X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1700786 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:44:23 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-100-190.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.100.190]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id kBMBhKg7023231 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:43:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000701c725be$63cef530$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Radical Prop Was C/S Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:43:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C72594.7A971E20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C72594.7A971E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, John. I thought I read something somewhere on the Elippse prop, = now I know where {:>) ED ----- Original Message -----=20 From: John Downing=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:49 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Radical Prop Was C/S Ed; If you have issue #79 of the Contact magazine, it answers many of = the questions on the Elippse prop and shows a nice example carved by = Craig Catto. JohnD ----- Original Message -----=20 From: George Lendich=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:55 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Radical Prop Was C/S 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. = 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_0004_01C72594.7A971E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, John.  I thought I read = something=20 somewhere on the Elippse prop, now  I know where = {:>)
 
ED
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 John=20 Downing
Sent: Thursday, December 21, = 2006 10:49=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Radical Prop Was=20 C/S

Ed;  If you have issue #79 of the Contact = magazine,=20 it answers many of the questions on the Elippse prop and shows a nice = example=20 carved by Craig Catto.  JohnD
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 George Lendich
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Thursday, December 21, = 2006 5:55=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Radical Prop=20 Was C/S

Ed
I had discussions with Paul and he credited = me with=20 the first person to correctly identify his design criteria/ = objectives,=20 pretty simple really however I would hate to design one that works = from=20 scratch - I know absolutely nothing about props.
George ( down under)
All too true, Bill.   I = had heard=20 that CATO was in discussion with Paul to build such props, but = don't know=20 if that came together or not.  Probably should send Paul an e = mail=20 (if I can find his) and ask him if he things his prop would be = effective=20 for a slower plane line a 200 MPH RV-6A.
Then I would have an idea if it = would be=20 worth while to try.  I'd want a 10 MPH increase for it to be = worth my=20 while - heck, I don't fly at top speed in any case, so really = wouldn't be=20 much point for me to get one {:>).  Now, if it would add = 1000 fpm=20 to rate of 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=20 5:16 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Radical=20 Prop 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=20 flying them are usually near or at the front of the pack. = Looking for=20 improvement is admarible Ed, The problem is often you must just = build it=20 yourself. Paul's efforts, at first at least, were the=20 design program only. He would give you the numbers for the = speed=20 and HP you had and then you had to fabricate the prop yourself! = I don't=20 know if he is supplying a finished product yet or not.
Bill Jepson
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com
To: = flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent:=20 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Radical Prop = Was=20 C/S

 
Look under heading BiPlanes in the below = URL=20  and there a pilot reports a 20 mph increase using the = radical=20 Lipps propeller over a more conventional prop - again, my point = is=20 better ways may be more a matter of looking at fresh ideas about = props=20 and controllers rather than 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=20 total reason why, part of the reason it is faster appears to be = that it=20 can develop thrust right down the hub if the airspeed (prop = advance?) is=20 high enough.  Also the developer takes issue with the = standard=20 "broad" tips 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=20 of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of=20 high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and=20 = more.
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C72594.7A971E20--