Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:08 AM - Re: UNCLASSIFIED Re: Aerobatics with FP prop (Sargentclt@cs.com)
2. 09:10 AM - Re: Aerobatics with FP prop (Sargentclt@cs.com)
3. 08:40 PM - SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Re: Aerobatics with FP prop (Francis, David CMDR)
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: | Aerobatics with FP prop |
--> RV7-List message posted by: Sargentclt@cs.com
Be wary of the claims for large efficiencies with fuel injection. Mattituck claims
the difference between carbs and F/I are slight. The bene's for F/I are
better overall fuel burn and sustained neg. G's. But for my money you can't get
$2600.00 worth of better fuel efficiency over the life of the engine to justigy
paying for F/I. Scott at Van's uses a wood prop and a carb for acro in his
6 Call and ask him
Tad RV7A
"sjevans" <sjevans@cox.net> wrote:
>--> RV7-List message posted by: "sjevans" <sjevans@cox.net>
>
>David,
> My plan at this time is a 360 engine with a FP prop. I am planning to
>use electronic ignition on one side to help smooth-out the engine &
>improve performance. Are you saying this combination is an "inefficient
>compromise"?
>I'm sort of new at this, so if there is something I'm missing, please
>let me know. I sure don't want to spend extra bucks if I'm not going to
>realize any benefit.
>Thanks,
>Sam Evans
>Working on wings
>N350SE, reserved
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Francis, David
>CMDR
>To: 'rv7-list@matronics.com'
>Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: RV7-List: Aerobatics with FP prop
>
>--> RV7-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR"
><David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
>
>
>Allen,
>Aeros with a fixed pitch prop can be done. The main impact of a CS prop
>is
>lower workload for the pilot and kinder treatment to the engine. The
>governor ensures that the engine is neither oversped nor overtorqued
>during
>aeros. With FP the pilot becomes the governor.
>
>Personnally I would not pay the huge price premium just to get lower
>workload aerobatics. The large price premium for a CS prop buys
>versatility.
>The compromise involved with a FP prop is removed at a price and weight
>premium. What you get is shorter takeoff, better climb, and same cruise
>speed (compared to a cruise FP prop). Additionally, if you also have
>fuel
>injection and an engine analyser a CS prop means you can more accurately
>optimise the MAP/rpm? mixture to run lean of peak and get very good
>miles
>per gallon in the cruise.
>
>Generally (with many exceptions) engine cofigurations fall into two
>opposite
>camps:
>a. low cost high fuel consumption - carburettor, magnetos, fixed pitch,
>simple instruments, or
>b. high cost, low fuel consumption - injected, electronic ignition,
>constant
>speed, engine analyzer.
>
>Combinations in between tend to be inefficient comromises.
>
>Regards,
>David Francis, Canberra Australia, RV7, airframe complete, ordering the
>engine.
>
>
>Subject: Re: RV7-List: Aerobatics with FP prop
>
>
>--> RV7-List message posted by: rv6capt@pacificcoast.net
>
>I do all the aerobatics metioned in Vans construction manual with no
>problems
>with the fixed pitch prop, including 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 rotations in a
>vertical
>climb.
>
>Quoting Allen Fulmer <afulmer@charter.net>:
>
>> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
>>
>> I am trying to decide the Fixed Pitch/Constant Speed Prop question.
>Lots
>of
>> interesting opinions/experiences on the list lately. One thing I have
>not
>> seen mentioned is whether the mild, positive G aerobatics I want to be
>able
>> to do can be done as well with a FP prop as with a CS?
>>
>> Opinions/experience?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Allen Fulmer
>> RV7 Wings
>> N808AF reserved
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>==
>==
>==
>==
>
>
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: Aerobatics with FP prop |
--> RV7-List message posted by: Sargentclt@cs.com
Spend your money on an autopilot or a Garmin GNS 430. You will use them more than
a C/S prop
.02
Tad
Robert Lake <oai@direcway.com> wrote:
>--> RV7-List message posted by: Robert Lake <oai@direcway.com>
>
>Gentlemen:
> I am in the middle of a RV-7 and have decided on a fixed pitch prop.
> It's a cost factor. I've got an IO-360 A1A. A C/S prop is $5,000....and
>the governor cost....and the costs every year for the additional inspections
>during the annual........
> Anyway, Van's told me that the cruise speed will be just about the same
>with a fixed pitch and I will only give up about 200 feet with the take-off
>roll.
>Bob Lake
>Austin, Tx
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
>To: "Rv7-List" <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV7-List: Aerobatics with FP prop
>
>
>> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
>>
>> I am trying to decide the Fixed Pitch/Constant Speed Prop question. Lots
>of
>> interesting opinions/experiences on the list lately. One thing I have not
>> seen mentioned is whether the mild, positive G aerobatics I want to be
>able
>> to do can be done as well with a FP prop as with a CS?
>>
>> Opinions/experience?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Allen Fulmer
>> RV7 Wings
>> N808AF reserved
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Aerobatics with FP prop |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
Folks,
To make your own informed judgement on actual fuel savings possible between
rich of peak and lean of peak, look at the fuel mixture curves for an 0360
under the documentation menu at www.XP-360.com
Regards, David Francis
--> RV7-List message posted by: Sargentclt@cs.com
Be wary of the claims for large efficiencies with fuel injection. Mattituck
claims the difference between carbs and F/I are slight. The bene's for F/I
are better overall fuel burn and sustained neg. G's. But for my money you
can't get $2600.00 worth of better fuel efficiency over the life of the
engine to justigy paying for F/I. Scott at Van's uses a wood prop and a
carb for acro in his
6 Call and ask him
Tad RV7A
"sjevans" <sjevans@cox.net> wrote:
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! --
|