Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao11.cox.net ([68.230.241.28] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b3) with ESMTP id 3223093 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 09 May 2004 11:59:57 -0400 Received: from davidandanne ([68.111.224.107]) by fed1rmmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with SMTP id <20040509155957.VCFU19283.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@davidandanne> for ; Sun, 9 May 2004 11:59:57 -0400 From: "DaveLeonard" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] What should you expect was : first flight Tracy's old prop. Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 09:00:03 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C435A4.04028840" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C435A4.04028840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message Speaking of comparisons, Ed, I am using the 68/74 prop that Jim Mossur sold me. I know that you had it on your plane at one time. Do you by chance recall what your static RPM was with my prop? I am only getting 4600 at 30"MAP which I fear is going to lead me to needing a fair amount of boost just to match n.a. performance. But maybe those extra 2" of pitch are slowing it down on the ground and it will be just right with some boost (yea right :-) Dave Leonard Since Tracy and I had identical props by the same maker 68/72 and the same model engine 90 Turbo II, both with high compression rotors, we were about as identical as could get on engine/prop. Oh, yes, our intake systems were very similar although not identical. We both would get a nominal 5200 rpm static (on cold mornings due to the EDDIE effect my static would go as high as 5600-5800 rpm). In my 120 mph (TAS) WOT climbout I normally would get from 5600-5800 (depending on OAT). So if you are not getting at least 5000 static, you have some tuning to do. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C435A4.04028840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message


Speaking=20 of comparisons, Ed, I am using the 68/74 prop that Jim Mossur sold=20 me.   I know that you had it on your plane at one time.  = Do you=20 by chance recall what your static RPM was with my prop?  I am only = getting=20 4600 at 30"MAP which I fear is going to lead me to needing a fair amount = of=20 boost just to match n.a. performance.  But maybe those extra 2" of = pitch=20 are slowing it down on the ground and it will be just right with some=20 boost  (yea right  :-)
 
Dave=20 Leonard
 
 
  Since Tracy and I had identical props by the same maker 68/72 = and the=20 same model engine 90 Turbo II, both with high compression rotors, we = were about=20 as identical as could get on engine/prop.  Oh, yes, our intake = systems were=20 very similar although not identical.  We both would get a nominal = 5200 rpm=20 static (on cold mornings due to the EDDIE effect my static would go as = high as=20 5600-5800 rpm).    In my 120 mph (TAS) WOT climbout I normally = would=20 get from 5600-5800 (depending on OAT).  So if you are not getting = at least=20 5000 static, you have some tuning to do.

 

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C435A4.04028840--