VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-8/8A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 02-10-2009, 08:01 AM
JonJay's Avatar
JonJay JonJay is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
Default Absolutely

Quote:
Originally Posted by pierre smith View Post
....I'm 63 and built a Cassutt in '73 when a dollar was....sho 'nuff, a dollar and fresh out of the Army poor but I wanted a) a fast airplane, or b) aerobatic, if not fast. Fortunately, my 12 G airplane was both.

Van came along then and offered a super deal, near 200 MPH airplane, aerobatic for a bargain price, cheap engines and a wood prop. Nowadays, high tech has radically changed everything and steam is out, glass is in...albeit at a price. It stands to reason then, a $75-$100,000 airplane must have a CS prop, no?

An RV can still be built in the $30's but that wouldn't include a CS prop, would it?

My .02c
I thought my 6 would be the only and last airplane I ever built. At the time, I could not imagine not having the latest and greatest of everything, C/S, EFIS, AP, Elec. Flaps, all the "right" stuff. I have no regrets.
Now that I am building my 3, I could not imagine having any of that stuff, except maybe the EFIS/EM, as it simplifies things.
It all comes down to your personal preference and your mission. I dont see anyone arguing that here, only arguing the points that some are making about one choice or another.
Make your own choice, you wont regret either.
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.

RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-14-2009, 08:44 AM
Tangier Sunset's Avatar
Tangier Sunset Tangier Sunset is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Idaho Falls, ID
Posts: 2
Default Fixed

My 9A has a Catto prop with 400hrs. My home turf is Idaho and my runway is 3500' long. In the winter I am airborn in less than a 1000' and in the summer I am off in less than 1500. (airport elevation 4700'). I took off from Leadville, Colorado last June weighing 1650 lbs and the density alt was around 11000'. Take off roll was between 2000 and 3000. I've landed at a few of Idaho's backcountry strips and it gets in and out with 2 people and camping gear.
Slowing down in the pattern is a non issue. I often enter downwind at 150mph, cut the power at midpoint, raise the nose a bit and have flap speed abeam the numbers.
The only argument I've heard in favor of a constant speed on an RV is if you plan to do lots of aerobatic flying. Why spend the extra $, save it for fuel and/or instruments. An RV isn't a 152 or a 172. It's a sports car! and I am still grinning.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-14-2009, 11:10 AM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangier Sunset View Post
Slowing down in the pattern is a non issue. I often enter downwind at 150mph, cut the power at midpoint, raise the nose a bit and have flap speed abeam the numbers.
Then it's a double non issue with the C/S! There really is quite a difference in what can be accomplished between fixed and C/S in regards to slowing down. We have plenty of RV's around here with both F/P & C/S to note the differences. As to my landings, I drop from pattern altitude in a steep descending arc from abeam the numbers, to straightening out as I'm over the threshold. Checking at the mid-point for traffic of course... .
And then I'll be off the first taxiway. The arc itself is very close to the runway. I'd say the Cessnas around here, take about five times as long as I do. At least it seems like it!

FWIW --- the above description is a rather steep descent, and usually power off, before the threshold. In my 6A, the flare has to be timed perfectly, as to not fall through the flare, because the airspeed seems to dump in micro-seconds. If there are cross-winds, I'll usually use some power through the flare to be completely stabilized. More than not, I only use half flaps.

L.Adamson --- formally of Twin Falls, Idaho
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-15-2009, 06:12 AM
Rick6a's Avatar
Rick6a Rick6a is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lake St. Louis, MO.
Posts: 2,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.Adamson View Post
I like being able to enter a pattern area without having to slow down miles ahead of time....
Quote:
Originally Posted by allbee View Post
yup yup yup..... ..the Cs is tops on my list. Makes flying very fun.
I am fortunate to have it both ways. I agree a CS is more fun but a FP is no slouch either. Apparently some people seem to have great difficulty slowing down a FP so in their case a CS is a more suitable fit.

__________________
Rick Galati
RV6A N307R"Darla!"
RV-8 N308R "LuLu"
EAA Technical Counselor

Last edited by Rick6a : 02-15-2009 at 07:04 AM. Reason: photo
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-15-2009, 07:10 AM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick6a View Post
I am fortunate to have it both ways. I agree a CS is more fun but a FP is no slouch either. Apparently some people seem to have great difficulty slowing down a FP so in their case a CS is a more suitable fit.

It's just "simple physics"! Any airplane with a lot of built in drag..............will slow down quickly with a fixed pitch prop........too!

L.Adamson

P.S. -- I hate the term "simple physics"..

edit----------------- Is that your "8" with a C/S ?

Last edited by L.Adamson : 02-15-2009 at 07:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-15-2009, 09:44 AM
allbee allbee is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: spokane, wa
Posts: 805
Default

Lets just look at it this way. There are two different ways to fly an airplane.

If you just want to go out and tootle around with comfort in mind. Take the take off and landing with simplicity, use the flaps, watch your landing speed, do the pattern ruetine. Not care about the g's on take off, take the grandmother along. Than the FP prop is just fine for you.

On the other hand, you want a rush, want to have fun in the pattern, want to tailer your prop at any given moment. Have instant air brake cus that's just the way you fly. Most important, have the mulla to support your addiction. Than go with the CS prop.

What is neat is we have a choice.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-15-2009, 10:20 AM
Webb's Avatar
Webb Webb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 1,262
Default Got the answer

I have the answer....and it's medically related.

It's called wallet thickness. Sitting on too fat a wallet causes pressure on the sciatic nerve which can cause pain and numbess in the leg on the side the wallet is kept.

Now that this is clear.....ff your wallet is too thick to sit on it while flying, you definate should thin it out and put a CS on the plane.
__________________
Webb Willmott
Jackson, MS
N32WW
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-15-2009, 11:27 PM
SteinAir SteinAir is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,473
Default

I'm kinda like Rick...been there done that both ways and with both 320 and a 360. I LOVE my 360 with a C/S on it in my jeep of an RV6, but I flew for many years and hundreds of hours in my old RV6 with a FP prop on it behind a 360. If you're willing to throw them over on their side and learn how to slip aggressively, and also learn how to slow them down, the FP is no big deal either. You can come blasting into the pattern a full bore midfield, and still do a nice turning/slip to roll out and flare....just takes practice! With the C/S it's of course easier and you can be a bit more aggressive, but to say the FP makes you fly huge patterns would be untrue. You just gotta learn how to lose a lot of speed fast (which isn't hard in any RV, CS or FP), and while doing it dump out flaps, throw 'em over on their side and slip aggressively all the way in....easy peasy!

I don't knock either choice because the both have their place. My old FP RV6 flew fine out of the grass strip it lived on, and also landed fine with super tight patterns. The C/S allows you to be a bit more aggressive but both work well in almost any situation. I happen to like my C/S enough to keep it and no change back to a FP, but I won't knock anyone flying a FP either.

Cheers,
Stein
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-15-2009, 11:51 PM
gasman gasman is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 3,821
Default

Why would you BLAST into the pattern at 160 mph when 90% of the aircraft that might be in that pattern are flying at about 115 mph or less???

And, yes......... if you cut the power at flap speed abeam the numbers with a FP prop, you can make a tight steep approch and land with ease in 600 feet. 6A............
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-16-2009, 06:37 AM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteinAir View Post
The C/S allows you to be a bit more aggressive but both work well in almost any situation. I happen to like my C/S enough to keep it and no change back to a FP, but I won't knock anyone flying a FP either.
It's not a case of knocking for anyone for using a F/P, but some enlightenment for anyone considering using a constant speed. It appears that many F/P users write of little justification for using C/S. Just more money, weight, and maintenance they say..............with little additional benefit. Of course, that is a "crock"!

Yes, it's true, you can slip the **** out of your RV to add tremendous amounts of fuselage drag, while making those turns to final. That will work. You've now covered 1 out of 3 advantages that a C/S provides. But you're still stuck with the compromises of a fixed pitch when it comes to climb and cruise. The F/P is always stuck somewhere in the middle; or at worse, towards one end or the other. Less power to climb, or less airspeed on the top end. And more than not, it's a classic case of winding up to red-line and having to reduce throttle or get the prop re-pitched. As we've noticed, there are many threads regarding F/P prop re-pitches on this website.

Therefor, I have no problem with those who use a F/P. I'm only stating the facts and advantages of a C/S.

L.Adamson --- RV6A, Hartzell C/S
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.