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
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. .. Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? "Scotty, give me warp 9!" "Aye, Cap'n, but she's gonna blow . . ." "It won't matter. If that Klingon ship gets through our rear deflectors with a disruptor blast, we'll all be dead!" Rich S. (I've never shipped out aboard the ikvamar, nor do I play one on tv.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
("Rich S." wrote)
"It won't matter. If that Klingon ship gets through our rear deflectors with a disruptor blast, we'll all be dead!" You want to go with your Romulans in this situation. 1. Beam aboard the other vessel - being careful not to jeopardize said vessel's W&B 2. Remove their (P)ulse (R)eflective (O)ptics (P)rototype (PROP) 3. Beam back to your craft 4. Hope the backing plate holes line up 5. Quickly install aforementioned alien technology (PROP) 6. Remove your fake ears 7 Off you go... MontBlack-Kite-Class-Cruiser http://legacy.filefront.com/screenshots/File/76934/1 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in om... Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB Many prewar (WWII) fighters used wooden propellers. During the war the British fighters like Spitfires and Hurricanes as well as German Me-109's and FW-190's were equipped with metal blade propellers. This can be seen in e.g. photographs presenting downed planes. The bent blades are often clearly visible. JP |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
"JP" wrote in message ... "Kyle Boatright" wrote in om... Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB Many prewar (WWII) fighters used wooden propellers. During the war the British fighters like Spitfires and Hurricanes as well as German Me-109's and FW-190's were equipped with metal blade propellers. This can be seen in e.g. photographs presenting downed planes. The bent blades are often clearly visible. JP At one time or another, all of those aircraft flew behind wooden props. Do a google search for "Wood Rotol propeller spitfire", for example. KB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in ... "JP" wrote in message ... snip Many prewar (WWII) fighters used wooden propellers. During the war the British fighters like Spitfires and Hurricanes as well as German Me-109's and FW-190's were equipped with metal blade propellers. This can be seen in e.g. photographs presenting downed planes. The bent blades are often clearly visible. JP At one time or another, all of those aircraft flew behind wooden props. Do a google search for "Wood Rotol propeller spitfire", for example. KB You're right. Rotol did manufacture wooden blade constant speed propellers at least three and four-blade models. JP |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
Kyle Boatright wrote:
Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB I believe most of those old wood props had a brass leading edge cover. That ought to protect the wood from rain erosion. OTOH, the (metal) tail rotor on the Hughes OH6A woudld last about 5 minutes in rain. Richard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message link.net... Kyle Boatright wrote: Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB I believe most of those old wood props had a brass leading edge cover. That ought to protect the wood from rain erosion. I'm 99% sure that the props I'm talking about didn't have brass leading edges. The next time you're at an airshow where a Spitfire is on display, take a close look at the prop. On many (most?, all?) the prop is wood, and you can't see a transition between a brass leading edge and the wood blade. I've done this inspection several times at Osh and SnF... KB OTOH, the (metal) tail rotor on the Hughes OH6A woudld last about 5 minutes in rain. Richard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
Kyle Boatright wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message link.net... Kyle Boatright wrote: Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB I believe most of those old wood props had a brass leading edge cover. That ought to protect the wood from rain erosion. I'm 99% sure that the props I'm talking about didn't have brass leading edges. The next time you're at an airshow where a Spitfire is on display, take a close look at the prop. On many (most?, all?) the prop is wood, and you can't see a transition between a brass leading edge and the wood blade. I've done this inspection several times at Osh and SnF... KB Sorry 'bout that, Kyle. I was thinking Spads and Sopwiths... Richard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wood Prop Question
On Apr 5, 9:01 pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message link.net... Kyle Boatright wrote: Those of us who fly behind (or in front of) wooden props usually reduce RPM significantly when entering rain. I reduce RPM to 1900 in rain, or I see minor damage, despite the urethane leading edges. For me, 1900 rpm results in a rotational tip speed of about 400 mph. This doesn't consider the forward motion of the aircraft. In WWII, more than a few combat aircraft used wooden propellers - Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Me-109's being high profile examples. However, I have never heard of any rain/prop issues with those aircraft. And I'm sure there were plenty of occasions where those aircraft were flown full-out in rain. FYI, with the Spit/merlin combination, the prop is geared to roughly half the engine speed of 3,000 RPM. At 1500 prop rpm, a 10.75' diameter prop has a tip speed of roughly 575 mph. That's the kind of tip speed that will supposedly wreck a wooden prop in the rain. So, what was different about those props? Were the blades essentially disposable and nobody gave a second thought to trashing a set? Did the blades incorporate some sort of technology that I've missed? (Brass leading edges don't count - to the best of my knowledge, Spits didn't have 'em.) Thoughts? KB I believe most of those old wood props had a brass leading edge cover. That ought to protect the wood from rain erosion. I'm 99% sure that the props I'm talking about didn't have brass leading edges. The next time you're at an airshow where a Spitfire is on display, take a close look at the prop. On many (most?, all?) the prop is wood, and you can't see a transition between a brass leading edge and the wood blade. I've done this inspection several times at Osh and SnF... KB OTOH, the (metal) tail rotor on the Hughes OH6A woudld last about 5 minutes in rain. Richard- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The MK XIV Spit had a five-bladed wooden prop. Ironically, the manufacturer is now owned by a German conglomerate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |
FS: Wood prop for experimental aircraft | Glasair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 29th 05 06:06 PM |
Installing a wood prop... | SteveR | Home Built | 19 | July 24th 05 06:42 AM |
Sensenich Wood Prop Question | [email protected] | Owning | 3 | April 4th 05 02:32 PM |
Metal Prop vs. Wood Prop | Larry Smith | Home Built | 21 | September 26th 03 07:45 PM |