Re: Prop efficiency at high pitch (was: News from R...

From: Mark <f1diddler_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:36:14 -0000

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, dgbj@... wrote:
d>
>
> I like Fred's idea, too. But what is the point of a postal contest
if the
> times of only one "side" are going to be posted?


Huh? Postal contest do not exclude anyones's times, all subsmissions
are reported, at least in every Postal I've heard about. If
anything, in this case, additional information would have to be
attached concerning prop/rubber, since this is presumably an
experiment to help support one theory or the other (traditional prop
rubber selection vs. your theory to use thinner and/or lighter rubber
along with "the most effient" pitch, if I understand correctly.)

Some of us don't speak "Dandiflyer" whatever that is. However, we do
have a considerable baseline of data for what amounts to conventional
rubber sizes and prop pitch regarding, say, Limited Penny Plane,
perhpaps the simplest AMA indoor class. We could fly LPP, and then
(of course subjectively) judge whether your greater results are
essentiall outside of or inside of the already known normal envelopes
of traditional rubber sizes and our "less than optimized efficient"
prop pitches. This challenge could be easily folded into Jeff Hood's
Postal, already up and running. Of course, theories in general can't
be proven nor disproven, but they can be supported or not supported.
Start building? <g>
Mark B
Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 07:37:28 CET