prop formula

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

Indeed John, I agree. May Science never completely displace Art. At risk of  
philosophising, Science nourishes the head but Art, the soul. How dull if  we 
were missing either one.
 
As far as reliable and proven, I have something that might be of interest.  
Contact me off list if you want to know more
 
MattK
 
 
 
 

Jeff,
Science displacing art? Obviously you haven't seen a good  Analog Engineer
design and test an RF circuit. The only thing missing is  the Dragon's Blood
and Eye of Nute. Your method of studying problems is  refreshing though. I
wish some of the Engineers that I have worked with  subscribed to this method
of thinking, rather than "Plug and Pray". You  will be a formidable adversary
next year (I suspect that you will be flying  Intermediate). If only I can
turn you to the "Dark Side"...
I was  thinking of trying a 3-blader myself. For now I just want to get
something  reliable / proven to practice with. I have to re-train myself to
fly the 2  meter planes s-l-o-w-l-y. My lasting impression of Pattern comes
from  watching Tipo's and Curare's with retracts and pipes. I still can't
believe  these new planes don't tip stall when they're landing as slowly as
they do.  I have to make a conscious effort to concentrate on a new
technique. I  don't think the prop will be a major concern yet.
As far as technology /  progress goes, you might be wrong on that
calculation. Some of the things  we do on desktop computers today were not
even possible on super computers  a decade ago. Besides, all of this CAD CAM
stuff is nice but keep in mind  that the Wright Brothers didn't have any of
this. You can't wait for  technology to catch up with your creativity - come
on, get out your slide  rule...

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com


>  -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>  [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jeff H. Snider
> Sent:  Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:18 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>  Subject: Re: prop formula
>
>
> Thanks for the  feedback.  Nothing that can be done with paper
> and pencil, or  keyboard and cpu, replaces going into the field
> and making some real  world observations.  But having an
> analytical brain and being a  former student of Math and Physics
> I really like being able to  calculate my way through a problem.
> Plus having a theory to support  what I see happening in the
> air does a world of good for my rate of  improvement as a pilot.
>
> I missed reading about Jim Woodward  and his 18x10 prop.
> Where was that?
>
> About multi-blade  props.  APC's website says they roughly weigh:
>  17" 2 blade  .07 lb
>  16" 3 blade .10 lb
>  15" 4 blade .46  lb!
> Is that a typo?  Does a 4-blade add over 6 ounces to  your
> nose?  I'm ready to give this multi-blade bandwagon a  test
> ride, but no one is flying a half-pound prop!  Are  they?
>
> As Dean says, this is fun stuff!  I need to read up  on
> that guy Renard.  Anyone have a suggestion for a good  book
> on the subject?  I have "Model Aircraft Aerodynamics"  or
> something similarly titled, which gave me my first exposure
>  to the amount of art pervading the science of aerodynamics.
> (By my  calculations, at the present rate of improvement
> in technology we're  120 years away from being able to use
> our desktop computers for a full  and complete molecule by
> molecule realtime simulation of air flowing  over a wing.
> Maybe by then science will have more fully displaced  art.)
>
>     -Jeff

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041021/ad99333c/attachment.html