Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:19:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b7) with ESMTP id 1733860 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:42:06 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id q.a4.2c1471fd (4328) for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:42:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:42:01 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Prop Choices for a IVP X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a4.2c1471fd.2ab62069_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 4010 --part1_a4.2c1471fd.2ab62069_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2002 11:19:15 AM Central Daylight Time, ted@vineyard.net writes: > The only issue I can see is that of prop-engine-airframe compatibility. It's > my understanding that Lancair spent considerable time with Hartzell > refining > a blade design that was acceptable Huh? The 70 inch 320 prop is a standard 84 inch prop with 14 inches cut off of it. It was vibration tested - that's it folks. Scott Krueger N92EX --part1_a4.2c1471fd.2ab62069_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2002 11:19:15 AM Central Daylight Time, ted@vineyard.net writes:

The only issue I can see is that of prop-engine-airframe compatibility. It's
my understanding that Lancair spent considerable time with Hartzell refining
a blade design that was acceptable


Huh?

The 70 inch 320 prop is a standard 84 inch prop with 14 inches cut off of it.  It was vibration tested - that's it folks.

Scott Krueger
N92EX --part1_a4.2c1471fd.2ab62069_boundary--