Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: Door Seals - Again (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
2. 06:27 AM - Re: Re: Door Seals - Again (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
3. 06:41 AM - Re: Re: Door Seals - Again (Rene Felker)
4. 08:04 AM - Re: Door Seals - Again (Lenny Iszak)
5. 08:18 AM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Lenny Iszak)
6. 08:42 AM - Re: Door Seals - Again (Chuck Weyant)
7. 09:32 AM - Re: Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Tim Olson)
8. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Rick Barnes)
9. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: Door Seals - Again (LES KEARNEY)
10. 10:24 AM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (William Curtis)
11. 11:02 AM - Re: Door Seals - Again (jkreidler)
12. 11:28 AM - Re: Re: Door Seals - Again (Tim Olson)
13. 12:08 PM - Re: Fuel Tank Extra Hole (Jesse Saint)
14. 01:03 PM - Composite class correct dates (Dave Saylor)
15. 03:29 PM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Rob Kermanj)
16. 04:05 PM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Rene Felker)
17. 05:02 PM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (linn Walters)
18. 06:01 PM - Re: Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Chuck Weyant)
19. 08:08 PM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Tim Olson)
20. 08:41 PM - Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test (Rene)
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: | Re: Door Seals - Again |
That would be Don O (for some reason his last name escapes me at the moment).
But he had his interior done by Abby so she might have some good info on it.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
Hi Fellow builders...
There seems to be two ways to go about this...I am at the crossroads...first...the
Deem's method of the seals on the FRAME of the door opening and an alternative
that I am pursuing...the seals on the door but attached with aluminum strips
held to the door edge with rivenuts, not tape...this allowed for the seals
to be adjusted in or out to fit the door channel. This was done by a builder
who I can't recall, but I think he had the Oregon Aero logo on the tail, not sure
though, Deems has it on his OSH 08 pics...he used the bulb seal, aftermarket
product I presume ...very trick and very easy to replace the seals if needed...Deems,
the rental car check is in the mail...promise...been slammed at work..hope
Parker and Judy didn't miss Dinner!!! :)
Rick Sked
40185
Goin to the hangar this weekend!!
do not archive
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: Door Seals - Again |
This looks to be the same stuff that Alex sells. Not sure who is cheaper. If anyone
has a quote from Aircraft Door Seals let us know. I know Alex is $68 but
not sure if that is per door or for the set. Another $45 for the baggage door.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
Dick at AircraftDoorseals is a good guy to deal with. I've used several of
his products on my Cherokee. He answered questions quickly and did
whatever it took to help folks out.
I don't have experience with his door seals on a RV-10 yet, but based upon
my previous experience, I would go to him again.
We just need to convince Dick to trade in his Lance for a RV-10! :^)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
I saw quite a few different seals at OSH. From what I can gather, Vans is
not the preferred seal. Thoug with those owners that have installed the
Van's seal the seal seems to be working well and there is little complaint
on noise or air intrusion. One big complaint aside from the lack of nice
appearance is that you have to use pop rivets, and if you need to change the
seal (drill out the pop rivets), you will have the rivet ends rattling
around inside the door.
I did see seals from AIRCRAFT DOOR SEAL LLC called the "Incredible Aircraft
door seal" see aircraftdoorseals.com
He did give me a sample, but I did not get any feedback from those who have
installed it. any feedback on this product is appreciated.
--------
OSH '08 or Bust (busted) be there in "09
Q/B Kit - exited cabin top/door purgatory
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2189#202189
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: Door Seals - Again |
That is $68 per door. I like them......
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
This looks to be the same stuff that Alex sells. Not sure who is cheaper.
If anyone has a quote from Aircraft Door Seals let us know. I know Alex is
$68 but not sure if that is per door or for the set. Another $45 for the
baggage door.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
Dick at AircraftDoorseals is a good guy to deal with. I've used several of
his products on my Cherokee. He answered questions quickly and did
whatever it took to help folks out.
I don't have experience with his door seals on a RV-10 yet, but based upon
my previous experience, I would go to him again.
We just need to convince Dick to trade in his Lance for a RV-10! :^)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
I saw quite a few different seals at OSH. From what I can gather, Vans is
not the preferred seal. Thoug with those owners that have installed the
Van's seal the seal seems to be working well and there is little complaint
on noise or air intrusion. One big complaint aside from the lack of nice
appearance is that you have to use pop rivets, and if you need to change the
seal (drill out the pop rivets), you will have the rivet ends rattling
around inside the door.
I did see seals from AIRCRAFT DOOR SEAL LLC called the "Incredible Aircraft
door seal" see aircraftdoorseals.com
He did give me a sample, but I did not get any feedback from those who have
installed it. any feedback on this product is appreciated.
--------
OSH '08 or Bust (busted) be there in "09
Q/B Kit - exited cabin top/door purgatory
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2189#202189
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: Door Seals - Again |
Here's a picture of Don Orrick's door seal.
--------
Regards,
Lenny
#40803
Fuel System...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2323#202323
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02917_195.jpg
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: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
It would be pretty useful to make a surface chart using Rob's engine data.
rpm vs airspeed vs fuel flow...
--------
Regards,
Lenny
#40803
Fuel System...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2327#202327
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: | Re: Door Seals - Again |
I installed mine as instructed. I could barely close the doors then
from the outside. I'd probably have pulled the interior door handles
off from the inside to close. Pulled the seals off and am too now
looking for a suitable replacement seal. Perhaps our door tolerances
are too close?
Chuck
Engine hung, prop installed, working on engine cowl fitment.
----- Original Message -----
From: jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Door Seals - Again
Over the weekend we finally installed the door seal per the
instructions. I was concerned that our door fit would change based on
prior posts, and big surprise to me, the doors now fit poorly. Before
we started to rework everything to get back to a decent fit, or before
buying new seals to replace the factory seals I decided to send an
e-mail to Vans with the question (see copy below). I received a
response from Vans, also copied below. I am shocked that Ken Scott not
only couldn't provide a solution, but also said that this is the first
they have EVER heard of this problem. Not that it will do much good,
other than to satisfy my own curiosity, but has anyone else asked Vans
this question? What gives??? I am proud to be a Van's customer, but
they can be frustrating.... BTW, any pointers on a solution to the
problem would be appreciated.
Jason Kreidler 9/2/2008
"A few days ago we installed the door seal that was supplied with our
kit. Before installation of the door seal, our doors fit as close to
perfect as we could have hoped for. After installing the door seals,
the doors fit terribly. We attempted to move the seals while closing
the door to insure they were placed in the channel of the cabin top, but
even that did not help. We are now considering different options, it
seems as if the bulb on the seal is just too big. Since this appears to
be a common problem all builders are experiencing, do you have any ideas
to solve this issue? I hate to buy after market seals to replace the
stock seals without asking the question."
Ken Scott Reply 9/2/2008
"We've had no problems with the supplied seals on our airplanes, and I
haven't heard any complaints from the field. I took a poll of the tech
help guys this morning, and none of us have had any questions that we
can remember. I'm not sure what to tell you."
Thanks, Jason Kreidler
4-Partner Build (Jason Kreidler, Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elsner)
Sheboygan Falls, WI
#40617 Finishing
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: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
Fuel flow will be one of the key data points, too.
It doesn't matter if I post that I've seen 183-4kts
with my RV10, because the times that I've seen
over 180kts I was burning 19+gph. It would be
insane to try to run the engine like that to go
on a trip. So really, to make any data valuable,
you'd want RPM, MP, Fuel Flow, Altitude, OAT, Loaded
weight (and distribution) and things like that so you
can get realistic comparisons. It's like saying "My
car gets 85mpg", but not stating that when it does
this, you're rolling down an mountain.
Almost all of my experience is with flying in a mode
that provides best economy. I have very little time
spent flying for max performance. I enjoy being
able to flight plan 160-165kts, and do it with
fuel flows generally being 10gph or less. Various
loadings produce vastly different cruise speeds,
so sometimes I cruise 157-160kts, and sometimes
I cruise 173-175kts, but I rarely cruise over 13.5gph,
and there is usually a few more kts available if
I'm willing to bump up the fuel flow.
Speaking of loadings being important, last year at
OSH while flying people around, I found that I was
easily 2 or 3kts slower than Scott. We weren't
loaded identically, but I remember being slower.
This year, on the way to OSH, I was easily outclimbing
and then out-cruising him...even though we were
both loaded up. But, I don't think his loading
was as light as mine. It was interesting to see
how a little added passenger load or distribution
of CG caused really different performance numbers.
Again, most of my experience and numbers I know,
are loaded up with the wife, kids, my portly
self, and maybe 10-125lbs of baggage. How it
performs with just one or two people in the
plane is much more foreign to me. We all remember
what we know best...for me, I know that if I
want to burn 8-10gph, I can count on 157-165kts
depending on altitude and loading, and if I
want to burn 12.5-14gph, I can plan to fly 164-175kts
...loaded with the family.
I would say that Rob's estimate of being 7kts slower
is probably in the ballpark. I would have guessed 8-12,
but, without fuel flow data included, it's hard to
tell how directly it compares. 2600 RPM is a speed
that almost nobody will ever cruise at. When the
numbers were first posted at 2450RPM, my first
question in my head was "hmmm, wonder what the fuel
flow was...", because 2450 is a little more aggressive
of a cruise RPM, and almost certainly is burning
more fuel than what people are used to hear reported
by the MT and Hartzell 2-blade folks. If it was
171kts at 13.5gph and 2450RPM at 8500', then
that's not really too bad at all. If it's 171kts at
18gph, then I'd say that kinda stinks. Most
people I've talked to find something between 2200
and 2360 that they cruise at. Most of my cruising
is at 2360, as I haven't found that I can keep the
speeds up when I go down towards 2200. I've just
found 2360 to be a sweet spot for smoothness and
economical performance. To me, it's all about
economy....it stands out in my head that on ONE trip
to Oregon alone, just cruising LOP saved me over
$200 in fuel. On this weekend's trip, with 2
hours to go to destination, I had to choose between
10-20 minutes of time savings, or 6 gallons of
fuel...I chose to save the fuel. So fuel flow
numbers are important parts of the data set.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
> It would be pretty useful to make a surface chart using Rob's engine data.
> rpm vs airspeed vs fuel flow...
>
> --------
> Regards,
> Lenny
> #40803
> Fuel System...
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2327#202327
>
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: | Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
Thanks Tim.
It's nice to have someone put it all in perspective. If you want pure speed
an F1 rocket with a three blade MT is the way to go. If you want a good
four place plane that cruises at a good TAS then an RV10 is ideal. It would
be nice to see all values compared, for both economy (reality) and
performance (bragging rights).
Rick Barnes
Still building
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test
Fuel flow will be one of the key data points, too.
It doesn't matter if I post that I've seen 183-4kts
with my RV10, because the times that I've seen
over 180kts I was burning 19+gph. It would be
insane to try to run the engine like that to go
on a trip. So really, to make any data valuable,
you'd want RPM, MP, Fuel Flow, Altitude, OAT, Loaded
weight (and distribution) and things like that so you
can get realistic comparisons. It's like saying "My
car gets 85mpg", but not stating that when it does
this, you're rolling down an mountain.
Almost all of my experience is with flying in a mode
that provides best economy. I have very little time
spent flying for max performance. I enjoy being
able to flight plan 160-165kts, and do it with
fuel flows generally being 10gph or less. Various
loadings produce vastly different cruise speeds,
so sometimes I cruise 157-160kts, and sometimes
I cruise 173-175kts, but I rarely cruise over 13.5gph,
and there is usually a few more kts available if
I'm willing to bump up the fuel flow.
Speaking of loadings being important, last year at
OSH while flying people around, I found that I was
easily 2 or 3kts slower than Scott. We weren't
loaded identically, but I remember being slower.
This year, on the way to OSH, I was easily outclimbing
and then out-cruising him...even though we were
both loaded up. But, I don't think his loading
was as light as mine. It was interesting to see
how a little added passenger load or distribution
of CG caused really different performance numbers.
Again, most of my experience and numbers I know,
are loaded up with the wife, kids, my portly
self, and maybe 10-125lbs of baggage. How it
performs with just one or two people in the
plane is much more foreign to me. We all remember
what we know best...for me, I know that if I
want to burn 8-10gph, I can count on 157-165kts
depending on altitude and loading, and if I
want to burn 12.5-14gph, I can plan to fly 164-175kts
...loaded with the family.
I would say that Rob's estimate of being 7kts slower
is probably in the ballpark. I would have guessed 8-12,
but, without fuel flow data included, it's hard to
tell how directly it compares. 2600 RPM is a speed
that almost nobody will ever cruise at. When the
numbers were first posted at 2450RPM, my first
question in my head was "hmmm, wonder what the fuel
flow was...", because 2450 is a little more aggressive
of a cruise RPM, and almost certainly is burning
more fuel than what people are used to hear reported
by the MT and Hartzell 2-blade folks. If it was
171kts at 13.5gph and 2450RPM at 8500', then
that's not really too bad at all. If it's 171kts at
18gph, then I'd say that kinda stinks. Most
people I've talked to find something between 2200
and 2360 that they cruise at. Most of my cruising
is at 2360, as I haven't found that I can keep the
speeds up when I go down towards 2200. I've just
found 2360 to be a sweet spot for smoothness and
economical performance. To me, it's all about
economy....it stands out in my head that on ONE trip
to Oregon alone, just cruising LOP saved me over
$200 in fuel. On this weekend's trip, with 2
hours to go to destination, I had to choose between
10-20 minutes of time savings, or 6 gallons of
fuel...I chose to save the fuel. So fuel flow
numbers are important parts of the data set.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
> It would be pretty useful to make a surface chart using Rob's engine data.
> rpm vs airspeed vs fuel flow...
>
> --------
> Regards,
> Lenny
> #40803
> Fuel System...
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2327#202327
>
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
7:15 AM
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: Door Seals - Again |
Lenny
That is the one that I saw at KOSH. It was a asterful job - although David mentioned
that making the fiberglass trim pieces was quite a bit of work. He had Abby
of Flightline *I think* make the seals out of the same material used in the
interior.
Cheers
Les
----- Original Message -----
From: Lenny Iszak <lenard@rapiddecision.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Door Seals - Again
> <lenard@rapiddecision.com>
> Here's a picture of Don Orrick's door seal.
>
> --------
> Regards,
> Lenny
> #40803
> Fuel System...
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2323#202323
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02917_195.jpg
>
>
>
>
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> _-
> = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _-
> = - List Contribution Web Site -
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: | Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
This is one of the reasons I shake my head when some report the best speeds at
some low ~2200-2400 RPM. I discovered when I was breaking in a new engine on
the Cardinal that my best power and speeds was at 2700 RPM. Anything less than
2700 would produce a slower speed. Now I primarily use two settings for my
prop--2700 for takeoff, 2500 for climb and cruise with occasional reduction during
letdown.
All things being equal, you will achieve the best power and speed from a prop at
2700 RPM. At 2700 RPM, and 50 degree ambient temperature, an 84" prop will
have a tip speed of Mach 0.895. To produce maximum thrust at full power your tip
speed should fall between .88 and .92 mach. The primary benefit of reducing
RPM is for increased passenger comfort (less noise) and reduced engine wear
an tear.
What is the diameter of the Hartzell Composite Three blade?
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> On my trip to Moses Lake and back over the weekend I tried different
> propeller RPM's for speed. I was level at 8500 Ft and full throttle. I started
at
> 2600 RPM and then tried 2500, 2400, 2300, and 2200; for every 100 RPM drop
I
> would see a couple of knots drop in airspeed.
>
> Rob Hickman
> N402RH RV-10
>
>
>
> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
> deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
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: Door Seals - Again |
I had looked at Don's seals a while back. This is one of the options we are considering
since Abby also did our interior. I was just hoping to drive to, and
fix the root cause of the problem. In my opinion, since many people experience
this same problem, and have provided many different solutions, Vans should
provide a 'factory' solution. In talking with Don about his seals, he said the
'bulb' is smaller, and this is what he thinks fixed the problem. If I remember
correctly he also said that Van's factory airplane used a seal with a smaller
bulb than what is supplied in the kit.
Our seals were installed per the plans, although orienting the seal in the opposite
direction may help.
While placing the seal on the cabin top instead of the door may work, I wonder
what the long term durability of the seal will be with people grabbing the door
frame to enter and exit. Would it matter if same seal were placed on the door?
Thanks, Jason
--------
RV-10 Quick Build
4 Partner Build - Finishing
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2350#202350
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: Door Seals - Again |
I do like the seal on the door, not the frame, just for
your reason of grabbing it accidentally. I also like
that my seal is very tight and waterproof, but I sure
wouldn't argue if it had a slightly smaller bulb as you
noted that Don talked about. I think the silicone seals
like what come with the kit would seal about as good
as you could ever find....but the size is just a tiny
bit thick to make the door close easily.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
jkreidler wrote:
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
>
> I had looked at Don's seals a while back. This is one of the options
> we are considering since Abby also did our interior. I was just
> hoping to drive to, and fix the root cause of the problem. In my
> opinion, since many people experience this same problem, and have
> provided many different solutions, Vans should provide a 'factory'
> solution. In talking with Don about his seals, he said the 'bulb' is
> smaller, and this is what he thinks fixed the problem. If I remember
> correctly he also said that Van's factory airplane used a seal with a
> smaller bulb than what is supplied in the kit.
>
> Our seals were installed per the plans, although orienting the seal
> in the opposite direction may help.
>
> While placing the seal on the cabin top instead of the door may work,
> I wonder what the long term durability of the seal will be with
> people grabbing the door frame to enter and exit. Would it matter if
> same seal were placed on the door?
>
> Thanks, Jason
>
> -------- RV-10 Quick Build 4 Partner Build - Finishing
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2350#202350
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
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: Fuel Tank Extra Hole |
OK, I remember that now. Yes, the baffle can install both ways except
for that hole. Just drill the hole in the part that doesn't have it
and rivet. No problems.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:14 PM, phil barnette wrote:
> the rivet hole in the baffle should be matched to a rivet hole in
> the skin. I thought this was funny when i saw it on the left tank -
> i through-drilled it to make a matching on in the skin - then i got
> to the other side of the skin - the skin hole had one, and the
> baffle didn't!
>
> so, would seem like there so the baffle only installs in one
> direction, but all the other holes seem to line up (eg z-bracket
> holes)
>
> so i guess one way would be just to swivel 180 degrees, unless
> you've already match drilled, in which case can drill through and
> rivet like all the others
>
> phil
> RV-10 (wings)
> KSLC
>
> --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Shawn Moon <moons1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Shawn Moon <moons1999@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Tank Extra Hole
> To: "Matronics RV10" <RV10-List@matronics.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 10:43 AM
>
> All,
> I am pretty sure that I have seen this topic before but I could
> not find it in the archives. Can someone tell me what to do with
> the extra hole on the bottom center of the fuel tank baffle on the
> fuel tanks? It's centered right by the middle rib. It looks like a
> nut plate is supposed to go in there but I can't find any mention of
> it. In fact, on the rivet call outs it shows the hole but doesn't
> have a rivet in it. See page 18-5, figure 3.
>
> Also, has anybody come up with anything better for sealing up
> the tooling holes on the inboard and outboard ribs? It seems that
> adding the plates called out on 18-5 step 2 adds to the possibility
> of leaks. Thanks in advance.=A2=BC
>
> --Shawn
> 40366 - Wings
>
>
> get=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> =nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
> blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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: | Composite class correct dates |
I'm posting the correct dates again. Composites for RV-10s will be Saturday
and Sunday, November 15 and 16.
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 15 & 16, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
<outbind://40/www.AirCraftersLLC.com> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 7.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
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: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
I have been reporting best speeds at 2250 RPM. Perhaps with your
theory I can do better. I am curious and will test it and report back.
I consistently get 172 kts at 12,500 with 10 gal/hr burn. Perhaps I
really mean best speed/fuel economy combination and don't realize it.
I do know that being in absolute smooth air and giving the plane a
chance to accelerate for a few long minutes makes a big difference.
The speed goes all over the place with the slightest turbulence.
It will be a while before I can do the test but I WILL report back. I
also need to qualify that I do not have three blades so, who knows!
Thank for making me think.
On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:40 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
> This is one of the reasons I shake my head when some report the best
> speeds at some low ~2200-2400 RPM. I discovered when I was breaking
> in a new engine on the Cardinal that my best power and speeds was at
> 2700 RPM. Anything less than 2700 would produce a slower speed.
> Now I primarily use two settings for my prop--2700 for takeoff, 2500
> for climb and cruise with occasional reduction during letdown.
>
> All things being equal, you will achieve the best power and speed
> from a prop at 2700 RPM. At 2700 RPM, and 50 degree ambient
> temperature, an 84" prop will have a tip speed of Mach 0.895. To
> produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall
> between .88 and .92 mach. The primary benefit of reducing RPM is
> for increased passenger comfort (less noise) and reduced engine wear
> an tear.
>
> What is the diameter of the Hartzell Composite Three blade?
>
> William
> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> On my trip to Moses Lake and back over the weekend I tried different
>> propeller RPM's for speed. I was level at 8500 Ft and full
>> throttle. I started at
>> 2600 RPM and then tried 2500, 2400, 2300, and 2200; for every 100
>> RPM drop I
>> would see a couple of knots drop in airspeed.
>>
>> Rob Hickman
>> N402RH RV-10
>>
>>
>>
>> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
>> your travel
>> deal here.
>> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>
>
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: | Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
Boy, I really feel slow now......
12,500
12.2 GPH Rich of peak
2480 RPM
161 knots (TAS from GRT)
My speed test at 8000 feet and 75% power showed about 171......but I have
not seen speeds like that in cruise at 12500.
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test
I have been reporting best speeds at 2250 RPM. Perhaps with your
theory I can do better. I am curious and will test it and report back.
I consistently get 172 kts at 12,500 with 10 gal/hr burn. Perhaps I
really mean best speed/fuel economy combination and don't realize it.
I do know that being in absolute smooth air and giving the plane a
chance to accelerate for a few long minutes makes a big difference.
The speed goes all over the place with the slightest turbulence.
It will be a while before I can do the test but I WILL report back. I
also need to qualify that I do not have three blades so, who knows!
Thank for making me think.
On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:40 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
> This is one of the reasons I shake my head when some report the best
> speeds at some low ~2200-2400 RPM. I discovered when I was breaking
> in a new engine on the Cardinal that my best power and speeds was at
> 2700 RPM. Anything less than 2700 would produce a slower speed.
> Now I primarily use two settings for my prop--2700 for takeoff, 2500
> for climb and cruise with occasional reduction during letdown.
>
> All things being equal, you will achieve the best power and speed
> from a prop at 2700 RPM. At 2700 RPM, and 50 degree ambient
> temperature, an 84" prop will have a tip speed of Mach 0.895. To
> produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall
> between .88 and .92 mach. The primary benefit of reducing RPM is
> for increased passenger comfort (less noise) and reduced engine wear
> an tear.
>
> What is the diameter of the Hartzell Composite Three blade?
>
> William
> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> On my trip to Moses Lake and back over the weekend I tried different
>> propeller RPM's for speed. I was level at 8500 Ft and full
>> throttle. I started at
>> 2600 RPM and then tried 2500, 2400, 2300, and 2200; for every 100
>> RPM drop I
>> would see a couple of knots drop in airspeed.
>>
>> Rob Hickman
>> N402RH RV-10
>>
>>
>>
>> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
>> your travel
>> deal here.
>> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>
>
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: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
I think that all the 'data' needs to be taken at a certain manifold
pressure ...... that being an indicator of horsepower that we can
measure. That also should yield a fairly constant fuel flow. The data
then, could be plotted to find the 'most efficient' and 'best cruise'
etc. I want y'all to get all this data so I can use it when I fly!!!
Linn
do not archive
Rob Kermanj wrote:
>
> I have been reporting best speeds at 2250 RPM. Perhaps with your
> theory I can do better. I am curious and will test it and report back.
>
> I consistently get 172 kts at 12,500 with 10 gal/hr burn. Perhaps I
> really mean best speed/fuel economy combination and don't realize it.
>
> I do know that being in absolute smooth air and giving the plane a
> chance to accelerate for a few long minutes makes a big difference.
> The speed goes all over the place with the slightest turbulence.
>
> It will be a while before I can do the test but I WILL report back. I
> also need to qualify that I do not have three blades so, who knows!
>
> Thank for making me think.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:40 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>>
>> This is one of the reasons I shake my head when some report the best
>> speeds at some low ~2200-2400 RPM. I discovered when I was breaking
>> in a new engine on the Cardinal that my best power and speeds was at
>> 2700 RPM. Anything less than 2700 would produce a slower speed. Now
>> I primarily use two settings for my prop--2700 for takeoff, 2500 for
>> climb and cruise with occasional reduction during letdown.
>>
>> All things being equal, you will achieve the best power and speed
>> from a prop at 2700 RPM. At 2700 RPM, and 50 degree ambient
>> temperature, an 84" prop will have a tip speed of Mach 0.895. To
>> produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall
>> between .88 and .92 mach. The primary benefit of reducing RPM is for
>> increased passenger comfort (less noise) and reduced engine wear an
>> tear.
>>
>> What is the diameter of the Hartzell Composite Three blade?
>>
>> William
>> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>>
>>> On my trip to Moses Lake and back over the weekend I tried different
>>> propeller RPM's for speed. I was level at 8500 Ft and full
>>> throttle. I started at
>>> 2600 RPM and then tried 2500, 2400, 2300, and 2200; for every 100
>>> RPM drop I
>>> would see a couple of knots drop in airspeed.
>>>
>>> Rob Hickman
>>> N402RH RV-10
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
>>> your travel
>>> deal here.
>>> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
Lots of good info here Tim. Thanks!
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test
>
> Fuel flow will be one of the key data points, too.
> It doesn't matter if I post that I've seen 183-4kts
> with my RV10, because the times that I've seen
> over 180kts I was burning 19+gph. It would be
> insane to try to run the engine like that to go
> on a trip. So really, to make any data valuable,
> you'd want RPM, MP, Fuel Flow, Altitude, OAT, Loaded
> weight (and distribution) and things like that so you
> can get realistic comparisons. It's like saying "My
> car gets 85mpg", but not stating that when it does
> this, you're rolling down an mountain.
>
> Almost all of my experience is with flying in a mode
> that provides best economy. I have very little time
> spent flying for max performance. I enjoy being
> able to flight plan 160-165kts, and do it with
> fuel flows generally being 10gph or less. Various
> loadings produce vastly different cruise speeds,
> so sometimes I cruise 157-160kts, and sometimes
> I cruise 173-175kts, but I rarely cruise over 13.5gph,
> and there is usually a few more kts available if
> I'm willing to bump up the fuel flow.
>
> Speaking of loadings being important, last year at
> OSH while flying people around, I found that I was
> easily 2 or 3kts slower than Scott. We weren't
> loaded identically, but I remember being slower.
> This year, on the way to OSH, I was easily outclimbing
> and then out-cruising him...even though we were
> both loaded up. But, I don't think his loading
> was as light as mine. It was interesting to see
> how a little added passenger load or distribution
> of CG caused really different performance numbers.
> Again, most of my experience and numbers I know,
> are loaded up with the wife, kids, my portly
> self, and maybe 10-125lbs of baggage. How it
> performs with just one or two people in the
> plane is much more foreign to me. We all remember
> what we know best...for me, I know that if I
> want to burn 8-10gph, I can count on 157-165kts
> depending on altitude and loading, and if I
> want to burn 12.5-14gph, I can plan to fly 164-175kts
> ...loaded with the family.
>
> I would say that Rob's estimate of being 7kts slower
> is probably in the ballpark. I would have guessed 8-12,
> but, without fuel flow data included, it's hard to
> tell how directly it compares. 2600 RPM is a speed
> that almost nobody will ever cruise at. When the
> numbers were first posted at 2450RPM, my first
> question in my head was "hmmm, wonder what the fuel
> flow was...", because 2450 is a little more aggressive
> of a cruise RPM, and almost certainly is burning
> more fuel than what people are used to hear reported
> by the MT and Hartzell 2-blade folks. If it was
> 171kts at 13.5gph and 2450RPM at 8500', then
> that's not really too bad at all. If it's 171kts at
> 18gph, then I'd say that kinda stinks. Most
> people I've talked to find something between 2200
> and 2360 that they cruise at. Most of my cruising
> is at 2360, as I haven't found that I can keep the
> speeds up when I go down towards 2200. I've just
> found 2360 to be a sweet spot for smoothness and
> economical performance. To me, it's all about
> economy....it stands out in my head that on ONE trip
> to Oregon alone, just cruising LOP saved me over
> $200 in fuel. On this weekend's trip, with 2
> hours to go to destination, I had to choose between
> 10-20 minutes of time savings, or 6 gallons of
> fuel...I chose to save the fuel. So fuel flow
> numbers are important parts of the data set.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Lenny Iszak wrote:
>>
>> It would be pretty useful to make a surface chart using Rob's engine
>> data.
>> rpm vs airspeed vs fuel flow...
>>
>> --------
>> Regards,
>> Lenny
>> #40803
>> Fuel System...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2327#202327
>>
>
>
>
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: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
Have you done a 4-way GPS course to make sure your true airspeed
is reading right? (also depends on your OAT reading right)
I originally found that I was something like 6-7kts low in my
readings, until I changed static ports. These days with the
new ports, I'm 1.8kts low...so I always have to try to add
1 or 2 to give accurate numbers. If you were even just a couple
kts low, that might make all of the difference up.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Rene Felker wrote:
>
> Boy, I really feel slow now......
>
> 12,500
> 12.2 GPH Rich of peak
> 2480 RPM
> 161 knots (TAS from GRT)
>
> My speed test at 8000 feet and 75% power showed about 171......but I have
> not seen speeds like that in cruise at 12500.
>
>
> Rene' Felker
> RV-10 N423CF Flying
> 801-721-6080
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:28 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test
>
>
> I have been reporting best speeds at 2250 RPM. Perhaps with your
> theory I can do better. I am curious and will test it and report back.
>
> I consistently get 172 kts at 12,500 with 10 gal/hr burn. Perhaps I
> really mean best speed/fuel economy combination and don't realize it.
>
> I do know that being in absolute smooth air and giving the plane a
> chance to accelerate for a few long minutes makes a big difference.
> The speed goes all over the place with the slightest turbulence.
>
> It will be a while before I can do the test but I WILL report back. I
> also need to qualify that I do not have three blades so, who knows!
>
> Thank for making me think.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:40 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>>
>> This is one of the reasons I shake my head when some report the best
>> speeds at some low ~2200-2400 RPM. I discovered when I was breaking
>> in a new engine on the Cardinal that my best power and speeds was at
>> 2700 RPM. Anything less than 2700 would produce a slower speed.
>> Now I primarily use two settings for my prop--2700 for takeoff, 2500
>> for climb and cruise with occasional reduction during letdown.
>>
>> All things being equal, you will achieve the best power and speed
>> from a prop at 2700 RPM. At 2700 RPM, and 50 degree ambient
>> temperature, an 84" prop will have a tip speed of Mach 0.895. To
>> produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall
>> between .88 and .92 mach. The primary benefit of reducing RPM is
>> for increased passenger comfort (less noise) and reduced engine wear
>> an tear.
>>
>> What is the diameter of the Hartzell Composite Three blade?
>>
>> William
>> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>>
>>> On my trip to Moses Lake and back over the weekend I tried different
>>> propeller RPM's for speed. I was level at 8500 Ft and full
>>> throttle. I started at
>>> 2600 RPM and then tried 2500, 2400, 2300, and 2200; for every 100
>>> RPM drop I
>>> would see a couple of knots drop in airspeed.
>>>
>>> Rob Hickman
>>> N402RH RV-10
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
>>> your travel
>>> deal here.
>>> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test |
I have not done a 4-way GPS course, but the TAS readings seem to correlate
with the GPS ground speed......but you know how that goes, if you don't use
a scientific method than you never really know. I am hoping to be able to
do some more testing this fall. The actual speed is really not that
important to me, it is what it is, but it would be nice to know.
I have been using 161 knots in the flight planning and on the last trip I
arrived early (I had a good forecasted tail wind)....but the return trip I
was a little late but I had to deviate around a storm and thus really can't
use that as a measurement.......
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test
Have you done a 4-way GPS course to make sure your true airspeed
is reading right? (also depends on your OAT reading right)
I originally found that I was something like 6-7kts low in my
readings, until I changed static ports. These days with the
new ports, I'm 1.8kts low...so I always have to try to add
1 or 2 to give accurate numbers. If you were even just a couple
kts low, that might make all of the difference up.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Rene Felker wrote:
>
> Boy, I really feel slow now......
>
> 12,500
> 12.2 GPH Rich of peak
> 2480 RPM
> 161 knots (TAS from GRT)
>
> My speed test at 8000 feet and 75% power showed about 171......but I have
> not seen speeds like that in cruise at 12500.
>
>
> Rene' Felker
> RV-10 N423CF Flying
> 801-721-6080
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:28 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hartzell Composite Three blade RPM Test
>
>
> I have been reporting best speeds at 2250 RPM. Perhaps with your
> theory I can do better. I am curious and will test it and report back.
>
> I consistently get 172 kts at 12,500 with 10 gal/hr burn. Perhaps I
> really mean best speed/fuel economy combination and don't realize it.
>
> I do know that being in absolute smooth air and giving the plane a
> chance to accelerate for a few long minutes makes a big difference.
> The speed goes all over the place with the slightest turbulence.
>
> It will be a while before I can do the test but I WILL report back. I
> also need to qualify that I do not have three blades so, who knows!
>
> Thank for making me think.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:40 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>>
>> This is one of the reasons I shake my head when some report the best
>> speeds at some low ~2200-2400 RPM. I discovered when I was breaking
>> in a new engine on the Cardinal that my best power and speeds was at
>> 2700 RPM. Anything less than 2700 would produce a slower speed.
>> Now I primarily use two settings for my prop--2700 for takeoff, 2500
>> for climb and cruise with occasional reduction during letdown.
>>
>> All things being equal, you will achieve the best power and speed
>> from a prop at 2700 RPM. At 2700 RPM, and 50 degree ambient
>> temperature, an 84" prop will have a tip speed of Mach 0.895. To
>> produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall
>> between .88 and .92 mach. The primary benefit of reducing RPM is
>> for increased passenger comfort (less noise) and reduced engine wear
>> an tear.
>>
>> What is the diameter of the Hartzell Composite Three blade?
>>
>> William
>> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>>
>>> On my trip to Moses Lake and back over the weekend I tried different
>>> propeller RPM's for speed. I was level at 8500 Ft and full
>>> throttle. I started at
>>> 2600 RPM and then tried 2500, 2400, 2300, and 2200; for every 100
>>> RPM drop I
>>> would see a couple of knots drop in airspeed.
>>>
>>> Rob Hickman
>>> N402RH RV-10
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
>>> your travel
>>> deal here.
>>> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|