It has been pointed out to me by a good but irritatingly pedantic
friend, with time to spare and use of a computer (he'll be at work then)
that the Imperial number I quoted was missing a digit.
For those of you about to rush off this morning and fork out an obscene
amount of money for a new prop, without having first checked the
numbers, please be advised that the correct Moment Of Inertia should
have read *142,328 lb ft2*
**
With humility
Nigel ;-)
On 11/06/2013 17:41, Sir Peregrine Hardly-Worthit wrote:
>
> Not being picky, but that might be 142,328 lb ft^2 J
>
> http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/EN/units-converter/moment-of-inertia/1-9/
>
> Sir Peregrine Hardly-Worthit
>
> Vice-Chairman, Pedantic Society
>
> *From:*owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *nigel_graham@m-tecque.co.uk
> *Sent:* 11 June 2013 16:42
> *To:* europa-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Europa-List: Re: Woodcomp or Airmaster Prop
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> You've stimulated an interesting thread and received some high quality
> feedback.
>
> My only contribution is to advise you to look carefully at the Maximum
> moment of inertia of the combined prop and VP unit if you are
> seriously considering fitting a larger diameter Prop.
>
> Rotax advise a maximum of 6000 Kg cm2 (14,328 lb ft2 in old money).
>
> You might wish to discuss this with Martin before making a final decision.
>
> Atb
>
> Nigel
>
> On 11/06/2013 15:58, N6ZY wrote:
>
> Snip .......
>
>
>
>
>
> The other question we discussed was the prop diameter. I will fly 98% of
the time off hard runways, and cannot see that a 68" diameter prop would be
impractical
even allowing for flat nosewheel tires (tyres? ..................
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
|