Geeee Vic, never again
vic syracuse said:
George, your reply is mainly the reason I stopped contributing to these lists.
If you know anyone who knows me, you will find out that I don't exaggerate. When I say turbine smooth, I mean it. The IO-540 I have has been balanced and matched flowed, and it is smooth.
I'm sorry. I'm tired, and I get SO TIRED of people like yourself blasting things that are posted to HELP others in their decision making. I have no second agendas.
I do live on a grass strip, so the blade clearance is a factor, but the smoothness far outweighs any other factor. Vic
Vic I don't have an agenda either and trying to help others in decision making.
Vic, the title of
MT comparison to Van's RV-10 with Hartzell . Cost, performance and maintenance is part of the equation. Not every one sees the same smoothness with their MT prop, and 6kts lower speed is not uncommon with the MT vs. Hartzell. That is all, I was contributing my research and experience.
Clearly you took it poorly. To avoid your admonishing, I will note your name and never reply to your threads or post ever again. I don?t want to be one of the ?u-people? that ruins your day. As far as "your reply is mainly the reason I stopped contributing to these lists.? I don't have any idea what that means. Apparently you have an attitude and sensitivity towards "these list" that pre-dates, that has nothing to do with me, so don't take your hurt feelings out on me. Do you always get this upset? Do always get mad if someone disagrees with you? To be honest, your reply makes me feel like not participating.
I post to help others also, Vic. You don't know me. I receive dozens of e-mails from people thanking me for my help. I have had my hand in several RV's and working on my third RV, have 10,000 hours, almost 10% of that in RV's.
I am sorry you think I was disparaging your honor by picking on the word turbine smooth. My point was no piston engine is turbine smooth and in fact turbines have their own vibration characteristics (especially sonic) and are not vibration free, especially turbo props. Sorry again it is just the engineer coming out in me.
Turbine smooth is too subjective. However with all your experience, by you just saying it is the smoothest plane you have ever flown, is quite an endorsement. Nothing I said takes away from that and your comments. I am sure your plane is the very smooth as Van noted and people love hearing your from you.
It would be useful to flight test the Props with accelerometers under the cowl and cockpit and compare between your RV-10 (or any RV-10 with a MT prop) and Van's demo -10. We could quantify what smooth means (inch/second*second). A noise level meter would be of interest in the cockpit. I know people who put a MT on, expecting turbine smooth and where disappointed and especially with the loss of speed. You mentioned your engine is flow and mass balanced. Combined with the MT, I am sure it is very smooth. Don't you think 6-Jugs and special "Blue-printed" engine build-up has something to do with it? (no offense just a question)
The test Van and RV-8.com Randy did, both noted the MT smoothness factor was there but not that dramatic. Even a well-balanced Hartzell was smooth. Vic this is in no way to doubt your claim of smoothness, but just another data point.
In Van's and Randy's test, they put to rest all of the prop makers claims of being fastest or faster than brand X. The 3-blade MT and WW where the slowest when tested on the same RV-8. The fastest by the way was a Sensenich (the only fixed pitch prop in the testing). The fastest c/s prop was a Hartzell Blended airfoil. As far as your suggestion of putting different props on the same airframe, that is a great idea. Did you say MT was doing that? I have never seen any data from MT and the few times I talked to them it was in broken English with a heavy accent. I want to see their test of their props on modified Lycoming with High Comp pistons and Electronic ignition. Someone says they did it but nothing in writting.
You mentioned the side-by-side flight with the demo RV-10 was not scientific, OK, fair enough. I was just trying to take the data you stated and convert your FF into equiv. speed (0.5 gal/hr is about 3.5kts). I could be wrong, but from your rough numbers you are close to 4.5 to 5.5 kts slower. If I am wrong sorry, but this is very consistent with the speed difference from the RV-8 test Van did. Sorry, Vic, but you make it sound like the speed difference was close, well it was, 1-2 kts, but you where burning more fuel and making more HP. In other words if you had a Hartzell on your plane at that same power setting, you may have been going 4 kts faster. That takes nothing away from the lower vibration aspect. I try to deal in facts Vic.
One thing you did NOT mention as an advantage of the MT is lower noise because the tip speeds are slower. Lower noise can make you feel better and contribute to the pilot?s sensation of smoothness. Many pilots perceive some of the lower noise as lower vibration (which it is, lower vibration of their skull and ear drums).
As far as Cirrus I agree the RV-10 will be a big hit and will take some of the market away. If I were going to build a 4 place, it would be a RV-10. My comment about "who cares", if the RV-10 takes sales away from Cirrus, is because most RV'ers would not fly a composite airplane anyway, that's all Vic. I agree with you, the RV-10 sounds like a winner. I have not flown one yet, but it's a RV, what else can you say.
I feel bad for you because you are so tired, so very tired. I hope you feel better Vic. Now I am just tired. If you don't like my opinion or comments, OK. I know what I said was well thought out, valid and never in contempt of you, as you seem to have towards me from your scorn. To make it more than that or take it personal is a waste of time. It is just a prop on a plane not world peace.
Once again, as I said the first time Vic, congratulations on your RV-10. All the best.
Sincerely George
What is the confusion. Yes , Hartzell weighs more (don't put that overly heavy fancy panel, paint, interior etc...).
