What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Vans acts on nosegear woes

C

Captain Avgas

Well Known Member
It has been raised in the Maintenance Section that Vans has just issued a Service Letter and a Mandatory Service Bulletin relating to all two seat nosegear RVs. I am elevating this issue into the General Discussions area because I feel that it is more than a "maintenance" issue.

For more info you may find the relevant thread here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=23379
 
Last edited:
Not sure why Captain Gas is building a 7A if the little wheel in the front bothers him.

I'm not sure which "brigade" I was in, but I'll join the one that Captian Gas was NOT in.

I'll eat crow if you boil it for 6 hours (feathers and all) in your kitchen, windows closed. Call me in a week, I'll bring the Tobasco sauce.

Does anyone know if the wheel pant / gear fairing needs to be replaced also?
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
Vans states that they have received no reports of any failures of the new nose gear to date.

As for the "pilot error brigade"......time to eat crow fellas.....and lots of it.... yep, feathers and all.:p
Click to expand...


I fully expected that Captain Avgas would stir the pot....:D

It should be pointed out that at this time no one knows how many of the currently flying RV's are equipped with the new style nose fork...for this reason (at the moment anyway) the fact that no accidents have happened is of unknown value.

Maybe Van's has made a change to "protect us from ourselves".

One thing that has come to light for me in this year of 2007, as a result of this issue and many others....

is that within the pilot community as a whole, when we are self evaluating our piloting skills, we typically think we are a better pilot than we really are
(I lump my self in the same pot). This is not healthy.

BTW...I am having steak for dinner tonight, thank you very much.
 
Captain Avgas said:
As for the "pilot error brigade"......time to eat crow fellas.....and lots of it.... yep, feathers and all.:p
Click to expand...

Regardless....

The guy in the hangar next to mine, just passed 1200 hrs on his 6A, and not an inkling of nosewheel collapse. Perhaps he's just one of those "better" pilots! :D


L.Adamson
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Maybe Van's has made a change to "protect us from ourselves".
Click to expand...
Well put. Kind of like the ill-advised FAB SB from a few years ago. A small % of pilots did not know how to handle flying in snow, so we got stuck with a SB that ended up being worse than the original problem.

Or the ill-advised fuel pickup SB?

I'm a big fan and defender of Van's designs and his engineering. One thing I've learned from SBs, is that just because there's a SB, does not mean that there was a flaw in the original design.
 
Mine is staying as is

OK, do what you want. I understand why this change is coming about but I'm not going to change mine.

Bob Axsom
 
Premature conclusion of success?

Captain Avgas said:
...Vans states that they have received no reports of any failures of the new nose gear to date...
.:p
Click to expand...

What percentage of RV trikes are flying the new nose gear? Perhaps when a large percentage of trikes are flying the new nose gear without any additional flip-overs, then it can be called a successful design change.

It might decrease the incidence, but probably won't eliminate the problem... for obvious reasons.
 
Folks, there is no longer any argument. The NTSB performed a careful analytical analysis and Van's has now followed up in response to correct a known deficiency in the design.

We have requested that Van's respond to this issue for a while, and now they have. Hopefully this eliminates the debate on pilot technique vs. design.

Digging through Van's information, I found that I need to have at least 30 lbs of baggage when fully fueled in order to conform to the recommended loading envelope on my 9A. This keeps the nose wheel loading below the maximum recommended.

This was quite a surprise, given that I routinely fly without baggage, and with full fuel. The pilot's weight is not significant in the calculations. Looks like I need a new placard!
 
It is very interesting to see this new SB. Hopefully it will eliminate or reduce the number of tip over accidents. Whether the accidents were due to "pilot error" or uneven runway surface is debatable. I personally think that both factors played a part either individually or combined. There is no doubt that raising the clearance between the bottom of the leg and the ground can only be beneficial.

It was obvious that once the NTSB had come out with an opinion Vans had to do something or risk becoming game for Mr Wolk, see the recent postings on Carburetors.

It will be interesting to take a look at the numbers say a year from now and see hopefully if this SB has made a significant improvement.

As side issue it also seems to have made our friend Captain Avgas's day and cheered him up considerably so that is something to which we can all be thankful.

Barry F-PRVM RV6A
 
Lapse of memory

Geico266 said:
I'm not sure which "brigade" I was in
Click to expand...

Larry, let me refresh your memory with your quote of 28/2/07 on VansAirforce:

"RV gears have always looked like the legs of a cat on a hot tin roof anyway, but hey they work great as long as you baby them".

Apparently the gear wasn't working as "great" as you thought it was.
 
vlittle said:
Folks, there is no longer any argument. The NTSB performed a careful analytical analysis and Van's has now followed up in response to correct a known deficiency in the design.

We have requested that Van's respond to this issue for a while, and now they have. Hopefully this eliminates the debate on pilot technique vs. design.

Digging through Van's information, I found that I need to have at least 30 lbs of baggage when fully fueled in order to conform to the recommended loading envelope on my 9A. This keeps the nose wheel loading below the maximum recommended.

This was quite a surprise, given that I routinely fly without baggage, and with full fuel. The pilot's weight is not significant in the calculations. Looks like I need a new placard!
Click to expand...


My calculations show a that I would need about the same weight in the baggage compartment to stay below the max nose gear weight when solo with full fuel. I have been thinking about this for some time as I operate off a short grass strip and must use at least moderate braking which throws extra weight and stress on the nose wheel/leg. I don?t really want to have to put a considerable weight in the baggage compartment so I am thinking of a way I can add weight to the tail when solo, but easily remove the weight when the loaded W & B is more aft. I have thought about building or buying a suitably shaped container that I would permanently and securely mount on the flat area fwd of the HS spar and under the fwd part of the VS/empennage fairing. The container would have a filler hole and cap on the upper part of empennage fairing and a drain with a valve or cap protruding from the lower part of the fairing. When I need weight in the tail I would fill the container with water. When the C of G is aft I would drain out the water. I have not done any measurements but I am guessing there would be room for about a 5 ltr container. IF my calculations are correct, 5 ltr ( 5kg) of water here would be equivalent to about 20 kg in the baggage compartment in terms of taking weight off the nose wheel.
Is this a silly idea?? Is there a better way to do this or should I just fly around with a 20 kg bag of dog biscuits in the back like I did for my early test flying??

Fin 9A
 
Captain Avgas said:
Larry, let me refresh your memory with your quote of 28/2/07 on VansAirforce:

"RV gears have always looked like the legs of a cat on a hot tin roof anyway, but hey they work great as long as you baby them".

Apparently the gear wasn't working as "great" as you thought it was.
Click to expand...

Read it again, looks like what I said is truer today, than when I wrote it CG. I have about 600 hours in nose draggin RV's on grass, rough strips, and I survived the 2 mile "death taxi" at OSH. I still say carefull pilotage and the current nose gear is satisfactory on pavement. Am I going to change? Yup! Vans has spoken.

Capgas. Man, you need a look for at the SB issued for your personality. Your superiority complex needs to have alittle humility "spacer" added to make your social and professional skills more accepted to the norm. There is no need for the "I told you so" crusade. It stiffels debate and thought. Ease up man!
 
Prices?

Since my gear came from a wrecked 6A built in the early 90's, I expect I'll have to replace the whole package. I will check the diameter to make sure. Anyone know what the gear leg costs? I couldn't find that on Van's site. The fork is $154 and the stop bracket $25.60. And yes, I WILL change mine. If it's better, I want it!

Bob Kelly
 
videobobk said:
Since my gear came from a wrecked 6A built in the early 90's, I expect I'll have to replace the whole package. I will check the diameter to make sure. Anyone know what the gear leg costs? I couldn't find that on Van's site. The fork is $154 and the stop bracket $25.60. And yes, I WILL change mine. If it's better, I want it!
Click to expand...

I couldn't find the gear leg pricing either. But there was the definate upgrade in nose gear legs in late '98, which is the type, I now have. The earlier 90's models failed rather quickly in some fatigue testing. Van's used a large spinning offset wheel, turning against the nose wheel; that constantly moved the gear fore and aft. The '98 fix held up.

I've got the choice of cut and threading, and I already have the newer stop bracket. Since my nose wheel pant is the old type, with new pressure recovery pants for the mains; it looks like a new upgrade too.

Just when I think the plane is completed.......... it isn't... :D

L.Adamson RV6A
 
I know that working with new parts is easier. Lightening any part in the nose on -7A fixed-pitch Sensenich planes only exacerbates the tail heavy tendency, however small the weight reduction. I just had a wild thought because the old fork appears to be beefier than the new and would still be beefier after this mod.

Since the objective of this whole exercise is to raise the height of the fork by 1", how about reworking the old fork. Remove the bottom bushing, cut 1" off of the bottom, make an angle cut from the axle flange on each side to meet the cut made across the bottom (with a suitably rounded intersection to relieve any stresses), file and smooth the cut edges, re-insert the bottom bushing, remove old grease zerk and screw a plug in to fill that hole, drill and thread a new hole for the zerk midway up the front of the fork. Of course, the nose gear leg would still have to be shortened and reworked.

Big disadvantage: You end up with a fork of unknown strength, but is beefier than the new purchased fork.

Big advantage: No changes need to be made regarding fairing attachment or stop bracket attachment.

Any thoughts?

Mike
 
Finley Atherton said:
My calculations show a that I would need about the same weight in the baggage compartment to stay below the max nose gear weight when solo with full fuel. I have been thinking about this for some time as I operate off a short grass strip and must use at least moderate braking which throws extra weight and stress on the nose wheel/leg. I don’t really want to have to put a considerable weight in the baggage compartment so I am thinking of a way I can add weight to the tail when solo, but easily remove the weight when the loaded W & B is more aft. I have thought about building or buying a suitably shaped container that I would permanently and securely mount on the flat area fwd of the HS spar and under the fwd part of the VS/empennage fairing. The container would have a filler hole and cap on the upper part of empennage fairing and a drain with a valve or cap protruding from the lower part of the fairing. When I need weight in the tail I would fill the container with water. When the C of G is aft I would drain out the water. I have not done any measurements but I am guessing there would be room for about a 5 ltr container. IF my calculations are correct, 5 ltr ( 5kg) of water here would be equivalent to about 20 kg in the baggage compartment in terms of taking weight off the nose wheel.
Is this a silly idea?? Is there a better way to do this or should I just fly around with a 20 kg bag of dog biscuits in the back like I did for my early test flying??

Fin 9A
Click to expand...

It's better to carry it in your baggage compartment because when you travel, you can remove it and put other baggage in instead. Thus, it does not reduce your useful load like a fixed weight in the tail would.

On another topic, I calculated the nose wheel force for various loadings on my 9A, and I can't replicate Van's chart. I must be missing something.

The formula I used is:
Nose Force = Loaded Weight * (CG_Arm - Mains_Arm)/(Nose_Arm - Mains_Arm)

Van's chart says I need ballast, yet my computations show that I can never exceed 321 lbs on the nose without ballast at full forward CG.
 
Vern,

Use the weight of the plane with load (fuel, Pilot, baggage, etc), calculate your new CG with loads, find the loaded weight (along bottom line), go straight up to new calculated CG line (the diagonal one, you may have to extrapolate), then go straight across (to the left) to nose wheel weight. I checked my 7A on all my typical loadings and found my plane in compliance from one extreme to the other.

Hope this helps,

Roberta
 
Water ballast....

vlittle said:
It's better to carry it in your baggage compartment because when you travel, you can remove it and put other baggage in instead. Thus, it does not reduce your useful load like a fixed weight in the tail would.
........
Click to expand...

Vern... I believe he is referring to a "disposable" weight in the tail consisting of water.... fill it up, or drain it out...:)

If you need a "sometimes" ballast, this might be a good way to go... leaves the baggage area free at all times.

Some high performance sailplanes have extra tail tanks for water ballast (in conjunction with large wing tanks) for exactly this reason, to adjust the CG....

gil A
 
robertahegy said:
Vern,

Use the weight of the plane with load (fuel, Pilot, baggage, etc), calculate your new CG with loads, find the loaded weight (along bottom line), go straight up to new calculated CG line (the diagonal one, you may have to extrapolate), then go straight across (to the left) to nose wheel weight. I checked my 7A on all my typical loadings and found my plane in compliance from one extreme to the other.

Hope this helps,

Roberta
Click to expand...

Thanks, Roberta. Being an engineer, I'm seeking the underlying math that Van's is using. My math to calculate total nose wheel force does not correlate with the provided chart.

There will be variations between aircraft, of course, but not as much as this chart indicates. For example, in my loading configuration for most forward CG (full fuel, no bags, light pilot), I get 1402 lbs and 77.95" moment arm.

On the Van's chart for the 9A, this puts me about 345 lbs on the nose wheel, 20 lbs above the limitation. My math, however, gives me 321 lbs using my specific airplane data.

If I use the chart, it indicates that I should be carrying ballast (about 30 lbs in the baggage area). If I use my math, I'm ok. What do I trust?

I need to talk to Van's to see if my interpretation is correct.
 
If you add to this chart to the left my nose wheel should weigh in at 250 lbs.empty
but it only weighs in at 216 empty on my scales.
hmm I got a notion to go jump in (the plane)and weigh it as I have full tanks, and see what the real numbers are.
BTW me alone with full fuel I get just into the red about 330# on this chart
also note the 9A only allows about 325Lbs. on the nose.
 
nose gear

Why the difference in the max allowable weight between the 9A and 7A? Aren't they the same fuselage , engine mount and landing gear.

Oldgeezer
9A
 
When I read the chart for my 7A, I have 1117 lbs EW and my EWCG is 79.33. The chart tells me I should be just under 300 lbs on my Nose Wheel at the EW. I weighed in at 298 lbs. The chart for the 7A appears to be in line.

Roberta
 
Last edited:
I stand to be corrected but I calculate the weight on the nose wheel as follows:

(Main Gear Arm – Loaded aircraft arm) / (Distance between Nose Gear & Main Gear) * Aircraft loaded weight.

Fin 9A

Edit; When in the level attitude.
 
Last edited:
6A nose gear conversion

Greetings all,
I had decided to make the mods to my 6A kit before the SB so I have started on it.
I don't know how many 6As out there are affected and most probably already know the particularrs but here are some pictures of what I have been doing that may help someone. Somebody correct me if I am not doing it right.
http://pages.suddenlink.net/tismuoi9/rvng.html
Dave A
RV-6AQB
 
vlittle said:
Thanks, Roberta. Being an engineer, I'm seeking the underlying math that Van's is using. My math to calculate total nose wheel force does not correlate with the provided chart.
Click to expand...
How much difference is there between the pitch attitude when leveled on the scales and the attitude when sitting on the wheels? If the nose is lower when sitting on the ground than it is when leveled on the scales, that might explain the difference. Or, maybe the difference is due to aircraft to aircraft variation in the fore and aft positions of the wheels.
 
Last edited:
Oldgeezer said:
Why the difference in the max allowable weight between the 9A and 7A? Aren't they the same fuselage , engine mount and landing gear.

Oldgeezer
9A
Click to expand...

The two planes have different G limits, different wings, and the -7's are allowed to run with the heavier 0-360's. There are a lot of factors that go into determining what the "allowable" gross weight can be.
 
rv9av8tr said:
The two planes have different G limits, different wings, and the -7's are allowed to run with the heavier 0-360's. There are a lot of factors that go into determining what the "allowable" gross weight can be.
Click to expand...

I think what OG was asking about was the difference in allowable weight on the nose wheel. The 7A is 369 and the 9A is 325. All the pieces are the same. Doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Bob Kelly
 
Kevin Horton said:
How much difference is there between the pitch attitude when leveled on the scales and the attitude when sitting on the wheels? If the nose is lower when sitting on the ground than it is when leveled on the scales, that might explain the difference. Or, maybe the difference is due to aircraft to aircraft variation in the fore and aft positions of the wheels.
Click to expand...

There are differences in gear position between the 7a and 9a based on spreadsheets I've seen. This may make the gear loading during braking different between 7a and 9a. Perhaps Van's has computed this and that would explain the discrepency between my static loading computation and the chart.

Roberta, however, ran the numbers for her 7A and it corellates with the 7A chart.

I've got a message into Van's, we'll see if they respond with the reasoning.

And I love the Van's quote "The nose gear is NOT a landing gear..."

Vern
 
Finley Atherton said:
I stand to be corrected but I calculate the weight on the nose wheel as follows:

(Main Gear Arm ? Loaded aircraft arm) / (Distance between Nose Gear & Main Gear) * Aircraft loaded weight.

Fin 9A

Edit; When in the level attitude.
Click to expand...

Looks like you derived the same formula I did (just turned around a bit). That makes me feel better (it's been 30 years since my Statics course).

Nose Force = Loaded Weight * (CG_Arm - Mains_Arm)/(Nose_Arm - Mains_Arm)

Vern
 
If it's a design deficiency I wonder why Vans didn't make this service bulletin an AD instead. No price cut on the replacement parts either.
 
Why no AD?

brenegan said:
If it's a design deficiency I wonder why Vans didn't make this service bulletin an AD instead. No price cut on the replacement parts either.
Click to expand...

Only the FAA can issue an AD. The manufacturer issues service bulletins.

Chris
 
ADs cannot be issued against experimental amateur-built aircraft. Only the appliances used on them.
 
brenegan said:
My point is, I wonder why it was not made an AD.
Click to expand...
ADs are issued against designs with a type certificate. The RV designs are not type-certificated. Thus you won't see ADs issued against RVs, no matter how serious the problem is. It is up to each owner to use his best judgement to decide whether to comply with SBs or not.
 
Mel said:
ADs cannot be issued against experimental amateur-built aircraft. Only the appliances used on them.
Click to expand...

Thanks mel! I see that AD's don't apply to experimental aircraft via 14 CFR 43.1(b). I should have looked this up before posting. Upon re-reading some of 14 CFR 39 regarding AD's, they also includes propellers and Engines; not just appliances; but that was probably your intention.

Anyone know this: Does Vans send service bulletins notices automatically out to builders? I had to pay for the RVator to find out about the tank SB.
 
Nose Gear Change

I know of at least one 6A that I would bet my entire retirement fund on that the owner won't be changing his gear. He's been flying his since 1993 and has never had a tipover, imagine that!
Let's see, I'll bet he does a preflight and keeps his nose wheel properly inflated and when he made his wheelpants, he properly trimmed the opening for the tire to prevent any interference.
Oh yes, and don't forget technique, he doesn't slam his nose down like a low time Cessna 152 pilot.
Does this guy fly on the BEST paved runways in America, not hardly. He has been seen around many grass strips, some smoothe and some not so smoothe, some long and some very short and he's still flying his 6A today.
Go back and read the cover letter from Van's and pay attention to the bold and underlined words. Van's again was FORCED to issue a Mandatory Service Bulletin to cover them against any future stupid pilot tricks.
Just how fast was that one A model taxiing that was cited in the report. He hits a tie-down anchor and flips? I would have liked to have seen that one!
Okay, I'm thru venting yet another ridiculous action brought on by someone's attorney.
 
W&B spreadsheet now calculates nose wheel loads

vlittle said:
Looks like you derived the same formula I did (just turned around a bit). That makes me feel better (it's been 30 years since my Statics course).

Nose Force = Loaded Weight * (CG_Arm - Mains_Arm)/(Nose_Arm - Mains_Arm)

Vern
Click to expand...

Vern... using your formula above, I modified my W&B spreadsheet to calculate empty CG from an initial weighing, and to calculate CG and nose wheel load for any normal loading scenario.

The generic RV-6A spreadsheet is here....

http://home.earthlink.net/~gilalex/RV/wb-RV-6A.xls

....modify it for your numbers and gross weight....

The generic initial numbers already in the spreadsheet are based on the RV-6A averages from 28 aircraft on Dan Cs. W&B database - thanks Dan!

Basically, put your numbers in the green boxes, and the loading scenarios in the yellow boxes and see the effects on CG and nose wheel load.

Hope it helps folks... and it should be easy to modify for RV-7A and RV-9A aircraft by just changing a few constants.

gil A
 
Not Mandatory to anyone

Guys,

I haven't seen much discussion on what I think is the central issue here - the word "Mandatory" on this SB. To my mind this doesn't help anyone except for Van's lawyers. As an SB it would be fine to say that the new design has had no reported incidents and so the factory recommends anyone with low time etc etc swap out the nosewheel fork and modify the leg. Sure it is a better design, but was the original a bad design? In my view no. Does this SB need to be Mandatory? **** no. As for an AD (even if one were appropriate on an experimental), that would imply the original is not airworthy - a very stong statement to make and one that would be refuted by many owners.

The other issue is that I believe an AD would be preceded by an NPRM enabling interested parties (us) to comment. If it were issued it would be sent to all registered owners. This mandatory SB has neither a comment period of distribution except on Van's website - perhaps that shows the seriousness of the issue, that is this is only a concern for Van's lawyers? I don't intend to modify my RV-6A - I operate from a 2000' grass strip.

I suggest that each owner makes his own decision as to when, or if, to modify based on his on circumstances, and ignores the "Mandatory" at the top of the SB.

Pete
 
az_gila said:
Vern... using your formula above, I modified my W&B spreadsheet to calculate empty CG from an initial weighing, and to calculate CG and nose wheel load for any normal loading scenario.

The generic RV-6A spreadsheet is here....

http://home.earthlink.net/~gilalex/RV/wb-RV-6A.xls

....modify it for your numbers and gross weight....

The generic initial numbers already in the spreadsheet are based on the RV-6A averages from 28 aircraft on Dan Cs. W&B database - thanks Dan!

Basically, put your numbers in the green boxes, and the loading scenarios in the yellow boxes and see the effects on CG and nose wheel load.

Hope it helps folks... and it should be easy to modify for RV-7A and RV-9A aircraft by just changing a few constants.

gil A
Click to expand...

And here's the link to my RV-9A spreadsheet, with the added nose gear force check. All rather academic, because there is no loading configuration that exceeds 325 lbs, including empty aircraft with full fuel.

http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/RV-9A_WB1800.xls

Vern
 
When doing the W&B, you should measure your gear leg distances from the datum, don't assume Van's data is the same as your aircraft. Weight and production tolerances will change this distance a bit as I found out. Also, you must level the aircraft. On a 6A, this takes something like 4-5 inches under the mains if I remember. Also don't forget to raise the flaps and close the canopy.
 
My RV-9A

Went to the hanger today and weighed it---(nose wheel)
0320-D2J
Sensenich aluminum FP prop
Carb
Full fuel
Ready to fly
Canopy closed

No one on board level--322.6 LBS.
Me seated @222lbs level---319.8 LBS
BUT don't use these numbers for your airplane
 
alcladrv said:
Since the objective of this whole exercise is to raise the height of the fork by 1", how about reworking the old fork. Remove the bottom bushing, cut 1" off of the bottom, make an angle cut from the axle flange on each side to meet the cut made across the bottom (with a suitably rounded intersection to relieve any stresses), file and smooth the cut edges, re-insert the bottom bushing, remove old grease zerk and screw a plug in to fill that hole, drill and thread a new hole for the zerk midway up the front of the fork. Of course, the nose gear leg would still have to be shortened and reworked.

Big disadvantage: You end up with a fork of unknown strength, but is beefier than the new purchased fork.

Big advantage: No changes need to be made regarding fairing attachment or stop bracket attachment.

Any thoughts?

Mike
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am going to do. My plan was to do this before the SB came out. I'll cut the fork as described, add a zirk (if req'd), then get a welder to finish the bottom cut of the modified fork. Then I'll drill a couple lightening holes to make it look like Van's & save ounces.

The cost to have Harmon Lange cut & thread your fork is $75 + shipping both ways. All-in: maybe $125 vs. $250 or greater doing all new parts.

Did I mention I don't need to mess with my wheels pants :)
 
FrankK90989 said:
Went to the hanger today and weighed it---(nose wheel)
0320-D2J
Sensenich aluminum FP prop
Carb
Full fuel
Ready to fly
Canopy closed

No one on board level--322.6 LBS.
Me seated @222lbs level---319.8 LBS
BUT don't use these numbers for your airplane
Click to expand...

And I get 324 lbs in the full fuel/no pilot situation, which is the most load on the nosewheel. I can't see much danger in this configuration, with no pilot on board!
 
vlittle said:
And here's the link to my RV-9A spreadsheet, with the added nose gear force check. All rather academic, because there is no loading configuration that exceeds 325 lbs, including empty aircraft with full fuel.

http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/RV-9A_WB1800.xls

Vern
Click to expand...

That's great Vern.
The problem is that not every RV is the same.
I am familiar with at least one RV-9A with an Egg. suburu installation that had a nose wheel weight of just about exactly 100 pounds more than the typical O-320/hartzell constant speed prop RV-9A has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top