Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:37 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (rv10flyer)
2. 06:48 AM - Main Gear Vibration (Carroll L. Verhage)
3. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: MT Prop(s) (Tim Olson)
4. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: MT Prop(s) (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: MT Prop(s) (Kelly McMullen)
6. 07:24 AM - Re: MT Prop(s) (rv10flyer)
7. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: MT Prop(s) (Jesse Saint)
8. 11:16 AM - Re: Re: MT Prop(s) (Tim Olson)
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 |
|
If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an aux pc680
battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell 2 blade is much better.
Same if you want air conditioning, which I don't have.
--------
Wayne G.
12/01/2011
TT= 95
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390386#390386
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: | Main Gear Vibration |
Gordon, Since the vibration occurs at about 40 knots taxi speed, my
theory is that the tires are skipping sideways at that speed. I have
balanced my tires 2 times, checked the swivel tension of the nose gear,
etc. as noted in Van's Airforce forums. This did not help the
vibration. Aligning the wheel travel stopped the vibration. As I
mentioned earlier, my total toe in with both wheels was 6 inches in 13
feet. That means the tires had to slide 50 feet sideways in 1300 feet
of travel! My RV10 is noticeably easier to push on pavement now. If
nothing else, parallel tracking should help your tire wear. There is no
play of the gear leg in the original 7.9 mm. hole. Consequently, you
must shim the hole to prevent the leg gear from twisting in the gear
mounting bracket. I suppose you could weld the bracket hole partially
shut and redrill it to 7.9 mm.
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 |
|
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it now...
The RV-10 is slightly nose heavy, but it is NOT something
that a builder should attempt to solve when building.
It's nose heavy by design, and keeping the plane
as close to FWD CG limits as possible with a lone pilot
will help you maximize your load carrying capacity based
on CG, and give your plane better stall/spin recovery
traits. It's a safety thing. You do have the leeway
to reduce prop weights if you want a different prop, or
add a bigger battery or aux battery if you want to do
things like that, but do not do those types of things
for the purpose of making it less nose heavy...it is
NOT too nose heavy...it is just safely nose heavy.
The people that I know that have A/C in at least
some cases, have also paid the penalty of having reduced
load capacity because of the CG. If you build it
with a metal prop and standard PC680, you'll probably
have a hard time getting it OUT of aft CG without
trying hard. So, just build the plane, and don't look
at the nose-heavy characteristic as something to "solve",
but allow it to give you some leeway in the options
you choose to install. The FWD CG is a gift.
Tim
On 12/13/2012 8:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote:
> <wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>
>
> If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an
> aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell
> 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I
> don't have.
>
> -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95
>
>
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 |
|
The 2 blade may help your W&B, CG, but the 3 blade will help you get off
the ground and climb better, as well as helping useful load.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, rv10flyer <wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an aux
> pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell 2 blade
> is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I don't have.
>
> --------
> Wayne G.
> 12/01/2011
> TT= 95
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390386#390386
>
>
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 |
|
Good points. Vans did put W&B where they felt it would perform best.
Not to mention that IF you feel the need for a second battery(or third) you
can mount it on the firewall to avoid moving c.g. too far to rear. For me,
the PC680 doesn't have enough storage capacity, while it might be fine for
cranking. So, planning on RG-25XC that is pretty much what Van's designed
for. Don't feel like doing the 2nd bus, 2nd alternator, 2nd battery
complexity, but that is why we do OBAM experimental, to make our own
choices, hopefully "informed" choices.
Kelly
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I've said it before, but I'll repeat it now...
> The RV-10 is slightly nose heavy, but it is NOT something
> that a builder should attempt to solve when building.
> It's nose heavy by design, and keeping the plane
> as close to FWD CG limits as possible with a lone pilot
> will help you maximize your load carrying capacity based
> on CG, and give your plane better stall/spin recovery
> traits. It's a safety thing. You do have the leeway
> to reduce prop weights if you want a different prop, or
> add a bigger battery or aux battery if you want to do
> things like that, but do not do those types of things
> for the purpose of making it less nose heavy...it is
> NOT too nose heavy...it is just safely nose heavy.
> The people that I know that have A/C in at least
> some cases, have also paid the penalty of having reduced
> load capacity because of the CG. If you build it
> with a metal prop and standard PC680, you'll probably
> have a hard time getting it OUT of aft CG without
> trying hard. So, just build the plane, and don't look
> at the nose-heavy characteristic as something to "solve",
> but allow it to give you some leeway in the options
> you choose to install. The FWD CG is a gift.
> Tim
>
>
> On 12/13/2012 8:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote:
>
>> <wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>
>>
>> If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an
>> aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell
>> 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I
>> don't have.
>>
>> -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
I have the 680 aux battery beside the 925 main battery. It reduces the amount of
baggage to 75 lbs with family and size of rear passengers, but I like having
an hour plus of energy to run the entire IFR panel and the option to start the
engine. If I had it to do over I would probably put it on the firewall. Combine
that with the lighter weight 3 blade prop. It is good for new builders to
see these different points of view and options. Either way, it is a great plane
for a couple or a family.
--------
Wayne G.
12/01/2011
TT= 95
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390396#390396
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 |
|
I agree completely!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I've said it before, but I'll repeat it now...
> The RV-10 is slightly nose heavy, but it is NOT something
> that a builder should attempt to solve when building.
> It's nose heavy by design, and keeping the plane
> as close to FWD CG limits as possible with a lone pilot
> will help you maximize your load carrying capacity based
> on CG, and give your plane better stall/spin recovery
> traits. It's a safety thing. You do have the leeway
> to reduce prop weights if you want a different prop, or
> add a bigger battery or aux battery if you want to do
> things like that, but do not do those types of things
> for the purpose of making it less nose heavy...it is
> NOT too nose heavy...it is just safely nose heavy.
> The people that I know that have A/C in at least
> some cases, have also paid the penalty of having reduced
> load capacity because of the CG. If you build it
> with a metal prop and standard PC680, you'll probably
> have a hard time getting it OUT of aft CG without
> trying hard. So, just build the plane, and don't look
> at the nose-heavy characteristic as something to "solve",
> but allow it to give you some leeway in the options
> you choose to install. The FWD CG is a gift.
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2012 8:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote:
>> <wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>
>>
>> If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an
>> aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell
>> 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I
>> don't have.
>>
>> -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Exactly. I used the PC925 for longer run-time if the
alternator failed, and it gives a little better cranking
capacity too. But at least to do that, I didn't have to
panic about the CG issues. A lightweight prop isn't a
bad thing at all. Just don't focus on the nose-heavy
concept and decide you want:
* Lightweight Prop
* PC925 Battery
* An additional aft aux battery
* A/C
* fixed mounted aft bulkhead O2 system
Heck, if you made those choices all together at the
same time, you'd probably have a pretty miserable
RV-10 from a loading perspective.
On 12/13/2012 9:02 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Good points. Vans did put W&B where they felt it would perform best.
> Not to mention that IF you feel the need for a second battery(or third)
> you can mount it on the firewall to avoid moving c.g. too far to rear.
> For me, the PC680 doesn't have enough storage capacity, while it might
> be fine for cranking. So, planning on RG-25XC that is pretty much what
> Van's designed for. Don't feel like doing the 2nd bus, 2nd alternator,
> 2nd battery complexity, but that is why we do OBAM experimental, to make
> our own choices, hopefully "informed" choices.
> Kelly
>
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! --
|