Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:42 AM - speed and trim (Frazier, Vincent A)
2. 08:06 AM - Re: speed issues (Rob Ray)
3. 08:44 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (Rob Ray)
4. 11:13 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (nico css)
5. 09:00 PM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (ACTIVE NZ - Andrew)
6. 09:00 PM - Re: speed issues (ACTIVE NZ - Andrew)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
SNIP From: Ernest Hale <ernest@flmitigation.com>
Down trim is what was meant. Can you give us some idea as to what you are talking
about when you say there are other issues besides speed? I didn't build my
rocket but had it reviewed by an A&P before I bought it and he signed off on
it. Is there anything that needs to be evaluated due to the down trim? SNIP
Ernest, SNIP
************************************************************************************************************
>From what you've said it would seem that you are using full nose down trim at
cruise. If you add a pax in the back, what happens then? Do you have to hold
forward pressure on the stick? If so, holy crap, doesn't your arm get tired!?
It sounds like you've got one of two possible problems:
1) your trim tab is sized or rigged improperly. Maybe your builder biased the trim
for more nose up travel to help with pattern speeds. If so, then maybe you
can adjust it back a little bit.
2) or more likely, your HS is rigged improperly
There are many ways to check your HS rigging, one way is listed here:
http://www.vincesrocket.com/finishing.htm
Basically, you can check your rigging with a level and a few simple shims. Level
the wing per the text, then go see what the HS incidence is. I'll bet it's
off.
If you find that the HS incidence is wrong, change it. It shouldn't be that difficult,
but get help as needed to make sure you do it right.
YMMV. Good luck.
Vince
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: speed issues |
Ernest,
--To answer your question I took my HR2 out yesterday evening during ou
r unseasonably cool FL Swamp weather (34 degrees F) and made some speed run
s specifically to look at my horizontal at various speeds. To compare, I kn
ow exactly where my RV4 was at different speeds in the 15 years I flew it a
nd I changed the incidence based on several RV8R articles and Van's input t
o level it at high cruise. My fear at that time was the slow speed STOL cha
racteristics would translate into a "float". None of this proved true and m
y RV4 actually trimmed and flew much better at high cruise after the change
.--I am approaching 1000 Rocket hours now, so I think I'm starting to g
et the hang of it too:)
--My Rocket was documented in the logs that they set the horizontal bas
ed on John's plans and incidence settings which I believe is 2 degrees down
incidence. It is a very early HR2 (1994) and has a stock RV4 tail with .02
0 tail feathers, stock HR2 cowling, 285HP Ly-Con IO540, 2 blade Hartzell D
twist and One EIectroair Electronic Ignition running Automotive Denso L14U
plugs, One Magneto running REM-37BY (hot) plugs, (my standard setup on my l
ast two airplanes). I have larger tires (380 X 150 X 5) Van's Pressure reco
very pants set high enough to clear 3" stones and a large size Aviation pro
ducts dual fork tailwheel.----At 1/2 fuel, a 100 LB passenger 23 sq
uared and 2000 MSL yesterday I was indicating 208 mph and showing 171 Knots
GS, elevator trim level, elevator very slightly up. At 24 squared speed in
creased to 223 MPH indicated, 184 Knots GS. elevator trim 3 degrees down, e
levator perfectly level. 25 squared yielded 235 MPH, 195 Knots GS, trim
two full clicks down (5 degrees) and still a level elevator. Full throttle
showed 29" MP, 2750 RPM, 252 MPH 209 Knots GS, 3 clicks (8 degrees fwd) an
d elevator level. The amazing part is I came back to my 1500 foot strip and
my FAS was 63 Knots over the trees, touchdown at 58 Knots.-What a great
airplane!-
Hope this data helps.
Rob "Smokey" RayHR2
--- On Sun, 1/10/10, Ernest Hale <ernest@flmitigation.com> wrote:
From: Ernest Hale <ernest@flmitigation.com>
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: speed issues
Down trim is what was meant.- Can you give us some idea as to what you ar
e
talking about when you say there are other issues besides speed?- I didn'
t
build my rocket but had it reviewed by an A&P before I bought it and he
signed off on it.- Is there anything that needs to be evaluated due to th
e
down trim?
On 1/10/10 6:46 PM, "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Full down elevator at cruise?- I hope you mean down trim... but then wh
at
> happens with a pax?- More info needed!- If what you say is true, then
there
> are other issues than speed to be worried about first.
>
> Regarding a well known accident, the tail came off of a Rocket due to a M
AJOR
> builder error that absolutely would have been caught had the builder had
> nearly any reasonably competent RV or Rocket builder do a pre-inspection
> inspection, i.e. an inspection before the feds arrived and definitely bef
ore
> anyone flew it.---It really SUCKS that this happened so needlessly.
>
> For goodness sakes guys, no matter how much of a stud you think you are,
have
> at least one, and preferably two sets of competent, independent eyes look
over
> your work before you fly a new bird.- For example, we've got a local gu
y who
> has flown since WWII and has been an engineer all his life.- He's as sh
arp as
> anyone I know, but he's had several (at least five) off airport
> excursions/incidents/accidents in his homebuilt because he won't take
> advantage of the EAA tech counselors or flight advisors.- (The saying "
You can
> always tell a german, but you can't tell him much" applies here!)- The
> gentleman in question is without a doubt the luckiest man I know, but he
> really makes it tough on the rest of us out here.- He is also the most
> stubborn, hard headed person I know.
>
> He also totaled his C-170 and then fixed it literally with duct tape, bai
ling
> wire, and a sledge hammer.- They're out there and walk among us. Amazin
g.
>
> Back to the issues at hand. built right, there aren't any issues with the
> tails coming off the Rockets.
>
> Vince
> www.flyboyaccessories.com
>
>
>
>
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
G'day again Andy,
--To answer your question, yes, I have LR tanks, a design identical to
Hotel Whiskey Aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks that slide through the lighte
ning holes in the wing forward of the spar with the largest portion inside
the tip, five gallons each for a total capacity of 54 gallons. Mine utilize
a check valve which requires no separate valves, settings, pumps or otherw
ise to drain, gravity and vent pressure drain them dry every time.---
Maximum range cruise I have tried many settings but -20"/2350 RPM between
8500 and 10500 feet 50 LOP and 33 degrees advance with the GAMI injectors
seems to deliver the best speed/economy. This equates to 10.5 GPH at 183 Kn
ots TAS. On one occasion searching for a lost child in the swamp I set 20/2
0 leaned to peak and saw 6.5 GPH at 125 knots flying search patterns for ov
er five hours and and still had enough fuel left to fly 200NM home at high
cruise!-
Your mileage may vary:)
SmokeyHR2
--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Jim Stone <jrstone@insightbb.com> wrote:
From: Jim Stone <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0ATom and others,=0AHave y
ou ever noticed your Rocket yaws when you fly =0Ainto the clouds.- I got
significant vertigo the first few times I went IMC =0Aand then figured out
why.- I noticed as I flew into the clouds my inner ear =0Asensed a 30 deg
left bank but the aircraft remained wings level.- I noticed =0Athe ball
was out to the left and when I centered it, my vertigo went away.- =0AQue
stion, what the heck is causing the ball to slide left when flying into the
=0Aclouds?- Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left side of the rudder w
hich =0Acenters the ball in cruise flight, I suspect airflow over it change
s as the air =0Adensity changes when flying into the clouds.- Anyone else
experience such a =0Astrange phenomenon?- Have an explanation?=0AJim Sto
ne =0ALouisville KY=0A275 Hours=0A=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A Fr
om: =0A Tom =0A Martin =0A To: rocket-list@matronics.com =0A Sent: Frid
ay, January 08, 2010 11:07 =0A AM=0A Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket =0A
Efficiency, Defined!=0A
=0A =0A Andrew =0A ----------- =0A I have been fl
ying rockets for twelve years now and have been fortunate to =0A have flow
n many different versions. -All of them fly beautifully and I =0A can ho
nestly say that if I had to go back to other types of aircraft I =0A proba
bly would not fly very much. -The last three years I have =0A participat
ed in a few events held by the Sport Aircraft Racing League, SARL, =0A htt
p://sportairrace.org/index.html =0A . -It has been a real learning exper
ience and with constant =0A experimentation I have increased the top speed
of my aircraft =0A considerably.- The average top speed, full power, in
three races this =0A year was 220.2 knots. -This was full throttle, =0A
2650rpms. =0A In the same three =0A races Wayne Hadath with a stock eng
ine, and a clean light stock F1 had a 212 =0A knot average.- The fastest
RV8 is currently owned by John Huft, and he is =0A right around the 200 k
not range with his beautiful =0A aircraft. =0A I would encourage =0A oth
er rocket owners to participate in these events, experiment with your =0A
aircraft and find some different ways to get these amazing aircraft even
=0A faster. -With gains in top speed, comes gains in efficiency which yo
u =0A will use on each and every flight. - =0A - =0A Tom =0A Marti
n =0A - =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A From: =0A owner-rocket-list-server@ma
tronics.com =0A [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
Of ACTIVE NZ - =0A Andrew
Sent: January 8, 2010 =0A 1:01 AM
To:=0A rocket-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket =0A Efficiency, Defined! =0A - =0A C
ouldn't agree more =0A Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different aircraft,
but nothing, NOTHING, =0A can- touch-my Rocket. Except another Rocket,
and some of you guys =0A seem to have slightly faster ones than I do - I
-true out at-max =0A cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet)
at exactly 200-knots, =0A and I've heard some people true out at 205, e
ven 210? Is that true, =0A anyone? =0A - =0A And as you say the =0A s
peed/economy equation is extraordinary - not to mention, the pretty damn go
od =0A "go-slow" STOL capabilities too. =0A - =0A Only tiny Q I have i
s =0A that I was under the impression that the best economy comes from low
er RPMs, =0A partly or wholly cos of the internal friction of the engine.
I wonder if you =0A would have got even better figures at, say, 22" MP and
2000 rpm? Or whatever =0A the lowest RPM limit is, for your engine...? I
believe that is the main =0A "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators of
the US Navy & Marine Corps =0A in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he
was sent over to teach them to get =0A maximum range and endurance from t
heir steeds. =0A - =0A not trying to argue, =0A just thought I'd menti
on it. Your basic point - that rockets rock - is pretty =0A indisputable I
reckon :) =0A - =0A Andrew =0A - =0A =0A =0A =0A From: =0A ow
ner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com =0A [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 =0A AM
To:=0A rocket-list@matronics.com
Subject: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, =0A Defined! =0A =0A =0A
=0A =0A =0A Guys, =0A More on a Rocket note, I am
constantly amazed by =0A the capabilities of this little machine. C
oming home from=0A Dallas =0A post-Christmas I looked at forecast wi
nds and thought I would try to one =0A hop it home, nearly 800NM and
really get some efficiency numbers. With =0A 54 gallons of 100LL on
board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched, cruise =0A climbed to 11,50
0 and after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with GAMI =0A injectors s
ettle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees =0A adva
nce on my EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently =0A
showed 10.4 GPH at 235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a =0A
Saturday and knowing the Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct
=0A to home, straight over the Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climb
ed to =0A 15,500 increasing my GS to 252 knots retaining the same FF
. When I =0A finally began my descent into the swamp I still had nea
rly 20 gallons of =0A fuel on board, landing on my 1500 ft grass str
ip with 16 gallons =0A left.- =0A =0A --My Rock
et is definitely not the =0A fastest on the block with my oversize t
ires, caked mud and large =0A tailwheel dragging in the breeze, but
it truly shows what John's design =0A is capable of.- =0A
=0A - =0A =0A BTW, the tach almost clicked over 100
0 hours as =0A I flew over the house, looking forward to several tho
usand =0A more! =0A =0A - =0A =0A Rob
"Smokey" =0A Ray =0A =0A HR2
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com> =0A wrote:
=0A
From: nico css =0A <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: FW: What was =0A the slowest you ever flew the
Blackbird?(MWH)
ore.com>
What =0A was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?
Brian Shul, Retired =0A SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.
As a former SR-71 =0A pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the
question
I'm most =0A often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can b
e assured =0A of
hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's =0A
an
interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, =0A
but there
really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always =0A give yo
u a little
more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to =0A see 35 miles a
minute.
Because we flew a programmed Mach number =0A on most missions, and n
ever wanted
to harm the plane in any way, we =0A never let it run out to any lim
its of
temperature or speed. Thus, =0A each SR-71 pilot had his own individ
ual "high"
speed that he saw at =0A some point on some mission. I saw mine over
=0A Libya =0A when
Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in =0A order.
Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and =0A effortlessly
took us to
Mach numbers we hadn't previously =0A seen.
So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my =0A pres
entations,
someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the =0A Blackbird
?"
This was a first.
After giving it some =0A thought, I was reminded of a story that I h
ad never
shared before, =0A and relayed the following.
I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF =0A Mildenhall,=0A England , with
my =0A back-seater,
Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over =0A Europe and th
e Iron
Curtain when we =0A received a radio transmission from home base. As
we scooted
across =0A=0A Denmark in three minutes, we =0A learned that a
small RAF base in the
English countryside had =0A requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cad
et commander
there was a =0A former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a mo
tivating
moment =0A for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low
approach. =0A No
problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling =0A
over the
North Sea , we proceeded to =0A find the small airfield.
Walter had a myriad of sophisticated =0A navigation equipment in the
back seat,
and began to vector me toward =0A the field. Descending to subsonic
speeds, we
found ourselves over a =0A densely wooded area in a slight haze. Lik
e most
former WWII British =0A airfields, the one we were looking for had a
small tower
and little =0A surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were cl
ose and that
I =0A should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing bu
t trees =0A as
far as I could see in the haze.
We got a little lower, and =0A I pulled the throttles back from 325
knots we
were at. With the gear =0A up, anything under 275 was just uncomfort
able. Walt
said we were =0A practically over the field-yet; there was nothing i
n my
windscreen. I =0A banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneu
ver in hopes
of =0A picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, belo
w, the =0A cadet
commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower =0A in
order to
get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still =0A day with
no wind and
partial gray overcast.
Walter continued =0A to give me indications that the field should be
below us
but in the =0A overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we c
ontinued to
peer =0A out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our powe
r back, =0A the
awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors =0A
in my flying
career, as something told me I better cross-check the =0A gauges.
As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 =0A knots, my he
art stopped
and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two =0A throttles full forw
ard. At this
point we weren't really flying, but =0A were falling in a slight ban
k.
Just at the moment that both =0A afterburners lit with a thunderous
roar of
flame (and what a joyous =0A feeling that was) the aircraft fell int
o full view
of the shocked =0A observers on the tower. Shattering the still quie
t of that
morning, =0A they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in the
ir face as
the =0A plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower
side of =0A the
infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be =0A de
scribed as
some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.
Quickly =0A reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Milden
hall =0A without
incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 =0A minutes.
After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were =0A both certai
n he was
reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily =0A shook our hands and
said the
commander had told him it was the =0A greatest SR-71 fly-past he had
ever seen,
especially how we had =0A surprised them with such a precise maneuve
r that could
only be =0A described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cade
t's hats
were =0A blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in
=0A full
afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable. =0A
Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very =0A we
ll that
morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited =0A to s
ee our low
approach.
As we retired to the equipment room to =0A change from space suits t
o flight
suits, we just sat there-we hadn't =0A spoken a word since "the pass
."
Finally, Walter looked at me and =0A said, "One hundred fifty-six kn
ots.- What
did you see?" Trying =0A to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred
fifty-two."
We sat in =0A silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do t
hat to =0A me
again!"
And I never did.
A year later, Walter and I =0A were having lunch in the Mildenhall O
fficer's
club, and overheard an =0A officer talking to some cadets about an S
R-71
fly-past that he had =0A seen one day. Of course, by now the story i
ncluded kids
falling off =0A the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singe
d their
eyebrows. =0A
Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in =0A
our hands,
he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had =0A occurr
ed.
Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a =0A routi
ne low
approach; they're pretty impressive in that =0A plane."
Impressive indeed.
Little did I realize after =0A relaying this experience to my audien
ce that day
that it would become =0A one of the most popular and most requested
stories.
It's ironic that =0A people are interested in how slow the world's f
astest jet
can fly. =0A Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good i
dea to =0A keep
that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, =0A too.
nbsp;---> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
_sp;---> =0A h - - =0A - - ---- List Contribu
tion Web Site; - =0A - - - - - - - - - &nb; =0A
http:=====================
==
=0A - =0A - - -href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigato
r?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http:/
/forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
www.matronics.com/c - -http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-Listht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution -Checked by AVG.
Checked by =0A AVG.
=======================0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
Did you guys find the kid?
_____
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
G'day again Andy,
To answer your question, yes, I have LR tanks, a design identical to Hotel
Whiskey Aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks that slide through the lightening
holes in the wing forward of the spar with the largest portion inside the
tip, five gallons each for a total capacity of 54 gallons. Mine utilize a
check valve which requires no separate valves, settings, pumps or otherwise
to drain, gravity and vent pressure drain them dry every time.
Maximum range cruise I have tried many settings but 20"/2350 RPM between
8500 and 10500 feet 50 LOP and 33 degrees advance with the GAMI injectors
seems to deliver the best speed/economy. This equates to 10.5 GPH at 183
Knots TAS. On one occasion searching for a lost child in the swamp I set
20/20 leaned to peak and saw 6.5 GPH at 125 knots flying search patterns for
over five hours and and still had enough fuel left to fly 200NM home at high
cruise!
Your mileage may vary:)
Smokey
HR2
--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Jim Stone <jrstone@insightbb.com> wrote:
From: Jim Stone <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Tom and others,
Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when you fly into the clouds. I got
significant vertigo the first few times I went IMC and then figured out why.
I noticed as I flew into the clouds my inner ear sensed a 30 deg left bank
but the aircraft remained wings level. I noticed the ball was out to the
left and when I centered it, my vertigo went away. Question, what the heck
is causing the ball to slide left when flying into the clouds? Btw, I have
a plastic wedge on the left side of the rudder which centers the ball in
cruise flight, I suspect airflow over it changes as the air density changes
when flying into the clouds. Anyone else experience such a strange
phenomenon? Have an explanation?
Jim Stone
Louisville KY
275 Hours
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Martin
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Andrew
I have been flying rockets for twelve years now and have been
fortunate to have flown many different versions. All of them fly
beautifully and I can honestly say that if I had to go back to other types
of aircraft I probably would not fly very much. The last three years I have
participated in a few events held by the Sport Aircraft Racing League, SARL,
http://sportairrace.org/index.html . It has been a real learning experience
and with constant experimentation I have increased the top speed of my
aircraft considerably. The average top speed, full power, in three races
this year was 220.2 knots. This was full throttle, 2650rpms.
In the same three races Wayne Hadath with a stock engine, and a clean light
stock F1 had a 212 knot average. The fastest RV8 is currently owned by John
Huft, and he is right around the 200 knot range with his beautiful aircraft.
I would encourage other rocket owners to participate in these events,
experiment with your aircraft and find some different ways to get these
amazing aircraft even faster. With gains in top speed, comes gains in
efficiency which you will use on each and every flight.
Tom Martin
_____
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ACTIVE NZ -
Andrew
Sent: January 8, 2010 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different aircraft, but
nothing, NOTHING, can touch my Rocket. Except another Rocket, and some of
you guys seem to have slightly faster ones than I do - I true out at max
cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet) at exactly 200 knots, and
I've heard some people true out at 205, even 210? Is that true, anyone?
And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary - not to mention,
the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities too.
Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best economy
comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal friction of the
engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at, say, 22" MP
and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your engine...? I
believe that is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators of the
US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent
over to teach them to get maximum range and endurance from their steeds.
not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your basic point - that
rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon :)
Andrew
_____
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM
Subject: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Guys,
More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of this
little machine. Coming home from Dallas post-Christmas I looked at forecast
winds and thought I would try to one hop it home, nearly 800NM and really
get some efficiency numbers. With 54 gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon
aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con
built IO-540 with GAMI injectors settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees
LOP and 33 degrees advance on my EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I
consistently showed 10.4 GPH at 235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being
a Saturday and knowing the Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to
home, straight over the Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500
increasing my GS to 252 knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my
descent into the swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board,
landing on my 1500 ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.
My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with my oversize
tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze, but it truly
shows what John's design is capable of.
BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the house,
looking forward to several thousand more!
Rob "Smokey" Ray
HR2
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com> wrote:
From: nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: FW: What was the slowest you ever flew the
Blackbird?(MWH)
What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?
Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.
As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question
I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured of
hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an
interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but there
really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a little
more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute.
Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never wanted
to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of
temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high"
speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when
Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order.
Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to
Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen.
So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my presentations,
someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"
This was a first.
After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never
shared before, and relayed the following.
I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England , with my back-seater,
Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe and the Iron
Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we scooted
across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the
English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander
there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating
moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach. No
problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the
North Sea , we proceeded to find the small airfield.
Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back seat,
and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, we
found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most
former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small tower
and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and that
I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as
far as I could see in the haze.
We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we
were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable. Walt
said we were practically over the field-yet; there was nothing in my
windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in hopes
of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet
commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to
get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and
partial gray overcast.
Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below us
but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued to
peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the
awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my flying
career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.
As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped
and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this
point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.
Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of
flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full view
of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of that
morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face as
the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the
infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described as
some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.
Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall without
incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes.
After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was
reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the
commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,
especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that could
only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadet's hats
were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full
afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable.
Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well that
morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our low
approach.
As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight
suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."
Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What
did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."
We sat in silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me
again!"
And I never did.
A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the Mildenhall Officer's
club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71
fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included kids
falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their
eyebrows.
Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,
he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred.
Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low
approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane."
Impressive indeed.
Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that day
that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories.
It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet
can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to keep
that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, too.
nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
_sp; --> h <http://forums.matronics.com> - List Contribution Web
Site; &nb; http:=======================
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG.
Checked by AVG.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-Lofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">h
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
Thx for the info, y'all. Will seriously consider prop upgrade at
overhaul time. Or before :) An extra 10 knots would be marvellous!
Andrew
________________________________
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
G'day again Andy,
To answer your question, yes, I have LR tanks, a design identical to
Hotel Whiskey Aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks that slide through the
lightening holes in the wing forward of the spar with the largest
portion inside the tip, five gallons each for a total capacity of 54
gallons. Mine utilize a check valve which requires no separate valves,
settings, pumps or otherwise to drain, gravity and vent pressure drain
them dry every time.
Maximum range cruise I have tried many settings but 20"/2350 RPM
between 8500 and 10500 feet 50 LOP and 33 degrees advance with the GAMI
injectors seems to deliver the best speed/economy. This equates to 10.5
GPH at 183 Knots TAS. On one occasion searching for a lost child in the
swamp I set 20/20 leaned to peak and saw 6.5 GPH at 125 knots flying
search patterns for over five hours and and still had enough fuel left
to fly 200NM home at high cruise!
Your mileage may vary:)
Smokey
HR2
--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Jim Stone <jrstone@insightbb.com> wrote:
From: Jim Stone <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 7:57 AM
Tom and others,
Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when you fly into the
clouds. I got significant vertigo the first few times I went IMC and
then figured out why. I noticed as I flew into the clouds my inner ear
sensed a 30 deg left bank but the aircraft remained wings level. I
noticed the ball was out to the left and when I centered it, my vertigo
went away. Question, what the heck is causing the ball to slide left
when flying into the clouds? Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left
side of the rudder which centers the ball in cruise flight, I suspect
airflow over it changes as the air density changes when flying into the
clouds. Anyone else experience such a strange phenomenon? Have an
explanation?
Jim Stone
Louisville KY
275 Hours
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Martin
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Andrew
I have been flying rockets for twelve years
now and have been fortunate to have flown many different versions. All
of them fly beautifully and I can honestly say that if I had to go back
to other types of aircraft I probably would not fly very much. The last
three years I have participated in a few events held by the Sport
Aircraft Racing League, SARL, http://sportairrace.org/index.html . It
has been a real learning experience and with constant experimentation I
have increased the top speed of my aircraft considerably. The average
top speed, full power, in three races this year was 220.2 knots. This
was full throttle, 2650rpms.
In the same three races Wayne Hadath with a stock
engine, and a clean light stock F1 had a 212 knot average. The fastest
RV8 is currently owned by John Huft, and he is right around the 200 knot
range with his beautiful aircraft.
I would encourage other rocket owners to participate in
these events, experiment with your aircraft and find some different ways
to get these amazing aircraft even faster. With gains in top speed,
comes gains in efficiency which you will use on each and every flight.
Tom Martin
________________________________
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ACTIVE NZ -
Andrew
Sent: January 8, 2010 1:01 AM
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of
different aircraft, but nothing, NOTHING, can touch my Rocket. Except
another Rocket, and some of you guys seem to have slightly faster ones
than I do - I true out at max cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle,
5000-10,000 feet) at exactly 200 knots, and I've heard some people true
out at 205, even 210? Is that true, anyone?
And as you say the speed/economy equation is
extraordinary - not to mention, the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL
capabilities too.
Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression
that the best economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the
internal friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even
better figures at, say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM
limit is, for your engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that
Lindbergh taught the aviators of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the
Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent over to teach them to get
maximum range and endurance from their steeds.
not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your
basic point - that rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon :)
Andrew
________________________________
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
Subject: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Guys,
More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of
this little machine. Coming home from Dallas post-Christmas I looked at
forecast winds and thought I would try to one hop it home, nearly 800NM
and really get some efficiency numbers. With 54 gallons of 100LL on
board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed to 11,500 and
after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with GAMI injectors settle down I
began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees advance on my EI. With
just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently showed 10.4 GPH at 235
Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a Saturday and knowing the
Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to home, straight over
the Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500 increasing my GS
to 252 knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my descent into
the swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board, landing on my
1500 ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.
My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with my oversize
tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze, but it
truly shows what John's design is capable of.
BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the house,
looking forward to several thousand more!
Rob "Smokey" Ray
HR2
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com> wrote:
From: nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: FW: What was the slowest you ever flew the
Blackbird?(MWH)
What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?
Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.
As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the
question
I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be
assured of
hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an
interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but
there
really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a
little
more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute.
Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never
wanted
to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of
temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own individual
"high"
speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya
when
Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order.
Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us
to
Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen.
So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my
presentations,
someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"
This was a first.
After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never
shared before, and relayed the following.
I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England , with my
back-seater,
Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe and the Iron
Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we
scooted
across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the
English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet
commander
there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating
moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low
approach. No
problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the
North Sea , we proceeded to find the small airfield.
Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back
seat,
and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds,
we
found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most
former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small
tower
and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and
that
I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees
as
far as I could see in the haze.
We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we
were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable.
Walt
said we were practically over the field-yet; there was nothing in my
windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in
hopes
of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the
cadet
commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order
to
get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind
and
partial gray overcast.
Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below
us
but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued
to
peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back,
the
awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my
flying
career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.
As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart
stopped
and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At
this
point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.
Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of
flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full
view
of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of
that
morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face
as
the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of
the
infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described
as
some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.
Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall
without
incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes.
After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was
reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said
the
commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever
seen,
especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that
could
only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadet's hats
were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full
afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable.
Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well that
morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our
low
approach.
As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight
suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."
Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots.
What
did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred
fifty-two."
We sat in silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do that to
me
again!"
And I never did.
A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the Mildenhall Officer's
club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71
fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included
kids
falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their
eyebrows.
Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our
hands,
he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred.
Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low
approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane."
Impressive indeed.
Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that
day
that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories.
It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest
jet
can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to
keep
that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, too.
nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
_sp; --> h - List Contribution Web Site;
&nb; <http://forums.matronics.com>
http:=======================
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matron
h
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG.
Checked by AVG.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-Lofollow"
target="_blank" href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">h
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Vince, I'm not sure if you're responding to my post, but if so, yes, I
mean down elevator, not down trim. I'm no aerodynamicist of course. What
I mean is, at cruise, the elevator is deflected down quite a bit. By no
means full elevator tho, which is why I wonder if you're responding to
another post. Under these conditions, the trim, of course, is set in a
manner which holds it there. I guess I was wondering if having a setup
so that the elevator chord and the HS chord were on the same line would
be better.
I'll look into it more closely at different loadings.
Thanks for the advice re tails coming off. I didn't build my Rocket, but
consulted with the builder who was clear that he built it to plan. It
was his 3rd or 4th homebuilt, and I think he knows what he's doing. The
rocket has 1000 hrTT, of which 600 hrs have been mine, and no probs yet.
Of course, a departing part of the tail feathers is the kind of prob you
only have once. I completely agree with your thoughts about getting a
few pairs of extra, expert, eyes to look over one's work.
So, no serious issues with tails in the fleet? Great.I have nonetheless
been wondering about rebuilding the tail with thicker metal, especially
cos I deal with a lot of mountain-induced turbulence in NZ, and it's
hard to get down from cruise speed to VA in a hurry, without shock
cooling. Obviously better anticipatin of turbulence is part of the
PILOT solution. I've just been wondering about a *metalurgical* solution
too.
Cheers
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frazier,
Vincent A
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 1:16 PM
Subject: Rocket-List: speed issues
--> <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Full down elevator at cruise? I hope you mean down trim... but then
what happens with a pax? More info needed! If what you say is true,
then there are other issues than speed to be worried about first.
Regarding a well known accident, the tail came off of a Rocket due to a
MAJOR builder error that absolutely would have been caught had the
builder had nearly any reasonably competent RV or Rocket builder do a
pre-inspection inspection, i.e. an inspection before the feds arrived
and definitely before anyone flew it. It really SUCKS that this
happened so needlessly.
For goodness sakes guys, no matter how much of a stud you think you are,
have at least one, and preferably two sets of competent, independent
eyes look over your work before you fly a new bird. For example, we've
got a local guy who has flown since WWII and has been an engineer all
his life. He's as sharp as anyone I know, but he's had several (at
least five) off airport excursions/incidents/accidents in his homebuilt
because he won't take advantage of the EAA tech counselors or flight
advisors. (The saying "You can always tell a german, but you can't tell
him much" applies here!) The gentleman in question is without a doubt
the luckiest man I know, but he really makes it tough on the rest of us
out here. He is also the most stubborn, hard headed person I know.
He also totaled his C-170 and then fixed it literally with duct tape,
bailing wire, and a sledge hammer. They're out there and walk among us.
Amazing.
Back to the issues at hand. built right, there aren't any issues with
the tails coming off the Rockets.
Vince
www.flyboyaccessories.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|