Re: Cloudcars prop

Rene Robertson <q2robertson@...>

Hi Mike,
Yes, for the same RPM I go 5 MPH faster than with the old prop.  I uploaded a picture of it in our photo album files under Rene C-GTCA:

--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...> wrote:

From: Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Cloudcars prop
To: Q-LIST@...
Received: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 7:58 PM


Hey Rene,
Post some pictures of the prop. Also, given the same RPM, OAT, and
altitude do you go faster with the new prop?
So many questions!
Fly Safe,
Mike Q200 N3QP

Rene Robertson wrote:
Hi Jon,

I concur and in my excitement I forgot to mention that these were IAS. My airspeed indicator has been fairly accurate as cross referenced by others I fly in formation with.
After flying many hours in the same airplane, same engine and different props, you get a feel for how accurate your airpseed indicator is.
Having said that, this was just an ititial trial run on a day with low ceilings and I told Jay I'd like to put in a few more flights to report back with more data (I did have my GPS on to cross reference). I agree that the methods laid our in the articles and using TAS is the best. When I get this done I will report back.


--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:

From: Jon Finley <jon@...>
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Cloudcars prop
To: Q-LIST@...
Received: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 10:45 AM

Hi Rene,

Those are great numbers. However; being a stickler for such things, I have to ask: What type of airspeed are you reporting?? Is this indicated, true, calibrated, or ??? I'm afraid that without that, it is kinda like me telling you that my Q2 once flew at 20 kts (it did, massive leak in pitot line so this was INDICATED airspeed that was not at all accurate).

The best procedure that I have seen for accurately recording speeds was documented by Paul Lipps in Contact! Magazine issue 88.5 and updated in 89. Pat Panzera can hook up anyone that wants a copy ([] and [mailto:editor.contactmagazine@...] editor dot contactmagazine at gmail dot com). I am no expert but it is my understanding that the only way to properly compare performance (either between planes, conditions, altitude, equipment, etc...) is to use TAS.


-----Original Message-----
From: "Rene Robertson" <q2robertson@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:32am
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Cloudcars prop

I agree with Mike, maybe Dan can put together a list on his website. I had similar issues at 1000 hours; worn pivot pins on the elevator, T-tail pivot bearings wearing, tail wheel pivot bolt and holes worn. The mags should be rebuilt evey 500 hours. I replaced my bottom rudder phenollic with an Aluminum piece and oil-lite bushing.

Jim, I can't believe we were warmer up north than you this last weekend :) I went flying to test a new prop and we were at +4 C.

Jay at Cloudcars has been working with me to develop the optimum prop for my Q2. I believe he's done it. This is one cool looking prop. It measures 54"D X 56"P. I originally thought it would be way too much pitch for my engine, but on climb out it gives the same performance as my 54"D X 48"P prop, but in cruise goes way faster. Here are the numbers:

110 MPH - 2860 RPM initial climb out
120 MPH - 2900 RPM climb out to altitude - 1000'/minute climb rate

150 MPH cruise - 2860 RPM
160 MPH cruise - 3060 RPM
165 MPH cruise - 3080 RPM

170 MPH - 3120 RPM
180 MPH - 3200 RPM max speed full throttle at altitude

200 MPH - 3320 RPM
210 MPH - 3380 RPM

OAT was 39 F. Alt. 1000' AGL/1200' ASL except for the last two runs which were in ground effect over the runway sustained for 10,000'. What a things were going by quick.

This is with my modified Revmaster 2165cc in C-GTCA.



Quickie Builders Association WEB site

Yahoo! Groups Links

Join to automatically receive all group messages.