Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:29 AM - Re: Spins in a Harmon Rocket (Randy Compton)
2. 07:29 AM - 2 blade (Frazier, Vincent A)
3. 07:41 AM - parachutes (Frazier, Vincent A)
4. 07:47 AM - "pop" rivets (JOHN STARN)
5. 07:59 AM - Re: 2 blade (Norman Younie)
6. 08:34 AM - Re: 2 blade (f1rocket@telus.net)
7. 09:13 AM - Re: 2 blade (Boyd Braem)
8. 09:18 AM - Re: parachutes (Boyd Braem)
9. 09:38 AM - Re: Spins in a Harmon Rocket (Tom Gummo)
10. 09:49 AM - Re: 2 blade (LesDrag@aol.com)
11. 10:29 AM - Re: 2 blade (Jim Stone)
12. 12:42 PM - 2 blade versus 3 blade props (Frazier, Vincent A)
13. 01:30 PM - Re: 2 blade (Tom Martin)
14. 03:09 PM - Re: 2 blade (LesDrag@aol.com)
15. 03:57 PM - dead stick F-4 (Boyd Braem)
16. 04:10 PM - Props 2 versus 3 blade (Scott Miller)
17. 04:24 PM - Re: 2 blade (Boyd Braem)
18. 04:38 PM - List of Contributors (David.vonLinsowe)
19. 04:49 PM - Re: 2 blade (Larry Schneider)
20. 05:25 PM - Re: parachutes (C. Rabaut)
21. 05:29 PM - Re: List of Contributors (C. Rabaut)
22. 05:48 PM - Re: 2 blade (Boyd Braem)
23. 06:09 PM - Re: 2 blade (Jim Stone)
24. 06:22 PM - Re: 2 blade (Larry Schneider)
25. 08:03 PM - Re: Props 2 versus 3 blade (Loren Harmon)
26. 08:21 PM - Re: 2 blade (u2nelson)
27. 09:09 PM - Re: 2 blade (f1rocket@telus.net)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spins in a Harmon Rocket |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Randy Compton" <thecomptons@bellsouth.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Spins in a Harmon Rocket
>The in-flight fire has me most concerned. Just a few years ago, you may
> recall the RV-8 guy, forgive me I have forgotten his name, jumped out of
> his burning plane with out a parachute. That one instance has persuaded
> me to give serious consideration to flying with chutes all the time.
His name was Von Alexander, rest his soul. I read on the List, so don't
know if it is true or not, that his chute was back at the house.
I, too, started wearing mine each flight, acro or not, after I heard about
this. It's just one more option available - arguably a desperate one - if
the flames ever start licking around my toes, or an engine quits and there's
nothing around that looks good.
But then again, with 3500 hours in ejection seat aircraft I never had to use
one, so I probably could have gone the whole time with my seat safed and
pinned :-)
Fly safe,
RC
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Jim,
three-blade, smee-blade.
Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but smoother. Personally,
I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all with 2 blade
Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who cares? All three of
the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought "Wow, if only it were
smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit cheaper than
the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but really, all of them
are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about maintenance costs
with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror account of an MT maintenance
problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid for my new Hartzell.
One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I suppose that
it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing inverted flat spins
without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
YMMV, I could be wrong.
Vince Frazier
1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
<http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me some
money.
I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great satisfaction.
Thanks,
Jim Stone
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
FWIW,
I bought a seat wedge chute from Paraphernalia. I think it will work OK and be
moderately comfortable. I've posted this info before. Should be in the archives,
for sure on the RV list if not here also.
Von Alexander was the guy who jumped from his burning RV-8. I talked to his widow
(she was still in shock) when I bought all of his tools and hangar junk.
Sorta spooky to use them, but the price was OK and I felt like I was helping her
a bit.
I don't really plan on doing much acro. If I do it will be mild stuff... until
I screw the pooch or something else goes awry. But, who knows what can happen...
fires, mid-airs, poor judgement in marginal weather, get hit by a bird and
can't see, lightning, meteors, terrorists, Homeland Security F-16's.... I mean
WHO KNOWS???? Besides, I definitely want a chute for the flight test period.
I can always leave it in the hangar later.
And for those who haven't tried it yet... IT IS A BITCH finding a chute to fit
the Rocket!!! You can't just grab any old back pack and go flying unless you're
munchkin size and like your face against the panel.
The alternative might be to move the seat back aft during construction if you want
to use a THIN backpack. I considered that... and still might do it, even
though I've got the seat wedge chute.
YMMV... I could be wrong.
Vince
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"rocket-list" <rocket-list@matronics.com>
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Every builder at every airport/airshow/ramp where your bird is parked. On
RV's,
most look at the tail first so they can judge your skill level when you
started building and then look at the parts that most (non-builders) people
don't know exist. Big (building) Brother is watching. Do Not Archive 8*)
KABONG HRII, working on 2nd "conditional" and adding rear seat controls.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: Pop rivets
4's were allowed to
> use structural pop rivets extensively by Vans. I have seen several of them
> with the entire bottom wing skins done this way.
>
> They aren't that pretty, but then who spends much time under the plane?
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Norman Younie" <rv6capt@pacificcoast.net>
Theory says that the fewer the blades the more efficient, one blade being
the best but then you have a balancing problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Subject: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
>
> Jim,
>
> three-blade, smee-blade.
>
> Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but smoother.
Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
>
> I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all with 2
blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who cares? All
three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought "Wow, if
only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
>
> The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit cheaper
than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but really, all of
them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror account
of an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid for my
new Hartzell.
>
> One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
suppose that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing
inverted flat spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next
post.
>
> YMMV, I could be wrong.
>
> Vince Frazier
> 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
>
> SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me some
> money.
>
> I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great satisfaction.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Stone
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken Fowler (you
know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing his three
blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go lighter, the
engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on avionics.
Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
Jeff
Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
>
> Jim,
>
> three-blade, smee-blade.
>
> Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but smoother.
> Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
>
> I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all with 2
> blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who cares? All
> three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought "Wow, if
> only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
>
> The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit cheaper
> than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but really, all of
> them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror account of
> an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid for my new
> Hartzell.
>
> One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I suppose
> that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing inverted flat
> spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
>
> YMMV, I could be wrong.
>
> Vince Frazier
> 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
>
> SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me some
> money.
>
> I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great satisfaction.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Stone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Vince--
If you can still find a copy "Design for Flying" by David Thurston
(Grumman designer with such incidental credits as the F6F Hellcat--and
for civies, the Teal Amphibian). He did extensive testing of 2 - 4
blade props, and for engines in our horsepower range, the 2-blade, 80"
prop ("prop"erlly twisted, was the most efficient for speed. But this
was with technology, now almost 40 yrs old. But, remember that even
older radial engines had "torque monitors" that was converted to BMEPs,
so the flight engineer could lean/enrich, etc. as needed. I don't
think there's a similar commercial option for our engines. There's a
program "Benchmark" by Sequoia (the folks who make (made?) the Falco
wood kits, that analyzes prop performance for Lyc -360s (but you can
tweak it around). Esp. nice is the section on "blade activity factor"
(sort of like the aspect ratio for a wing/sail)--but it basically tells
how efficient the prop is at absorbing a certain horsepower.
And. I think you meant "three-blade, shmee-blade".
Boyd
Venice, FL
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Oh, and Vince--
You need to make a "nose-cut-out-slot" in the panel if you're going to
wear your 'chute in the Rocket. You can put padding around it for your
forehead.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spins in a Harmon Rocket |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Another slight correction on ejection altitudes for the USAF types;
10,000 AGL for out of control flight
2,000 AGL for controlled flight (double engine failure - no dead stick
landings for the F-4)
do not archive
Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
Wild Weasel #1753
Major, USAF Retired, F-4G Instructor Pilot
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Spins in a Harmon Rocket
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Lee,
> I couldn't agree with you more. I feel the parachute will come in handy
> for in-flight fires that cannot be contained, and out of control flight
> due to things like midair collisions, and as we seem to agree on the
> slim possibility of success, inability to regain control following a
> departure from controlled flight, and of course just plain old
> structural failure (Van's RV-8, and more recently a T-34). The
> in-flight fire has me most concerned. Just a few years ago, you may
> recall the RV-8 guy, forgive me I have forgotten his name, jumped out of
> his burning plane with out a parachute. That one instance has persuaded
> me to give serious consideration to flying with chutes all the time. It
> is a pain I know, but you got to ask yourself, do I feel lucky, every
> time you man up. I plan on having custom sized and shaped parachute
> packs to fit both seats in my Rocket, unless of course, I spend all my
> money on avionics and an MT prop.
> One correction, on your reference to the 10,000 foot ejection altitude,
> I flew Fighters in the Navy and our rule was Out of control passing 10K-
> eject. If you are in a brick glider due to engine failure, it was the
> PIC's discretion. Also we often had hard decks at 5K agl and the 10k
> rule didn't apply at all because you flew the entire hop below 10k. Well
> I think this is enough off topic to put a do not archive on it.
> Jim Stone
> HRII
> Plumbing fuel and oil lines, and trying to figure out how to get heat to
> the back seater and front seater's feet at the same time.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lee Taylor
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Spins in a Harmon Rocket
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor " <leetay1@idcomm.com>
>
> Jim: Re chutes during acro. Frankly, this is a subject that I have
> given much thought to, and I gotta tell ya, I consider the idea just
> about worthless. The only time that anyone would think about getting
> out would be if the airplane actually came apart, and the chances of you
> being able to get out with that kind of tumbling/high G's-----the
> military didn't go to ejection seats for no good reason. The
> justification for the chutes, of course, is that at that point, they
> certainly can't hurt. It is just that the possibility of them helping
> us is so remote---------More than anything else, like in my case, there
> was too much else going on for me to even think about the use of them,
> which we did have. I would have waited too long for that kind of
> decision. I think that would be the same for almost anyone in those
> circumstances.
> That is why the military has an absolute 10,000' rule--you
> aren't firmly under control by that point, you WILL eject! While I was
> in the military, one of our T-33 guys had an engine stoppage at
> altitude, and was under complete control, just no engine. He actually
> punched out at about 5,000 agl, after trying too long to get a restart.
> He was before the commander's desk for a L-O-N-G time, fruitlessly
> trying to explain why he waited so long.
>
> Lee Taylor
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Stone
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:45 AM
> > To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Spins in a Harmon Rocket
> >
> >
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
> >
> > Lee,
> > Because "shit" happens, acro pilots should wear parachutes. In fact,
> > they are required by the FARs. Did you at any time wish you had the
> > bailout option during the high pucker factor seconds you
> > under went? Or
> > since then?
> > Glad you regained control.
> > Jim
> > PS. Not sure how difficult it would be to unstrap, unplug,
> > blow canopy,
> > and get separated from the aircraft in time to pull the
> > ripcord. Plenty
> > difficult I'll bet.
> > Do not archive
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Lee Taylor
> > To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Spins in a Harmon Rocket
> >
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor " <leetay1@idcomm.com>
> >
> >
> > > Lee,
> > >
> > > CONGRATULATIONS on getting hitched! When you get a
> > > chance, tell how
> > > you recovered from the inverted "semi-flat" spin after
> > loosing 7500' .
> > > (inquiring minds want to know).
> > >
> > > Chuck: Re recovery. Nothing in my previous training or
> > experience was working, and as I said, the rotation rate was so
> > tremendous I literally could not tell what attitude or direction I was
> > spinning. Finally after all the "correct" techniques had failed, (and
> > several others) and I knew that I did not know what condition I was
> > actually in, I said to myself, "To hell with this, the first thing I
> > have to do is get into a recognizable situation." I verified I was at
> > idle throttle, pulled full up, and held full left rudder. (normal
> > upright spin maintenance controls). The plane stabilized finally in a
> > normal upright spin, (much slower rotation and recognizable),
> > and when I
> > recovered from that, (normally), the plane immediately popped
> > out in the
> > desired stable dive.
> > I will say that with the changed CG position,
> > (necessary because
> > the owner was twice my size, and the plane needed to be set up so he
> > would be safe), I never again tried to flat-spin that plane.
> >
> > One point. This WAS NOT a flat spin. The problems developed
> > because IT DID NOT GO FLAT, as expected, and when, (with my mental
> > preparation), I gave it flat spin recovery techniques, it went
> > accelerated spin instead. The problem was caused by a plane that was
> > not correctly set up CG-wise for the maneuver, and a mental
> > preparation
> > mindset that applied one recovery technique that was not
> > proper for what
> > the plane was actually doing. Normally, correctly set-up planes just
> > won't do these kinds of things. My point in describing what happened
> > here is that sometimes, "s--- happens." We NEED fudge room sometimes,
> > and you only get the chance to have that room ONCE, if you
> > ever need it.
> > As I DEFINITELY did. If you don't have the room that one
> > time, then, as
> > some of the other guys have said, "SPLAT". Splats are not nice
> > maneuvers.
> >
> > Lee Taylor
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
> > ===========
> > ============
> > ============
> > ============
> > ============
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
Hi Vince,
The summary of the performance testing we did was that between 2300 and 2600
RPM, there was no significant difference in performance between two different
Hartzell 2 blade propellers and a MTV-9-B/198-52 MT Propeller. (Significant
being more than two mph read on an airspeed indicator where 1/16" on the scale
equals 10 mph.)
We were determining the best propeller to use a Reno for Ted Rutherford's
HR2. The 2 blade Hartzell "J" blade propeller gave Ted's HR2 a significant speed
advantage ABOVE 2600 RPM.
Ted was still following Mark Frederick's F-1 Rocket around the race course at
Reno. Mark was using the MT 3 blade Propeller. I believe it was the
MTV-9-B/198-52, but am not sure.
For a given manifold pressure on a Lycoming, have you ever compared fuel flow
at 2300 RPM to the fuel flow at 2700 RPM?
It hurts my wallet just thinking about it.
Jim Ayers
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3 blade,
both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for the
best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the Hartzel
2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
blade MT.
Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
Jim Stone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
f1rocket@telus.net
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken Fowler
(you
know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
his three
blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
lighter, the
engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
avionics.
Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
Jeff
Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
<VFrazier@usi.edu>
>
> Jim,
>
> three-blade, smee-blade.
>
> Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but smoother.
> Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
>
> I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all with
2
> blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who cares?
All
> three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
"Wow, if
> only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
>
> The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
cheaper
> than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but really,
all of
> them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
account of
> an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid for
my new
> Hartzell.
>
> One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
suppose
> that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing inverted
flat
> spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
>
> YMMV, I could be wrong.
>
> Vince Frazier
> 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
>
> SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
some
> money.
>
> I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
satisfaction.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Stone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
==
==
==
==
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 2 blade versus 3 blade props |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Holy cow! I've had 20+ emails today and 3 long distance phone calls about props
today. You'd have thought that I cancelled Christmas by the response.
I can't possibly put everything that I learned into a single post, but I will say
that the most interesting tidbit that came up today was when someone reminded
me that the model airplane racers who are really serious about speed use ONE
BLADE PROPS.
OK, who's gonna be the first guy with a one blade prop on their Rocket?
Have a good weekend.... I'm outta here!
Vince Frazier
812-464-1839 work
812-985-7309 home
1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
<http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@execulink.com>
Fred Weaver has asked me to comment on the current prop discussion. I have
had the two blade Hartzell on both of my HRIIs. On my F1 I had a three
blade Hartzell. All three engines are stock with no mods. The two blade has
an annoying pulsing that is most noticeable in calm air and when you set the
prop for a lower rpm and with a higher MP. It has been speculated, and I
agree, that those large paddles are throwing slugs of air at the fuselage.
My HRII engines were dynamically balanced. My F1 was not yet balanced when I
sold the plane. The three blade Hartzell was very smooth compared with the
two blade, the pulsing was gone. I have not had the pleasure of flying
behind an MT but I hear that they are smoother again. My F1 with the three
blade was faster than my two blade HRII, three knots, and it climbed
noticeably better. My speeds were verified by the three leg gps formulae and
I owned both airplanes at the same time for a while. The main downside to
the three blade Hartzell is the weight, and with an extra twenty pounds I
could not mount it on the HRII as it would have made my tail too light for
safe ground operation (my humble opinion)
If I had some extra bucks right now I would sell my two blade and purchase
an MT for my HRII. I like the thought that I can get my Hartzell serviced in
any major city, but as more and more MTs see service perhaps this will be
the case with them as well.
It has been my experience, and the Reno results would tend to confirm
it,
that the F1 is slightly faster than a HRII. I can only conclude that it is
in that lower, forward, fuselage area were the HRII has that little dip as
compared with the smoother F1 fuse. There is not a tremendous difference as
in the Sun100 I was just one knot slower than Mark in his F1. He has had the
Reno experience since than and I have made a few secret mods to my plane so
we will have to see how things shake out next spring at the Sun 100. If
more of you guys would get your rockets out there we could have our own
class, take the challenge, it is lots of fun.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
In a message dated 12/05/2003 10:30:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jrstone@insightbb.com writes:
Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
Jim Stone
I have a 2 blade Hartzell "J" blade propeller assembly with polished spinner
available.
Purchased from a HR2 owner at 355 hours TT. He replaced it with an MT 3
blade Propeller.
Overhauled by Santa Monica Propeller with the Rev. B hub replaced per AD.
375 hours TT
After performing tests in a HR2 with two different 2 blade Hartzell propeller
and my 3 blade MT Propeller, I'm keeping my 3 blade MT propeller.
John Harmon is selling new Hartzell propellers for $6,695 new and the
polished spinner for $935. That's $7,630 total new.
What are you interested in paying for a used 2 blade Hartzell "J" blade
propeller assembly and polished spinner with 375 hours TT? 20 hours SOH?
I also have the governor available.
Jim Ayers
jeayers1@aol.com
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Tom--
I wonder if some one (probably did) tried a dead stick F-4 landing
(during development). Poor Bastard. Even in the A-4 we had had to
come in at 220 Kts (dead)--tires don't really like that. There is
(was) no NATOPS procedure for the F-4--see the yellow handle and pull!
A rock is a rock after engines go night-night.
Boyd.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Props 2 versus 3 blade |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Scott Miller" <scott65@quik.com>
After looking over the responses on props, I am still confused. My F-1 is a ways
away from that decision, but I was figuring on the MT 3 blade, or Hartzell 2
blade. My question is if anyone has any feedback on the Aero -Composites propellers.
They seem to be the most expensive prop out there, and wonder if they
are worth the asking price. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Scott Miller
F-1 #123
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Tom--
Again, I could be off base, here, but Mark's original plane (after he
built the Exxon Tiger for Bruce) was actually a HRII--the F-1 thing
came off after he got the Czeck contract (I think). Please, don't
quote me. Hello Mark--are you still out there?
Boyd.
Super 6
Venice.FL (Jeez, there's a lot of old people down here!)--it's easy to
get a date but the quality is, um, er, lacking a little.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | List of Contributors |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe" <David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
Did Weaver put you up to this? He told me that if I didn't, I would
probably splat right in front of you :-)
I'm planning on contributing, I just can't do it from here... No web
access.
Dave
From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: Re: Rocket-- List of Contributors
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Hey Dave,
Come on man, you're benefiting from this experience too. Time to
cough
up a contribution to the cause.
Chuck
do not archive
****************************************************************************************
Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
****************************************************************************************
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider" <lschneider39@cox.net>
I am an RV6 guy, But a friend of mine has a HRII. he had a Hartzell 2 blade
and now an MT 3 blade, He loves the MT! Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3 blade,
> both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for the
> best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the Hartzel
> 2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
> mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
> blade MT.
> Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
> Jim Stone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> f1rocket@telus.net
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
>
> I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken Fowler
> (you
> know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
> his three
> blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
> lighter, the
> engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
> So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
> avionics.
> Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
> Jeff
>
> Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
> <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > three-blade, smee-blade.
> >
> > Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but smoother.
> > Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
> >
> > I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all with
> 2
> > blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who cares?
> All
> > three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
> "Wow, if
> > only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
> >
> > The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
> cheaper
> > than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but really,
> all of
> > them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> > maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
> account of
> > an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid for
> my new
> > Hartzell.
> >
> > One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
> suppose
> > that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing inverted
> flat
> > spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
> >
> > YMMV, I could be wrong.
> >
> > Vince Frazier
> > 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> > F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> > <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
> >
> > SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> > counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
> some
> > money.
> >
> > I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> > Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
> satisfaction.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jim Stone
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Hey Vince,
If you guys are naming that maneuver I did "Screwin' the Pooch"... I
want credit (or blame) for it. :-} LOL
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Frazier, Vincent A <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Subject: Rocket-List: parachutes
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
>
> FWIW,
>
> I bought a seat wedge chute from Paraphernalia. I think it will work OK
and be moderately comfortable. I've posted this info before. Should be in
the archives, for sure on the RV list if not here also.
>
> Von Alexander was the guy who jumped from his burning RV-8. I talked to
his widow (she was still in shock) when I bought all of his tools and hangar
junk. Sorta spooky to use them, but the price was OK and I felt like I was
helping her a bit.
>
> I don't really plan on doing much acro. If I do it will be mild stuff...
until I screw the pooch or something else goes awry. But, who knows what
can happen... fires, mid-airs, poor judgement in marginal weather, get hit
by a bird and can't see, lightning, meteors, terrorists, Homeland Security
F-16's.... I mean WHO KNOWS???? Besides, I definitely want a chute for the
flight test period. I can always leave it in the hangar later.
>
> And for those who haven't tried it yet... IT IS A BITCH finding a chute to
fit the Rocket!!! You can't just grab any old back pack and go flying
unless you're munchkin size and like your face against the panel.
>
> The alternative might be to move the seat back aft during construction if
you want to use a THIN backpack. I considered that... and still might do
it, even though I've got the seat wedge chute.
>
> YMMV... I could be wrong.
>
> Vince
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: List of Contributors |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Cool biz Dave. I don't know no "Weaver"... that's my story & I'm stickin'
to it.
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: David.vonLinsowe <David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: List of Contributors
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe"
<David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
>
>
> Did Weaver put you up to this? He told me that if I didn't, I would
> probably splat right in front of you :-)
>
> I'm planning on contributing, I just can't do it from here... No web
> access.
>
> Dave
>
>
> From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
> Subject: Rocket-List: Re: Rocket-- List of Contributors
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> Come on man, you're benefiting from this experience too. Time to
> cough
> up a contribution to the cause.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
****************************************************************************
************
>
> Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible
for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
>
>
****************************************************************************
************
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Tom--
I know what you're sayiing---but unless some one has a 'plane under
1,000 lbs--with more than 350 hp, I rule. Sorry, I don't mean to be
obnoxious. But, it is one fast-ass airplane.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Thanks Larry,
Sure would like to hear why.
Jim Stone
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Schneider
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider"
<lschneider39@cox.net>
I am an RV6 guy, But a friend of mine has a HRII. he had a Hartzell 2
blade
and now an MT 3 blade, He loves the MT! Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3
blade,
> both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for
the
> best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the
Hartzel
> 2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
> mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
> blade MT.
> Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
> Jim Stone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> f1rocket@telus.net
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
>
> I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken
Fowler
> (you
> know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
> his three
> blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
> lighter, the
> engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
> So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
> avionics.
> Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
> Jeff
>
> Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
> <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > three-blade, smee-blade.
> >
> > Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but
smoother.
> > Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
> >
> > I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all
with
> 2
> > blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who
cares?
> All
> > three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
> "Wow, if
> > only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
> >
> > The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
> cheaper
> > than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but
really,
> all of
> > them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> > maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
> account of
> > an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid
for
> my new
> > Hartzell.
> >
> > One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
> suppose
> > that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing
inverted
> flat
> > spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
> >
> > YMMV, I could be wrong.
> >
> > Vince Frazier
> > 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> > F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> > <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
> >
> > SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> > counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
> some
> > money.
> >
> > I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> > Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
> satisfaction.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jim Stone
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
=
==
==
==
==
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider" <lschneider39@cox.net>
He says it's much smoother, better climb and actually a little faster. He
is a no BS kind of guy and personaly I would follow his lead. Ask John or
Mark about the Rocket at DVT. Thats all I can offer.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Thanks Larry,
> Sure would like to hear why.
> Jim Stone
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
> Schneider
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider"
> <lschneider39@cox.net>
>
> I am an RV6 guy, But a friend of mine has a HRII. he had a Hartzell 2
> blade
> and now an MT 3 blade, He loves the MT! Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
> To: <rocket-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
> >
> > Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3
> blade,
> > both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for
> the
> > best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the
> Hartzel
> > 2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
> > mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
> > blade MT.
> > Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
> > Jim Stone
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > f1rocket@telus.net
> > To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> >
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
> >
> > I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken
> Fowler
> > (you
> > know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
> > his three
> > blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
> > lighter, the
> > engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
> > So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
> > avionics.
> > Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
> > Jeff
> >
> > Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
> >
> > > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
> > <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > three-blade, smee-blade.
> > >
> > > Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but
> smoother.
> > > Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
> > >
> > > I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all
> with
> > 2
> > > blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who
> cares?
> > All
> > > three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
> > "Wow, if
> > > only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
> > >
> > > The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
> > cheaper
> > > than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but
> really,
> > all of
> > > them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> > > maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
> > account of
> > > an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid
> for
> > my new
> > > Hartzell.
> > >
> > > One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
> > suppose
> > > that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing
> inverted
> > flat
> > > spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
> > >
> > > YMMV, I could be wrong.
> > >
> > > Vince Frazier
> > > 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> > > F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> > > <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
> > >
> > > SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> > > counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
> > some
> > > money.
> > >
> > > I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> > > Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
> > satisfaction.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jim Stone
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Props 2 versus 3 blade |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Loren Harmon" <landsharmon@tc3net.com>
I am more impressed with the construction of the ACS props than the
MT's, but I haven't seen any performance numbers of one on a rocket to
compare. I will have a composite 3 blade on mine - which one??? Have
you been to their website? www.aerocomposite.com
Loren Harmon
s/n 76
Subject: Rocket-List: Props 2 versus 3 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Scott Miller" <scott65@quik.com>
After looking over the responses on props, I am still confused. My F-1
is a ways away from that decision, but I was figuring on the MT 3 blade,
or Hartzell 2 blade. My question is if anyone has any feedback on the
Aero -Composites propellers. They seem to be the most expensive prop out
there, and wonder if they are worth the asking price. Any help would be
greatly appreciated. Scott Miller F-1 #123
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
OK Jim, here is a positive post for the MT.
I had a Hartzell two blade on my Rocket, now I have a 3 blade MT. The
3
blade MT is a few LBs lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell, but those LBs are
where you need to reduce the most, way out front of the engine. Here is a
performance comparison, and this is with some careful flight testing using
GPS algorithms to eliminate any wind variables, and all points were repeated
multiple times to gain confidence. 10,000 MSL cruise speeds, 2100 RPM and
full manifold pressure, about 21.5 inches; Hartzell 203 knots, MT 201
knots. MT may be a tad slower, but not by much, you can easily gain and
loose 3-8 knots just on hot day, cold day. Run the RPM up to 2120 and I'm
back at 203 so really its a wash. Acceleration on Take off, maybe slightly
better with the 2 blade, but again on timed climbs to 10K, the time was with
in seconds of each other and any difference is in how fat is your pencil.
Deceleration, surprisingly better with the MT, I can now fly a much steeper
final and landing rolls are shorter with the MT. Must be because the MT
goes flatter.
So why would I part with more bucks and go with the MT. ITS VERY SMOOTH.
Like an electric motor up there. That two blade would shake you like crazy
at any RPM between 2150 and 2300 and I used to run around at 2400 RPM to
stay out of it. I could for high altitude cruise, set 2100 as the power is
low enough to keep the vibration away, but it was still there a bit. Those
are very usable RPM ranges, power setting wise, but unusable from a
vibration standpoint. It was not a balance issue, it is a power issue, as I
could take the power off, leave the RPM alone and the vibrations go away.
What I believe is happening is the fuselage has a natural frequency that is
coincident with the 2 blade power pulses at 2200 ish RPM. With the 3 blade
you get 1/3 more power pulses, that are 1/3 less strong, so the effect is no
fuselage interaction with the prop.
201 vs. 203 knots?, do the math, I now arrive about 1 minute later after
flying 1 hour, but I arrive refreshed, not beat up and my airplane is also
in better shape long term maintenance wise.
Ultimately, both props do the job quite well, but I would have to recommend
the 3 Blade MT if you have the money.
BTW full grunt top speed also went down a couple with the MT, but those
numbers are classified :)
Greg Nelson
N144X
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Thanks Larry,
Sure would like to hear why.
Jim Stone
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Schneider
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider"
<lschneider39@cox.net>
I am an RV6 guy, But a friend of mine has a HRII. he had a Hartzell 2
blade
and now an MT 3 blade, He loves the MT! Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3
blade,
> both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for
the
> best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the
Hartzel
> 2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
> mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
> blade MT.
> Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
> Jim Stone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> f1rocket@telus.net
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
>
> I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken
Fowler
> (you
> know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
> his three
> blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
> lighter, the
> engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
> So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
> avionics.
> Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
> Jeff
>
> Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
> <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > three-blade, smee-blade.
> >
> > Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but
smoother.
> > Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
> >
> > I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all
with
> 2
> > blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who
cares?
> All
> > three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
> "Wow, if
> > only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
> >
> > The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
> cheaper
> > than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but
really,
> all of
> > them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> > maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
> account of
> > an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid
for
> my new
> > Hartzell.
> >
> > One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
> suppose
> > that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing
inverted
> flat
> > spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
> >
> > YMMV, I could be wrong.
> >
> > Vince Frazier
> > 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> > F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> > <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
> >
> > SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> > counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
> some
> > money.
> >
> > I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> > Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
> satisfaction.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jim Stone
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
=
==
==
==
==
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
Greg,
Nice to hear from someone who has run both. Thought Mark F. would have
responded by now, must be out of town.
You wouldn't happen to have any fuel flow numbers from the testing would you?
Just wondering if maybe with the same fuel flow numbers the props wouldn't be
closer. Thinking that the two blade making the extra two knots is because it
is more efficent (at moving the air) but using more fuel to do it.
Jeff
Quoting u2nelson <u2nelson@prodigy.net>:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
>
> OK Jim, here is a positive post for the MT.
>
> I had a Hartzell two blade on my Rocket, now I have a 3 blade MT.
> The 3
> blade MT is a few LBs lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell, but those LBs are
> where you need to reduce the most, way out front of the engine. Here is a
> performance comparison, and this is with some careful flight testing using
> GPS algorithms to eliminate any wind variables, and all points were
> repeated
> multiple times to gain confidence. 10,000 MSL cruise speeds, 2100 RPM and
> full manifold pressure, about 21.5 inches; Hartzell 203 knots, MT 201
> knots. MT may be a tad slower, but not by much, you can easily gain and
> loose 3-8 knots just on hot day, cold day. Run the RPM up to 2120 and I'm
> back at 203 so really its a wash. Acceleration on Take off, maybe slightly
> better with the 2 blade, but again on timed climbs to 10K, the time was
> with
> in seconds of each other and any difference is in how fat is your pencil.
> Deceleration, surprisingly better with the MT, I can now fly a much steeper
> final and landing rolls are shorter with the MT. Must be because the MT
> goes flatter.
>
> So why would I part with more bucks and go with the MT. ITS VERY
> SMOOTH.
> Like an electric motor up there. That two blade would shake you like crazy
> at any RPM between 2150 and 2300 and I used to run around at 2400 RPM to
> stay out of it. I could for high altitude cruise, set 2100 as the power is
> low enough to keep the vibration away, but it was still there a bit. Those
> are very usable RPM ranges, power setting wise, but unusable from a
> vibration standpoint. It was not a balance issue, it is a power issue, as
> I
> could take the power off, leave the RPM alone and the vibrations go away.
> What I believe is happening is the fuselage has a natural frequency that is
> coincident with the 2 blade power pulses at 2200 ish RPM. With the 3 blade
> you get 1/3 more power pulses, that are 1/3 less strong, so the effect is
> no
> fuselage interaction with the prop.
>
> 201 vs. 203 knots?, do the math, I now arrive about 1 minute later after
> flying 1 hour, but I arrive refreshed, not beat up and my airplane is also
> in better shape long term maintenance wise.
>
> Ultimately, both props do the job quite well, but I would have to recommend
> the 3 Blade MT if you have the money.
>
> BTW full grunt top speed also went down a couple with the MT, but those
> numbers are classified :)
>
> Greg Nelson
> N144X
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Thanks Larry,
> Sure would like to hear why.
> Jim Stone
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
> Schneider
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Larry Schneider"
> <lschneider39@cox.net>
>
> I am an RV6 guy, But a friend of mine has a HRII. he had a Hartzell 2
> blade
> and now an MT 3 blade, He loves the MT! Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
> To: <rocket-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade
>
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
> >
> > Well guys, thanks for all the feed back on the 2 blade vs. the 3
> blade,
> > both on the list and privately. The consensus is, to be brief, for
> the
> > best bang, best price, minimum maintenance and repair cost, the
> Hartzel
> > 2 blade stands well above the competition. I would also like to
> > mention, not one response to my post encouraged me to go with the 3
> > blade MT.
> > Anyone know of a good source for a two blade Hartzel and spinner?
> > Jim Stone
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > f1rocket@telus.net
> > To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade
> >
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: f1rocket@telus.net
> >
> > I have asked the same question of; Bart (Aero Sport Power), Ken
> Fowler
> > (you
> > know the aerobatics guy) and Eric Hansen (who is considering changing
> > his three
> > blade Hartzell for a two blade for more speed). They all say go
> > lighter, the
> > engine is smooth anyway (I guess compared to others?).
> > So I'm going to save some money and weight spend the extra (both) on
> > avionics.
> > Like everything, probably no right answer just lots of opinions.
> > Jeff
> >
> > Quoting "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>:
> >
> > > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A"
> > <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > three-blade, smee-blade.
> > >
> > > Everyone I've heard has said that the 3 blade is slower but
> smoother.
> > > Personally, I quit listening after they said slower. I want fast!
> > >
> > > I've had the good fortune to ride in three different Rockets, all
> with
> > 2
> > > blade Hartzells. If the only difference were smoothness... who
> cares?
> > All
> > > three of the Rockets gave me a great ride and I never once thought
> > "Wow, if
> > > only it were smoother." Nope, not a factor in my opinion.
> > >
> > > The 3 blade Hartzell just plain seems too heavy, even though a bit
> > cheaper
> > > than the MT. And the MT seems WAY out of line for cost , but
> really,
> > all of
> > > them are too expensive to think about. I was more concerned about
> > > maintenance costs with the MT. I have heard one third hand horror
> > account of
> > > an MT maintenance problem draining a wallet for as much as I paid
> for
> > my new
> > > Hartzell.
> > >
> > > One thought about the MT though... the lighter weight is nice and I
> > suppose
> > > that it would put less strain on the crank while you're doing
> inverted
> > flat
> > > spins without .... nah, I'll save those comments for the next post.
> > >
> > > YMMV, I could be wrong.
> > >
> > > Vince Frazier
> > > 1946 Stinson, NC97535, FOR SALE
> > > F-1H Rocket, N540VF, Crazy Horse
> > > <http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html>
> > >
> > > SNIP I'm about to take the MT propeller plunge ( 3 blade with
> > > counterbalance). Can anyone tell why I shouldn't. Please save me
> > some
> > > money.
> > >
> > > I keep hearing about guys not being satisfied with the two blade
> > > Hartzels and end up trading up (at great cost), but great
> > satisfaction.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jim Stone
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
>
>
> > ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|