David Joyce wrote:
> I am slightly reluctant to restart this thread, but Woodcomp have just
> sent me a list of comments and corrections to some of the statements
> produced in the last two weeks:
Thanks for your confirmation. It is very much similar to what I
expected. Interesting to see that they came to the same conclusion: the
only thing that could have caused it is a voltage applied to the third
reverse ring.
Something else, I'm hesistating between a 2-blade and 3-blade Woodcomp
3000/W prop.
Main pro's of the 2-blade are the significant weight savings of about
4Kg's (8-9 lbs), and the better cruise parameters (faster). I know that
the climb parameters are slightly less, but I try to optimize for
cruising as I feel that a 914 with intercooler will probably climb fast
enough anyway. For taking off from a short strip I have to land there
first, so if the take-off length is less or equal to the required
landing lenght it is fine by me.
As most folks here are choosing for a 3-blade prop, I'm wondering why
that is? Visiual appearance, or are there things I just didn't see?
I know about this vibration thing, but have confidence that it can be
largely tuned away with balancing the carbs and blades. Many commercial
airplanes with Rotax 914's are flying with 2-blade props, so it is
apparently acceptable to do so.
How much ground clearance is recommended for a tri-gear operating on a
grass strip?
With a nose-wheel mod (thanks Karl!), I will get about 300mm clearance
if I choose for a 1720mm (67.5") prop. I guess this is acceptable?
--
Frans Veldman
|