X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 64 [XX] (50%) URL: contains "http" endcoded (50%) RECEIVED: IP not found on home country list Return-Path: Received: from mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.194] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTPS id 1699496 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:56:45 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.194; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d58-108-106-202.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [58.108.106.202]) by mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id kBLMtnNR008594 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:55:51 +1100 Message-ID: <002001c72553$2da5eab0$ca6a6c3a@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Radical Prop Was C/S Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:55:56 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C725A6.FE129CE0" 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-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0657-0, 12/12/2006), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C725A6.FE129CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed=20 I had discussions with Paul and he credited me with the first person to = correctly identify his design criteria/ objectives, pretty simple really = however I would hate to design one that works from scratch - I know = absolutely nothing about props. George ( down under) All too true, Bill. I had heard that CATO was in discussion with = Paul to build such props, but don't know if that came together or not. = Probably should send Paul an e mail (if I can find his) and ask him if = he things his prop would be effective for a slower plane line a 200 MPH = RV-6A. Then I would have an idea if it would be worth while to try. I'd want = a 10 MPH increase for it to be worth my while - heck, I don't fly at top = speed in any case, so really wouldn't be much point for me to get one = {:>). Now, if it would add 1000 fpm to rate of climb then that's a = different matter. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: wrjjrs@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 5:16 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Radical Prop Was C/S Ed,=20 I have followed Paul Lipps prop design efforts. Very interesting = indeed. There must be some improvement in efficiency since the birds = flying them are usually near or at the front of the pack. Looking for = improvement is admarible Ed, The problem is often you must just build it = yourself. Paul's efforts, at first at least, were the design program = only. He would give you the numbers for the speed and HP you had and = then you had to fabricate the prop yourself! I don't know if he is = supplying a finished product yet or not. Bill Jepson =20 -----Original Message----- From: eanderson@carolina.rr.com To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:29 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Radical Prop Was C/S Look under heading BiPlanes in the below URL and there a pilot = reports a 20 mph increase using the radical Lipps propeller over a more = conventional prop - again, my point is better ways may be more a matter = of looking at fresh ideas about props and controllers rather than = accepting what has been. http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/291-full.html I believe this prop is optimized for high speed flight, and while I = am certain I don't fully understand the total reason why, part of the = reason it is faster appears to be that it can develop thrust right down = the hub if the airspeed (prop advance?) is high enough. Also the = developer takes issue with the standard "broad" tips on props. etc. =20 However, it may not provide the same amount of increase over my = current prop due to the slower airspeeds I flight - but hey, even 10 MPH = increase would be interesting. FWIW Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and = security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from = across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C725A6.FE129CE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ed
I had discussions with Paul and he credited me = with the=20 first person to correctly identify his design criteria/ objectives, = pretty=20 simple really however I would hate to design one that works from scratch = - I=20 know absolutely nothing about props.
George ( down under)
All too true, Bill.   I had = heard that=20 CATO was in discussion with Paul to build such props, but don't know = if that=20 came together or not.  Probably should send Paul an e mail (if I = can find=20 his) and ask him if he things his prop would be effective for a slower = plane=20 line a 200 MPH RV-6A.
Then I would have an idea if it would = be worth=20 while to try.  I'd want a 10 MPH increase for it to be worth my = while -=20 heck, I don't fly at top speed in any case, so really wouldn't be much = point=20 for me to get one {:>).  Now, if it would add 1000 fpm to rate = of=20 climb then that's a different matter.
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 wrjjrs@aol.com=20
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, = 2006 5:16=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Radical Prop=20 Was C/S

Ed,
I have followed Paul Lipps prop design efforts. Very = interesting=20 indeed. There must be some improvement in efficiency since the birds = flying=20 them are usually near or at the front of the pack. Looking for = improvement=20 is admarible Ed, The problem is often you must just build it = yourself.=20 Paul's efforts, at first at least, were the design program = only.=20 He would give you the numbers for the speed and HP you had and then = you had=20 to fabricate the prop yourself! I don't know if he is supplying a = finished=20 product yet or not.
Bill Jepson
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com
To: = flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed,=20 20 Dec 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Radical Prop Was = C/S

 
Look under heading BiPlanes in the below URL =  and=20 there a pilot reports a 20 mph increase using the radical Lipps = propeller=20 over a more conventional prop - again, my point is better ways may = be more a=20 matter of looking at fresh ideas about props and controllers rather = than=20 accepting what has been.
 
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/291-full.ht= ml
 
I believe this prop is optimized = for high=20 speed flight, and while I am certain I don't fully understand = the total=20 reason why, part of the reason it is faster appears to be that it = can=20 develop thrust right down the hub if the airspeed (prop advance?) is = high=20 enough.  Also the developer takes issue with the standard = "broad" tips=20 on props. etc. 
 
 
However, it may not provide the same amount = of=20 increase over my current prop due to the slower airspeeds I flight - = but=20 hey, even 10 MPH increase would be interesting.
 
FWIW
 
 
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW=
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive = set of=20 free safety and security tools, free access to millions of = high-quality=20 videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and=20 more.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C725A6.FE129CE0--