Message-ID: <40853535.36B34A26@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:35:33 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Performance Props
References: <list-3171907@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------82CF4B86D7A75D7B655B2EAC"


--------------82CF4B86D7A75D7B655B2EAC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Have you considered Catto FP composite props?  They are bullet proof as far as
FOD goes, and I've heard nothing to indicate that they don't perform as well as
Performance props.  And they're about $500 cheaper!  After my recent experience
with FOD (very minor damage to my Catto; a nearly identical incident shattered a
Performance prop) I'll never stray from composite props (glass over wood core).
Worth considering ... Jim S.

Russell Duffy wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
> Does anyone remember the message I sent a week or so ago, when I said I
> didn't want a wood prop?  Well, forget that :-)
>
> After some further thought, and research, I've realized that it isn't likely
> that I'll get the kind of performance that I want from my Warp Drive prop.
> I can't help but notice that typical RV-3's, with far less power than I've
> got, are getting great performance with wooden props.  At Tracy's
> recommendation, I called Performance Props, and had a long talk with them
> about my needs.  They were quite confident that they could get me the
> performance I want, so much so, that I signed up for a prop.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not scheduled to get a prop until around mid July, but
> that will give me time to clean up the airframe, and maybe even play with a
> 3rd intake.  Performance Props makes the prop initially a little large at
> first, then you tell them how it works, and send it back for a final
> adjustment, and finish.  I guess that means I need to get the engine and
> airframe finalized before testing the prop.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty (got wood... oops, sorry)

--------------82CF4B86D7A75D7B655B2EAC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Have you considered Catto FP composite props?&nbsp; They are bullet proof
as far as FOD goes, and I've heard nothing to indicate that they don't
perform as well as Performance props.&nbsp; And they're about $500 cheaper!&nbsp;
After my recent experience with FOD (very minor damage to my Catto; a nearly
identical incident <i>shattered</i> a Performance prop) I'll <b>never</b>
stray from composite props (glass over wood core).
<br>Worth considering ... Jim S.
<p>Russell Duffy wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Greetings all,
<p>Does anyone remember the message I sent a week or so ago, when I said
I
<br>didn't want a wood prop?&nbsp; Well, forget that :-)
<p>After some further thought, and research, I've realized that it isn't
likely
<br>that I'll get the kind of performance that I want from my Warp Drive
prop.
<br>I can't help but notice that typical RV-3's, with far less power than
I've
<br>got, are getting great performance with wooden props.&nbsp; At Tracy's
<br>recommendation, I called Performance Props, and had a long talk with
them
<br>about my needs.&nbsp; They were quite confident that they could get
me the
<br>performance I want, so much so, that I signed up for a prop.
<p>Unfortunately, I'm not scheduled to get a prop until around mid July,
but
<br>that will give me time to clean up the airframe, and maybe even play
with a
<br>3rd intake.&nbsp; Performance Props makes the prop initially a little
large at
<br>first, then you tell them how it works, and send it back for a final
<br>adjustment, and finish.&nbsp; I guess that means I need to get the
engine and
<br>airframe finalized before testing the prop.
<p>Cheers,
<br>Rusty (got wood... oops, sorry)</blockquote>
</html>

--------------82CF4B86D7A75D7B655B2EAC--