Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:02 AM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (dralle@matronics.com)
2. 03:11 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Charles Heathco)
3. 05:36 AM - Re: Lower cowl movement estimate (owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com)
4. 06:42 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (linn walters)
5. 06:45 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Ed Anderson)
6. 06:45 AM - Re: compression checking an engine (Mike Robertson)
7. 06:52 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Vic Jacko)
8. 07:32 AM - Elastic Insert platenuts (Mark Schrimmer)
9. 08:18 AM - Re: Long glide to landing (Jeff Dowling)
10. 08:32 AM - Re: compression checking an engine (Jeff Dowling)
11. 08:37 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Larry Pardue)
12. 09:14 AM - Re: Elastic Insert platenuts (linn walters)
13. 09:22 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Phil Weed)
14. 09:50 AM - List: Airport Identifier List (Glen Matejcek)
15. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (James Ochs)
16. 09:52 AM - Re: Long glide to landing ()
17. 10:52 AM - Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider (LarryRobertHelming)
18. 11:30 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Rob Prior (rv7))
19. 11:39 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Rob Prior (rv7))
20. 12:36 PM - CARSON CITY, NV. FLY-IN (BRUCE GRAY)
21. 12:58 PM - Re: compression checking an engine (Mike Robertson)
22. 01:12 PM - Airport Identifiers (Mark Banus)
23. 01:59 PM - Joe Banos - Transition Training (Moore, Warren)
24. 02:03 PM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Chris W)
25. 02:04 PM - Re: Lower cowl movement estimate (Bob J)
26. 02:22 PM - IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Paul Folbrecht)
27. 02:54 PM - Re: Long glide to landing (Kevin Horton)
28. 04:48 PM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Alex & Gerry Peterson)
29. 04:50 PM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Darrell Reiley)
30. 05:34 PM - Re: Joe Banos - Transition Training (RV6 Flyer)
31. 06:20 PM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Richard Sipp)
32. 06:50 PM - Re: Long glide to landing (Dave Bristol)
33. 07:18 PM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Jeff Orear)
34. 07:34 PM - [ Mike Holland ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
35. 07:57 PM - [ Rob Ray ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
36. 08:01 PM - RV's In Las Vegas? (David Schaefer)
37. 08:26 PM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Paul Folbrecht)
38. 09:24 PM - Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider (randall)
39. 10:23 PM - Re: Joe Banos - Transition Training (Alison and Neil)
40. 10:23 PM - Re: RV's In Las Vegas? (RV6 Flyer)
41. 10:47 PM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Greg Young)
42. 11:37 PM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Jeff Point)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> RV-List message posted by: dralle@matronics.com
Dear Lister,
Please read over the RV-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
RV-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/RV-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
RVSouthEast-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the RVSouthEast-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the RVSouthEast-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
RVSouthEast-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the RVSouthEast-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
This sounds like a great Idea. For what its worth, In the 60's engine out training
was done for real, instructor pulled mixture to full off and left it there
till we were well established on a final to hopefully an open field (back then
there were plenty of them) I still havent forgotten how much faster she drops
with dead engine as compared to one that is idling. I remember one day in 66
instructor was in a crappy mood and killed the engine 3 times, only giving me
about 600-700' recovery between. Last one we were damn near on the ground when
he gave me the engine back. Charlie heathco Do not archive
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: | Lower cowl movement estimate |
--> RV-List message posted by:
I'd think the thing to do is go look at the cowls of similar aerobatic
airplanes and measure the gap - CAP 10, any other airplane which has an
IO360 + CS + dynafocal 1. I have access to a CAP 10 (C/S excepted) and shall
report what I find.
Michle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID REEL
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:15 PM
> To: rvlist
> Subject: RV-List: Lower cowl movement estimate
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
> Does anybody have an estimate for how far up the lower cowl on an RV8A
> would move in flight? I have the epoxy honeycomb sandwich type cowl
> shipped about 5 years ago. I'm wondering how much alternator pulley
> clearance I need to provide & why we don't align our filtered air box and
> cowl air inlets with the cowl displaced upwards.
>
> Upon researching the archives, engine sag when pulling G's rather than
> cowl movement due to aerodynamic pressure may be the problem. But the
> need is still the same. Virtually nobody gives actual clearances static
> or otherwise, nor do they mention the direction of movement. I know that
> many have experienced alternator pulley contact problems & feel whatever
> hard numbers or even estimated numbers anyone could provide would be very
> helpful. Imagine if someone noted that they had 1/4" vertical clearance &
> experienced chafing, increased it to 3/4" & had no further problem. Even
> a few people reporting how much clearance they had & that there was no
> problem would be great. Next time your top cowl is off, how about
> sticking a drill or a small piece of wood in between whatever is closest
> and your cowl & let us all know your actual clearance & whether there has
> been contact?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
OK Y'all ...... you're into apples and oranges here. Minimum descent
rate or maximum distance and gliding with a windmilling prop are, for a
fixed pitch, mutually exclusive. Greg talks about a windmilling prop as
real-world (and I agree) and Garth says that a stopped prop will
increase the glide ratio, and I agree with that. What I don't agree
with is garth's last statement, " In an engine out emergency, that is
the realistic and best condition." Unrealistic. You'll trade off an
awful lot of airspeed pulling the nose up to stop the prop unless you
have a real high-compression engine. Most of ours mills don't qualify.
That activity alone will use up more altitude than will be gained by the
better glide. And having to repeat it will be worse. I'm here to tell
you that in a true emergency, you're not going to be trying to stop the
prop. I've had two off-field landings (one without a prop ..... note I
didn't say stopped) and one windmilling. You're too involved in trying
to find a suitable spot to crash in. In my situation, both landings
didn't involve any damage to plane, occupants, nor property. I was
extremely lucky, and I admit it. The 'temporary glider' did get less
sink rate improvement without the prop, but I wouldn't have tried to
stop it if it had remained. I think it would be a great exercise to see
just how easy/hard it is to stop the prop ..... and keep it stopped
..... and then see what the real-world differences there are.
Linn
do not archive
Garth Shearing wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <Garth@islandnet.com>
>
>And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
>drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
>prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
>that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
>slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
>realistic and best condition.
>
>Don't ask me how I know.
>
>Garth Shearing
>VariEze & 90% RV6A
>Victoria BC Canada
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>>
>>I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
>>stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
>>windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
>>simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
>>RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
>>Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
>>>
>>>Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or
>>>was it still windmilling? If the propellor was still
>>>windmilling, then you may not have simulated a realistic condition.
>>>
>>>A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate
>>>the diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the
>>>drag on your aircraft will decrease significantly, and your
>>>descent rate will decrease as well.
>>>
>>>-Rob
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Excellent advice, Doug
Having made two dead stick landings and one partial power landing, I can
vouch that even a small amount of practice can change an engine-out event
from an almost mind-numbing experience to one of heighten concentration and
awareness. I haven't had to replace the seat cushion since the first one.
Although I understand that power-on landings is becoming the "recommended"
best way of landing an RV, I still make every landing from the pattern an
"engine-out" approach - its good practice in my opinion. The RV is not a
glider, but it really does not become a brick either if you pay attention to
your airspeed. The 10:1 glide ratio advertise is fairly close to what I
have experienced with a stopped prop. But, you really need to know your best
air speeds for max distance and minimum altitude lost BEFORE it happens.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
>
> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around
> 500
> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and
> find
> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied.
>
> If anyone is concerned in the least about an engine failure at 3000 AGL
> directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying single
> engine
> airplanes.
>
> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm.
> We
> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we
> practiced
> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the
> runway,
> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
>
> If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find
> a
> flight instructor and go do it ASAP.
>
> Unfortunately most flight instructors are teaching to gain experience
> rather
> than share it. If your flight instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
> different flight instructor.
>
> A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
> confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically
> trained
> for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will
> have
> a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
> likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
>
> Tailwinds,
> Doug Rozendaal
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | compression checking an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Dave,
If you buy a compression tester from ACS or one of the other fine retail
outlets, there are instructions included with each one. Basically, you
bring the cylinder you are testing to top dead center, connect the tester,
and apply 80 ps to the cylinder (keeping a good hold on the prop). The one
gauge on the tester will show you the 80 psi and the other will show you the
cylinder pressure. Thats it!
Mike Robertson
>From: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 14:34:16 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
>
>I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't
>know how to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or
>instructions regarding tools and procedure for doing that.
>
>Dave Ford
>RV6
>
>
Message 7
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Just one more thought to unfuel the fire (pun intended)
If you want to extend your glide with a windmilling prop then keep the
throttle wide open (assuming it is not running) to reduce the pumping
losses.
If you pull the mixture to full lean the throttle can be opened all the way.
If you were to test the difference between closed throttle or wide open I
think you will find open is better.
Otherwise with the prop turning you have a big air compressor sucking at the
throttle plate with it closed.
IMHO!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or was it still
> windmilling? If the propellor was still windmilling, then you may not
> have simulated a realistic condition.
>
> A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate the
> diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the drag on your
> aircraft will decrease significantly, and your descent rate will
> decrease as well.
>
> -Rob
>
> Doug Rozendaal wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
>>
>> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of
>> decent
>> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around
>> 500
>> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and
>> find
>> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
>> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied.
>
>> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came
>> down
>> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm.
>> We
>> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we
>> practiced
>> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the
>> runway,
>> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
>> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
>
>
>
Message 8
| 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: | Elastic Insert platenuts |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
Does anybody know what elastic insert platenuts are
used for? Do they work better than than the all-metal
nuts provided with the kits?
Thanks,
Mark
Message 9
| 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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
3 questions.
1. I remember reading something about shutting your engine down a certain
way to prevent damage when practicing engine out. What is it?
2. How do you prevent shock cooling? It sure seems like it would take a
while at 5000' for it to cool enough before shutting down but I guess thats
what you do.
3. Whats a typical glide ratio for a constant speed prop? I doubt there's
much difference between models.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mts.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mts.net>
>
> In flight testing my RV-6, I did some glide tests at various airspeeds and
> plotted the results. I show a maximum glide ratio of 10.4 with the engine
> idling and 8.7 with the engine off, prop windmilling. That was at a mean
> altitude of 4000 feet and 84 knots indicated in both cases. I have a fixed
> pitch wood "climb" prop.
>
> I have stopped the prop in a glide, by slowing to <60 knots, but I haven't
> measuring the glide characteristics in that condition. Stopping the prop -
> and keeping it from spinning up again - is a rather distracting procedure
> and in a real engine-out situation I'd probably be far too busy to bother
> with all that unless I had a lot of altitude/time to spare.
>
> With it's slightly higher aspect ratio, I'd expect an RV-7 to do a bit
> better than a -6 but in the same ballpark.
>
> Curt
>
>
>> I recently did some testing in the RV7 for FS 2004 just for fun. I
>> started at 10,000 ft which was 8,800 ft AGL. First I killed the engine,
>> glided down and landed in a field with the prop windmilling. The glide
>> lasted 14 nautical miles that time. The second time I stopped the
>> prop. The trick to that in the simulator, is you have to pull the nose
>> up to about 60 degrees, wait for it to fall and then recover. A full
>> flaps stall will not stop the prop in the simulator. That time I made
>> it 19 nautical miles. Both times I held 95 +/- 3 knots. I have not
>> tried it with the engine at idle. Just for the record, the simulated
>> RV7 has a 200hp IO360 with 2 blade constant speed prop at the time of
>> the 2 glides there were about 35 gallons of fuel, a 170lbs pilot and 170
>> lbs passenger. I was curious if this comes close to any real RV7s out
>> there. If someone wants me to try a different scenario to compare to
>> something they did, let me know. I did do one test to compare idle with
>> engine out windmilling, I was flying a WOT about 5 feet off the ground
>> heading toward a 3 mile runway (Edwards Air Force Base). As soon as I
>> crossed the runway threshold, I either killed the engine or took it to
>> idle. The idle took me almost exactly the full 3 miles of the runway
>> before I had to touchdown. With the engine out, it went about 2 miles
>> before touch down. No flaps either time of course.
>>
>> --
>> Chris W
>
>
>
Message 10
| 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: compression checking an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
Its a 2 man job. 80 psi is tough to hold if the prop gets off tdc.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: compression checking an engine
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Dave,
>
> If you buy a compression tester from ACS or one of the other fine retail
> outlets, there are instructions included with each one. Basically, you
> bring the cylinder you are testing to top dead center, connect the tester,
> and apply 80 ps to the cylinder (keeping a good hold on the prop). The
> one
> gauge on the tester will show you the 80 psi and the other will show you
> the
> cylinder pressure. Thats it!
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>>From: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 14:34:16 -0500
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
>>
>>I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't
>>know how to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or
>>instructions regarding tools and procedure for doing that.
>>
>>Dave Ford
>>RV6
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 11
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
>I think it would be a great exercise to see
> just how easy/hard it is to stop the prop ..... and keep it stopped
> ..... and then see what the real-world differences there are.
When I fiddled around with this on my airplane I found it took about 120
knots to start the prop turning.
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=124394593?KEYS=larry_pardue?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=180?SERIAL=08295813183?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
The speed to stop the prop seemed to vary from 60 to 70 knots depending on
engine temperature.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 12
| 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: Elastic Insert platenuts |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Mark Schrimmer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
>
>Does anybody know what elastic insert platenuts are used for?
>
In places where you don't want the nut to work loose but not as secure
as a castle nut.
>Do they work better than than the all-metal nuts provided with the kits?
>
I don't think so. The all-metal nuts will grip tighter. They also work
the threads a little so after removing the all-metal ones a few times
you'll have to replace the bolt as well. I don't see a huge advantage
to the all-metal ones .... and I prefer the ability to remove the
plastic ones without damaging the bolt. MHO, of course
do not archive.
Linn
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
--
Message 13
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Phil Weed <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
Here's a good airport for some engine out work -
OSC....11,800ft x 200ft uncontrolled (Class E)...used
to be an old SAC base...
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Osc_19753_7.pdf
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 14
| 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: | List: Airport Identifier List |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
> Can anyone point to or provide a simple list of domestic airport
identifiers
> that provide service to commercial carriers? An hour of googling leads
to
> many sources of look-up functions, but no simple list that can be printed
out for
>
> for portablility.
>
> Also, I could use a list of the domestic Airline identifiers serving
these
> facilities, again just a list, not a box to punch in an airline and
return the
>
> appropriate ID.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mark Phillips - do not archive
>
>
>Hi Mark-
Check out http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/LID/LIDHME.HTM
I think you'll find what you need
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Message 15
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
Heh, I guess things get a bit interesting when your runway is over two
miles long:
Tailwind may exist over the apch ends of Rwy 06 and 24 simultaneously.
Hrm, you could probably get about 10 touch n goes in each pass with an
RV as well ;)
James
Phil Weed wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Phil Weed <rv8a_builder@yahoo.com>
>
>Here's a good airport for some engine out work -
>OSC....11,800ft x 200ft uncontrolled (Class E)...used
>to be an old SAC base...
>http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Osc_19753_7.pdf
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| 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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
The effort and experimentation in glide ratio flight test is excellent, but how
will that work in an emergency. Tedd nice explanation of hi-key/ 360 overhead
approach.
I guess what is important to me is how can I use this info in a real engine failure
scenario.
"100 and 1.4" (speed 100mph and 1.4 kt mile/per thousand altitude- or 600 ft/ NM)
So my first job after an engine failure/ loss of power would be get to best glide
speed (initial target speed 100mph than adjust for weight, wind). Trim to that,
while simultaneously trouble shooting engine (boost pump, switch tanks,
mixture, carb heat, ignition etc... as required) and look for a landing spot
within 1.4 kt miles per thousand feet agl. Fly the airplane.
From what I got from all this that an RV will glide somewhere *10.5 to 1 thru 8.7
to 1 ratio
(*idle power). (Realistic engine out glide will be closer to the 8.7 to 1. Numbers
above 9 or 10 seem to be affected by partial idle power or tail winds. A real
light RV flown perfectly could do better than 8.7 to 1 but again I am looking
for something conservative I can remember and use in an emergency, with a
little margin for less than perfect speed control.)
Also I got best glide (max distance) is some where in the 81kt - 95 kt range (varies
with weight, altitude and head wind). Therefore I remember 100mph (bigger
mark on a/s indicator) and adjust as needed for weight. Typical glide speed
for RV best glide 84 kts = 96 mph. Min sink is under slower.
Assuming engine is ka-put and I am making an emergency engine-out glide/landing,
I would assume glide ratio closer to 8. 7 to 1 than 10.5 to 1, which sounds
a little high. Therefore for every 1000 ft altitude I can glide 1.4 kt miles (sink
approx 950 ft/min or 600 ft/NM).
As far as windmilling prop or not, I assume the worst case, windmilling. The most
critical condition is when you have little altitude, so I would not personally
mess with trying to stop the prop. If I was at 12,000 agl and had time I might
consider it, but I would try to get the engine running at first and keep
the prop windmilling. I can't recall ever seeing this in a POH or in training.
If you think you would attempt or consider trying to stop the prop (windmilling)
in a real emergency, I would suggest you practice it first under controlled
conditions. I have not, from what I hear is it takes near stall speed and may
be even a touch of flaps? In the time messing with all that, how much altitude
do you loose vs. just going to best glide and time lost making headway towards
your intended landing site? Also no one has real good windmill vs stopped
prop numbers. There has to be a trade off. Again unless I am real high and no
chance of getting the engine started such as catastro
phic
failure vs carb ice that might melt and allow engine to start at lower (warmer)
altitudes, than I am dubious at how practical it is. No argument stopped is
less drag.
Cheers George
Glide ratio , glide distance , power off landing
Message 17
| 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: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I would not venture into making a statement like Yes to your question. But
I will venture out onto the limb of no return and suggest that tip ups are
easier to get airtight than sliders. I have a tip up and the canopy is very
tight at the back and most slider folks have to work at for some time to
make that claim. The tip up sides are very tight IF the canopy frame is
built and installed correctly.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV3 PILOT" <RMCKEE@MN.RR.COM>
Subject: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV3 PILOT" <RMCKEE@MN.RR.COM>
>
> I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders
> do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair
> amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
> help me out with this please e-mail me.
>
> Robin
> RV3B Kit 11356
> Minnesota
> RMCKEE@MN.RR.COM
>
>
>
Message 18
| 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: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 22:25:34 2005-05-01 "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
> I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
> stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
> windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
> simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
There are more factors to consider than just whether the prop is
windmilling. Is the engine running at all, ie. idling? Then it's
producing *some* power. If the engine isn't running, and the drag in the
system is just the pistons moving around, then the prop is creating drag
that can be removed by stopping the prop. If the crankshaft has failed and
the prop is windmilling in its front bearing, then the prop is *really*
windmilling, and that creates a *lot* of drag (but I don't know off the top
of my head if it's more or less than with an idling engine... It may depend
on the airframe).
Anyone who doubts that a windmilling prop creates more drag than a stopped
one, go buy one of those styrofoam punch-out airplanes that has just a
windmilling prop on it. Fly it once with the prop windmilling, and fly it
agan with the prop taped in place. You'll consistently get more distance
out of it with the prop stopped. The result is even more dramatic if you
try this with one of those balsa stick-models. Fly it once with the rubber
band removed, and fly it again with the prop taped in place.
-Rob
Message 19
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 6:42:30 2005-05-02 linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
> I think it would be a great exercise to see just
> how easy/hard it is to stop the prop ..... and keep it stopped .....
> and then see what the real-world differences there are. Linn
That's an excellent point, Linn, and I forgot to mention that. It's worth
noting that a wood prop has a lot less momentum, and is a lot easier to
stop, than a metal one.
When we tried this while I was learning to fly, it was in a Cessna 152 with
a metal prop. We did have to pull the nose up about 30 degrees and hold it
there for a moment to get the blades to stop turning. Once it was stopped,
we could establish best glide (and even a bit faster) without it starting
again, although it did rotate about 1/8 turn until it hit the compression
stroke. My recollection was that we had to get it up to about 90mph before
it would turn over on it's own.
In contrast, I tried the same thing on a wood-propped homebuilt, and the
prop stopped dead the second I pulled the mixture, without me even lifting
the nose. The silence was even more deafening because I wasn't expecting
it... I thought I would have to raise the nose at least a bit to get it to
stop. In this case, I couldn't get the prop to start turning again without
using the starter, although I dove to 110mph first to try it.
In a wood propped homebuilt, I would have no second thoughts about stopping
the prop. In a metal propped one, I would probably only bother trying if I
were (a) behind a constant speed prop or (b) at a sufficiently high
altitude when it quit.
-Rob
Message 20
| 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: | CARSON CITY, NV. FLY-IN |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
Hello Everyone,
Just wanted to send out a quick e-mail to everyone in the
RV community that the Carson City, NV. Chapter 403 is hosting its 2nd Annual
RV Fly-in. We have factory support and weather permitting will have Ken
Scott there with a Demo aircraft for potential builders to get a taste.
You can find more info. on the Chapter web sight at
www.eaa403.org. The airport identifier is CXP. We hope you can make it out
to this fly-in and make this a growing event. Last year we counted 31 RV
aircraft which included the "EXXON FLYING TIGER" and the 1st Factory built
RV10.
If you are not able to make it please spread the word for the
ones that could and didn't get the word.
Thank You,
Bruce Gray
RV8 Fuselage coming soon
Message 21
| 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: compression checking an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
I guess it must depend on the size/strength of the person. I have been
doing them single person for over 20 years and have never had on get away
from me yet. But then again I am 250 lbs and admit that I was taught from
the very beginning on how to do it by myself.
Mike Robertson
Do Not Archive
>From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:32:03 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
>
>Its a 2 man job. 80 psi is tough to hold if the prop gets off tdc.
>
>Shemp/Jeff Dowling
>RV-6A, N915JD
>190 hours
>Chicago/Louisville
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > If you buy a compression tester from ACS or one of the other fine retail
> > outlets, there are instructions included with each one. Basically, you
> > bring the cylinder you are testing to top dead center, connect the
>tester,
> > and apply 80 ps to the cylinder (keeping a good hold on the prop). The
> > one
> > gauge on the tester will show you the 80 psi and the other will show you
> > the
> > cylinder pressure. Thats it!
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> >>From: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
> >>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >>Subject: RV-List: compression checking an engine
> >>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 14:34:16 -0500
> >>
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
> >>
> >>I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't
> >>know how to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or
> >>instructions regarding tools and procedure for doing that.
> >>
> >>Dave Ford
> >>RV6
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 22
| 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: | Airport Identifiers |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
Try AirNav http://www.airnav.com/
Mark Banus
Message 23
| 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: | Joe Banos - Transition Training |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore@TidelandsOil.com>
I understand Joe Banos is giving transition training in the San Diego area
in his RV-6....does anyone have his contact information?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Message 24
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
Garth Shearing wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <Garth@islandnet.com>
>
>And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
>drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
>prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
>that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
>slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
>realistic and best condition.
>
>Don't ask me how I know.
>
>
>
How slow did you have to go to get the prop to stop? While I agree that
it would be best to stop the prop and then go to best glide speed, if
you are say less than 3000 ft AGL, don't you think there would be too
little time to do that? Once I get my ticket and build my -7, I don't
ever plan on being much less than 8,000 ft AGL except for takeoff &
landing, very short trips and when crossing mountain peaks. In my part
of the country 8,000 ft AGL isn't hard to do and with that much room, if
the engine quits, you generally have at least 2 airports with in gliding
range.
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com
Message 25
| 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: Lower cowl movement estimate |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob J <rocketbob@gmail.com>
If you do aerobatics, you'll need 1" clearance minimum. I had to
change the alternator arm and go to a shorter belt, obviously that
involved taking the prop off. What a pain in the butt that was. This
was after my alternator pulley started wearing into the cowl, and of
course long after reading in the archives that 1/2" clearance was
plenty. Doing point rolls are what started my cowl rubbing...I
suspect the mounts aren't as stiff along that axis of engine movement.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 600+ hours F1 under const.
On 5/1/05, DAVID REEL <dreel@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
> Does anybody have an estimate for how far up the lower cowl on an RV8A would
move in flight? I have the epoxy honeycomb sandwich type cowl shipped about 5
years ago. I'm wondering how much alternator pulley clearance I need to provide
& why we don't align our filtered air box and cowl air inlets with the cowl
displaced upwards.
>
> Upon researching the archives, engine sag when pulling G's rather than cowl movement
due to aerodynamic pressure may be the problem. But the need is still
the same. Virtually nobody gives actual clearances static or otherwise, nor
do they mention the direction of movement. I know that many have experienced
alternator pulley contact problems & feel whatever hard numbers or even estimated
numbers anyone could provide would be very helpful. Imagine if someone noted
that they had 1/4" vertical clearance & experienced chafing, increased it
to 3/4" & had no further problem. Even a few people reporting how much clearance
they had & that there was no problem would be great. Next time your top cowl
is off, how about sticking a drill or a small piece of wood in between whatever
is closest and your cowl & let us all know your actual clearance & whether
there has been contact?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
Message 26
| 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: | IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go with the
9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until I got
a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going to
get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
everything.
(It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I did -
but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s, I
could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
increase the workload.)
Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH 2000
was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I ever
wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed to
call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the girl
laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started putting
together my QB kit.)
Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm trying
to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like the
simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for the
IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a pain
was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with the
scoop?
2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me like
they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive reports.
I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
Sensenich that Van's recommends.
TIA.
Message 27
| 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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
>
>3. Whats a typical glide ratio for a constant speed prop? I doubt there's
>much difference between models.
>
There actually might be a fair difference in windmilling drag between
different constant-speed prop setups. The following items may be
significant:
1. If there is no oil pressure: Which way the prop pitch goes when it
losses oil pressure. Some props are designed to go to high pitch
with low oil pressure, some go to low pitch. In particular, the
Hartzells that most people use go to low pitch.
2. If there is oil pressure: What is the rpm selected by the prop
control, and how does that compare to the windmilling rpm? If the
prop is windmilling at a lower rpm than that which is selected by the
prop control, then the prop will be at the pitch defined by its low
pitch stop (i.e. lots of drag).
3. If there is oil pressure: Has the pilot pulled the prop control
full aft, and if so, is the minimum selectable rpm less than the
windmilling rpm? If so, the prop will go to high pitch (i.e. less
drag).
4. If the prop is sitting on the low pitch stop, has the owner
adjusted the low pitch stop to be at as high a pitch as possible? If
you want minimum drag when the prop is windmilling, the low pitch
stop should be adjusted as high as possible. Ideally, the low pitch
stop should be adjusted high enough so the prop doesn't come up to
full rpm until the aircraft has some airspeed. The rpm during the
first part of the take-off roll should be less than the governing
rpm, as the prop would be limited by the low pitch stop. The rpm
would increase as the speed increased, and reach governing rpm late
in the take-off roll.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 28
| 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: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
> Just one more thought to unfuel the fire (pun intended)
>
> If you want to extend your glide with a windmilling prop then
> keep the
> throttle wide open (assuming it is not running) to reduce
> the pumping
> losses.
Vic, I believe least drag would be with the throttle closed. Consider the
intake stroke - yes, there would be power needed to pull the piston down
against the lower manifold pressure. However, most of that would be
recovered during the "compression" stroke, when this same lower pressure in
the cylinder "pulls" the piston back up. With the throttle open, a full
charge of air approximately at ambient pressure needs to be compressed to
around 125 psi on the compression stroke, being released suddenly into the
exhaust pipe when the exhaust valve opens.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 612 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
Message 29
| 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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed information
but never got a reponse?
Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> wrote:--> RV-List message posted by: Paul
Folbrecht
First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go with the
9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until I got
a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going to
get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
everything.
(It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I did -
but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s, I
could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
increase the workload.)
Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH 2000
was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I ever
wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed to
call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the girl
laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started putting
together my QB kit.)
Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm trying
to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like the
simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for the
IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a pain
was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with the
scoop?
2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me like
they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive reports.
I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
Sensenich that Van's recommends.
TIA.
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
Message 30
| 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: | Joe Banos - Transition Training |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
From the SoCAL Group
"Joe Banos" <jb@rangerusa.com>
"Not sure who to direct this to. I am a Certified Flight Instructor
(30 years), former military pilot and RV-6 owner in the San Diego
area. I have the FAA excemption for transition training and would
like to make myself available for RV training of builders or buyers in
the So Cal area. Is it proper to disseminate this info or notify the
group via this means?"
JoeB
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
---
-Original Message Follows----
From: "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore@TidelandsOil.com>
Subject: RV-List: Joe Banos - Transition Training
--> RV-List message posted by: "Moore, Warren"
<Warren.Moore@TidelandsOil.com>
I understand Joe Banos is giving transition training in the San Diego area
in his RV-6....does anyone have his contact information?
Message 31
| 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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
I have tried the experiment that Lynn suggests at the end of his post.
In my RV4 with an 0-320, 9:1 compression and a constant speed in flat pitch
I had to get very close to stall speed around 50 KIAS to get the prop to
stop. Once stopped it took something like 120-130KIAS to get the engine to
occasionally move a blade or two in rotation. Stopped experiment at that
speed and hit the starter again. I did not carefully checked the difference
in glide ratio with the engine windmilling or at idle but in the above
mentioned experiment I do not recall that the difference seemed significant
although the idle power condition certainly gives a better glide ration.
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "linn walters" <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> OK Y'all ...... you're into apples and oranges here. Minimum descent
> rate or maximum distance and gliding with a windmilling prop are, for a
> fixed pitch, mutually exclusive. Greg talks about a windmilling prop as
> real-world (and I agree) and Garth says that a stopped prop will
> increase the glide ratio, and I agree with that. What I don't agree
> with is garth's last statement, " In an engine out emergency, that is
> the realistic and best condition." Unrealistic. You'll trade off an
> awful lot of airspeed pulling the nose up to stop the prop unless you
> have a real high-compression engine. Most of ours mills don't qualify.
> That activity alone will use up more altitude than will be gained by the
> better glide. And having to repeat it will be worse. I'm here to tell
> you that in a true emergency, you're not going to be trying to stop the
> prop. I've had two off-field landings (one without a prop ..... note I
> didn't say stopped) and one windmilling. You're too involved in trying
> to find a suitable spot to crash in. In my situation, both landings
> didn't involve any damage to plane, occupants, nor property. I was
> extremely lucky, and I admit it. The 'temporary glider' did get less
> sink rate improvement without the prop, but I wouldn't have tried to
> stop it if it had remained. I think it would be a great exercise to see
> just how easy/hard it is to stop the prop ..... and keep it stopped
> ..... and then see what the real-world differences there are.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
> Garth Shearing wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <Garth@islandnet.com>
>>
>>And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
>>drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
>>prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
>>that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
>>slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
>>realistic and best condition.
>>
>>Don't ask me how I know.
>>
>>Garth Shearing
>>VariEze & 90% RV6A
>>Victoria BC Canada
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>>>
>>>I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
>>>stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
>>>windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
>>>simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
>>>RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
>>>Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
>>>>
>>>>Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or
>>>>was it still windmilling? If the propellor was still
>>>>windmilling, then you may not have simulated a realistic condition.
>>>>
>>>>A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate
>>>>the diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the
>>>>drag on your aircraft will decrease significantly, and your
>>>>descent rate will decrease as well.
>>>>
>>>>-Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 32
| 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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
If there is NO oil pressure, you really don't have to worry about it,
since it's probably going to stop turning pretty soon anyway.
8 >)
Dave
Kevin Horton wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>
>There actually might be a fair difference in windmilling drag between
>different constant-speed prop setups. The following items may be
>significant:
>
>1. If there is no oil pressure: Which way the prop pitch goes when it
>losses oil pressure. Some props are designed to go to high pitch
>with low oil pressure, some go to low pitch. In particular, the
>Hartzells that most people use go to low pitch.
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| 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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props
> --> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
>
> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
> information but never got a reponse?
Darrell:
Craig Catto is a very busy guy lately, with all us RV guys sending business
his way. Hopefully he has not responded to your email because he is busy
working on my prop!! ;
)
Best way to contact him is to give him a call.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
moving to the airport on 5/11
Peshtigo, WI
Message 34
| 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: | [ Mike Holland ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Mike Holland <hollandm@pacbell.net>
Lists: RV-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List
Subject: Quickbuild Fuel Pickup Issue
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/hollandm@pacbell.net.05.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
Message 35
| 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: | [ Rob Ray ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Rob Ray <smokyray@yahoo.com>
Lists: RV-List,RV4-List
Subject: RV4 canopy hold-open latch
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/smokyray@yahoo.com.05.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
Message 36
| 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: | RV's In Las Vegas? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
I happen to be on the road this week in Lost Wages and was wondering where
the RV's hang out around here?
David Schaefer
RV6A N142DS "Geek One"
Do not archive
Message 37
| 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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Same here. Probably just doesn't check email often. Seems to be a very small
operation. I'll give him a call in a week or two if he doesn't write back.
One concern I would have would be regarding vibration testing. Has it been
done with his props? With what engines? Have you ever read the RVator article
about the necessity for real vibration testing for every prop/engine
combination? It is indeed a necessity.
Another (minor) area would be concerning the flyoff period - no 25 hour period
with that prop. Then again I don't think the experimental Lycs could ever
qualify for that anyway?
--- Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
>
> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
> information but never got a reponse?
>
> Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> wrote:--> RV-List message posted by:
> Paul Folbrecht
>
>
> First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go with
> the
> 9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until I
> got
> a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
> private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going to
> get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
> possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
> suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
> everything.
>
> (It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I did
> -
> but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s, I
> could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
> Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
> increase the workload.)
>
> Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH 2000
> was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I
> ever
> wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed to
> call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the girl
> laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started putting
> together my QB kit.)
>
> Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm trying
> to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like the
> simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for the
> IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a pain
> was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with the
> scoop?
>
> 2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me like
> they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive
> reports.
> I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
> Sensenich that Van's recommends.
>
> TIA.
>
>
> Darrell Reiley
> Round Rock, Texas
> RV 7A #70125
> N622DR (reserved)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| 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: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
--> RV-List message posted by: "randall" <rv6n6r@comcast.net>
The slider is indeed difficult to seal on the sides. Mine fits as tight as
any I've seen, but even if done perfectly there're still gaps that are hard
to completely seal with any kind of seal material, due to the geometry when
it opens and closes. In fact I wouldn't mind hearing from others as to how
they did that. No water comes in and I fly in the rain a fair amount, and I
don't notice the cold air except on really cold days. But there's a fair
amount of wind noise from the gaps at the back that I just can't seam to
seal, and I'd like to get it as quiet as I can.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
Portland, OR
>>
> > I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders
> > do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair
> > amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
> > help me out with this please e-mail me.
> >
> > Robin
> > RV3B Kit 11356
> > Minnesota
> > RMCKEE@MN.RR.COM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 39
| 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: Joe Banos - Transition Training |
--> RV-List message posted by: Alison and Neil <alisonandneil@direcway.com>
Joe,
Yes, absolutely. In fact I've been looking for someone closer than TX or WA.
I'll be in touch.
Neil McLeod
7 QB Finishing
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Joe Banos - Transition Training
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> From the SoCAL Group
>
> "Joe Banos" <jb@rangerusa.com>
>
> "Not sure who to direct this to. I am a Certified Flight Instructor
> (30 years), former military pilot and RV-6 owner in the San Diego
> area. I have the FAA excemption for transition training and would
> like to make myself available for RV training of builders or buyers in
> the So Cal area. Is it proper to disseminate this info or notify the
> group via this means?"
>
> JoeB
>
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
> ---
> -Original Message Follows----
> From: "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore@TidelandsOil.com>
> To: "'RV List'" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Joe Banos - Transition Training
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:57:04 -0700
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Moore, Warren"
> <Warren.Moore@TidelandsOil.com>
>
> I understand Joe Banos is giving transition training in the San Diego area
> in his RV-6....does anyone have his contact information?
>
>
Message 40
| 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: | RV's In Las Vegas? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
I know 3 at Boulder City. Flew with two of them this weekend at MHV.
There are also RV's at North Vegas.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV's In Las Vegas?
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
I happen to be on the road this week in Lost Wages and was wondering where
the RV's hang out around here?
David Schaefer
RV6A N142DS "Geek One"
Do not archive
Message 41
| 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: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
It seems we're really arguing the definition of "realistic." I will
agree that a stopped prop represents the lowest drag configuration which
in turn nets better sink and glide ratio. What I don't agree with is
whether it is "realistic" (or wise) to do what it takes to get the prop
stopped in any given engine out. If it occurs at 400 AGL and 80 mph I
would assert that it is decidedly unwise as you'll be on the ground in
10-15 seconds. At 10,000 AGL and 170 kts you have more freedom to
optimize things. Somewhere in between there's a transition point from
unwise to possible to desireable. Slowing the aircraft below best glide
speed to stop the prop and then regaining airspeed to best glide
involves some loss of gliding range. How much and whether you can
recover it with the lower drag (and how long it takes) is anyones guess.
There are 4000 RVs flying and over a thousand folks on this list and
I've still not seen any performance data solid enough to do that kind of
trade-off study with any confidence. So we're left with our judgement to
decide. My reasoning is that at low altitude (pick your own definition,
0-3K AGL?) your options are most limited and fast and correct decisions
are most critical. It's not the time to approach stall in an emergency
and you've got enough other things to do in the time remaining. At high
altitude you may have many more options so the ability to eek out the
last bit of glide range may not be that valuable. You're likely to gain
more by correctly judging the effect of the wind on your range and
available airports. At any event I would leave stopping the prop until
after all the essentials are completed and all restart attempts are
done. At that point you've lost more altitude and marginalized the
benefits somewhat.
My view of "realistic" is what is conservatively attainable in real
world conditions. For the reasons above I don't think stopping the prop
is reasonable or even possible in many cases and therefore objected to
calling it THE realistic condition. It's certainly subjective so YMMV.
Regardless of your view, it's important to periodically evaluate your
views and practices.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <Garth@islandnet.com>
>
> And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink
> rate, low drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to
> reduce speed to stop the prop, and then increase speed to
> best glide ratio. In the unlikely event that the best glide
> ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a slightly
> lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
> realistic and best condition.
>
> Don't ask me how I know.
>
> Garth Shearing
> VariEze & 90% RV6A
> Victoria BC Canada
>
Message 42
| 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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
I'll second what others have written about communicating with Craig. I
just bought a prop from him (took delivery three days before leaving for
SnF) and had a lot of communication back and forth. He had computer
problems so email was out. He always answers the phone or returns calls
quickly. Very good guy to deal with. He did tell me that about 90% of
his business nowadays is making 3 blade props for RVs.
My prop is a 3 blade Catto, 66 inch pitch and 76 inch pitch. It is on
an Aerosport Power/ Superior O-360, carb, 8.5 pistons, one mag and one
Lightspeed II ignition. Pretty stock engine. I talked with Craig at
some length about the prop pitch. I explained that I wanted a prop
which was not quite a cruise, but closer to a cruise than a climb prop.
The Sterba wood prop which it replaced (and is now on Ebay if anyone is
interested- shameless plug) was just such a prop. I was willing to
sacrifice a couple knots of top end for better short field performance.
Craig assured me that I would see an increase in top end with no loss of
acceleration or short field performance.
Well, the proof is in the pudding. I saw about a 5 kt increase in
cruise (75%, 8K ft standard) from 172 to 177 ktas. I hit 180 ktas at
4500 ft racing a 200HP/ Hartzell blended airfoil RV-8 (I was nose to
nose with him at full throttle for several minutes, until he pushed the
RPM up past 2400!) I saw a pretty substantial decrease in static RPM
(around 180 or so) but seem to have no loss of acceleration or takeoff
distance. I guess the prop produces more thrust at lower RPM than the
old one. As for real world cruise- around 2500 RPM gives TAS in the low
160s with burns around 8.5-9 GPH, depending on altitude. A fixed pitch
prop just has to turn too damn fast to get real power out of the engine,
but gas is expensive and I like to baby the engine anyway.
The prop changed the feel of the engine a lot. It now feels and sounds
more like a 6 cylinder engine than a 4 banger. I can't say it's
quieter, but it's a different, higher frequency type of noise. There
are a couple rough RPM ranges down low. Not any more so than with my
old prop, but it seems more noticable in comparison. I have yet to get
it dynamically balanced but that is in the works.
One more thing- my wheel landings seem to have gotten better. I think
that subconsciously I am no longer worried about a prop strike with the
small diameter prop;)
Oh, one more thing- it looks cool as hell!
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>
>
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! --
|