![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/tam.htm Fortunately i can say i have
nothing to gain in mentioning this thing but am curious what others think... Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
patrick mitchel wrote:
http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/tam.htm Fortunately i can say i have nothing to gain in mentioning this thing but am curious what others think... Pat I looked at the site. The FAQ says that the engineering firm didn't understand why the traditional propeller used less power when the AC motor was cranked to full power. I would be VERY careful of trusting any statement from an aerodynamics company that can't understand a stalled prop. If they really wanted to look legitimate, they'd publish some figures like "X pounds of thrust at Y rpm with a Z diameter prop", not stick it on an ultralight and hope it flies. They already have the prop on a motor. Stick it on a dolly and attach a fish scale. What are they scared of? Any flat blade will more air when given a little angle and spun fast enough, but I don't think I'll be pulling the blades out of my house fan to put on the front of my project. -- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ "Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience." Veeduber |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Even more than that, they need to quantify thrust at a certain power levels
and airspeeds. Long, slow turning blades generate loads of thrust at low speed, but are not at all suited for high speeds. The opposite is true for small diameter blades. KB "Ernest Christley" wrote in message . com... patrick mitchel wrote: http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/tam.htm Fortunately i can say i have nothing to gain in mentioning this thing but am curious what others think... Pat I looked at the site. The FAQ says that the engineering firm didn't understand why the traditional propeller used less power when the AC motor was cranked to full power. I would be VERY careful of trusting any statement from an aerodynamics company that can't understand a stalled prop. If they really wanted to look legitimate, they'd publish some figures like "X pounds of thrust at Y rpm with a Z diameter prop", not stick it on an ultralight and hope it flies. They already have the prop on a motor. Stick it on a dolly and attach a fish scale. What are they scared of? Any flat blade will more air when given a little angle and spun fast enough, but I don't think I'll be pulling the blades out of my house fan to put on the front of my project. -- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ "Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience." Veeduber |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 PM |
Prop Pitch Question | Eugene Wendland | Home Built | 2 | April 25th 04 03:22 AM |
Hydraulic CS prop converting to Adjustable prop? | Scott VanderVeen | Home Built | 0 | December 5th 03 05:54 PM |
Clup prop | Corky Scott | Home Built | 8 | November 15th 03 04:39 AM |
Metal Prop vs. Wood Prop | Larry Smith | Home Built | 21 | September 26th 03 07:45 PM |