X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:04:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.1) with ESMTP id 1501799 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:28:02 -0400 Received: from [192.168.111.2] ([70.19.74.145]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0J7N006GVSYE0TF8@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:27:51 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:27:48 -0400 From: Kevin Kossi Subject: Fwd: Hartzell Composite Prop. X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <17948865-B591-42BE-926F-E94038414582@airforcemechanical.com> > Lorn, > > In this case you have to compare apples to apples. I like the Aero > Comp. Prop. and think it is a superior prop as far as construction. > Hartzell worked with Lancair and and specifically designed a 3 > blade model for the Legacy, so it is optimum for the planes aero > dynamics. Where as the Aero Comp. Prop. Is a standard model trimmed > down to the size you want. I looked at the Reno races and checked > on what Prop. the fastest planes had and it was a Hartzell. That > may be because no one had an Aero Comp Prop? Another factor is > cost, the Aero Comp. cost $ 15K and the Hartzell $ 11K $ 4k is hard > to argue with! > > From my research from people that have flown the 3 blade Hartzell > (Designed for the Legacy) and the 3 blade Aero Comp. (Both the same > size) on their planes, is that the Aero is only a few knots slower. > Now maybe one performs better for climb, or one performs better at > higher altitudes, one will never know unless exhaustive scientific > testing is done. > > The main factor for me may be weight and how a heaver Hartzell will > affect my W&B I want to install two auxiliary fuel tanks in the > leading wing edge area that usually gets the lights. I am planning > on some long international trips and want the comfort of the extra > fuel when I do those trips, otherwise I won't use them. So in this > case I may opt for the Aero Comp. Prop. > > Another factor is serviceability, Hartzell is everywhere you go. > > > > Tough decision! > > Kevin Kossi > > New York > > Legacy 70% (No Prop yet) > > > > > On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Lorn H Olsen wrote: > >> Tom & Kevin, >> >> I have flown behind a 2 bladed Aero Composites >> (aerocomposites.com) prop for the last 3 years. I had Hartzells. I >> like the Aero Composites prop better. >> >> After flying it for 3 years I believe that the ACI prop has added >> between 5 & 7 knots to my speed. >> >> I had an engine overspeed last year (3,500 RPM). This overspeed >> did not cause any prop problems. The leading edge is nickel and >> after 400 hours is still as smooth as silk. >> >> Kevin, >> >> You should take a look at ACI. They are near you in Kensington, CT. >> >> Lorn >> >>> From: "Tom Williams" >>> >>> No one has mentioned the Aero Composites prop. They make a very >>> nice prop 2, 3, or 4 blades and reasonable price!!! >> >> -- >> Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp. >> 248-345-0500, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.ws >> LNC2, O-320-D1F, 1,200 hrs, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan >> >> >