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

From: Mark <f1diddler_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:19:47 -0000

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <f1diddler@...>
wrote:
>
> 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.

Come to think, the above is not a proper summary either, because
there already exists a certain envelope of proven prop/rubber sizes.
I want to see the below Gary efficiency theory supported with times
using a rubber size any amount thinner/lighter than common practice,
and used on a non flaring prop, which obviously should be more
efficient than a highly flaring prop.
MB


gARY H wrote,
<<The important question for prop design is not about using it to
control RPM but using it to convert torque energy into altitude
energy with the greatest efficiency.....If the plane climbs too fast
with an efficient prop, a thinner motor producing less torque is
indicated. If the plane is capable of hitting the ceiling, a motor of
lower weight is indicated.>>
Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 09:25:08 CET