Re: Re: [indoor construction] VP or VD

From: Bill Gowen <b.gowen_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:35:57 -0400

Slobodan
Jim Richmond seems to do very well with a folding VD prop. For me the folding mechanism is too complicated and the sliding spar mechanism is too heavy. Even the sliding spar mechanism is difficult to keep working reliably.

I'm sure that someone could work out a way to keep a constant P/D ratio but I think it would be very difficult. I looked at the increased pitch as a bonus in my props - like I was getting VD and VP all at the same time.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Slobodan Midic
  To: Indoor group
  Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:13 PM
  Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: [indoor construction] VP or VD


  Thank you Bill and Nick,

  You have right, at known constructions of VD prop, that means at folding VD
  system and at sliding VD system, you have only translation movement the
  prop blades near to prop axis, and "the P value isn't constant", nor P/D
  value also. But if the progressive movement of blade is combined with some
  blade rotation in the same time for some angle round the blade spars, at
  some predetermined low, maybe can you achieve, P/D=Const., during changing
  the prop diameter. I don't have the solution for that VD prop, that is
  something imaginary, but it can be solve, only the question is, have this
  some sense or not. My impression was that VD prop have better potential for
  flying with optimal prop efficiency at different working regimes than at VP
  props, and maybe is that criterion P/D=Const.

  I excuse to the group with my hypothetical questions, maybe it is not
  interesting ....

  Thank you,
  With compliments,
  Slobodan Midich, dipl.ing.



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on Mon Oct 23 2006 - 12:40:27 CEST