ETLB Squawk Forums — Archive

Community archive · preserved 1076 threads
Building and Flying Related Boards › miniMax, Hi-Max, and AirBike General Discussions
Prop Size for  V Max 1600 cc VW
8 posts
JGlassFNPDecember 4, 2019, 8:33pm
What Prop  size and pitch do I need for my V Max running a direct drive VW 1600 cc.  I have a short field for take off and landings.  Thanks guys, James
PUFFDecember 5, 2019, 12:40pm
i would think a climb prop. don't know anything other than that tho.
JGlassFNPDecember 5, 2019, 3:21pm
Yes I am wanting something to pull out of the hole fast , I know I will compromise cruise speed but that is  OK with me. I just haven't fitted this engine before so was needing prop size information. 54/32 is a general suggestion but I wanted opinion from owners who have used different sizes and can advise me on the differences. Thanks James
Bob DalyDecember 5, 2019, 4:39pm
Play with this: http://godolloairport.hu/calc/strc_eng/index.htm . You'll likely want a larger diameter prop with lower pitch than 54/32.


Edit:  Read the notes.  Especially, you will want to manually input prop efficiency (~80%) otherwise the default value is 100%.
mullacharjakDecember 6, 2019, 10:08am
Hi

I could only get the figures for the 1500cc engine from the samba com website.The 1600 should be similiar.

Putting max rpm of 3100 and using a 54x24 prop at 77 degree F in calculator provided by Bob.

You require 41 hp.From the graph you can see that would be possible with a 1500.

You would get a thrust of 219 lbs and a speed of 70mph.

Now all you have to see is weather you can get 3100rpm with that prop!


attachment
JGlassFNPDecember 9, 2019, 2:55pm
Thanks guys, good info... J
mullacharjakDecember 9, 2019, 3:16pm
Quoted from JGlassFNP Thanks guys, good info... J


Thanks for being too kind!   Actually I am not sure whether the target RPM(rated rpm) is  the max static rpm or the max inflight rpm as the engine will unload once its moving .Any idea?

JGlassFNPDecember 9, 2019, 4:26pm
I was assuming in-flight RPM  because you use the 80% efficacy for that compensation rather that 100%