|
Andrew,
I like Lynn's "spinning fence posts" analogy, goes
with "looking for apex seals in the exhaust "statement.
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’s as
they measure over a range of rpm’s.
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, <Lehanover@aol.com> 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
|