X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.3) with ESMTP id 4155371 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:38:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=QdXCYpuVAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=ekHE3smAAAAA:20 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=AhE4PFaIAAAA:8 a=5t18TtoNhDPI_W1XAqYA:9 a=5RHEDjHOZn250w-JFqEA:7 a=NWipaksW1eXBSgPt1tjQJqgkRngA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=1vhyWl4Y8LcA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=I61GHdrxvzrGm_w8iA8A:7 a=I9w7A_C3BCrSjxVX4ebnNxA8IbQA:4 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 75.191.186.236 Received: from [75.191.186.236] ([75.191.186.236:3398] helo=computername) by cdptpa-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id 94/3F-23396-676D39B4; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:38:15 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" Message-ID: <94.3F.23396.676D39B4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Paul Lipps propellers Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:38:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01CABDEA.B2A64B00" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: Acq+DaSqS8nIB50uTLuli2RndrWmkwABskHw In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CABDEA.B2A64B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is one radical looking bi-plane - for sure. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Lynn Hanover Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 10:48 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Paul Lipps propellers Here is a picture of that same Biplane showing an alarming use of the same idea to build a whole wing. The cowl has enough good stuff going on, to keep me busy for months. http://www.biplaneracing.com/ When the windscreen is far enough back then the cowl top remains a low pressure area and cooling airflow out of top vents is much improved, so intake holes can be even smaller. Plus after flight cooling is quick and in cowl baking is reduced. Not seen is that the lower wing is a Gull wing plan form for short stiff/light gear, and greater distance between wings for less interplane interference, so, the smaller lighter wings and small wing area work better. The stager makes for less CG sensitivity , so a lower tail area works, and the tiny fuselage cross section makes for lower wetted area. The prop tips on Paul Lipps little plane are protected with tennis balls to protect the blades from damage, and passersby from injury. The tips are as if kitchen butcher knives. I got to hear one of his lectures at Gene NV. At the Contact magazine alternative engine roundup. I am afraid that he has forgotten more about props than I will ever learn. Lynn E. Hanover I believe you are correct, Lynn There were a couple of fairly recent developments that I thought held some promises in prop design, but they do not appear to have panned out. One was the "bi cambered" prop blade which as best I recall was suppose to provide more thrust - I believe it did lower the Prop noise somewhat, but the increased thrust does not seem to have developed. The vortex generators (of one type or another) on the prop blades - the one most commonly seen were the dimpled or holey tape. Again have not seen that recently Then the one that looked to have the most promises was the Lipps prop blade - narrow near the hub and tip and broad near the mid section. I really seem to prove itself in racing - but have not hear of it bring that apparent promise of improved performance to the common crowd. http://www.biplaneracing.com/files/Issue77_8-13.pdf That about all I can recall recently Ed Ed Anderson ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CABDEA.B2A64B00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That is one radical looking = bi-plane – for sure. 

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Lynn Hanover
Sent: Sunday, March 07, = 2010 10:48 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Paul = Lipps propellers

 

Here is a picture of that same Biplane = showing an alarming use of the same idea to build  a whole wing. The cowl has = enough good stuff going on, to keep me busy for = months.

 

 

When the windscreen is far enough back then = the cowl top remains a low pressure area and =

cooling airflow out of top vents is much = improved, so intake holes can be even smaller.

Plus after flight cooling is quick and in = cowl baking is reduced.

 

Not seen is that the lower wing is a Gull = wing plan form for short stiff/light gear, and greater distance between wings for = less interplane interference, so, the smaller lighter wings and small wing = area work better. The stager makes for less CG sensitivity , so a lower tail area = works, and the tiny fuselage cross section makes for lower wetted area. =

 

The prop tips on Paul Lipps little plane are = protected with tennis balls to protect the blades from damage, and passersby from = injury. The tips are as if kitchen butcher knives. =  

 

I got to hear one of his lectures at Gene NV. = At the Contact magazine alternative engine roundup. I am afraid that he has = forgotten more about props than I will ever = learn.

 

Lynn E. = Hanover

 

I believe you are correct, Lynn

There were a couple of fairly recent developments that I = thought held some promises in prop design, but they do not appear to have panned = out.

One was the “bi cambered” prop blade which as = best I recall was suppose to provide more thrust – I believe it did lower the Prop = noise somewhat, but the increased thrust does not seem to have = developed.

The vortex generators (of one type or another) on the prop = blades – the one most commonly seen were the dimpled or holey tape.  Again = have not seen that recently

 Then the one that looked to have the most promises was = the Lipps prop blade – narrow near the hub and tip and broad near the = mid section.  I really seem to prove itself in racing – but have = not hear of it bring that apparent promise of improved performance to the common = crowd.

 

 

http://www.= biplaneracing.com/files/Issue77_8-13.pdf

=

 

That about all I can recall = recently

 

Ed

 

Ed Anderson

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CABDEA.B2A64B00--