Vlad's times seem to indicate this is not a bad thing, I built that style of prop and it works well but it is a lot of trouble to sand the thickness ( flex ) for each ceiling height. Vlad also favours lower pitches and smaller motors than many people use. His goal is to get enough flex in the blades to help control the climb. I once put a prop that was sanded for low ceilings and backed off torque in a high site, the plane acted like it had a VP but the prop blades had too much flex and it would not reduce pitch to climb. I guess it was not thin enough for cat 1 and too thin for Lakehurst.
Even with the flexible high flaring props quite a bit of backoff is still needed in low ceilings.
Fred Tellier
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] LPP prop undercamber
In Vlad's Mylar Doll article, he mentions using .375" undercamber
form. This amounts to about a 14% camber at max chord (2.6"). Is that
printed correctly? Also, 4" can props are directed in several older
plans, which would seem very high camber also. Is 10-15% camber
nothing to be feared on LPP props?
MB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 09:23:52 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:45 CET