X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet4.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with ESMTP id 4490832 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:38:24 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.41; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (mail.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.34]) by poplet4.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA51F3BF2E for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 06:37:43 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 62503C5E06 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 06:31:29 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Simple Dyno Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:31:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB62D5.634F7960" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 101002-1, 10/03/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB62D5.634F7960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andrew, I like Lynn's "spinning fence posts" analogy, goes with "looking for = apex seals in the exhaust "statement.=20 Anyhow I digress, I believe this calculation is helpful for a = information you are seeking, however it's dependent on good information = going into the process - you know what they say, sh.. in sh..out. I do believe your 190 hp is a bit ambitious, from a conservative stand = point I would look at entering 180 hp ( might not be much difference, = but worth a look-see.) Also I believe 6,800 rpm might be too high for = static rpm, if your max rpm is 7,000 - I would put in 6,000 rpm into = that slot and see how the numbers fall. From memory I believe your running a smaller 3 blade prop, I don't know = how that compares to a 2 blade "fence post", certainly the Prop rpm = would be higher, however it might be better to keep the inputs to a = projected 2 blade configuration for the calculations and then compare = the 3 blade performance numbers against your results. George (down under) Probably not, I guess this method died out with the introduction of = modern dyno=92s as they measure over a range of rpm=92s. french engineer Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel apparently figured it out 100 = years ago. google just found part of the spreadsheet without copyright, so posted = it here. Andrew On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:36 PM, wrote: Has there been a compilation of data from folks spinning various = sizes of fence posts with known HP engines? Results corrected to sea = level standard day and all of that? Where did this come from? Thank you. Lynn E. Hanover -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB62D5.634F7960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 Andrew,
I like Lynn's "spinning fence posts" = analogy, goes=20 with "looking for apex seals in the exhaust "statement.
 
Anyhow I digress, I believe this = calculation is=20 helpful for  a information you are seeking, however it's dependent = on good=20 information going into the process - you know what they say, sh.. in=20 sh..out.
 
I do believe your 190 hp is a bit = ambitious, from a=20 conservative stand point I would look at entering 180 hp ( might not be = much=20 difference, but worth a look-see.) Also I believe 6,800 rpm might be too = high=20 for static rpm, if your max rpm is 7,000 - I would put in 6,000 rpm into = that=20 slot and see how the numbers fall.
 
From memory I believe your running a = smaller 3=20 blade prop, I don't know how that compares to a 2 blade "fence post", = certainly=20 the Prop rpm would be higher, however it might be better to keep the = inputs to a=20 projected 2 blade configuration for the calculations and then compare = the 3=20 blade performance numbers against your results.
George (down under)
Probably=20 not, I guess this method died out with the introduction of modern = dyno=92s as=20 they measure over a range of rpm=92s.
french engineer Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel apparently figured = it out=20 100 years ago.
google just found part of the spreadsheet without copyright, so = posted it=20 here.

Andrew

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:36 PM, <Lehanover@aol.com> = wrote:
Has there been a compilation of data from folks spinning = various sizes=20 of fence posts with known HP engines? Results corrected to sea level = standard day and all of that?
 
Where did this come from?
 
Thank you.
 
Lynn E. = Hanover



--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:  =20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CB62D5.634F7960--