X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:57:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from col0-omc3-s16.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.154] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with ESMTP id 3406937 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:58:08 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.154; envelope-from=bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Received: from COL104-W79 ([65.55.34.135]) by col0-omc3-s16.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 08:57:31 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7ec3c088-1899-4a13-8e31-4028fcc34b30_" X-Originating-IP: [75.164.128.101] From: Bill Kennedy X-Original-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: reversing MT X-Original-Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 08:57:31 -0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jan 2009 16:57:31.0283 (UTC) FILETIME=[090DBE30:01C96C32] --_7ec3c088-1899-4a13-8e31-4028fcc34b30_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My uninformed (as usual) guess would be that going back to flat pitch at 50= KIAS or so would reduce the risk of damage and still take advantage of bet= a.=20 I flew OV-10s with twin turboprops for three years. We often used beta unti= l stopped=2C and I don't remember a problem=2C but if I were paying for pro= p repairs I'd be more cautious. > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Thu=2C 1 Jan 2009 11:40:02 -0500 > From: liegner@embarqmail.com > Subject: [LML] Re: reversing MT >=20 > I don't know much about this=2C but I had considered the topic years=20 > ago. The composite MT prop (even with the nickle leading edge) takes=20 > a beating and gets pitted easily. Making this a reversing prop (that=20 > is=2C going into Beta) invites heavy ingestion of rocks and debris=20 > sucked back up into the prop after it passes over them. It has been=20 > my understanding that these beta props (sometimes found on=20 > turboprops) get heavy damage and need constant repair/maintenance=20 > from the beta feature. >=20 > Jeff L > LIVP >=20 > >Lancair says they have sold a couple of reversing MT props to Legacies. = I'm > >thinking about installing one on a IVP and would appreciate any comments= . > >Thanks >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml --_7ec3c088-1899-4a13-8e31-4028fcc34b30_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My uninformed (as usual) guess would be that going back to flat pitch at 50= KIAS or so would reduce the risk of damage and still take advantage of bet= a.

I flew OV-10s with twin turboprops for three years. We often use= d beta until stopped=2C and I don't remember a problem=2C but if I were pay= ing for prop repairs I'd be more cautious.

>=3B To: lml@lancaironl= ine.net
>=3B Date: Thu=2C 1 Jan 2009 11:40:02 -0500
>=3B From: li= egner@embarqmail.com
>=3B Subject: [LML] Re: reversing MT
>=3B >=3B I don't know much about this=2C but I had considered the topic yea= rs
>=3B ago. The composite MT prop (even with the nickle leading edg= e) takes
>=3B a beating and gets pitted easily. Making this a revers= ing prop (that
>=3B is=2C going into Beta) invites heavy ingestion of= rocks and debris
>=3B sucked back up into the prop after it passes o= ver them. It has been
>=3B my understanding that these beta props (s= ometimes found on
>=3B turboprops) get heavy damage and need constant= repair/maintenance
>=3B from the beta feature.
>=3B
>=3B = Jeff L
>=3B LIVP
>=3B
>=3B >=3BLancair says they have sol= d a couple of reversing MT props to Legacies. I'm
>=3B >=3Bthinking= about installing one on a IVP and would appreciate any comments.
>=3B= >=3BThanks
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B --
>=3B For archives and= unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= --_7ec3c088-1899-4a13-8e31-4028fcc34b30_--