On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:40:54 -0400,
Jeff Morris wrote:
If you insist on calling the Autoprop "feathering" then you have to
admit its a pretty poor one, having 5 to 10 times the drag of other
feathering props. For example, in the MIT/Practical Sailor test, at
about 7 knots the Autoprop had 10 pounds of drag, while the 2 and 3
blade Maxprop feathering props had about 1 and 2 pounds respectively.
The folding props were so low they weren't shown. 10 pounds of drag
is pretty good, compared to the 25 to 35 pounds for many of the props
in the test, but it isn't the same as feathering. The Autoprop has
some interesting properties, like very good performance in reverse, if
you rev it up.
I agree that it's not as low drag as the max prop, it also has way too
much rotating mass for my likes, which is one reason I wouldn't buy one.
But the mechanism is pretty simple, and the thing has a fairly
significant reduction in drag, over a fixed prop yes?
I do find JAXAshby's posts amusing however. although I suppose it's rude
to toy with the retarded kid.
"Jim Richardson" wrote in message
...
On 04 Sep 2004 13:08:18 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
Then why did you post a definition of feathering, which fit the
autoprop?
it does not fit. not even close. and if you had not blown $2,200 on a prop
hoping against hope you could make your boat *sail* faster you would know
the
difference.
Did the dealer tell you you could pass Island Packets and Westsail 32 if you
bought an auto-prop?
I didn't buy one JAXAshby. I simply wanted to know what you meant by
calling it a non-feathering prop. Alas, I should have known better than
to expect rational discourse from you.
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
'Windows' really does make a fine swear word, representing all that's
taboo and awful - just like '****', '****', etc."
-- Mark Hughes, sdm
--
Jim Richardson
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are
invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid.)
-- Lazarus Long