X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [97.68.172.111] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by lancaironline.net (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 6.0.5) with HTTP id 6404384 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:19:19 -0400 From: Subject: Re: [LML] Potential Problem-Engine Vibration To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v6.0.5 Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:19:19 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: marv@lancair.net In-Reply-To: <001b01ce9202$6e823520$4b869f60$@com> References: <8DF074101EEE419AAFFD786B055D3089@BradPC> <001b01ce9202$6e823520$4b869f60$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Steve Colwell" <mcmess1919@yahoo.com>:

> "Les advised checking prop orientation for parallel alignment of one of the
> blades with #6 cylinder at Top Dead Center on compression. This is best for
> smoothness."
>
>
>
> To clarify this:  If one of the blades can be positioned horizontally and
> directly in front of #6 cylinder at Top Dead Center on compression, it has
> the lowest potential for vibration.  This is Hartzell's engineering opinion.
> No doubt, confirmed by testing.   Why #6 and not one of the others?  I did
> not press him because I wanted as much advice as time allowed.
>
>
>
> I'll try anything that might help at this point.
>
>
>
> Steve Colwell
>
>
>