Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: static line routing? (Bob Collins)
2. 07:17 AM - Re: static line routing? (Don Hall)
3. 07:21 AM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (Tyler Bryant)
4. 07:50 AM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (Konrad L. Werner)
5. 07:51 AM - Re: static line routing? (Bob Collins)
6. 08:24 AM - Re: static line routing? (Bob Collins)
7. 08:36 AM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (rv7a.builder)
8. 09:17 AM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (Tyler Bryant)
9. 09:33 AM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (Dan Checkoway)
10. 11:09 AM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (rv7a.builder)
11. 11:24 AM - Re: static line routing? (Bob Collins)
12. 03:56 PM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (Donald Harker)
13. 04:28 PM - Re: 74 inch verse 72 inch (rikvincent@aol.com)
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: | static line routing? |
It's in the FILES section on the Yahoogrooup. Seatback bulkhead, by the way,
is 705.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: static line routing?
I still have to do this step, and I'm about to paint the interior.
Is this article online somewhere? Or does someone have the dimensions
noted?
On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Greg Vouga wrote:
>
> There is an article in the RVator (1st issue, 2006) detailing how and
> where to rout the line through the cabin. The only hole you will need
> to add is the one in the F-704 seatback bulkhead. They recommend
> drilling a hole under the longeron just big enough to
> pass the plastic static tubing through. No bushing is required.
> If I remember correctly, the other holes are already punched in the
> ribs from Van's. The punched holes are the correct size for bushings.
>
> Greg
> Raleigh, NC
> RV-7 Wiring
>
>
>> From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>> To: <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV7-List: static line routing?
>> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:46:50 -0600
>>
>> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>
>> You route that forward just along/below the longerons on the pilot
>> side of the plane. There are some holes already opened for you to
>> route the line through. Indiana Larry
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie England"
>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>> To: "RV list" <rv-list@matronics.com>; <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:27 PM
>> Subject: RV7-List: static line routing?
>>
>>
>>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> I'm looking for missed details before I start riveting the side
>>> skins on the fuselage. One thing I can't find is the path of the
>>> static line through the seat back bulkhead (705?) & forward to the
>>> instrument panel. The area just under the main longeron looks pretty
>>> busy at F705 & I can't find any notes on where the line should be
>>> routed after the middle of the baggage compartment.
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
> friends module.
>
>
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: | static line routing? |
The "rv7 or 7a" group? Just submitted to that one, but there were several rv
groups on yahoo.
******************************************
Don Hall
N517DG (registered)
rv7 fuselage
http://rv7.donka.net
******************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: static line routing?
It's in the FILES section on the Yahoogrooup. Seatback bulkhead, by the way,
is 705.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: static line routing?
I still have to do this step, and I'm about to paint the interior.
Is this article online somewhere? Or does someone have the dimensions
noted?
On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Greg Vouga wrote:
>
> There is an article in the RVator (1st issue, 2006) detailing how and
> where to rout the line through the cabin. The only hole you will need
> to add is the one in the F-704 seatback bulkhead. They recommend
> drilling a hole under the longeron just big enough to
> pass the plastic static tubing through. No bushing is required.
> If I remember correctly, the other holes are already punched in the
> ribs from Van's. The punched holes are the correct size for bushings.
>
> Greg
> Raleigh, NC
> RV-7 Wiring
>
>
>> From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>> To: <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV7-List: static line routing?
>> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:46:50 -0600
>>
>> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>
>> You route that forward just along/below the longerons on the pilot
>> side of the plane. There are some holes already opened for you to
>> route the line through. Indiana Larry
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie England"
>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>> To: "RV list" <rv-list@matronics.com>; <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:27 PM
>> Subject: RV7-List: static line routing?
>>
>>
>>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> I'm looking for missed details before I start riveting the side
>>> skins on the fuselage. One thing I can't find is the path of the
>>> static line through the seat back bulkhead (705?) & forward to the
>>> instrument panel. The area just under the main longeron looks pretty
>>> busy at F705 & I can't find any notes on where the line should be
>>> routed after the middle of the baggage compartment.
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
> friends module.
>
>
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: | 74 inch verse 72 inch |
74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little better climb....less groung
clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I went with 72 inch on a RV7A
with IO360/180 w/LS PII
TANGOBRAVO
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv7abuilder
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
Hello Group,
I am about to order the engine and prop for my
RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes either
72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
compelling reason to go either way with a nose wheel
plane. Does the group have any thoughts?. Thanks. JR
__________________________________________________
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: 74 inch verse 72 inch |
Good points, the ground clearance is 1" less on the 74", but I believe
(don't hold me to it) the service limit is 72" on these props, so if you
ever would damage the 72" with a need to cut it down a bit, you are
already there!!! The 74" has an inch on each blade that you could work
with. It should also have a little bit more thrust (theoretically) then
the 72". It is your choice, and do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Tyler Bryant
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little better climb....less
groung
clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I went with 72 inch on a
RV7A
with IO360/180 w/LS PII
TANGOBRAVO
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv7abuilder
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
<rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
Hello Group,
I am about to order the engine and prop for my
RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes either
72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
compelling reason to go either way with a nose wheel
plane. Does the group have any thoughts?. Thanks. JR
__________________________________________________
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: | static line routing? |
Here you go
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV7A/files/Newsletters%20and%20publications/
I also recall putting some pix in the photo section the last time this came
up but this morning I see Yahoo's photo section is up to its usual level of
dependability. I'll go snap some more before I head off to work and post 'em
here (if I can figure out how)
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: static line routing?
The "rv7 or 7a" group? Just submitted to that one, but there were several rv
groups on yahoo.
******************************************
Don Hall
N517DG (registered)
rv7 fuselage
http://rv7.donka.net
******************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: static line routing?
It's in the FILES section on the Yahoogrooup. Seatback bulkhead, by the way,
is 705.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: static line routing?
I still have to do this step, and I'm about to paint the interior.
Is this article online somewhere? Or does someone have the dimensions
noted?
On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Greg Vouga wrote:
>
> There is an article in the RVator (1st issue, 2006) detailing how and
> where to rout the line through the cabin. The only hole you will need
> to add is the one in the F-704 seatback bulkhead. They recommend
> drilling a hole under the longeron just big enough to
> pass the plastic static tubing through. No bushing is required.
> If I remember correctly, the other holes are already punched in the
> ribs from Van's. The punched holes are the correct size for bushings.
>
> Greg
> Raleigh, NC
> RV-7 Wiring
>
>
>> From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>> To: <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV7-List: static line routing?
>> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:46:50 -0600
>>
>> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>
>> You route that forward just along/below the longerons on the pilot
>> side of the plane. There are some holes already opened for you to
>> route the line through. Indiana Larry
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie England"
>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>> To: "RV list" <rv-list@matronics.com>; <rv7-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:27 PM
>> Subject: RV7-List: static line routing?
>>
>>
>>> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> I'm looking for missed details before I start riveting the side
>>> skins on the fuselage. One thing I can't find is the path of the
>>> static line through the seat back bulkhead (705?) & forward to the
>>> instrument panel. The area just under the main longeron looks pretty
>>> busy at F705 & I can't find any notes on where the line should be
>>> routed after the middle of the baggage compartment.
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
> friends module.
>
>
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: static line routing? |
Don, I just put some pictures and copy here.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=108102#108102
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: 74 inch verse 72 inch |
Given all the considerations, noise would be a factor
to consider when all other performance data is
virtually undetectable? I just wonder why a
manufacturer would go to the expense of having another
model of prop, in this case the 74", without some
advantage? If there was not an advantage then everyone
would be using the 72"? Thoughts? JR
--- "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net> wrote:
> Good points, the ground clearance is 1" less on the
> 74", but I believe (don't hold me to it) the service
> limit is 72" on these props, so if you ever would
> damage the 72" with a need to cut it down a bit, you
> are already there!!! The 74" has an inch on each
> blade that you could work with. It should also have
> a little bit more thrust (theoretically) then the
> 72". It is your choice, and do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tyler Bryant
> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:21 AM
> Subject: RE: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
>
> <tylerii@infoave.net>
>
> 74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little
> better climb....less groung
> clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I went
> with 72 inch on a RV7A
> with IO360/180 w/LS PII
> TANGOBRAVO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of rv7abuilder
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
> <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am about to order the engine and prop for my
> RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes
> either
> 72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
> compelling reason to go either way with a nose
> wheel
> plane. Does the group have any thoughts?. Thanks.
> JR
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: | 74 inch verse 72 inch |
Just a bit of marketing to us experimenters. Plus some of the RV8 Rocket
gollywhoppers.. gotta have more performance.. need more thrust.. more HP etc
guys want the biggest and best. So the manufacturers fill that niche. Same
reason Superior offers IO400 and LYCO offers IO390.....MORE POWER.....
At the end of the day you must ask...will the 180 HP engine with the 72 inch
CS prop carry a RV7A at 200 MPH true cruise at 8000 feet.....you bet it
will....and still get about 25 MPG
TangoBravo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv7abuilder
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
Given all the considerations, noise would be a factor
to consider when all other performance data is
virtually undetectable? I just wonder why a
manufacturer would go to the expense of having another
model of prop, in this case the 74", without some
advantage? If there was not an advantage then everyone
would be using the 72"? Thoughts? JR
--- "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net> wrote:
> Good points, the ground clearance is 1" less on the
> 74", but I believe (don't hold me to it) the service
> limit is 72" on these props, so if you ever would
> damage the 72" with a need to cut it down a bit, you
> are already there!!! The 74" has an inch on each
> blade that you could work with. It should also have
> a little bit more thrust (theoretically) then the
> 72". It is your choice, and do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tyler Bryant
> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:21 AM
> Subject: RE: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
>
> <tylerii@infoave.net>
>
> 74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little
> better climb....less groung
> clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I went
> with 72 inch on a RV7A
> with IO360/180 w/LS PII
> TANGOBRAVO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of rv7abuilder
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
> <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am about to order the engine and prop for my
> RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes
> either
> 72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
> compelling reason to go either way with a nose
> wheel
> plane. Does the group have any thoughts?. Thanks.
> JR
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: 74 inch verse 72 inch |
The party line on this is...if you go with the longer blade, you have one
more inch on each tip that can be REMOVED in the event you need a repair.
Some would consider this cheap insurance since I believe the price is the
same.
Ok, so that's all well and good, but let's take a poll. How many people out
there have (or know somebody who has) had a prop strike where the prop was
salvageable with a simple 1" repair? Sound of crickets chirping... Maybe
I'm wrong, but the "advantage" of having that extra inch is questionable
imho.
Personally, I'd evaluate the difference between 72" and 74" props, otherwise
identical, on the basis of:
- ground clearance
- cruise performance
- climb performance
(the order may vary depending on your mission & landing gear)
Maybe you want to send an email to Les Doud or one of the other terrific
engineers over at Hartzell.
I have a 72" on my RV-7 taildragger. If I were buying a prop for my setup
today it would be the 72" BA Hartzell. Known good.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (1253)
www.rvproject.com / www.weathermeister.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
> Given all the considerations, noise would be a factor
> to consider when all other performance data is
> virtually undetectable? I just wonder why a
> manufacturer would go to the expense of having another
> model of prop, in this case the 74", without some
> advantage? If there was not an advantage then everyone
> would be using the 72"? Thoughts? JR
> --- "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Good points, the ground clearance is 1" less on the
>> 74", but I believe (don't hold me to it) the service
>> limit is 72" on these props, so if you ever would
>> damage the 72" with a need to cut it down a bit, you
>> are already there!!! The 74" has an inch on each
>> blade that you could work with. It should also have
>> a little bit more thrust (theoretically) then the
>> 72". It is your choice, and do not archive
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Tyler Bryant
>> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:21 AM
>> Subject: RE: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>>
>>
>> <tylerii@infoave.net>
>>
>> 74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little
>> better climb....less groung
>> clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I went
>> with 72 inch on a RV7A
>> with IO360/180 w/LS PII
>> TANGOBRAVO
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On
>> Behalf Of rv7abuilder
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
>> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>>
>> <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Hello Group,
>>
>> I am about to order the engine and prop for my
>> RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes
>> either
>> 72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
>> compelling reason to go either way with a nose
>> wheel
>> plane. Does the group have any thoughts?. Thanks.
>> JR
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
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: 74 inch verse 72 inch |
I just talked to a service center guy at Hartzell and
he agreed that the longer the prop the more noise but
it may be negligible with this small difference. He
recommended the 74" but without much conviction. I
guess I should of talked to an engineer over there
instead of a service center guy? Anyway Dan, this is
John Robinson, have not talked with you in a couple of
years since I have been out of the flying business for
that long. I did order my engine and prop today(74").
My next bit of business is to get on a hangar waiting
list. JR
--- Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com> wrote:
> <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> The party line on this is...if you go with the
> longer blade, you have one
> more inch on each tip that can be REMOVED in the
> event you need a repair.
> Some would consider this cheap insurance since I
> believe the price is the
> same.
>
> Ok, so that's all well and good, but let's take a
> poll. How many people out
> there have (or know somebody who has) had a prop
> strike where the prop was
> salvageable with a simple 1" repair? Sound of
> crickets chirping... Maybe
> I'm wrong, but the "advantage" of having that extra
> inch is questionable
> imho.
>
> Personally, I'd evaluate the difference between 72"
> and 74" props, otherwise
> identical, on the basis of:
>
> - ground clearance
> - cruise performance
> - climb performance
>
> (the order may vary depending on your mission &
> landing gear)
>
> Maybe you want to send an email to Les Doud or one
> of the other terrific
> engineers over at Hartzell.
>
> I have a 72" on my RV-7 taildragger. If I were
> buying a prop for my setup
> today it would be the 72" BA Hartzell. Known good.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D (1253)
> www.rvproject.com / www.weathermeister.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
> To: <rv7-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
>
> <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Given all the considerations, noise would be a
> factor
> > to consider when all other performance data is
> > virtually undetectable? I just wonder why a
> > manufacturer would go to the expense of having
> another
> > model of prop, in this case the 74", without some
> > advantage? If there was not an advantage then
> everyone
> > would be using the 72"? Thoughts? JR
> > --- "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Good points, the ground clearance is 1" less on
> the
> >> 74", but I believe (don't hold me to it) the
> service
> >> limit is 72" on these props, so if you ever would
> >> damage the 72" with a need to cut it down a bit,
> you
> >> are already there!!! The 74" has an inch on each
> >> blade that you could work with. It should also
> have
> >> a little bit more thrust (theoretically) then the
> >> 72". It is your choice, and do not archive
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Tyler Bryant
> >> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> >> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:21 AM
> >> Subject: RE: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
> >>
> >>
> >> <tylerii@infoave.net>
> >>
> >> 74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little
> >> better climb....less groung
> >> clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I
> went
> >> with 72 inch on a RV7A
> >> with IO360/180 w/LS PII
> >> TANGOBRAVO
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On
> >> Behalf Of rv7abuilder
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
> >> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
> >>
> >> <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >> Hello Group,
> >>
> >> I am about to order the engine and prop for
> my
> >> RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes
> >> either
> >> 72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
> >> compelling reason to go either way with a nose
> >> wheel
> >> plane. Does the group have any thoughts?.
> Thanks.
> >> JR
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: static line routing? |
Oh dear, the email version didn't have the link. I'm an idiot.
Let's see if this goes through.
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/2007/static_line_routing.html
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=108147#108147
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: 74 inch verse 72 inch |
Hartzel told me the minimum usable is 72" so if you ding it your done.
I went with the 74"
Don Harker
RV-7A Finish Kit
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: 74 inch verse 72 inch |
It sounds to me that if you had a prop strike that only took 1" to repair, may
not of hit the ground if it was 1" shorter.
-----Original Message-----
From: dan@rvproject.com
Sent: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
The party line on this is...if you go with the longer blade, you have one more
inch on each tip that can be REMOVED in the event you need a repair. Some would
consider this cheap insurance since I believe the price is the same.
Ok, so that's all well and good, but let's take a poll. How many people out there
have (or know somebody who has) had a prop strike where the prop was salvageable
with a simple 1" repair? Sound of crickets chirping... Maybe I'm wrong,
but the "advantage" of having that extra inch is questionable imho.
Personally, I'd evaluate the difference between 72" and 74" props, otherwise identical,
on the basis of:
- ground clearance
- cruise performance
- climb performance
(the order may vary depending on your mission & landing gear)
Maybe you want to send an email to Les Doud or one of the other terrific engineers
over at Hartzell.
I have a 72" on my RV-7 taildragger. If I were buying a prop for my setup today
it would be the 72" BA Hartzell. Known good.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (1253)
www.rvproject.com / www.weathermeister.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>
> Given all the considerations, noise would be a factor
> to consider when all other performance data is
> virtually undetectable? I just wonder why a
> manufacturer would go to the expense of having another
> model of prop, in this case the 74", without some
> advantage? If there was not an advantage then everyone
> would be using the 72"? Thoughts? JR
> --- "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Good points, the ground clearance is 1" less on the
>> 74", but I believe (don't hold me to it) the service
>> limit is 72" on these props, so if you ever would
>> damage the 72" with a need to cut it down a bit, you
>> are already there!!! The 74" has an inch on each
>> blade that you could work with. It should also have
>> a little bit more thrust (theoretically) then the
>> 72". It is your choice, and do not archive
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Tyler Bryant
>> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:21 AM
>> Subject: RE: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>>
>>
>> <tylerii@infoave.net>
>>
>> 74 is more noise a lot more...maybe a little
>> better climb....less groung
>> clearance....no real cruise improvement.... I went
>> with 72 inch on a RV7A
>> with IO360/180 w/LS PII
>> TANGOBRAVO
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On
>> Behalf Of rv7abuilder
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:03 PM
>> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV7-List: 74 inch verse 72 inch
>>
>> <rv7a.builder@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Hello Group,
>>
>> I am about to order the engine and prop for my
>> RV-7A. The Hartzell constant speed prop comes
>> either
>> 72" or 74". Ken at Van's could not give me a
>> compelling reason to go either way with a nose
>> wheel
>> plane. Does the group have any thoughts?. Thanks.
>> JR
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
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! --
|