X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.92.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with SMTP id 4499713 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:25:41 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.147.92.123; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: (qmail 87259 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Oct 2010 19:25:04 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1286652302; bh=zts8AAwdF3Rr1BIntrdMndIgdPSK7jjYAZPt6knAcuY=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=viLiq3QTWXcWFglItwcqGybemqf38/X5fuBZlOZq0fkhKh4GHaqUcNe4J8DhJuA3PmycRL2/tE/+3izfidr5P1bSXsl+cI3yeyxwm52tAaw1iv5nqh9JU89IRBmP+bVnoLIrdbonLqszxTyxbYNfKO7n7ZKKoguSZUG/qTEE1g8= 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=b8Yw2EovXVgyvpXgoC1JZvl9RRUxUD/yWleEVg5pYm4t+r1aZXO+PO8+hUMjfsex892dvjM7tzcT0AlSv2GL+bf5qE1ZnxqCUWPv1zaVaEKj4C/RvSJkbGglhIPiEgPSwo4ghsDq3KH8MXIL4P2PbwRhUvQwIYOwc+Vf0qIGQWs=; Message-ID: <777038.86649.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: ApDzeGoVM1mHCb8E4d6S.ze2ZhTb9tp9tDMrBTmN2AKkgtp lr0PC5jS_thwTgWEp2bRRmBJoHU1LstII8wKq_H0EK_rttaqpkiC.9ET0RUE eEoY0etCcVz3R0W3qGI5PIZYTs8UoeIv4zyKR2.UOvhH5udpPK0BEkstcYi2 RD5_wShtBb3jiDJIEg881M41oga_E.6cc5Tv6ksM5agLjcPfc8Tbe3VtjeP. sLnKMCehT4KxjOcD14NJf8GjoqJ1oHp5FY88yerXxyBQghgRNb8ZJ7q0dFat mpA2D1WhW_ES53xWVDeAtABnFZaDzgh73CT66Xsgl Received: from [208.114.33.253] by web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:25:02 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.106.282862 References: Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:25:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Troyer Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller design. To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-654588621-1286652302=:86649" --0-654588621-1286652302=:86649 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill,=0A=C2=A0 Click on the cover=0A=C2=A0=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DELTA JD2= " (Eventually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRAL"_Back= plate/Oil Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________= ___________________=0AFrom: Bill Bradburry =0ATo:= Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Sat, Octob= er 9, 2010 12:56:34 PM=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Prope= ller design.=0A=0A=0AHow do you download it?=C2=A0 All I get is the cover??= ?=0A=C2=A0=0ABill B=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0AFro= m:Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf = Of =0AEd Anderson=0ASent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:40 PM=0ATo: Rotary = motors in aircraft=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller des= ign.=0A=C2=A0=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=C2= =A0=0AFrom:Pat Panzera =0ASent:Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:19 PM=0ATo:ean= derson@carolina.rr.com =0ASubject:Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller design.=0A= =C2=A0=0AEd, =0A=C2=A0=0AI can't post to the group so could you please let = everyone know that the current =0Aissue of CONTACT! Magazine has another Li= pps article in it and the entire issue =0Acan be downloaded for free off th= e website. www.ContactMagazine,com=0A=C2=A0=0AThanks!=0A=C2=A0=0APat=0AOn S= at, Oct 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:= =0AYes, a radially different concept for Prop design.=C2=A0 I remember when= the bi-plane =0Apicked up something like a 20 MPH increase in speed with L= ipps prop - it had us =0Aall drooling to think that perhaps we could gain a= 10 MPH increase with our RV =0Aaircraft.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, in the one e= xample I am somewhat familiar with when =0Aput on an Rv-6 the outcome was s= omewhat disappointing - I think it was a gain of =0Aonly about 1-2 MPH.=0A= =C2=A0=0ANow in all fairness, Paul's admits his=C2=A0design approach is dep= endent on somewhat =0Auntradiational accuracy in engine HP and drag of the = platform information - =0Awhich may have been lacking in this first attempt= .=C2=A0 However, since there has not =0Abeen a flood of aircraft with the L= ipps prop, I'm inclined to believe that it =0Ahas not yet reach the promise= that first seemed likely.=0A=C2=A0=0AWhile folks can point to the 20 mph i= ncrease in the bi plane's performance, I =0Acan't help but wonder if perhap= s the original prop on the bi plane may have been =0Aa poor choice whereupo= n replacing it with the Lipps (better matched) make the =0Aperformance gain= seem all related to the Lipps prop rather than replacing what =0Amay have = been a poor original choice - but, just spectulation on my part.=0A=C2=A0= =0AI really wanted to see the Lipps prop deliver all it initially seemed to= =0Apromise, but I can't find any data yet to support its initial promise -= at least =0Aon the type platforms and speeds we normally fly.=C2=A0 It=E2= =80=99s the first really =0Adifferent approach to prop design I've seen sin= ce - well, since the Wright =0Abrothers {:>)=0A=C2=A0=0AIf anybody has a so= urce for information that indicates my impression is =0Aincorrect regarding= its performance on Rv type aircraft (or similar), I would =0Alike to recei= ve it.=0A=C2=A0=0AThanks=0A=C2=A0=0AEd=0A=C2=A0=0AFrom:Lehanover@aol.com = =0ASent:Saturday, October 09, 2010 9:53 AM=0ATo:Rotary motors in aircraft = =0ASubject:[FlyRotary] Propeller design.=0A=C2=A0=0Ahttp://www.eaa.org/expe= rimenter/articles/2009-02_elippse.asp=0A=C2=A0=0AI sat through a talk by Pa= ul Lipps at Gene Nevada at the alternative engine =0Aseminar put on by Cont= act Magazine several years ago.=0A=C2=A0=0AHe flew in=C2=A0his home built, = with his propeller. Its outer blades were the size of =0Aa 12" ruler. Imagi= ne model sail plane wings, or bread knife blades. He placed =0Asplit tennis= balls on the tips so guests did not stab themselves on the blades.=0A=C2= =A0=0ALater, he helped a guy design new wings for a biplane racer, and thos= e wings =0Alooked just like his propeller =0A=0Ablades. It had a 4 bladed L= ipps propeller as well. =0A=C2=A0=0ANot mentioned was the low wetted area o= f the blades would allow greater span =0Awith less drag. The high angle of = attack at the root allowed playing card sized =0Acooling inlets. =0A=0A=C2= =A0=0AIn the event of failed engine his prop has less than a 3rd of the fro= ntal area =0Aof a conventional prop.=0ANot exactly full feathering, but bet= ter than anything else.=0A=C2=A0=0ASo, if the blade has less drag for each = unit of lift, then you could add span =0Auntil you get close to the ground,= and then add blade count until you have =0Aaccounted for all of the availa= ble HP. Then you port the rotary to get more HP.=0A=C2=A0=0AWarning, lookin= g at a Lipps propeller blade may hurt your =0Amind......................=0A= =C2=A0=0Ahttp://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-02_elippse.asp=0A=C2= =A0=0ALynn E. Hanover --0-654588621-1286652302=:86649 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
Bill,
=0A
  Click on the cover
&nb= sp;
=0A

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

=0A

"13B ROTARY"_ Engin= e
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

=0A

"TURBO= NETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A

=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom= : Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyr= otary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 12:56:34 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller d= esign.

=0A=0A=0A
=0A

<= FONT color=3Dnavy size=3D2 face=3DArial>How do you download it?  All I get is th= e cover???

=0A

 

=0A

Bill B

=0A

 

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

= From: Rotary motors in a= ircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:40 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Fw: [FlyRot= ary] Re: Propeller design.

=0A

<= FONT size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman">&nbs= p;

=0A
=0A

Pat, asked to post= this to the list - another Lipps article in CONTACT!

=0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> 

=0A
=0A

I'm going there to read it now

=0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> 

=0A
=0A

Ed

=0A
=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A
=0A

From: Pat Panzera

=0A
=0A

Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:19 PM

=0A=0A
=0A

Subject: Re= : [FlyRotary] Re: Propeller design.

=0A<= DIV>=0A

 

=0A

Ed,

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

I can't post to the group so could you= please let everyone know that the current issue of CONTACT! Magazine has a= nother Lipps article in it and the entire issue can be downloaded for free = off the website. www.ContactMagazine,com

=0A=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Thanks!

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Pat

=0A
=0A

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 = at 7:23 AM, Ed Anderson <e= anderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

=0A
=0A
= =0A

Yes, a radially di= fferent concept for Prop design.  I remember when the bi-plane picked = up something like a 20 MPH increase in speed with Lipps prop - it had us al= l drooling to think that perhaps we could gain a 10 MPH increase with our R= V aircraft.  Unfortunately, in the one example I am somewhat familiar = with when put on an Rv-6 the outcome was somewhat disappointing - I think i= t was a gain of only about 1-2 MPH.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Now in all fairness, Paul's admi= ts his design approach is dependent on somewhat untradiational accurac= y in engine HP and drag of the platform information - which may have been l= acking in this first attempt.  However, since there has not been a flo= od of aircraft with the Lipps prop, I'm inclined to believe that it has not= yet reach the promise that first seemed likely.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
= =0A

While folks can po= int to the 20 mph increase in the bi plane's performance, I can't help but = wonder if perhaps the original prop on the bi plane may have been a poor ch= oice whereupon replacing it with the Lipps (better matched) make the perfor= mance gain seem all related to the Lipps prop rather than replacing what ma= y have been a poor original choice - but, just spectulation on my part.

=0A
= =0A

 

=0A
=0A

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

If anybody has a source for informat= ion that indicates my impression is incorrect regarding its performance on = Rv type aircraft (or similar), I would like to receive it.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

= Thanks

=0A=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Ed

=0A
=0A=0A=0A

Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 9:53 AM=

=0A= =0A
=0A

Subject: [FlyRotary] Propeller design.

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

http://www.eaa.org/experi= menter/articles/2009-02_elippse.asp

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

I sat = through a talk by Paul Lipps at Gene Nevada at the alternative engine semin= ar put on by Contact Magazine several years ago.

=0A=
=0A

 =

=0A
=0A

He flew in his home built, with his propeller. Its outer blad= es were the size of a 12" ruler. Imagine model sail plane wings, or bread k= nife blades. He placed split tennis balls on the tips so guests did not sta= b themselves on the blades.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A<= DIV>=0A

Later, he help= ed a guy design new wings for a biplane racer, and those wings looked just = like his propeller

=0A
=0A

= blades. It had a 4 bladed Lipps propeller = as well.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Not mentioned was the low wetted= area of the blades would allow greater span with less drag. The high angle= of attack at the root allowed playing card sized cooling inlets.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

In the event of failed engine his prop has less th= an a 3rd of the frontal area of a conventional prop.

=0A
=0A

= Not exact= ly full feathering, but better than anything else.

= =0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

=0A
=0A

So, if the blade has less drag for each unit of lift, then you co= uld add span until you get close to the ground, and then add blade count un= til you have accounted for all of the available HP. Then you port the rotar= y to get more HP.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Warning, looking at a Li= pps propeller blade may hurt your mind......................<= /P>

=0A
=0A

=  

=0A=0A
=0A=

 =

=0A
=0A

= Lynn E. Hanover

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A

 

--0-654588621-1286652302=:86649--