All
in my experience, (not as extensive as some on this list) the Eco prop
is an excellent compromise. (whatever you do, is compromise in aerodynamics)
Warp drive has good performance when stalled, ie at start of take off.
Thereafter it's efficiency starts to decline. In general I think it is
too stiff, (too much carbon, expensive and V Hi modulus) and designed
for slow airplanes with rag wings, the ECO uses carbon to resist
torsion, (best) and S glass to resist centrifugal loads, also best imho,
it's more flexible but hi modulus) .(forgive me if that may confuse
you,, (I've had a g&t) almost as strong as carbon but more extension
for the same load)
Ecoprop will give you a much smoother ride because it helps to damp out
the vibrations which the Warp Drive does not, it rings like a carbon
bell! and gives everything attached to it a harsh ride. (IMHO! get a
second opinion), I don't know as much as some of you guys do.
Jimmy Keppert in Austria has a lovely monwheel built by Trevor Jackson,
(kit no 3 I think) he has an Ecoprop and goes almost as well as Klaus
with a VP NSI, (Warp blades) Klaus' airplane is lovely too I must say. I
wish those guys would talk to us occasionally, they have valuable
experience to share, (which they do when asked)
Alain Petit who runs Arplast, I have known for many years and I respect
him.
Graham
nigel charles wrote:
> Hi Duncan
>
> Did you mean 4400rpm static or did you mean 5400rpm?
>
>
>
>> In order to revert to proper performance I am considering the current
>> alternative (VP not being an option due to cost and weight) :
>> - purchase new blades from Warpdrive (cheap and straightforward)
>> - replace with an Arplast Ecoprop. From misc readings it looks better
>> designed than the Warpdrive, question being if the extra performance
>> worths the extra cost.
>>
>> Engine is a 912ULS.
>> Has anyone gone through such change ?
>>
>> Jean-Paul
>> Europa monowheel 332 - France
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|