![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Why are fixed-pitch props on PA-28s indexed to the 10-4 position from the front? a) To help hand propping? b) To minimize vibration? c) To improve performance? My money is on (a) but others disagree. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Granby wrote:
: Why are fixed-pitch props on PA-28s indexed to the 10-4 position from : the front? : a) To help hand propping? : b) To minimize vibration? : c) To improve performance? Interesting question and one that I've had since we got our PA28-180. When we got ours, it was indexed so TDC was at about 9-3 (from the front). Two other guys' cherokees were at about 7-1. I liked ours since it was easier to pull through as though hand-propping. A year ago my mechanic decided it wasn't correct, so we reindexed ours to be at 7-1. At that time, we consulted the service manual, which states 8-2... equally incorrect at both locations. We decided to reindex ours to the lower location anyway. After doing that, a test flight seemed to have less vibration than we'd had in the past. So, this brings up more questions: - Is the 8-2 position listed in the service manual supposed to be from the *cockpit* view or the front view? If from the cockpit, then your 10-4 assertion is equivalent. - If my plane (now in the lower, hand-propping-hostile location) is incorrect, why did the perceived vibration decrease? - What the f*sck IS the correct orientation? ![]() To propose an answer to your original question, I recall someone (powerflow?) claiming performance benefits. Maybe it was for a different aircraft, but they claiming that propwash pulses timed with air intake strokes resulted in a slightly higher obtainable manifold pressure. Seems possible, as even 1/2" of MP is noticable in-flight. Still not sure I buy into it though. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() To propose an answer to your original question, I recall someone (powerflow?) claiming performance benefits. LoPresti claim their Howl Cowl works better with a three-blader that pulses the air in time with the engine, but I don't really buy it, either... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This question was posed at our retired engrs coffee shop group this AM
where such weighty issues are discussed ad nauseum. The consensus was that probably minimum-engine prop dynamic structural stresses (stresses other that the engine output torque and engine output torque pulses - i. e. due to gryroscopically induced moments applied to the crankshaft) will occur if the prop is vertical at the point of maximum yaw velocity. How that translates into a rough running system given the engine mount system is not obvious. I didn't personally experience the roughness of the original 172M that had the improperly indexed prop, so I can't verify that the roughness was first order as I originally stated. I just assumed it was. At any rate, I still put my money on the prop orientation being optimized to the second harmonic yaw motion of the engine. The reaction and rebound of a individual cylinder firing moving the crankcase. I'm not sure but some of it maybe also be attributed to camshaft and valve spring pressure. Valve train forces are much higher than you might first suspect. The forces generated and reacted within the engine, stay within the engine. They don't reflect outside. The whole problem of roughness however, has to be considered with the possibility that the prop or engine has a first order out-of-balance that is dominating any observer's attention. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Whit all this fooferaw proves to me is that direct drive may be simple
mechanically, but in terms of vibration it's very complex. Dave Blanton's belt drive with a general purpose flywheel-on-one-end, damper-on-the-other crank makes more sense every day. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Blanton's belt drive with a general purpose flywheel-on-one-end,
damper-on-the-other crank makes more sense every day. If there were say 100,000+ Blanton drives out there like there are 4 cylinder direct-drive A/C engines I'm sure there would be many other issues for our coffee shop discussions. They are the sort of system that is probably suitable for a fiddling type experimenter, but would have their own set of problems when put in the hands of the general pilot expecting 2000 hr TBOs. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, although I'll admit the almost-opposed 4 cyl direct drive scheme does have some very subtle driveline considerations. The second harmonic yaw motion isn't recognized by virtually any mechanics, even though it probably has a lot to do with engine accessory and baffling problems. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At that time, we consulted the service manual, which
states 8-2. Maybe that's from the Piper legal dept to discourage hand propping.........! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.owning nrp wrote:
: At that time, we consulted the service manual, which : states 8-2. : Maybe that's from the Piper legal dept to discourage hand : propping.........! Possibly, but that part of the book has been there forever. The trouble with the 8-2 position (from the front) was that is was unobtainable IIRC. It was a nice, clean 30 degrees off in either direction. Doesn't exactly give one a warm fuzzy when the official service instructions are impossible to follow. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 PM |
Why does a prop ice up so apparently readily? | Mike Rapoport | General Aviation | 3 | November 8th 05 02:52 PM |
Why does a prop ice up so apparently readily? | Mike Rapoport | Piloting | 2 | November 8th 05 02:52 PM |
Why does a prop ice up so apparently readily? | Mike Rapoport | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 8th 05 02:52 PM |
IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 6th 03 11:43 PM |