" "Is the Maloof prop still around? It had a lot of caution areas and I guess somebody just liked to putt around at 2400 and lost a blade.Anyway my 2100-D engine came with it from Joe at Revmaster. Dobie KR-2 N233AD."
I know someone with an unused (brand new) Maloof in their hangar who has no plans for it and would probably like to get something for it. PM me and I'll send his email to anyone interested. I had the Maloof on my first KR and had no problems with it. The constant-speed controller never did work well, for me or anyone, so most people using this prop (such as Jim Evans up in Northern California) went to a two position switch. Full flat or full coarse. The blade issues I heard about, maybe two in all, were on turbocharged Revmasters, like Jim's was. I think Ken Rand had a Maloof on his turbocharged KR which he went down in due to ice. Jim lost a blade while cruising to Oshkosh at above 20K feet and made a successful forced landing. Like Roy Marsh, he was an ex WWII fighter pilot. Revmaster came out with an improved hub and I recall buying at least two upgrades/improvements with this prop. I think failures were quite rare but props aren't supposed to fail at all so it only takes a couple of incidents before people lose faith in the design. With my current KR N335KC, going to what most VW KR operators would consider a very coarse prop - Sterba 52 x 56 . . . I've been surprised by _how little_ take-off distance and climb I lost in going to this cruise prop. My philosophy now is to buy the prop that will be optimum for the type of flying one does. I bought the 52x56 for cruise in the thinner air of 11K - 14K altitude and it's been perfect, giving me a WOT of 3100 to 3200. The plane will still jump off the runway after a few hundred feet with an initial climb rate of 1000±. (It's a single-place, under 600 lb. empty). If I were to buy another prop I would try 54 x 56 (Sterba) since longer props are more efficient (I've read). I'm guessing WOT with a 54 x 56 would render about 100 RPM less but deliver a bit more thrust despite the lower RPM. I'm thinking the longer prop would likely have improved thrust since longer is better (they say) and would develop less drag thanks to a lower tip speed. I've recently learned that a tip speed of .65 Mach is ideal. I've been thinking it was in the .8 range, which is where my current prop is when turning 3100-3200. Mike Stirewalt KSEE _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
