You haven’t said anything. Your initial assertion is that a lower RPM due to higher blade angle produces better-performance climbs in the event of a go-around.
In your latest post, you’re omitting the fact that the blade angle on a constant-speed prop changes to meet the desired RPM setting.
So by forcing it to 2300 RPM - what is the blade angle going to be at a given airspeed and power setting? How does that affect overall power?
Given the same airspeed and power setting, what will it do at 2700 RPM and how will that affect overall power?
Hint: the results were already been shown upthread by someone else, but I’ll repost. The only thing that isn’t shown here is to solve for efficiency (to convert from BHP to THP), which is a function of forward airspeed. It’s not going to go in a way that supports your claim, that is, until you get to a higher (like cruise) airspeed. In fact, it’s going to do the opposite.
also the video above about propellor physics basically says the fine/max pitch is designed for max. efficiency at ZERO KIAS. Not at higher airspeeds, e.g. take off or go around speeds, where highest efficiency is a somewhat moderated setting away from max fine pitch.
More engine stress. Much more! It’s not a fixed-pitch prop. Do you realize how much pitch angle the blades have to achieve to get the governor to hold, say, 2300 RPM while under wide-open throttle settings? And how hard that is on the engine? We’re not at cruise speeds here.
the best compromise/sweet spot for efficiency at above zero KIAS is somewhere below max RPM. Now if it’s at 2300 or 2500 or somewhere else graduated depends. But not 2700/max fine pitch according to the physics of how constant speed propellors are designed
With a constant-speed prop, they will have a balance of thrust and torque at fine pitch settings. If they were flat-disc (zero pitch), the engine would way overspeed - it doesn’t do that.
They’re producing a certain blade angle and that angle will increase as you start moving faster and faster through the air in order to maintain the desired RPM. This accounts for as close to maximum efficiency as possible in the high-power, slow speed regimes and thus converts all that brake horsepower to thrust horsepower, which is needed to sustain a best-rate climb.
You changed your post. No, it’s not at max RPM, but the engine will never get to the “max RPM” it can possibly produce because there’s a hard stop (limit) on the prop angle. It will hit the desired RPM and hold it. It’s literally designed to produce the most efficient RPMs for slow-speed flight at the highest power and pitch settings.
I read it just fine. You are missing the point of constant-speed props and you never answered my questions. You’re omitting, picking and choosing what fits your theory. It’s simply false.
For the sake of everyone else’s sanity, please stop replying to him.
Here’s the summary: you are absolutely correct on everything you’ve said, and he is literally trying to argue 100 years of established fact. Stop feeding him and hopefully he will stop replying. (FWIW, and that isn’t much on an Internet forum, I’m also a real world pilot).
The established fact is that props full forward is done for more - simplified procedural - reasons than just pure energetic efficiency for a fully functioning plane at speeds comfortably above stalling speed. No?
if the governor would adjust RPM ideally to always best efficiency (it does not, it only is a great efficiency improvement over a constant pitch propellor, but still not ideal…) then why does the plane fly its fastest speed at less than max RPM settings?
