X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost03.isp.att.net ([207.115.11.53] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with ESMTP id 4491310 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:08:48 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.11.53; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-85-141-241.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.141.241]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc03) with SMTP id <20101003160812H03002t5a4e>; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:08:13 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [98.85.141.241] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Sam Hodges Prop area Comparison Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 12:08:13 -0400 Message-ID: <0B2AA2313EC14A40A9376703B9C81C28@Desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01CB62F3.A7C40ED0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: ActjCcpLtWff0vCmTJ2LL3mU9rRr7AACu7Bw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01CB62F3.A7C40ED0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was also 76" vs a data plate calling for 74". With that data incorrect, it could have been a totally wrong prop and may not have even been 88" pitch. What is Sam going to have Catto do to the prop? Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 10:46 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Sam Hodges Prop area Comparison Just doing a rough back of the envelope calculation comparing Sam Hodges prop (8" cord) to my prop (5 1/2" cord) and assuming the two props blade profiles were similar, Sam's prop would have approx 45% more prop area trying to push the air back than my prop. Small wonder his engine was groaning trying to spin it up to 6000 rpm. Ed Edward L. Anderson Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC 305 Reefton Road Weddington, NC 28104 http://www.andersonee.com http://www.eicommander.com ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01CB62F3.A7C40ED0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It was also 76” vs a data = plate calling for 74”.  With that data incorrect, it could have been a = totally wrong prop and may not have even been 88” pitch.

What is Sam going to have Catto do = to the prop?

 

Bill B

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson
Sent: Sunday, October 03, = 2010 10:46 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Sam = Hodges Prop area Comparison

 

Just doing a rough back of the envelope calculation comparing  Sam Hodges prop (8" cord) to my prop (5 1/2" = cord) and assuming the two props blade profiles were similar, Sam's prop would = have approx 45% more prop area trying to push the air back than my = prop.  Small wonder his engine was groaning trying to spin it up to 6000 = rpm.

 

Ed

 

Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton = Road
Weddington, = NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com=

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01CB62F3.A7C40ED0--