X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.92.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with SMTP id 4499649 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:44:00 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.147.92.103; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: (qmail 70812 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Oct 2010 17:43:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1286646202; bh=pEdFyehLix8dLlaJVXvjtzoWrpahFsgIgb6v4sA5aIU=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=R6AFdfkXXWIJFDsJvumIuBvzHMs5tRkRDfR3iJ61U1nT9pnkq7A9oySFv2td85UY6YrQhAcr/VoRgAom3q8xc25qfurJksk/9xnwCIgISVvm9Bf2Tx8VNaRSJHyva357xfvpKUTLnbmvHjcKaBeUB7nqUZc3i/zqMkH8LPp3k68= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ri+pEB0IvCLO3JO+AHvqoU4EGXjnzUxf/j9I/bvQrycGzD3kfVaZCOeyswWZs/0LpjweZyH9IxRAEUPXRU1kZj0iMnuuhSi6wUTwh6Xg6thUV3Fei3HFyxhVNSo5rpwHwaZ38mIx15oXdZuf2mF3pjaD2trBKy1TSXekX04KHGA=; Message-ID: <707482.69680.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: QGmsSssVM1kJ_DESO9eSdki7mUbYlwsEDuUbOt2LtaCjAYQ 6CCZ5o5Uwb64MpbBKb5dgOWy4BMkS9zEWHx3Ek5FG93Jv7bhOpXQ8Lig76ct XkJw.pEjQCUUbC36hYCT1D1uCfaD2KdGAvn0sHtQWC3NRaXlrRFwiArIemWL yFieOc1IiwbLmEuJ0wsolL0EAvSVSjbkHaa_sWpf.ADcT9HEe3T5RGQZOggE LjpByY0h13HJ07d5_LnUE2Tf5CUgOLochnvcnjkgayvCzqa.Pp22iEA7uOYy EWfdtewyGuf1TvNPBgkhiJ9bqBPVWVb_smRX_iy6z Received: from [208.114.33.253] by web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:43:22 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.106.282862 References: Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:43:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Troyer Subject: Re: Propeller design. To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1917335269-1286646202=:69680" --0-1917335269-1286646202=:69680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Link to "Contact" has a comma instead of period between Magazine and =0Acom= ..........Here is =0A=0Acorrected link..............=0A=0A=0A=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0www.ContactMagazine.com=0A=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE D= ELTA JD2" (Eventually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTR= AL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____= ___________________________=0AFrom: Ed Anderson = =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Sat,= October 9, 2010 11:39:38 AM=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Pro= peller design.=0A=0A=0APat, asked to post this to the list - another Lipps = article in CONTACT!=0A=C2=A0=0AI'm going there to read it now=0A=C2=A0=0AEd= =0A=0A=0AFrom: Pat Panzera =0ASent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:19 PM=0AT= o: eanderson@carolina.rr.com =0ASubject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller desi= gn.=0AEd, =0A=0AI can't post to the group so could you please let everyone = know that the current =0Aissue of CONTACT! Magazine has another Lipps artic= le in it and the entire issue =0Acan be downloaded for free off the website= . www.ContactMagazine,com=0A=0AThanks!=0A=0APat=0A=0A=0AOn Sat, Oct 9, 2010= at 7:23 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:=0A=0AYes, a rad= ially different concept for Prop design.=C2=A0 I remember when the bi-plane= =0Apicked up something like a 20 MPH increase in speed with Lipps prop - i= t had us =0Aall drooling to think that perhaps we could gain a 10 MPH incre= ase with our RV =0Aaircraft.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, in the one example I am s= omewhat familiar with when =0Aput on an Rv-6 the outcome was somewhat disap= pointing - I think it was a gain of =0Aonly about 1-2 MPH.=0A>=C2=A0=0A>Now= in all fairness, Paul's admits his=C2=A0design approach is dependent on so= mewhat =0A>untradiational accuracy in engine HP and drag of the platform in= formation - =0A>which may have been lacking in this first attempt.=C2=A0 Ho= wever, since there has not =0A>been a flood of aircraft with the Lipps prop= , I'm inclined to believe that it =0A>has not yet reach the promise that fi= rst seemed likely.=0A>=C2=A0=0A>While folks can point to the 20 mph increas= e in the bi plane's performance, I =0A>can't help but wonder if perhaps the= original prop on the bi plane may have been =0A>a poor choice whereupon re= placing it with the Lipps (better matched) make the =0A>performance gain se= em all related to the Lipps prop rather than replacing what =0A>may have be= en a poor original choice - but, just spectulation on my part.=0A>=C2=A0=0A= >I really wanted to see the Lipps prop deliver all it initially seemed to = =0A>promise, but I can't find any data yet to support its initial promise -= at least =0A>on the type platforms and speeds we normally fly.=C2=A0 It=E2= =80=99s the first really =0A>different approach to prop design I've seen si= nce - well, since the Wright =0A>brothers {:>)=0A>=C2=A0=0A>If anybody has = a source for information that indicates my impression is =0A>incorrect rega= rding its performance on Rv type aircraft (or similar), I would =0A>like to= receive it.=0A>=C2=A0=0A>Thanks=0A>=C2=A0=0A>Ed=0A>=0A>=0A>From: Lehanover= @aol.com =0A>Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 9:53 AM=0A>To: Rotary motors = in aircraft =0A>Subject: [FlyRotary] Propeller design.=0A>=0A>http://www.ea= a.org/experimenter/articles/2009-02_elippse.asp=0A>=0A>I sat through a talk= by Paul Lipps at Gene Nevada at the alternative engine =0A>seminar put on = by Contact Magazine several years ago.=0A>=0A>He flew in=C2=A0his home buil= t, with his propeller. Its outer blades were the size of =0A>a 12" ruler. I= magine model sail plane wings, or bread knife blades. He placed =0A>split t= ennis balls on the tips so guests did not stab themselves on the blades.=0A= >=0A>Later, he helped a guy design new wings for a biplane racer, and those= wings =0A>looked just like his propeller =0A>=0A>blades. It had a 4 bladed= Lipps propeller as well. =0A>=0A>Not mentioned was the low wetted area of = the blades would allow greater span =0A>with less drag. The high angle of a= ttack at the root allowed playing card sized =0A>cooling inlets. =0A>=0A>= =0A>In the event of failed engine his prop has less than a 3rd of the front= al area =0A>of a conventional prop.=0A>Not exactly full feathering, but bet= ter than anything else.=0A>=0A>So, if the blade has less drag for each unit= of lift, then you could add span =0A>until you get close to the ground, an= d then add blade count until you have =0A>accounted for all of the availabl= e HP. Then you port the rotary to get more HP.=0A>=0A>Warning, looking at a= Lipps propeller blade may hurt your =0A>mind......................=0A>=0A>= http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-02_elippse.asp=0A>=0A>Lynn E.= Hanover=0A>=0A>=0A --0-1917335269-1286646202=:69680 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
Link to "Contact" has a comma instead of period bet= ween Magazine and com..........Here is
=0A
corrected link........= ......
=0A
 
=0A
     &= nbsp;www.ContactMagazine.com
=0A
&= nbsp;
=0A

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

=0A

"13B ROTARY"_ Eng= ine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

=0A

"TUR= BONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A

=0A

=0A
=0A
=0A= From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent:= Sat, October 9, 2010 11:39:38 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller des= ign.

=0A
Pat, asked to post this to th= e list - another Lipps article in CONTACT!
=0A
 
=0A
I'm going there to r= ead it now
=0A
 
=0AEd
=0A
=0A=

=0A
=0A
From: <= A title=3Deditor.contactmagazine@gmail.com href=3D"mailto:editor.contactmag= azine@gmail.com" rel=3Dnofollow target=3D_blank ymailto=3D"mailto:editor.co= ntactmagazine@gmail.com">Pat Panzera
=0A
Sent: Saturda= y, October 09, 2010 12:19 PM
=0A=0A
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller de= sign.
=0A

Ed, =0A

=0A
I ca= n't post to the group so could you please let everyone know that the curren= t issue of CONTACT! Magazine has another Lipps article in it and the entire= issue can be downloaded for free off the website. www.ContactMagazine,com<= /A>
=0A

=0A
Thanks!
=0A

=0A
P= at

=0A
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Ed An= derson <ea= nderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
=0A
=0A
= =0A
Yes, a radially different concept for Prop design.&n= bsp; I remember when the bi-plane picked up something like a 20 MPH increas= e in speed with Lipps prop - it had us all drooling to think that perhaps w= e could gain a 10 MPH increase with our RV aircraft.  Unfortunately, i= n the one example I am somewhat familiar with when put on an Rv-6 the outco= me was somewhat disappointing - I think it was a gain of only about 1-2 MPH= .
=0A
 
=0A
Now in all fairness, Paul's admits his design approach is depende= nt on somewhat untradiational accuracy in engine HP and drag of the platfor= m information - which may have been lacking in this first attempt.  Ho= wever, since there has not been a flood of aircraft with the Lipps prop, I'= m inclined to believe that it has not yet reach the promise that first seem= ed likely.
=0A
 
=0A
While folks can point to the 20 mph increase in the bi plane's= performance, I can't help but wonder if perhaps the original prop on the b= i plane may have been a poor choice whereupon replacing it with the Lipps (= better matched) make the performance gain seem all related to the Lipps pro= p rather than replacing what may have been a poor original choice - but, ju= st spectulation on my part.
=0A
 = ;
=0A
I really wanted to see the Lipps prop deliver= all it initially seemed to promise, but I can't find any data yet to suppo= rt its initial promise - at least on the type platforms and speeds we norma= lly fly.  It=E2=80=99s the first really different approach to prop des= ign I've seen since - well, since the Wright brothers {:>)
= =0A
 
=0A
If anybody= has a source for information that indicates my impression is incorrect reg= arding its performance on Rv type aircraft (or similar), I would like to re= ceive it.
=0A
 
=0A
Thanks
=0A
 
= =0A
Ed
=0A
= =0A

=0A
=0A=0A
Sent:<= /B> Saturday, October 09, 2010 9:53 AM
=0A=0A
Subject: [FlyRotary] Propeller design.
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

=0A
http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/artic= les/2009-02_elippse.asp
=0A
 
=0A
I sat through a ta= lk by Paul Lipps at Gene Nevada at the alternative engine seminar put on by= Contact Magazine several years ago.
=0A
 
=0A
He fl= ew in his home built, with his propeller. Its outer blades were the si= ze of a 12" ruler. Imagine model sail plane wings, or bread knife blades. H= e placed split tennis balls on the tips so guests did not stab themselves o= n the blades.
=0A
 
=0A
Later, he helped a guy desig= n new wings for a biplane racer, and those wings looked just like his prope= ller
=0A
blades. It had a 4 bladed Lipps propeller as well. =0A
 
=0A
Not mentioned was the low wetted area of the b= lades would allow greater span with less drag. The high angle of attack at = the root allowed playing card sized cooling inlets.
=0A
 =0A
In the event of failed engine his prop has less than a 3rd of th= e frontal area of a conventional prop.
=0A
Not exactly full feathe= ring, but better than anything else.
=0A
 
=0A
So, i= f the blade has less drag for each unit of lift, then you could add span un= til you get close to the ground, and then add blade count until you have ac= counted for all of the available HP. Then you port the rotary to get more H= P.
=0A
 
=0A
Warning, looking at a Lipps propeller b= lade may hurt your mind......................
=0A
 
=0A<= DIV>http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2= 009-02_elippse.asp
=0A
 
=0A
Lynn E. Hanover=0A
 
=0A
 

--0-1917335269-1286646202=:69680--