Dan,

I don’t recall referring to you at “the Elitist”, with the attitude, nor do I recall Chicago as a Formula One hotbed. Perhaps you have misconstrued my commits or those of others on this thread. You do have a considerable advantage living in Chicago, since the weather there should be very much like the weather in Muncie. So perhaps the testing you can do on the engines is much more valid than what others at high altitudes or more humid or drier climates are able to perform.

When I was working my way through college, a considerable part of the time was at Progress Manufacturing, which made Rev-Up Props back in the 70’s. I can assure you that there is considerable differences and variations in wood props. Depending on where the tree was grown, the angle that the plank was cut, and where in the plank the prop was cut you get a tremendous variation from prop to prop, and usually blade to blade on the same prop. So carving a racing prop is subject to a wide variation in how the blades flex in use. When everything comes out right, a wood prop works extremely well. Usually, though, these variations limit how well it performs.

All we are asking is to remove some of the variables that are really uncontrolled from the equation. If I want randomness, I will pick up dice and roll them. As far as the speed creep that some worry about, I don’t think that the upper speeds will be changed much, since airspeed is really a function of engine power output, and the efficiency of the prop. The very best efficiency of any prop is only in the 80 to 85% range regardless of construction. What allowing a selection of propeller sizes in carbon would facilitate the tuning of an engine as conditions change.

We did see a tremendous speed increase when we switched from wood to plastic in Quickie, and that was due to the restrictions on the wood prop in terms of diameter and modifications. Since Q40 props are already modified to achieve the maximum performance, then adding plastic props will only add consistency.