Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:19 AM - 2 blade to 3 blade (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
2. 08:34 AM - cylinder cooling tips (Frazier, Vincent A)
3. 09:38 AM - Re: 2 blade to 3 blade (LesDrag@aol.com)
4. 09:56 AM - Re: 2 blade to 3 blade (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
5. 12:00 PM - Re: 2 blade to 3 blade (Milt)
6. 01:02 PM - Re: 2 blade to 3 blade (Wernerworld)
7. 01:24 PM - hot cylinder cure (Frazier, Vincent A)
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: | 2 blade to 3 blade |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Looking for real world results on folks who have gone from the fat 2
blade Hartzel to the 3 blade blended or MT.
My speed is good but my comfort is not. Got a pretty good vibration
which I suspect is the fat 2 blade hartzell beating my airframe. I have
had 2 independent prop balances.
I am tempted of spend the $$$ on a smoother operation but my speed is
GREAT and I don't want to loose any. You know the drill. Real world
results please.
All things being equal, which they never are, would not mind loosing
some nose weight. If I could pull 20lbs off the nose I could pull a 18lb
battery out of my tail which is not doing anything for me except ballast
.
That would net me 38lbs off the airframe which I would love to jettison.
I want smooth and speed. Please help.
Thanks
Mike
S8
Do not archive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | cylinder cooling tips |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Michael,
Do what Bob and Tom say to do and you will get even temps. I did and my
cylinders are all within 15 degrees CHT.
Pictures of the cylinder flashing and how to remove it are on:
http://vincesrocket.com/Engine%20and%20Prop.htm
Take a look at the forward face of the #2 cylinder or the rear face of
the #5. They are the same for this discussion. You can see that if you
butt the baffle right up to the cylinder face that you will block
airflow to the top of the cylinder. Putting a few washers in between
the baffle and the cylinder will positively cure your high temps on
those cylinders.
Too easy... and it works.
Do the other stuff that they recommend also... it'll help too.
Vince
(my CHTs might just be too cold now! Doh!)
SNIP
Time: 09:19:54 AM PST US
From: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@amtelecom.net>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: balancing CHT's
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@amtelecom.net>
The spacers may work to cool #2 and #5. Also if have a little dam in
front of #1 you could try to lower it a bit as well.
Check the other cylinders to see if the fins that extend up and
down between the spark plugs are clean of casting flashing. There were
quite a few cylinders that got shipped with these fins completely
blocked. There is only so much air that gets into the baffles. If you
can cool the other cylinders this may raise #3 and #4. They have also
been my coolest cylinders on my rockets. You could also try to close
the gap a bit at the bottom of these cylinders but I have had limited
success with this. The problem is that these cylinders get lots of air
on the front and back of them. All the other cylinders have baffles
pressing against their front or back.
Tom Martin
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
What a bizarre idea.
Thanks
From: Bob J [mailto:rocketbob@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: balancing CHT's
Mike, take some washers and space the back baffle away from the rear
cylinders to expose a 1/8" or so gap between the baffle and the rear
cylinders. Two local rocket guys did this and it fixed the hot cylinder
problem; Tom Martin up in Canada has also done this and was successful
with it. This works on the front cylinders too. We also took a leaf
blower and felt around the baffles to find gaps, and sealed up the
cooler a little better. We weren't expecting much from that but were
surprised to see that the oil temperature dropped 8 degrees. Every
little bit can make a difference.
Regards,
Bob
SNIP
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 blade to 3 blade |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
Hi Michael,
I did some performance tests on Ted Rutherford's HR2 using his 2 blade
Hartzell (D blade) propeller, my 2 blade Hartzell (J blade) propeller and my 3
blade MTV-9-B/198-52 MT Propeller.
We ran Ted's "D" blade Hartzell first, then the 3 blade MT propeller, then
the "J" blade Hartzell.
The 3 blade propeller had the Lycoming engine running like it was an
electric motor. Both 2 blade propellers had the typical vibration incorrectly
associated to the Lycoming engine. (The 3 blade propeller doesn't have a second
order harmonic that is present with the 2 blade propeller. This is a very
noticeable difference.)
There was no significant difference in cruise performance.
The Hartzell 2 blade propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 66 pounds.
The MTV-9-B/198-52 propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 54 pounds.
Not the 18 pounds you wanted, but 12 pounds lighter isn't bad.
You could replace the aft battery with a portable oxygen bottle in the
baggage compartment. The 3 blade propeller should make a noticeable difference
in
cruise speed above 10,000'. What better use for the HR2 climb rate than to
get to 15,000' to 17,500', and then cruise fast with good fuel economy.
Best Regards,
Jim Ayers
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
(805) 795-5377
In a message dated 10/17/2005 7:19:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mstewart@iss.net writes:
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
Looking for real world results on folks who have gone from the fat 2
blade Hartzel to the 3 blade blended or MT.
My speed is good but my comfort is not. Got a pretty good vibration
which I suspect is the fat 2 blade hartzell beating my airframe. I have
had 2 independent prop balances.
I am tempted of spend the $$$ on a smoother operation but my speed is
GREAT and I don't want to loose any. You know the drill. Real world
results please.
All things being equal, which they never are, would not mind loosing
some nose weight. If I could pull 20lbs off the nose I could pull a 18lb
battery out of my tail which is not doing anything for me except ballast.
That would net me 38lbs off the airframe which I would love to jettison.
I want smooth and speed. Please help.
Thanks
Mike
S8
Do not archive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | 2 blade to 3 blade |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
If I were convinced that the 3 blade would keep me cruising at 200ktas
AND be smooth like an electric motor I'd do it.
I would loose my big smile during cruise if my TAS indicator did not
start with a 2.
Thanks for the data.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LesDrag@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade to 3 blade
--> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
Hi Michael,
I did some performance tests on Ted Rutherford's HR2 using his 2 blade
Hartzell (D blade) propeller, my 2 blade Hartzell (J blade) propeller
and my 3
blade MTV-9-B/198-52 MT Propeller.
We ran Ted's "D" blade Hartzell first, then the 3 blade MT propeller,
then
the "J" blade Hartzell.
The 3 blade propeller had the Lycoming engine running like it was an
electric motor. Both 2 blade propellers had the typical vibration
incorrectly
associated to the Lycoming engine. (The 3 blade propeller doesn't have
a second
order harmonic that is present with the 2 blade propeller. This is a
very
noticeable difference.)
There was no significant difference in cruise performance.
The Hartzell 2 blade propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 66
pounds.
The MTV-9-B/198-52 propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 54
pounds.
Not the 18 pounds you wanted, but 12 pounds lighter isn't bad.
You could replace the aft battery with a portable oxygen bottle in the
baggage compartment. The 3 blade propeller should make a noticeable
difference in
cruise speed above 10,000'. What better use for the HR2 climb rate
than to
get to 15,000' to 17,500', and then cruise fast with good fuel economy.
Best Regards,
Jim Ayers
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
(805) 795-5377
In a message dated 10/17/2005 7:19:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mstewart@iss.net writes:
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
Looking for real world results on folks who have gone from the fat 2
blade Hartzel to the 3 blade blended or MT.
My speed is good but my comfort is not. Got a pretty good vibration
which I suspect is the fat 2 blade hartzell beating my airframe. I have
had 2 independent prop balances.
I am tempted of spend the $$$ on a smoother operation but my speed is
GREAT and I don't want to loose any. You know the drill. Real world
results please.
All things being equal, which they never are, would not mind loosing
some nose weight. If I could pull 20lbs off the nose I could pull a
18lb
battery out of my tail which is not doing anything for me except
ballast.
That would net me 38lbs off the airframe which I would love to
jettison.
I want smooth and speed. Please help.
Thanks
Mike
S8
Do not archive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 blade to 3 blade |
RPD=4.00.0003;
RPDID=303030312E30413039303230362E34333533463137342E303031462D412D;
ENG=IBF; TS=20051017190018; CAT=NONE; CON=NONE;
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Milt" <rocket@swmrmc.org>
You don't get somethin for nothin.
Had the 2 blade hartzell and the vibration/propwash was shaking parts off
the plane. Hated it so bad I was tempted to sell it.
Put the 3 blade MT on and smooth as silk. Lost 3-5kts in cruise. Lost a
little in climb and TO performance, still bvlow the doors off anything else
around although now I will occassionally see TASs of 198-199 (250HP)
The 3 blade MT weighs exactly what the 2 blade Hartzell weighs.
Make the change cause you ain't gonna make the shakes go away with
balancing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade to 3 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
>
>
> If I were convinced that the 3 blade would keep me cruising at 200ktas
> AND be smooth like an electric motor I'd do it.
>
> I would loose my big smile during cruise if my TAS indicator did not
> start with a 2.
>
> Thanks for the data.
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> LesDrag@aol.com
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade to 3 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I did some performance tests on Ted Rutherford's HR2 using his 2 blade
> Hartzell (D blade) propeller, my 2 blade Hartzell (J blade) propeller
> and my 3
> blade MTV-9-B/198-52 MT Propeller.
>
> We ran Ted's "D" blade Hartzell first, then the 3 blade MT propeller,
> then
> the "J" blade Hartzell.
>
> The 3 blade propeller had the Lycoming engine running like it was an
> electric motor. Both 2 blade propellers had the typical vibration
> incorrectly
> associated to the Lycoming engine. (The 3 blade propeller doesn't have
> a second
> order harmonic that is present with the 2 blade propeller. This is a
> very
> noticeable difference.)
>
> There was no significant difference in cruise performance.
>
> The Hartzell 2 blade propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 66
> pounds.
> The MTV-9-B/198-52 propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 54
> pounds.
> Not the 18 pounds you wanted, but 12 pounds lighter isn't bad.
>
> You could replace the aft battery with a portable oxygen bottle in the
> baggage compartment. The 3 blade propeller should make a noticeable
> difference in
> cruise speed above 10,000'. What better use for the HR2 climb rate
> than to
> get to 15,000' to 17,500', and then cruise fast with good fuel economy.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
> (805) 795-5377
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2005 7:19:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mstewart@iss.net writes:
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Looking for real world results on folks who have gone from the fat 2
> blade Hartzel to the 3 blade blended or MT.
>
> My speed is good but my comfort is not. Got a pretty good vibration
> which I suspect is the fat 2 blade hartzell beating my airframe. I have
> had 2 independent prop balances.
>
> I am tempted of spend the $$$ on a smoother operation but my speed is
> GREAT and I don't want to loose any. You know the drill. Real world
> results please.
>
> All things being equal, which they never are, would not mind loosing
> some nose weight. If I could pull 20lbs off the nose I could pull a
> 18lb
> battery out of my tail which is not doing anything for me except
> ballast.
>
> That would net me 38lbs off the airframe which I would love to
> jettison.
>
> I want smooth and speed. Please help.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
> S8
> Do not archive.
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 blade to 3 blade |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Wernerworld" <russ@wernerworld.com>
Mike,
I made the change and can't tell any difference in top end. I have a unique
75" MT. Most are 78". I cruise at 2100 all the time, and if I need it I
can get 5 more MPH IAS by moving it up to 2300. The prop gets rid of about
85% of the vibration you feel with the 2 blade Hartzell. I immediately
noticed a huge difference in feel. I sense that much of that is coming
through the floor. If I flat foot my feet on the floor and press hard it
changes the noise and vibration level.
I'd have to say you won't be disappointed.
Russ Werner
HRII
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 2 blade to 3 blade
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>
> If I were convinced that the 3 blade would keep me cruising at 200ktas
> AND be smooth like an electric motor I'd do it.
>
> I would loose my big smile during cruise if my TAS indicator did not
> start with a 2.
>
> Thanks for the data.
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> LesDrag@aol.com
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: 2 blade to 3 blade
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: LesDrag@aol.com
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I did some performance tests on Ted Rutherford's HR2 using his 2 blade
> Hartzell (D blade) propeller, my 2 blade Hartzell (J blade) propeller
> and my 3
> blade MTV-9-B/198-52 MT Propeller.
>
> We ran Ted's "D" blade Hartzell first, then the 3 blade MT propeller,
> then
> the "J" blade Hartzell.
>
> The 3 blade propeller had the Lycoming engine running like it was an
> electric motor. Both 2 blade propellers had the typical vibration
> incorrectly
> associated to the Lycoming engine. (The 3 blade propeller doesn't have
> a second
> order harmonic that is present with the 2 blade propeller. This is a
> very
> noticeable difference.)
>
> There was no significant difference in cruise performance.
>
> The Hartzell 2 blade propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 66
> pounds.
> The MTV-9-B/198-52 propeller and spinner assembly weighs about 54
> pounds.
> Not the 18 pounds you wanted, but 12 pounds lighter isn't bad.
>
> You could replace the aft battery with a portable oxygen bottle in the
> baggage compartment. The 3 blade propeller should make a noticeable
> difference in
> cruise speed above 10,000'. What better use for the HR2 climb rate
> than to
> get to 15,000' to 17,500', and then cruise fast with good fuel economy.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
> (805) 795-5377
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2005 7:19:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mstewart@iss.net writes:
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Looking for real world results on folks who have gone from the fat 2
> blade Hartzel to the 3 blade blended or MT.
>
> My speed is good but my comfort is not. Got a pretty good vibration
> which I suspect is the fat 2 blade hartzell beating my airframe. I have
> had 2 independent prop balances.
>
> I am tempted of spend the $$$ on a smoother operation but my speed is
> GREAT and I don't want to loose any. You know the drill. Real world
> results please.
>
> All things being equal, which they never are, would not mind loosing
> some nose weight. If I could pull 20lbs off the nose I could pull a
> 18lb
> battery out of my tail which is not doing anything for me except
> ballast.
>
> That would net me 38lbs off the airframe which I would love to
> jettison.
>
> I want smooth and speed. Please help.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
> S8
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | hot cylinder cure |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Some cylinders run hot simply because the baffles are too tight in the
wrong areas. Specifically the front face of the #2 and the rear face of
the #5 cylinder (540 Lycs) or #3 (4 cylinder Lycs) don't get enough
airflow past the baffles. It's easy to fix with a few washers.
This has been discussed before... but now there's a photo and some text
to make it easier to understand.
http://vincesrocket.com/Engine%20and%20Prop.htm
Vince
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! --
|