![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 15, 8:08 pm, "BT" wrote:
Don't forget the CG change.. losing 14# on the nose is a lot.. you are going to be tail heavy BT "Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... On Aug 15, 3:10 pm, "Vaughn Simon" wrote: "Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... Suppose I put this prop on my Cessna 150. It only weighs 9.5 pounds, as compared to the Sensenich weight of 24 pounds. So I save 14.5 #. But it will make a largish change in your CG. The fuel and passenger load for a 150 are both near the CG, so you might end up putting a few pounds of ballast in the tail to stay within the CG envelope. That would cost you some of the initial weight advantage. Can anyone guess how this would effect my performance? How much better climb and how much better cruise? Nobody can answer that question until you specify a pitch. Any given fixed pitch prop will be optimized for climb (at the expense of cruise speed) or cruise (at the expense of takeoff and climb performance) or somewhere in between. Actually, one can assume that it will climb at least as well as the standard climb prop, and cruise at least as well as the standard cruise prop. The difference between the cruise (normal) prop climb performance, and the climb prop climb performance, will be available to cruise prop users. The difference between the climb prop cruise performance, and the cruise prop cruise performance, will be available to climb prop users. Anyone know these numbers? Alternatively, there must be planes that have used both fixed and constant-speed props. Anyone know the difference? Can always make a spinner out of lead:-) I don't like Ivo. We had one on a Glastar and couldn't balance the thing because the blades wouldn't stop shifting chordwise in the hub. And that was on a redrive, not the more brutal direct-drive applications. They're not that efficient, either, since the pitch change is mostly outboard on the blades. There have been some issues with blades leaving the hub or the torque rods pulling right out of the blades. Those blades are a high-density foam with only the thinnest skin of carbon fiber on them, and the bolt bushings are therefore held in mostly by foam. Not for me. We put a Warp Drive on the airplane and it was much smoother, though adjusting the pitch was much more work. A Cessna 150 isn't likely to gain a lot of performance from an adjustable prop. The airframe is too draggy and the engine too anemic. Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ground adjustable prop | [email protected] | Home Built | 1 | January 30th 05 06:15 AM |
adjustable prop bearing | Joe | Home Built | 5 | October 23rd 04 12:00 PM |
Cessna Prop Needed | Cy Galley | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 23rd 04 01:23 AM |
Hydraulic CS prop converting to Adjustable prop? | Scott VanderVeen | Home Built | 0 | December 5th 03 05:54 PM |
Adjustable prop experience? | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 0 | July 1st 03 04:07 AM |