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

From: Mark <f1diddler_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:27:06 -0000

Gary Hinze wrote>

> I thought you were offering to run a postal contest, but only enter
times on
> behalf of one side.>>

No, no, I will fly the way I fly, and you will fly the way you fly.
We will both enter LPP times in Jeff Hood's postal, if you agree. We
can discuss here or there (Indoornews.com) the details of our
prop/rubber combinations. I will be flying with a fairly large area
prop, inefficiently flaring to an inefficiently high pitch, and the
mostest rubber I can load and get prop to spin off in low ceiling. I
have "limited" experience with LPP, and don't even own one right
now.

You, if I understand correctly, will begin to prove your theory that
superior times can be had by using thinner rubber and lighter rubber
to match the efficiency of a more efficiently pitched prop (meaning
lower, efficient pitch and/or no flare?) Thinner and lighter than
what? Isn't it fair to say just thinner (cross section) than what I
end up using, assuming mine is squarely within "common practice"
sizes? I'll bet you can already calculate your needed rubber size,
prop pitch, and prop area you will need for your site. We should fly
under similar ceilings. I can fly in 28 ft site, is your Moreland
Center 22 ft ceiling? BTW, Tim Chang is near you, and I'm sure
would be glad to help in the construction department, if needed.
Minimum weight 3.1 g!

Seems to me that "common practice" could be declared the winner if
and only if someone(s) posts better scores (per the JHood Postal,)
AND having used thicker rubber than yours, and flying in similar
ceiling height. (The Hood Postal has automatic equalization formula,
which converts raw time to a ceiling equalization factor. Should be
valid for the difference between, say, a 20 ft and 30 ft ceiling at
least.)

Is it on?
MB
Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 07:34:05 CET