That debate is rather like the mono vs 'other' types of undercarriage
debate; one best not entered as the battle lines are too fixed!
A vp obviously has the edge in performance on a fp. But at the cost of
capital investment, routine maintenance/stripdown, non-routine
maintenance(!) and yet another logbook to fill in.
The study on fp vs vp in the LAA mag a few years ago had one very poignant
conclusion: on an overpowered slippery aircraft (e.g.Europa with 100hp)
there is very little if any real advantage.
I have a fp and can climb fully loaded (1300 lbs) at >900fpm and cruise at
very nearly Vne (close to 150 knts @ 5500rpm) if the 'plane is clean,
especially the propeller.
Routine shortfield performance (homebase is 375m grass strip) is OK, but
difficult fully loaded when the ground is wet and soft leaving little
contingency for other than full performance. But Sportcruisers and Rans S6's
have difficulty here!
Duncan McF.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fireflier
Sent: 01 April 2013 12:02
Subject: Europa-List: Prop choice fp or vp?
--> <fireflier@btinternet.com>
I am almost at the point where I need to choose what prop to use on my
aircraft. Should I go for Fixed pitch or for a variable pitch prop? I would
be interested to hear from others who have the different types of props and
to compare performance figures etc.
This will be on a tri gear aircraft with 912uls engine. I'm Looking at the
woodcomp props and also the airmaster props, what are people's thoughts on
these?
Is the performance figures worth the extra expense for the variable pitch
prop?
I'm currently swaying towards the woodcomp sr3000/3w prop, due to easy of
returning prop for repair and back up of UK service agent if required etc.
I shall look forward to hearing your thoughts and comparisons.
Many thanks
Donald
--------
Fireflier
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=397514#397514
|