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

From: Bill Gowen <b.gowen_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:29:37 -0400

"Common practice" is pretty hard to define. I've gotten almost identical times from long heavy motors and short thinner ones. I guess common practice would be short heavy motors but you know I always do things back-asswards from everyone else.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mark
  To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:19 PM
  Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Prop efficiency at high pitch (was: News from R...


  --- 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.>>



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 09:35:41 CET