Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:14 AM - Re: Rotax 912UL/Woodcomp 3 Blade, Klassic 160 (63") (Dave Grosvenor - DreamWings)
2. 08:33 PM - Re: RotaxEngines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 10/25/06 (tim randle)
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: Rotax 912UL/Woodcomp 3 Blade, Klassic 160 (63") |
--> RotaxEngines-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor - DreamWings" <dave@dreamwings.co.za>
Hugh,
My Allegro has the 80hp 912 and I've set my prop for 5000rpm static. The
prop is a KievProp 263. If you set up for 5700 static, you will definately
get great takeoff and climb performance because as you will be getting
almost max hp out of the engine. But in cruise you will have to throttle
back a long way to get reasonable cruise rpm and your cruise speed will
suffer. With the 80hp engine and my 5000rpm static setting, she still
climbs well and then gives me around 100mph at 5000rpm cruise. If you are
concerned about takeoff performance on your fist flight, set her up for 5200
static. I'm sure after a few flights you will find yourself making it a bit
courser. I would not set it for 5700 static, especially for the first
flight. There is high enough work load on a test flight without having to
worry about over revving the engine as well.
Regards
Dave
Durban, South Africa
> From: "Hugh McKay III" <hgmckay@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Rotax 912UL/Woodcomp 3 Blade, Klassic 160
> (63")
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I am getting all types of input concerning setting the prop pitch for my
> Allegro 2000, which has a 912 UL engine and a Woodcomp, 3 blade, Klassic
> 160
> (63) prop. I have gotten recommendations everywhere from 14 to 20. This
> is quite a variation for prop pitch. I have tested the engine (Static
> Test)
> for two pitch settings and the rpm results as indicated by the engine tach
> are as follows:
>
> 17.5 Pitch = 4600 engine rpm = 65 engine hp* = 40 propeller hp*
>
> 16.5 Pitch = 4900 engine rpm = 70 engine hp* = 47.5 propeller hp*
>
> * *see graph on page 10-3 of the Rotax Operators Manual
>
> These numbers dont appear to reflect an efficient use of engine horsepower
> to prop horsepower. Seems to me that the higher the static rpm (up to 5800
> rpm) the more efficient use of the engine/propeller combination.
> Therefore,
> one would think that setting the Prop pitch to obtain a static max rpm of
> 5700 rpm would be the best choice. To do this the pitch would have to be
> reduced below 16.5 (in my case). It is interesting to note that the tech
> at
> Fantasy Air USA (Distributor for the Allegro) tells me they set all of
> their
> props at 14 pitch. I am going to reduce my pitch to 14.5 and conduct
> another static test to see what rpm I get on the engine at max throttle.
> Any
> comments or suggestions concerning this?
>
> Hugh McKay
> Allegro 2000
> 912UL
> N661WW
>
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: | Re: RotaxEngines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 10/25/06 |
for an RV10...
what would the max HP Rotax available be that would fit an RV10?
thanks.
Tim
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
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! --
|