Kent

I bought a M-II from David last year, he also had a LE. Don't know if he still has it. David 760-301-2281

Hey Kent Ashton, In your mail to me you mentioned that I should not use any "hate". I am curious what you saw in my writing that is considered hate. I am not trying to be smart, I am curious. The only things I have said to the FAA Retards are things like, "where is the regulation for that?" "Why are we starting over for the third time?" "I have three FSDO approved Repair Station Manuals, why are we writing a new one"? I may have mentioned this before but, when I asked the FSDO boss, in one of our meetings, "Mike, why are we doing this for the third time?" He literally yelled at me, "Do you want a repair station or not?" I said, "Of course I do". He then said to me, "OK, from now on we will deal with your son". He got up and left. That is real professionalism that the FAA brags about on their web site. Kent, I really don't want to deviate from the normal theme of this web site but I can't find you e-mail address. I assume you are a lawyer and I value your opinion.

Thanks Kent Ashton for your input. I shall try to summarize my thoughts on the subject. First; What you are saying is essentially what I got from ARSA's Ms. MaCleod. Without going into detail, it is her opinion and advise to, "Get on your knees and kiss their (FAA) ass if you want anything from them". This is not a criticism of you. But this sort of attitude seems to be prevalent throughout the GA/FAA community, or as the FAA puts it, "Stakeholders in the GA community" which I understand to be everyone, us and the FAA. Or, the alternate action, wherein we can learn to read the "Tea Leaves". I will explain: "Bay leaves & Tea Leaves". I spent over 20 years flying volunteer medical Cats into Baja California, MX. I flew as a member of the "Flying Samaritans Inc." When you cross the border and land at Mexicali, you entered their facility to do the paperwork. Four stops, Customs, Immigration, Flight plan and General Declaration. At each one of these stop there is a guy sitting behind his desk with a drawer partially open and there you will see several dollar bills lying there. Now, these green backs are the "tea leaves". If you read them correctly, you will drop another buck or two into the drawer. If you don't, you will be stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled. I know of one case where a pilot was stonewalled until the airport closed, he and his passengers had to go in town and RON. Here is the point; Every time the FAA Retards come around here I smell Bay Leaves. The situation here is the same as Mexicali. Here, like in Mexicali, the reason for the delay is frivolous. They literally invent more paperwork to lay on you at every visit. You finish one batch or paperwork, they lay another one on you. This goes on and on and on and on and on. In my case this has been going on for four years this month. Between the FAA and me we have reinvented the wheel 4 times. It takes about a year to invent one wheel. I stop here. I'm sorry to deviate from the purpose of the forum.

I am putting together my accusations toward the 3 FAA offices that have a hatred for me. I have done nothing to tick them off except disagree with some of their "Home made" regulations. My plan is to take them to Federal District Court and see if I can jerk some of the knots out of their retarded minds. I have been corresponding with my lawyer friend about this approach. Actually is was he that suggested that I do just that. He is an aviation lawyer, used to be part of AOPAs' PPS. (Pilot Protection Service) Maybe still is, not sure. This has nothing to do with my support of the E-AB potential market. I hope to be flying my Mustand II before too long. Cold as a well diggers ass in Idaho here now so it will not happen very soon. I have to fly off the phase one with my prop locked into a fixed pitch mode. Once I get a warm feeling about reliability then I will unlock it and go for a full flight test evaluation.

Do I owe anyone any more information? I have so many Grimlins that I have to keep zapping down, it is somewhat difficult to keep up with so many hot iron in the fire. Jon, thanks for getting me back on track with this computer krap. We are slaves to computers. Been fighting all that electronic crap that drives my Ford Ranger batie. Electronics has no place in vehicles except the radio. And I am a retired EE. Believe me it is all a mistake. Should never have been discovered.

Scimatar blades increases parasitic drag over a strait blade. Reason: When an airfoil is producing lift the air not only flow chordwise, it also starts to move outboard. This causes the air to increase it's travel from LE to TE. A swept forward blade is more efficient than strait or sweep back. I have only seen the Germans experiment with this technology. Their Hanza jet had forward sweep wings. one of our X planes has forward sweep wings, I think it was the X-35, don't remember now. I saw a German ultralight with a forward swept prop blades, fixed pitch. This makes sense because it makes the air flowing over the foil pass across in the shortest path, less parasitic drag. Also as you all know, high aspect ratio wings (lifting foils) are more efficient than mattress wings. That is why sailplanes have high aspect ration wings. Same with propeller blades but that gets to be a problem with prop blades because of mechanical reasons. And for the prop blade the airspeed is different for every station along the blade. Consequently of course, the twist in the blade has to be different for every station along the blade. It would be nice if the twist could be made variable like the pitch (Bata) can be. But that is not practical. Of the three parameters that a prop has to acomodate, Bata or pitch, RPM and AofA (Angle of Attack) only two of the three can be made variable. Twist is fixed. The reason I bring up twist is because when you crunch the numbers the numbers say that for all the variable rpms, the variable airspeeds, the variable angles of attack, it would be nice of you had control over the twist of each blade. But so far we can't do that. If we could train the termites, in wood blades, to hold hands and sway to the right tune then we could make a prop blade a little more efficient. If anyone wants to crunch some numbers, write me an e-mail and I will give you some math formulas that will put a twist in your brain. BTW as some of you know, we took the C-90 powered V-EZ to Kanab for the fly in. We didn't wind any race. We don't run our engine up in the 3K+ rpm zone. But did anyone notice how short the takeoff run was?

It doesn't make sense to be asking for a few thousand hours on a propeller before one is comfortable with it. The regulation I posted on this site is reliable. You know how long it would take to put 2 or 3K hours on a prop? The prop we put on the local Veri-EZ is safe. It is smooth as silk. It has been disassembles twice and there is no degradation of parts. The problem with pusher props is if they are metal blades. This prop on the EZ is wood core with carbon fiber coating. Vibration excitation from the engine along with the disturbed air off the pusher creates excitation frequencies that fall within the resonant modes of metal propeller blades. Wood blades have resonant frequencies that are mostly outside the excitation frequencies of most engines. Pardon my ignorance but I don't know how to set up my computer to do what Jon suggested. I will see if I can find a kid to do it for me. I'm sorry for my low knowledge of computer noise.

If I made a pilot controlled variable pitch propeller that weighs about the same as a fixed pitch wood prop, would any of you guys be interested? It would be similar to the MT controllable prop which uses a knob on the instrument panel to control pitch.

The other 98% would take the size of a thick book. But here is another 2%. First Article Conformity Inspection. Here is how that went down. FAAA; "You can't do your own inspection, you have to hire an independent testing laboratory to do the FACI". Me; "OK, give me a list of FAA certified independent testing laboratories". FAA, "There aren't any, we don't certify them". Me: "OK, since you are a member of the FAA Manufacturing Inspection District Office, come down here and witness the inspection". FAA; "We don't have the budget to go down there and witness an inspection, you have to hire a DER/DAR to do that". Me; "According to your certified mail to me, you found budget to send auditors down here and spend two days auditing me in my 1500 sq/ft facility". FAA; "You have to hire a DAR to witness the FACI. So, I flew down to Lancaster, CA., picked up my DAR. (He was a retired FAA MIDO inspector} I flew him up to Carson City, NV. I had cut a deal with Rick Clemens, owner of Specline.com, We used his QA laboratory. My DAR and I spent about 30 minutes inspecting the part. I flew him back to Lancaster. He charges $50 per hour from door to door. He gave me a discount and only charges me $300 for the half hour inspection and his time away from home. The fuel bill for my Geronimo was over $1000. So, with all the delays and jerking around that half hour inspection cost me just shy of $3000. I am not going to take up the space and time to write a book on this crap. I do think I shall get to hell out of the certified propeller business. It just isn't worth it to me.

They don't object to the prop, they object to me. I got into an argument with Seattle MIDO about my supposed oversight and auditing of my paint supplier. The rules say that I shall have oversight and audit any supplier that makes anything or does anything to my drawing, specifications or procedures. I was buying paint from NAPA. NAPA doesn't make anything to my spec. I buy the paint made to their spec. Then the SEA MIDO idiot told me, "OK from now own you have to get a signed statement from the store owner or the store manages that says, 'The paint you have in you hand is the paint that is on the sales slip". I told him how I was handling the situation when I was under Van Nuys MIDO. He said words to this effect, "Well, we don't run the Van Nuys MIDO, this is what you will have to do from now on". This is about 2% of the sh*t the FAA has put on me. These people are drunk on Power of The FAAA. And BTW, the MIDO dingbat was an Ex employee of Cirrus Aircraft Co. He wrecked a new airplane of theirs, landed it about 20 feet above the runway, retracted the landing gear through the winds and broke the tail cone off. Now he works for the FAA. And that ding bat actually displayed joy about screwing up. Maybe he was joyous about getting a fat paying job with the FAAA. Seems like the FAAA seeks out the people that can't make it in the filed.

It's getting confusing. In my early days with the Aeromatic prop I was getting up on the learning curve. I was relaying some of what Univair said about the propeller. OK, so all of the said and done aside lets look at the record. FAA approved the prop on the 0-320 on the Beech 23, and on the Supercub and for use on the 0-360. The only blade that has slung off an Aeromatic is the one I personally was given the opportunity to investigate. Maybe I am repeating myself but this comes from two friends of mine. One guy had an Aeromatic for many years in his hangar, I saw it several times, it look to be in excellent condition. I told him to let me to the SB on it to check for any problems. He didn't do that. He sold the prop to another friend of mine that had a 0-320 powered RV-4. They put it on his airplane, he took off and flew around the pattern. (At private airstrip, Faris Wheel near Minden, NV. First flight they only got 2100 rpm. Landed tweeked the counterweights and flew again,. Slung a blade but made safe dead stick on the runway. Never found the blade. Gave me the hub with other blade to analyze the failure. Turn out that of the 15 screws that hold the blade in the metal ferule had 10 broken screws. They breaks were rusy. So they did not break during this flight. Of the other five screws, two had fresh breaks and the last three pulled out of the wood. So, it is clear that the prop blade exerts more centrifugal force that 5 screws can handle. I have inspected quite a few props that come to me for inspection/overhaul. I have found up to five broken screws in some of them, usually only three are found broken. No history of any of these blades departing the hub. Univair told me that they certified props out the door with as many as three broken screws within. It is sometimes impossible to get the broken screw out of the blade if the break is down in the wood. If the head breaks off we can usually get the screw out. I have chosen not to certify a blade with any broken screws. Also my screws are made fro 8740 steel which is about 10 to 20% stronger than the original 3035 steel used by Koppers and Univair. Thie original screws were Rockwelled to about 160K to 180K PSI hardness. My 8740 screws are Rockwelled to 180 to 200K Psi with the same spring characteristics. None of my new screws have been found broken except where there was a prop strike.

I have no idea what this is. Does anyone know what airplane and engine? I think I send up the story about the guy that had his Aeromatic dynamically balance (Unbalance) on his Aeronca. It ended up breaking 5 of the 15 screws that hold the blade in the hub. You got to pay attention to clocking the prop on the crankshaft. There was an excellent article about that subject in the Coupe Capers. I will ask the people at Coupe Capers for permission to make the article available here or make it available via e-mail. BTW I am working on a design for a controllable pitch prop that should be almost as light at a fixed pitch wood prop. It will be carbon fiber of course, the blades anyway.

I thought I posted some flight data on this site but I don't see it. To answer Ashtons' comments. The reason I surrendered my repair station certs and PMAs is because Seattle MIDO threatened a witch hunt because I disagreed with one of their invented rules. My entire facility for making props is less than 2000 sq/ft. They got pissed at me and said they were going to send auditors down here and spend two days auditing me. Then after that they said they were going to come down three weeks later and do it all over a gain. That amounts to a witch hunt and after that the burning at the stake.

I would bet that all you guys are members of EAA. And you look forward each month to Barnaby’s articles on airplanes and aerodynamics. In the Feb issue he writes about Propeller Momentum Theory. There is no question that Barnaby knows his stuff. He explained how the velocity change across the propeller disc is a measure of efficiency. To visualize this, think of your airplane sitting on the ground with the brakes locked and full power on the engine. This is the case where the airplane is standing still and the air is moving through the propeller disc really fast. Here you have zero propulsion efficiency if we are talking about the speed of the air against the forward speed of the airplane. Now, after you are in cruise flight you airplane is moving really fast and the air is virtually not moving at all. And if the air is not moving at all this is where, as Barnaby explains, that your propulsion efficiency is 100%. That is a mental picture of the of his formulae, T=2Apv(V+v). The P in the formulae is supposed to be the symbol rho, (air density). My keyboard doesn’t have rho. :-)

Here is the certification requirements for prop cert from the original Civil Aeronautic Admin. The Aeromatic was certified under these rules. (1) A 100-hour endurance test shall be conducted on an engine of the same power and rotational speed characteristics as the engine or engines with which the propeller is intended to be used. The endurance test shall be conducted at the maximum continuous rotational speed and power rating of the propeller, except that, in the event a rotational speed(s) and power condition(s) is found to be critical on the basis of the vibration test prescribed in § 14.152, such portion of the 100 hours as the Administrator finds necessary, but not in excess of 50 hours, shall be conducted at the critical rotational speed(s) and power condition(s). If a take-off rating greater than the maximum continuous rating is to be established, a 10-hour block test in addition to the 100 hours shall be conducted at the maximum power and rotational speed for the take-off rating. (2) The propeller shall be operated throouugth the engine endurance tests prescribed in Part 13 of this subchapter. § 14.154 Functional test. Variable-pitch propellers shall be subjected to the following functional tests as applicable. The same propeller as used in the endurance test shall be used in the functional tests and shall be driven by an engine mounted on a test stand or on an aircraft. (a) Manually controllable propellers. 500 complete cycles of control shall be applied throughout the pitch and rotational speed ranges. (b) Automatically controllable propellers. 1,500 complete cycles of control by means of automatic control mechanism shall be applied throughout the pitch and rotational speed ranges. © Feathering propellers. 50 cycles of feathering operation shall be applied. (d) Reversible-pitch propellers. 200 complete cycles of control shall be applied from the lowest normal pitch to the maximum reverse pitch. At the end of each cycle the propeller shall be operated in reverse pitch for a period of one minute at the reverse pitch maximum rotational speed and power. § 14.155 Special tests. Such tests shall be conducted as the Administrator finds necessary to substantiate the use of any unconventional features of design, material, or construction. § 14.156 Teardown inspection. After completion of the tests, the propeller shall be completely disassembled and a detailed inspection shall be made of the propeller parts to check for fatigue, wear, and distortion. § 14.157 Propeller adjustments and parts replacements. During the tests servicing and minor repairs of the propeller shall be permissible. If major repairs or replacement of parts are found necessary during the tests or in the teardown inspection, the parts in question shall be subjected to such additional tests as are found by the Administrator to be necessary. [F.R. Doc. 56-10369: Filed, Dec. 19, 1956; 8:50 a.m

That is a loss of about 20 rpm per 1000' of increase altitude.

Here is some preliminary data on the Veri-EZ with the Aeromatic prop. I have been trying to get my son to do an airspeed calibration with GPS. So far very little. But here is some GPS GS data flying a variety of headings in gusty conditions. The propeller changes pitch and rpm in response to gusts. You will notice that the data is somewhat convoluted. Neither the AS nor the Tach is calibrated. GS was off a GPS. We are working on getting better instrumentation and looking for some smooth air so we can get some reliable data. You can see that IAS is low compared to GPS GS. The rpm averaged about right, 20 rpm/1000'. We don't have fixed pitch prop flight data. BTW, this Veri-EZ almost 200# over Burt's EW with the old fixed pitch wood prop. So the flight data is pretty much equivalent to GW flight. The prop weighs about 38#. My son weighs only abut 150 so we have about 25# of ballast in the nose. C-90 In Veri-EZ. 5K - rpm 2650 MP 24.25, Temp 34.9 F, GS 170mph, IAS 138Kts. 6K - rpm 2620 MP 23.50, Temp 30.6 F, GS 165mph, IAS 135Kts. 7K - rpm 2610 MP 22.50, Temp 35.5 F, GS 158mph, IAS 135Kts. 8K - rpm 2580 MP 21.75, Temp 36.2 F, GS 151mpn, IAS 132Kts 9K - rpm 2570 MP 20.75, Temp 35.0 F, GS 156mph, IAS 128Kts 10K-rpm 2570 MP 20.00, Temp 32.8 F, GS 155mph, IAS 122Kts 11K-rpm 2530 MP 19.00, Temp 31,5 F, GS 154mph, IAS 118Kts 9.0K rpm 2590 MP 21.82 Temp 33.7F GS 158.4 mph IAS 129.7 Averages

We, in the general aviation community, have strong feelings about our airplanes and other's airplanes and things that are bolted on our airplanes. Not only do facts play a part in our hobby but so does emotion. The Aeromatic propeller probably has the best safety record in the business. The CAA/FAA has no record of a failure of one of these props. But many FAAA employees, like many in the aviation community, have strong emotional opinions about technical things of which they are not qualified to judge. That makes the FAAA inspectors, those of little competence, I reckon enough of that. Back to the subject. The Aeromatic is a wood blade prop. They are covered with fiberglass. The MT prop blades are made the same way, laminated wood core covered with glass. Our EZ prop is covered with carbon fiber, this adds some stiffness to the blades. We are planning another trip with the EZ. Weather permitting, we plan to fly it to PHX in a couple of weeks. We have had it as far as Kanab, UT. We plan to put many more hours on it. So far, we see no problems. It is a good performer and is smooth as silk. So, this prop is a wood prop. It has the advantages of wood as well as variable pitch. I have no intention of selling a prop that I am not comfortable with myself. My son is doing all the flight testing. I have some data that he collected last week. I hesitate to put it up because the plane doesn't have a calibrated airspeed or tachometer. I am rigging up a way to use my electronic proptach to fix that problem and he will be calibrating the AS indicator using GPS, soon, I hope. And since the propeller responds to gusts, (the pitch changes in response to a slight AOA on the blades) the data is a little misleading and easy to be misunderstood. The one thing that was confirmed was that the rpm drops at a rate of about 20rpm per each 1000' of altitude increase. He flew from 5K to 12K and the rpm dropped almost exactly 20 rpm per thousand feet. That pretty well confirms the engineering flight test data that I have on whole bunch of airplane of the late 1940s and into the 1950s. My records indicate that between Koppers and Univair, there were over 9000 aeromatic props installed on about 50 different certified airplane, foreign and domestic. BTW, just for kicks. We, that is America, gave Russia, during WW-II some L-5s. Those Pekkerheads reverse engineered the prop and designed one with metal blades. A friend of mine has one on his Nanching CJ-6. I asked another owner of that combination, if it worked like the Aeromatic and he said, "It does indeed". Soon as we can get more reliable flight test data I will post it here.

Fixed pitch props, I sold most of the machinery that supported making fixed pitch. I sold it to Bob Hunt 228 563 0927. I don't know what he is doing with it but I think he told me a year ago or so that he was making props for EAB planes. I have flight date on the EZ, The conditions were gusty and I don't put much stock in the numbers unless you average them, I will post the for the testing we did from 5K to 11K. Later. Kent

I have great respect for Burt. But I think it is clear that Burt has not come up to speed on the Aeroamtic prop. Anyway we are doing extensive flight testing on the EZ with the Aeromatic prop. Will be posting it as we get useful data. But we see no adverse problems so far. It is just as smooth as the fixed pitch wood prop that we took off the EZ. It's a wood prop folks. And it has the reputation of being a very smooth prop. We did some flight testing today. Step climbing. The Aeromatic, in the fully automatic version, looses about 20 rpm per thousand feet. The numbers we got pretty well confirmed that. Started at 5K and went up to 12K. I forgot to bring the data home, dangit.

I am well aware of the problems of dead sticking pushers and especially the EZ type pushers. We have been flying this bird off and on for the past two years. We have made two props for it. I have never been in love with the EZ type airplanes for several reasons but I have to admit that their record does not shoot fear through my nerve system. If an airplane has problems the news moves through space like plasma in the universe. I gave a sorta of a plan of action for the future of the Aeromatic prop for the EAB market. I have a Mustang II and plan to do much flight testing after I get a warm feeling about the airplane and the engine.

I can not compete with fixed pitch props, they are much easier to make.

Thanks for the good data. After reading the failure report it seems clear to me that the failure was the front prop. Then the vibration adversely affected the rear engine/prop. Also if I interpret it correctly it was the engine mount that started the chain reaction, not necessarily the prop. Didn't he say that they redesigned the engine mounts? The plane then flew around the world with a pusher and a tractor. Though it cruised with only the rear engine if I remember correctly. And, he said that he doesn't recommend an CS prop on any experimental airplane, I assume front or rear. There are a lot of other canards with all kinds of variable pitch props tacked on the rear. Also, the CAA/FAA approved method of testing a new prop design is known as a "Whirl Test". I don't have the details in front of me at this time but I think it calls for some number of hours of flight test. Other test says that the propeller/blade retention, etc., shall be tested to twice the calculated stress and it shall not fail. I don't think it says how much above twice the stress it is allowed to break. But the retention system on my props works out to be way above that. I did calculations on how much force was created with a typical blade weighing 6,5#, turning at 2800 rpm. The numbers are something like this. Centrifugal for 20,000#. There are 15 screws holding the blade in the hub. Extensive pull tests, destruct test, shows that with the old original screws made of SAE 3035 carbon steel, the screw would break at about 6000# of pull stress. My new steel screws break at about 8000# of pull stress. That works out to about 120,000#. A very good safety of margin over the FAR requirements. But even that doesn't mean that you can't destroy a prop. I have one customer that called in a guy to dynamically balance his prop. He brought the prop to me along with a disc about 10" diameter with over 4 oz of weight added to one side, said it vibrates like hell. I put the prop on my balance stand, sans the added weight his prop balance guy put on it and found it to be in balance. I opened the prop up and found 5 broken screws. The four plus oz of weights the guy put on the prop almost destroyed it. Static balance is a valid balance. You can't unbalance a prop to balance an engine. You can usually get by doing that with a fixed pitch prop but not with a variable pitch prop simply because the variable pitch hub can't be made as strong as solid metal or wood for that matter. But even then I often hear of a guy slinging the metal tip off his prop. If someone starts stacking weights on one of my props, he has voided any warrantee, written or implied. Prop clocking on the crankshaft is important. I think I sent an article I picked up from the journal "Coupe Capers", to one of your canard folks a publication of the Ercoupe folks. It has a very good article on vibration problems as a result of clocking of the prop in relation to crank throw. especially for four cylinder engines. You will notice that Hartzell, McCauly and others, in conjunction with the engine folks, makes it such that their prop can be installed in only a certain way. The Aeromatic can be installed at any one of several clockings. My new screw design is made of a newer steel, SAE 8720. They break at 8,000# +/- 10%. I have to check that my memory about the steel is correct. The old steel Rockwelled out at about 6000PSI, the new steel Rockwells out at about 8000PSI. I think it is FAR part 35 that details this information. I think the old CAR part was part 17, I'll check it at work, I can't get into my IA library here at home for some reason.

The Aeromatic model 220 fits the 20 spline shaft engines. It was certified on the Navion 260. SAE No. 2, spline. The Aeromatic moded F200 fits the flange shaft. There are 8 different bolt patterns for the flange shaft props. The smallest fit the Franklin 90hp, six bolts about 4" dia, there are two 8 bolt patterns, one 4.75" dia. and one 5" dia. I don't remember all of them right now. I'm not in my office. The Aeromatic does not work on the same principal as the props that have vanes on the spinner to control pitch. The Aeromatic used aerodynamic forces on the blades, centrifugal forces on the blades and counterweight to create a balance of forces that changes based on RPM, AOA & airspeed. The Aeromatic works very well on a pusher. This makes the Aeromatic almost constant speed. When you are sliding down the final approach the blades will be in whatever pitch you had before you throttle back for the descent. If you decide to abort the landing, you push throttle full on, the rpm goes up to redline and the prop pitch shifts back into full rpm and climb power is realized. There is a version of both props, the F200 and the 220, where the pilot can take over pitch control if he needs to. The flange shaft F200 needs a hollow shaft engine with a governor pad. The 220 uses mechanical means of controlling the pitch, all outside the engine. During WW-II the prop was used on the Fairchild PT-19, Stearman PT-18 prototype, Grummon Widgeon, the UC-78 Cessna Bamboo Bomber. But it came late in the war and there was not a lot of military planes using it. I have a story in the archives that the Widgeon with the 200 hp Rangers originally had fixed pitch props. They were used for submarine patrol up and down the east coast. Story says that if they lost one engine they would throw everything they could get loose, overboard just so they could bet back to base on one engine. With the Aeromatics they could complete the mission on one engine.

I am getting close to putting my Mustang II in the air. Will be using an Aeromatic prop. It will be set as a fixed pitch prop for first flights. It will have the 0-320. After flight test with that engine prop combination I plan to put an 0-360 and I will be designing new blades for the prop because that is a 200 mph airplane. I want to get some engineering and performance data so I can tell anyone what kind of performance increase I get.