting an early start to the airport...as usual) ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C42AF1.29801000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If you really = want the Oh S***! performance factor, the 2.85 is the right way to go.&nb= sp; I'm still willing to sell you my old prop but you can skip that = step if you want.   Seems like a lot of expense for a short ter= m improvement in top speed.  The Warp Drive prop will probably = equal the Performance Prop on takeoff performance.  Spend that money= of the new engine mount!
 
I also agree with = everyone else that the reduction in engine life is not a big real world f= actor with the 2.85 drive.  Still will be well below the threshold o= f catastrophic failure modes and I doubt that I'll ever wear a rotary eng= ine out in this life time. 
 
Tracy
=
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Duffy<= /DIV>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004= 11:28 AM
To: Rotary motors = in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRot= ary] Rev-3
 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (not exactly getting an= early start to the airport...as usual)
<= /BODY> ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C42AF1.29801000--