X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com ([208.47.184.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with ESMTP id 4492945 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:58:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.47.184.3; envelope-from=candtmallory@embarqmail.com Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@embarqmail.com; t=1286229482; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=Mgfaw+jY2+m9F+1cu6oCTUSeLJ0=; b=YGbZM6dclxIbecCDwecVjwtJgQIAX8s6KOIwmS73cnDdzQBaK8KNyFEmk41DIh+I XKRN+2DL+FVj4IGTHwm8yYRjlpj1TulIAS8lv2scQ2vHHzisxqUi1/RXvDDZ8YZM; X-BINDING: X-Spam-Rating: None X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=3hzvwTe83hS487E3onJKxd+SeZOJsojdM0aL5ojeFpI= c=1 sm=0 a=nAj-9e3w_JcA:10 a=jGa3PEj4gNbevsvxH5tqxQ==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=1oqGTYSLAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=r1ClD_H3AAAA:8 a=YuyQ3N14PeOkptr7PEcA:9 a=KQAK2TUJLbUzmLgCAUUA:7 a=iDLhsUgi8V6fNjz6BJui5DvCQEwA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=cvn8laQl214A:10 a=0WGhfPobVwmWW2oN:21 a=RHdw_Ouft_ZMnE41:21 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=px3hzYg5t-2PI-Jzv3YA:9 a=4whXZeheqyw1dOPhD_oA:7 a=eVtWAp9n-RdUm2rUDM4isy_K0KIA:4 a=f6NoFOnDlXy-QCBT:21 a=ZmpcsL2NrD-Shw_o:21 a=jGa3PEj4gNbevsvxH5tqxQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp01.embarq.synacor.com smtp.user=candtmallory@embarqmail.com; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received: from [76.5.160.103] ([76.5.160.103:25034] helo=AcerPC) by mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.40 r(29895/29896)) with ESMTPA id 2D/B8-03143-9ED4AAC4; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:58:02 -0400 From: "Chris and Terria" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Sam Hodges Prop area Comparison Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:58:00 -0400 Message-ID: <003701cb640f$365c0b40$a31421c0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01CB63ED.AF4A6B40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Actjsyfn2ZXZ0d+DSWi9FDbmqlhl0wAW8/Qg Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CB63ED.AF4A6B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ed, I will measure next time I am at the airport. But I know I will be closer to Sam's numbers. My prop looks exactly like his. This makes me feel a little better, as I was wondering why my static was so low compared to other's numbers. I still think I will get airborne again, and actually check out what my dynamic max RPM is before I make any changes. Chris From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:58 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Sam Hodges Prop area Comparison Hi Chris, With Sam's original prop, he got around 5000 rpm max static. May have been as high as 5100 but ranged around 4800-5000 rpm. When He put my 74x88 Performance Prop on he got as high as 6100 rpm one time but each time got at least 6000 rpm. Measure your chord at its widest point - mine is 5 1/2", Sam's was around 8" - not the whole story on a prop, but can be an indication of whether your prop is close to one end of the spectrum or the other Ed From: Chris and Terria Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 9:37 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Sam Hodges Prop area Comparison Ed, I have the same Catto prop and mine is marked 76x88. I didn't get more than 5000 RPM max static either. To be honest, I didn't look at the max RPM while airborne, I was too busy looking at the temp, and I pulled the power back as soon as I could. I hope to fly again with the new radiator in a few weeks, and should be able to get new data. What were Sam's numbers Max static with the CATTO and with your prop? Thanks, Chris 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_0038_01CB63ED.AF4A6B40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ed,

 

I will measure next time I am at the airport.  But I = know I will be closer to Sam’s numbers.  My prop looks exactly like = his.

 

This makes me feel a little better, as I was wondering = why my static was so low compared to other’s = numbers.

 

I still think I will get airborne again, and actually = check out what my dynamic max RPM is before I make any = changes.

 

Chris

 

From:= Rotary = motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed = Anderson
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:58 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Sam Hodges Prop area = Comparison

 

Hi = Chris,

 

With Sam's original prop, he got around 5000 rpm max static.  May have been as = high as 5100 but ranged around 4800-5000 rpm.  When He put my 74x88 = Performance Prop on he got as high as 6100 rpm one time but each time got at least = 6000 rpm.

 

Measure your chord at its widest point - mine is 5 1/2", Sam's was around = 8" - not the whole story on a prop, but can be an indication of whether your prop = is close to one end of the spectrum or the other

 

Ed

 <= /o:p>

Sent: Sunday, = October 03, 2010 9:37 PM

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: Sam Hodges Prop area Comparison

 

Ed,

 

I have the same Catto prop and mine is marked = 76x88.  I didn’t get more than 5000 RPM max static either.  To be = honest, I didn’t look at the max RPM while airborne, I was too busy looking at the temp, = and I pulled the power back as soon as I could.  I hope to fly again with = the new radiator in a few weeks, and should be able to get new data.  = What were Sam’s numbers Max static with the CATTO and with your = prop?

 

Thanks,

 

Chris

 

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_0038_01CB63ED.AF4A6B40--