Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:10:26 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2977822 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:31:52 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r4.13.) id q.1a4.1f8a4294 (30950) for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:31:46 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1a4.1f8a4294.2d544881@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:31:45 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Propeller Heads, Help! X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1076031105" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 460 -------------------------------1076031105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/2004 6:10:39 PM Central Standard Time, Epijk@aol.com writes: I assume you're referring to the Landoll type "damper". If so, believe me that it has WAY less effectiveness at removing the damaging 6th and 8th order torsionals which the Lyc pendulous c-wts are tuned for. In fact, I don't think it is tuned for any order or frequency in particular. Jack, I don't think my 320 has any counterweights, pendulous or otherwise - It just keeps driving forward, except when it wants to stop rotating every so much of a revolution. It may be presumed that the Landoll damper is not removing high order tortionals, but it does mediate the negative torques per your web site discussion. How much? Who knows? So far, you are the only one that has offered up any information for consideration. None on the airfoil, just the info on vibration. I think the damper is far more effective (torque wise) on a constant speed prop than many would give it credit. <<>> Well, I guess I will have to continue my quest since I'm not resting my case. My "feelings" are only somatically interpreted - I need data, some of which is immediately beyond my grasp, but not forever - life is full of priorities. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Sky2high@aol.com II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL (KARR) "...as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know." D. Rumsfeld -------------------------------1076031105 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 2/5/2004 6:10:39 PM Central Standard Time, Epijk@aol= .com=20 writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>I assume=20 you're referring to the Landoll type "damper". If so, believe me that it h= as=20 WAY less effectiveness at removing the damaging 6th and 8th order torsiona= ls=20 which the Lyc pendulous c-wts are tuned for.   In fact, I don't=20 think it is tuned for any order or frequency in=20 particular.
Jack,
 
I don't think my 320 has any counterweights, pendulous or otherwise - I= t=20 just keeps driving forward, except when it wants to stop rotating every so m= uch=20 of a revolution.  It may be presumed that the Landoll damper is not=20 removing high order tortionals, but it does mediate the negative torques per= =20 your web site discussion.  How much? Who knows?  So far, you are t= he=20 only one that has offered up any information for consideration.  N= one=20 on the airfoil, just the info on vibration.  I think the damper is far=20= more=20 effective (torque wise) on a constant speed prop than many would give=20 it credit.
 
<<<I rest my case!.>>> 
 
Well, I guess I will have to continue my quest since I'm not resting my= =20 case.  My "feelings" are only somatically interpreted - I need data, so= me=20 of which is immediately beyond my grasp, but not forever - life is full of=20 priorities.=20
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Sky2high@aol.com
II-P N92EX IO320 Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

"...as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we kn= ow=20 we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there= are=20 some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones w= e=20 don't know we don't know." D. Rumsfeld
-------------------------------1076031105--