RV-10 POH Final Draft

[oren_rokach]

Originally Posted by BigD

I have (mostly) finished my POH - if you're interested in a copy, send me an email. Partial credit goes to Kevin Horton as I used his version as a template and lifted the terminology section - thanks! Have sent an email to DR about posting it here, but after reading his views on email have doubts (for now). File size is 3MB. Really.

==dave==
N102FM

Hello Dave,
would be very happy to get a copy as well


Thanks!
Oren

[BigD]

Hey Oren - as mentioned in Post # 80 the POH is available as a word document here, POH owner listed as Dave & Jody:

http://www.vansairforce.net/poh.htm

If that proves unworkable for some reason, I'll send via email. Thanks for the interest.

Dave
N102FM

[rjhecker]

Thanks for your hard work in advance BigD

rjhecker at gmail dot com

[oren_rokach]

Originally Posted by BigD

Hey Oren - as mentioned in Post # 80 the POH is available as a word document here, POH owner listed as Dave & Jody:

http://www.vansairforce.net/poh.htm

If that proves unworkable for some reason, I'll send via email. Thanks for the interest.

Dave
N102FM

Thanks a lot!
saved me a few days' of work

[dcflyer84]

Originally Posted by BigD

Disclaimer - I'm just another builder...the best answer is probably it depends. In our testing, engine at idle with prop fwd, mid-weight, it first looked close to 80 KIAS, but some of the data points were questionable - couldn't draw a perfect Nigel Speedy curve...further attempts with longer glides got us closer to 85 with a 'better' curve, so that's what we're using.

==dave==
N102FM

Just did a test this week. I didn't build my -10 but the POH that came with it showed a Best Glide of 104 kts. Other sources (VAF, etc) said 85. Tested both speeds with prop at cruise setting (2300). 104 yielded about 1700 fpm+/-, or 6:1 glide ratio. 85 yielded about 700 fpm +/-, or 12:1 glide ratio.

At 104, you travel 1nm/1000' altitude loss. At 85, you travel 2nm/1000' altitude loss. For a given scenario at 3000 AGL, you can be on the ground in 1:45 in 3nm at 104 Vbg, or on the ground in 4:18 in 6nm at 85 Vmin sink.

I'm programming 85. YMMV

[rjhecker]

A copy of your POH would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance: rjhecker@gmail.com

[RV10inOz]

Originally Posted by dcflyer84

Just did a test this week. I didn't build my -10 but the POH that came with it showed a Best Glide of 104 kts. Other sources (VAF, etc) said 85. Tested both speeds with prop at cruise setting (2300). 104 yielded about 1700 fpm+/-, or 6:1 glide ratio. 85 yielded about 700 fpm +/-, or 12:1 glide ratio.

At 104, you travel 1nm/1000' altitude loss. At 85, you travel 2nm/1000' altitude loss. For a given scenario at 3000 AGL, you can be on the ground in 1:45 in 3nm at 104 Vbg, or on the ground in 4:18 in 6nm at 85 Vmin sink.

I'm programming 85. YMMV

Feather that prop, see what you get then

Did you try around 90 knots?

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by dcflyer84

in 3nm at 104 Vbg, or on the ground in 4:18 in 6nm at 85 Vmin sink.

I'm programming 85. YMMV

Remember min sink speed is not best glide speed.

[dcflyer84]

David Brown,
I intentionally did not use highest pitch (feather, as you say) on the prop so I'd have the worst case scenario glide path. Pulling the prop back would certainly lower the descent rate by decreasing drag significantly but if I plan on that from the beginning, I have nothing left to use when it looks like I might come up short on making the field. I'd rather the plane outperform my plan than the other way around.

I did not try 90. For that day's flying work I used the 2 numbers I had seen published, 104 and 85. I do get that 5 knots either way can make a difference. I did a more extensive test when I had my Pacer and no best glide or min sink speed had been published. Had to start basically from Vy and work my way around.

Bob Turner,
Yes, I understand the difference but as my rudimentary math skills showed, min sink got me further distance. Seems backwards but that's what my test showed.

[AlpineYoda]

I would love a copy, too!

N1814T@gmail.com

Thanks in advance!