Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:57 AM - Re: MT 3 Blade Propeller Food For Thought when choosing a prop (tjyak50)
2. 08:12 AM - Re: Re: MT 3 Blade Propeller Food For Thought when choosing a prop (Dee Conger)
3. 11:24 AM - prop optimization (Brian Lloyd)
4. 11:48 AM - New topic - spin off of prop discussions (Herb Coussons)
5. 09:03 PM - Re: New topic - spin off of prop discussions (Richard Goode)
6. 09:52 PM - Re: New topic - spin off of prop discussions (Jan Mevis)
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: MT 3 Blade Propeller Food For Thought when choosing a prop |
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m wrote:
> Sam,
>
> I talked to MT about the FW blades versus the MTV9-260 (newer) blades, and they
warned me that the FW blades would not perform as well. They did not give
a ton of details, but did clearly point out they would not have the same vertical
penetration or overall thrust. They said if performance was my primary goal,
to not go with the FW blades.
>
> Tom Johnson does have the FW blades and indicated to me that he liked them.
>
> Mark-
I did have the 190 prop and did like it, but I am back to my crusty old Mtv3 again.
It was on *loan* to me and unfortunately the loaning party found a need
for it. I was just helping keep it warm, I swear.
The Fw190 blade was great in the 50 because of the amazing braking action in the
pattern. The Mtv3 climbs similar and maybe a little faster overall. But
I am just not that good of a pilot to tell a huge difference. We are talking
small differences here.
Fact is that my Yak 50 with 430hp and 1687lbs empty weight is a monster no matter
what prop is on it. I just hang on and fly wing where I am told.
:) Tj
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=378795#378795
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: MT 3 Blade Propeller Food For Thought when choosing |
a prop
Yes, it's true - the FW190 prop performs well, even on "small" engine -50s
like Tom's. With the "big" engine w/ over 475hp, the performance is
amazing. As Cosmo states, the braking action of the FW190 prop is excellent
- much better than the MTV3 or even the MTV9 w/ -29 blades. I agree with
Cosmo - not much performance difference between the -29 and the 190 blades,
but I do think both of those outperform the older, crustier MTV3s -
especially ones with pretty little round blade tips on them. I have the
190 blades on all 3 of my 50s - I'm obviously biases. Plus, nothing looks
better on a -50 than the 190 blades. . . .
so let it be written.
Bones
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 7:54 AM, tjyak50 <tomjohnson@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > I talked to MT about the FW blades versus the MTV9-260 (newer) blades,
> and they warned me that the FW blades would not perform as well. They did
> not give a ton of details, but did clearly point out they would not have
> the same vertical penetration or overall thrust. They said if performance
> was my primary goal, to not go with the FW blades.
> >
> > Tom Johnson does have the FW blades and indicated to me that he liked
> them.
> >
> > Mark-
>
> I did have the 190 prop and did like it, but I am back to my crusty old
> Mtv3 again. It was on *loan* to me and unfortunately the loaning party
> found a need for it. I was just helping keep it warm, I swear.
>
> The Fw190 blade was great in the 50 because of the amazing braking action
> in the pattern. The Mtv3 climbs similar and maybe a little faster
> overall. But I am just not that good of a pilot to tell a huge difference.
> We are talking small differences here.
>
> Fact is that my Yak 50 with 430hp and 1687lbs empty weight is a monster no
> matter what prop is on it. I just hang on and fly wing where I am told.
>
> :) Tj
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=378795#378795
>
>
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: | prop optimization |
Optimizing a prop for a given aircraft is a real challenge. If you think
about it, the blade shape and twist will be optimized for only a single RPM
and true airspeed. (Yes, I wrote that correctly when I said true airspeed
as it is true airspeed and RPM that determines angle-of-attack of the prop
blade.) Efficiency drops off on either side of that. An aircraft that
operates at a higher TAS will need a different amount of twist and possibly
a different airfoil selection. In fact, the airfoil needs to change along
the length of the blade due to the different operating characteristics from
hub to tip.
So a prop that is optimized for the Yak-52 will not perform quite as well
on the CJ6A and vice-versa. Sure they will work and variable pitch
(constant speed) broadens the useful range, but if you want a prop that
optimizes performance and efficiency, you need to deal with the specific
characteristics of the specific aircraft.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: | New topic - spin off of prop discussions |
I would be interested to hear from pilots that have experience with both the 50
and the 55.
How would you compare aerobatic capabilities -
Verticle / roll / induced drag / balance of CG to center of lift ??
Even maintenance and value??
If anyone can compare to SU 26 it wold be an interesting comparison. I read an
old article that was a great review of the SU26 / Yak 55, but would be interested
to hear from someone who also could compare Yak 50.
Thanks,
Herb
Dr. Herb Coussons, MD
drc@wscare.com
2641 Development Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311
Cell 920-639-8434
Work 920-338-6868
Fax 920-338-6869
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: | New topic - spin off of prop discussions |
The 50 and 55 are very different aircraft. In my view, the 50 is one of the
world's classic aircraft, but it was unfortunate that it came out in 1976,
just as aerobatics was changing from being big, gracious manoeuvres to
vicious corners. It is a tough aircraft, +9 and -7, but the Russians were
flying well beyond those limits and suffered a number of airframe failures.
The 50 is a delight to fly, and has that feeling of a little "fighter". But
the controls are poorly harmonised, with a very light elevator and heavy
ailerons. The latter can be helped with the wingtip "spades", but they're
not terribly attractive.
It was a combination of structural problems and high rates of roll from
Western competitors that brought about the 55, which is very different. It
is immensely strong, and for its money, the best aerobatic plane you can
buy. But even its best friends would not say that it is beautiful!.
When the 55 came out all 50s were ordered to be cut up - hence we are left
with about 65 of the total production of 307.
My personal view is that the long wing 55 is a nicer, and in many ways more
effective aircraft than the clipped - wing 55N, which was a rather desperate
measure to try to keep up with the Sukhoi 26. The problem about the shorter
wing is that it has much higher induced drag. So, although the long wing is
slower in roll, it will normally retain more height in the same sequence
than the "M".
I believe it is a mistake to see the 50 in the same context as 55 and Sukhoi
26. It is an older design, and an aeroplane for more gentle aerobatics and
"fun" flying. I'm sure that in the long-term, the 50 will become a very
valuable aircraft. On the other hand, the 55 and the 26 are much more
capable aerobatic aircraft - that is simply the advance of technology.
One does need to be careful about the modification status of 50s. I see
people writing about them having "the heavy spar" whereas there were a whole
series of modifications to attempt to keep up with the Russian Team
over-flying the aircraft. I have prepared a paper on these modifications,
and the problems that caused them if anyone is interested.
Remember, also, that the original G limits were for an aircraft with only
the small fuel tank; maximum weight of pilot and parachute 90kgs - 200
pounds, and without generator etc and without generator.I would not fly one
today beyond +6 and -4, and that for one with all mods embodied. Like that,
it will last for ever
Of course with retractable gear the 50 will be a bit more expensive to
maintain, but not by a huge amount.
Richard Goode
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +94 (0) 81 241 5137 (Sri Lanka)
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
I'm currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is
+94 779 132 160.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:16 AM
Subject: Yak-List: New topic - spin off of prop discussions
I would be interested to hear from pilots that have experience with both the
50 and the 55.
How would you compare aerobatic capabilities -
Verticle / roll / induced drag / balance of CG to center of lift ??
Even maintenance and value??
If anyone can compare to SU 26 it wold be an interesting comparison. I read
an old article that was a great review of the SU26 / Yak 55, but would be
interested to hear from someone who also could compare Yak 50.
Thanks,
Herb
Dr. Herb Coussons, MD
drc@wscare.com
2641 Development Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311
Cell 920-639-8434
Work 920-338-6868
Fax 920-338-6869
-----------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the
Invictawiz MailScanner and is believed to be clean.
http://www.invictawiz.com
-----------------------------------------------
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: New topic - spin off of prop discussions |
I'd liked to read that paper on the modifications for the 50, Richard!
Thanks,
Jan
On 21/07/12 06:01, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> wrote:
><richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
>
>The 50 and 55 are very different aircraft. In my view, the 50 is one of
>the
>world's classic aircraft, but it was unfortunate that it came out in 1976,
>just as aerobatics was changing from being big, gracious manoeuvres to
>vicious corners. It is a tough aircraft, +9 and -7, but the Russians were
>flying well beyond those limits and suffered a number of airframe
>failures.
>
>The 50 is a delight to fly, and has that feeling of a little "fighter".
>But
>the controls are poorly harmonised, with a very light elevator and heavy
>ailerons. The latter can be helped with the wingtip "spades", but they're
>not terribly attractive.
>
>It was a combination of structural problems and high rates of roll from
>Western competitors that brought about the 55, which is very different. It
>is immensely strong, and for its money, the best aerobatic plane you can
>buy. But even its best friends would not say that it is beautiful!.
>
>When the 55 came out all 50s were ordered to be cut up - hence we are left
>with about 65 of the total production of 307.
>
>My personal view is that the long wing 55 is a nicer, and in many ways
>more
>effective aircraft than the clipped - wing 55N, which was a rather
>desperate
>measure to try to keep up with the Sukhoi 26. The problem about the
>shorter
>wing is that it has much higher induced drag. So, although the long wing
>is
>slower in roll, it will normally retain more height in the same sequence
>than the "M".
>
>I believe it is a mistake to see the 50 in the same context as 55 and
>Sukhoi
>26. It is an older design, and an aeroplane for more gentle aerobatics and
>"fun" flying. I'm sure that in the long-term, the 50 will become a very
>valuable aircraft. On the other hand, the 55 and the 26 are much more
>capable aerobatic aircraft - that is simply the advance of technology.
>
>One does need to be careful about the modification status of 50s. I see
>people writing about them having "the heavy spar" whereas there were a
>whole
>series of modifications to attempt to keep up with the Russian Team
>over-flying the aircraft. I have prepared a paper on these modifications,
>and the problems that caused them if anyone is interested.
>
>Remember, also, that the original G limits were for an aircraft with only
>the small fuel tank; maximum weight of pilot and parachute 90kgs - 200
>pounds, and without generator etc and without generator.I would not fly
>one
>today beyond +6 and -4, and that for one with all mods embodied. Like
>that,
>it will last for ever
>
>Of course with retractable gear the 50 will be a bit more expensive to
>maintain, but not by a huge amount.
>
>Richard Goode
>Rhodds Farm
>Lyonshall
>Hereford
>HR5 3LW
>United Kingdom
> Tel: +94 (0) 81 241 5137 (Sri Lanka)
>Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>www.russianaeros.com
>I'm currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is
>+94 779 132 160.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
>Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:16 AM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: New topic - spin off of prop discussions
>
>
>I would be interested to hear from pilots that have experience with both
>the
>50 and the 55.
>How would you compare aerobatic capabilities -
>Verticle / roll / induced drag / balance of CG to center of lift ??
>
>Even maintenance and value??
>
>If anyone can compare to SU 26 it wold be an interesting comparison. I
>read
>an old article that was a great review of the SU26 / Yak 55, but would be
>interested to hear from someone who also could compare Yak 50.
>
>Thanks,
>Herb
>
>
>Dr. Herb Coussons, MD
>drc@wscare.com
>2641 Development Drive
>Green Bay, WI 54311
>Cell 920-639-8434
>Work 920-338-6868
>Fax 920-338-6869
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the
>Invictawiz MailScanner and is believed to be clean.
>http://www.invictawiz.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! --
|