[Jeffsed]

I have about 1hr tach time on my RV-9A O-320 C/S Hartzel. The 1st flight was uneventful... a little heavy left wing, but the part I really didn't like was during the flare I couldn't keep the nose off the ground at landing like a could in the transition aiplane I flew (O-320 fixed pitch). Second flight, 50 #s of ballast in the baggage area. Nose stayed off great on landing.

I am waiting for the ACK E-04 ELT and was going to mount in right behind the baggage area. Now I want to put it on the rear deck under the tail fairing.

My question: Will this help my flare without the 50 #s?

 

[BillC]

You can use your C of G data and calculate what weight would be required with the further aft arm (rear deck under the tail fairing) to equate to the 50# in the baggage compartment. What was your C of G during first flight? You might be looking at adding weight in baggage compartment as part of normal aircraft equipment. Spare parts and tools come to mind.

 

[kentb]

Jeff, it will help, but....

I have about 1hr tach time on my RV-9A O-320 C/S Hartzel. The 1st flight was uneventful... a little heavy left wing, but the part I really didn't like was during the flare I couldn't keep the nose off the ground at landing like a could in the transition aiplane I flew (O-320 fixed pitch). Second flight, 50 #s of ballast in the baggage area. Nose stayed off great on landing.

I am waiting for the ACK E-04 ELT and was going to mount in right behind the baggage area. Now I want to put it on the rear deck under the tail fairing.

My question: Will this help my flare without the 50 #s?

I don't think that it will be equivalent to 50 #s. What was you weight measurements?

Mine were:
Nose Gear 283
Left Main 421
Right Main 420

I have no problem with weight and balance or flaring.

Kent

 

[newtech]

Second flight, 50 #s of ballast in the baggage area. Nose stayed off great on landing.

Nose weight is like carbon offsets isn't it? I'll buy 25 pounds from you for my tail heavy RV-7A

 

[Av8torTom]

W&B

In my Cherokee 150 I needed to keep 25 lbs of tools in the bagage compartment in order to be within CG when there were 2 adults in the front seats. It's not uncommon.

Where's your battery? could that be moved to behind the bagage compartment?

 

[Leland]

I don't think that it will be equivalent to 50 #s. What was you weight measurements?

Mine were:
Nose Gear 283
Left Main 421
Right Main 420

I have no problem with weight and balance or flaring.

Kent

My measurements for no fuel and an empty baggage compartment are:
Nose Gear 253
Mains 816

I have an O320 in a painted, upholstered and faired RV9A with a three-blade Catto prop. I can easily hold the nose off the runway until late in the roll-out. A friend with an RV6A and a constant speed prop had trouble holding his nose off on landing. He installed a Catto prop after bending the nosegear on landing.
Leland

 

[guccidude1]

I also have a -9A, but with an O-360 and fixed Sensenich. I was nose heavy also, even with the ELT and tail strobe power pack under the vertical stab. I moved my battery off the fire wall and mounted it aft of the baggage compartment approximately 12 inches. Now I can hold my nose off until 40 kts gps speed, no wind, one SOB, and full tanks. Dan

 

[L.Adamson]

My measurements for no fuel and an empty baggage compartment are:
Nose Gear 253
Mains 816

I have an O320 in a painted, upholstered and faired RV9A with a three-blade Catto prop. I can easily hold the nose off the runway until late in the roll-out. A friend with an RV6A and a constant speed prop had trouble holding his nose off on landing. He installed a Catto prop after bending the nosegear on landing.
Leland

And I have an RV6A with a Lycoming 0360, Hartzell C/S prop, and the old heavy starter motor. My strobe and ELT package is located near the tail. Battery is aft of the firewall, as was done in the "old days".

For proper CG range, my plane requires at least a light weight pilot of some kind. But that shouldn't be a problem!

As to landing, I have two choices, which is much like a Piper Arrow. Land with power off, and a flare at the perfect time to maintain enough airspeed to keep the nose up; or simply add a bit of power thoughout the flare. I land both ways depending on mood. I'd certainly never resort to a fixed pitch to replace a C/S!.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[L.Adamson]

You could always add and oxygen system in addition to a tool kit... for extra ballast. I've flown a friends RV9A with a 0320/ Hartzell CS, and it hasn't been a problem. He has oxygen in the baggage area.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[dedgemon]

No ballast needed

Jeff,
The Hartzell equipped '9 is definitely more nose heavy than the fixed pitch ones; however, you can get the rotation and hold the nose up without all of the extra ballast.

First thing to do is check your trim tab rigging. You'll need it to move down(nose up) more than it moves up. A bunch more. I find that with full fuel and solo (worst case) I'll run out of nose up trim at about 65 knots or so. That works fine though and you can easily hold the nose as high as you like for the flair. You do need to trim it up though. Also, depending on your experience, you may be landing too fast. If you come down final at 70-75 knots you won't have it trimmed and it will be quite a bit harder to flair properly. Plus you'll chew up a bunch of runway.

After 5 years I find myself landing the airplane slower and getting much better results (unless its quite gusty). These days my "normal" final on a calm day is full flaps and 60-62 knots. This usually requires a "touch" of power to keep the sink in check. Kill the power in the flair, and you can pull the nose up nicely and get nice, easy, short landings.

I really think the key here is technique, not ballast.

Good Luck and enjoy the new plane

I have about 1hr tach time on my RV-9A O-320 C/S Hartzel. The 1st flight was uneventful... a little heavy left wing, but the part I really didn't like was during the flare I couldn't keep the nose off the ground at landing like a could in the transition aiplane I flew (O-320 fixed pitch). Second flight, 50 #s of ballast in the baggage area. Nose stayed off great on landing.

I am waiting for the ACK E-04 ELT and was going to mount in right behind the baggage area. Now I want to put it on the rear deck under the tail fairing.

My question: Will this help my flare without the 50 #s?

 

[roee]

Check the following:

1. W&B: Are you [comfortably] within Van's specified W&B envelope?

2. Rigging: Is the incidence angle of the HS correct relative to the incidence angle of the wing? And are your maximum elevator throws (in particular the up-elevator stop) set to the specified angles?

Now, if the problem is rigging, fix the rigging.

If the problem is W&B, i.e. your CG is too far forward, then yes, moving ballast from as far forward as possible to as far aft as possible will help. But no, an ELT weighing about 2 lb in the tail will still not equate to 50 lb in the baggage compartment. The distance from the approximate CG to the tail is about 3 times the distance from the approximate CG to the baggage compartment. So a 2 lb ELT in the tail would be equivalent to about 6 lb in the baggage compartment. (Note: These numbers are rough approximations!!! You should measure them accurately for your W&B calculations!)

 

[L.Adamson]

Jeff,
I really think the key here is technique, not ballast.

I'd agree that that's the bottom line. My 6A requires about 10 mph more speed than a C/S equipped 9A for landing. But I do use the knot scale myself. If I see the airspeed drop below 60 kias, I know that I had better be close to the runway and in the flare..............because with the C/S prop providing additional braking, the airspeed bleeds off extremely fast, and that nose will come down quickly too.

Sometimes we'll fly to an ex-military base that has 10,000+ runways. I'll fly down the runway with just a bit of power and nose up for half the length to avoid a long taxi. With that bit of power, the nose easily stays up. Easing off the power works for a gentle nose high settling to the ground.

L.Adamson -- RV6A

 

[KirkGrovesRV8]

hehehehe best way to keep the nose off the ground is put a little wheel on the tail

 

[Finley Atherton]

Jeff,
A 9A with an 0-320 and a Hartzell will definitely be a bit on the nose heavy side. I have this set-up and my worst case fwd. cg ( full fuel, no passenger and empty baggage compartment) is 6% aft of the fwd limit with a calculated static nose wheel weight of 341 lb (Vans limit 325 lbs). Worst case aft c of g for me is 64% aft of the fwd limit with a nose wheel weight of 286 lb. I have flown at my worst case fwd loading before Vans came out with the nose wheel weight limit and cannot recall any problem keeping the nose up to a reasonable slow speed. In reality you will most likely always carry at least 20 lb in the baggage compartment anyway. I always have at least between 29 to 33 lbs in the baggage compartment comprising tools, spares, tie downs, pegs, hammer, canopy cover, first aid kit, spare hand held GPS and VHF, 5 ltr water and usually a sleeping bag. This brings my worst case fwd c of g to about 22% aft of the fwd limit with a nose wheel weight of 320 lb. I would be hesitant to permanently add weight in the tail of my 9A as I already find that the elevator is noticeably more sensitive at my 64% max aft c of g loading.
If I am landing on grass I raise the flaps after the mains touch as this helps keep the nose off to a slower speed.

Fin
9A

 

[andyrv]

Flaps

I have a 7A but a couple of things that have been mentioned will help. I mounted my oxygen bottle (10 lbs full) on the baggage bulkhead right in the center while I had the scales in the hanger. That one change took 10 lbs off of the nosewheel scale.

Finley mentioned flaps. I rarely use full flaps. Two notches yields a similar stall speed to full flaps but the flaps on the RV seem to blank out some airflow over the horizontal so less flaps seems to give more elevator authority.

I land on grass a lot and by landing on the mains and immediately dumping the flaps the nosewheel can be held off the ground to a lower groundspeed than with the same landing and leaving the flaps down.

My first landing on grass was full flaps and minimum airspeed touchdown which left almost no elevator authority. That was not fun.

Andy

 

[robertahegy]

I agree with the trim aspect. The trim needs to be adjusted throughout the landing pattern during approach and power setting changes to keep stick forces neutral. Make sure this is correct before making balance weight changes. If your EWCG is set properly, trim should be all you need to grease that airplane in, nose high.

Roberta

 

[carguy614]

Flaps are the key...

My 9A with a metal prop and full fuel is reluctant to stay nose high on the rollout with full flaps.
Before you do any weight shifting, make a few no flap landings with proper trim inputs to see if all feels right. Flaps settings make all the difference in the world on this bird. difference is well over 10 MPH on my plane.

Have fun!!
Chris

 

[David-aviator]

If all else is not working, add a little ballast at the HS.

When I was flying with the Subby H6, the nose gear weighed in at 364 lbs. It was impossible to keep it up once the mains were on the ground. Adding 8 pounds of lead at the HS fixed that but made an already heavy airplane fatter yet.

Switching to the lightweight Barrett IO360 and Catto prop moved the CG aft 3.53", the nose gear now weighs in at 244 pounds. Total weight loss was 183 pounds.

It's like flying a different airplane. I like it. I miss the MT cs prop somewhat but once up to 100 knots it is not a big deal. Top end performance is as good as with any prop. If one lets Catto wind up to 2300-2400 WOT and climb at whatever airspeed is showing, it does very well.

I've made it from brake release to 10,000' in just over 8 minute and so far no one has answered the challenge to see how much better a cs prop would be.

(this is off thread topic, but it is about flying)

 

[Greg Arehart]

Same experience as Dan (guccidude) in my IO-360 9A. I moved the battery behind the baggage and can keep the nose off down to about 37 mph. I also found that my original weight on the nose (290 lbs) dropped to about 256 lbs after painting (plus a couple of relatively minor airframe changes after the original weighing). So paint will definitely help lighten the nose.

greg

 

[Steve]

trim is the answer

As said above, rig your pitch trim so very little aft stick forces are needed to maintain level attitude or slightly nose high when flying the pattern. I'm talking fingertip-like pressure. It's something I learned flying 182s. Try landing one of those nose heavy birds without using available trim. I usually land full flaps with the trim unscrewed out all the way.
I run an o320, fixed pitch, ELT just aft of the bulkhead, and the usual collection of stuff in the baggage compartment, maybe 15 pounds. I come over the fence between 65 and 70 mph.

 

[roee]

Trim is not the answer, and neither is power

Keeping some power in through the flair, as some have suggested, is a band-aid, not a great solution. It increases landing distance. It also means that in case of an engine-out situation you will have to land at a higher airspeed, which can have a dramatic influence on the survivability of an off-field landing.

Proper trim adjustment, as some have suggested, is important of course. But that's also a different issue. To put it simply, in this context, it affects how hard you have to pull on the stick to get it all the way aft. But in any case, presumably you will be able to pull it all the way aft, and if that's not enough to keep the nose up, trim won't do anything for you.

For a properly rigged, properly W&B'ed, well-behaved airplane: Regardless of trim adjustment, and with zero engine power, there should be sufficient elevator authority at stick full-aft to maintain a nose-high attitude all the way down to the stall break.

 

[n5lp]

Trim

Trim does have an effect on elevator effectiveness, not merely pressures. I don't know how significant it is but trimming nose down will increase elevator effectiveness in holding the nose up. Visualize it, the elevator will be up and the trim tab will also be up.

I think that question was actually on an FAA written test I took once.

 

[roee]

Trim does have an effect on elevator effectiveness, not merely pressures. I don't know how significant it is but trimming nose down will increase elevator effectiveness in holding the nose up. Visualize it, the elevator will be up and the trim tab will also be up.

Yes, that's correct. I didn't want to mention it to not confuse the issue, but of course you're right. The gotcha is that, as you said, trimming for nose down will actually give you a little extra nose up moment when you hold the stick full aft. So this means deliberately adjusting for extremely incorrect trim, which I don't think is a recommended practice (is it???). But for accuracy's sake, thanks for pointing it out!

 

[dedgemon]

Grrrrr

Roee, once you start flying your '7 you may understand this a bit better, but to put things in perspective, these RV's with constant speed props come DOWN FAST at idle. A '9 with a constant speed prop, full flaps and idle power is coming down at 1000' per minute. Your '7 in that configuration is coming down 1250-1300 per minute. A bit more than most folks want to deal with for a normal flair and landing. Carrying a bit of power lets you reduce this to a reasonable 500' per minute or so that you can make a decent flair while pulling the power. And if your airspeed is right your WILL NOT float a country mile.

The folks that always want to tell everyone to land with no power need to realize that not all airplanes are the same. These airplanes really land MUCH better by flying them at the proper airspeed with just a "touch" of power up the the point of flairing. Then you can reduce power and flair together. A full flap, idle power approach in a constant speed '9 is so steep that you have to see one to believe it. Completely impractical for a "normal" pattern. The fixed pitch airplanes aren't nearly as draggy in this configuration so its not as big a deal for them.

Note that the original issue was holding the nose up after the mains are on (and probably getting it high enough to start with). Jeff only has an hour or so in the airplane so he's surely flying it a little on the fast side. I sure did at that point. But now (450 hours and 5 years) I'm much more comfortable at lower airspeeds. This is an issue because the '9 has a HUGE trim change with speed. MUCH more than the 6's 7's and 8's. So to reduce the stick forces to where they need to be, the trim needs to be adjusted (rigged) so that you can trim out the forces down to around 65knots or so. I'm completely out of trim at 65 knots on my '9 when solo and full fuel. Certainly you have plenty of stick regardless of trim position BUT the forces can get pretty high and most folks just will not pull hard enough (or raise the nose enough).

The '9 is a beautiful landing airplane. When slowed down and not driven onto the ground its as sweet as any you will fly.

I'm just suggesting to Jeff to check a few other things before carrying around a bunch of "unnecessary" ballast.

Sorry for the rant, hope I didn't step on too many toes.

Keeping some power in through the flair, as some have suggested, is a band-aid, not a great solution. It increases landing distance. It also means that in case of an engine-out situation you will have to land at a higher airspeed, which can have a dramatic influence on the survivability of an off-field landing.

Proper trim adjustment, as some have suggested, is important of course. But that's also a different issue. To put it simply, in this context, it affects how hard you have to pull on the stick to get it all the way aft. But in any case, presumably you will be able to pull it all the way aft, and if that's not enough to keep the nose up, trim won't do anything for you.

For a properly rigged, properly W&B'ed, well-behaved airplane: Regardless of trim adjustment, and with zero engine power, there should be sufficient elevator authority at stick full-aft to maintain a nose-high attitude all the way down to the stall break.

 

[L.Adamson]

Sorry for the rant, hope I didn't step on too many toes.

Just what I wanted to say. For a minute, I figured I should be comparing the characteristics of a tame & well behaved Cub, to those of my RV6A/CS prop.........which has even a higher descent rate than the 7.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[L.Adamson]

Bravo! I repeat Bravo! well put and to the mark. Finally somebody that knows what they are saying. This is it. I have flown my 7A and this is how mine reacts(210hrs since may23). Also if you land with power in until the flair and than let it settle on the runway guess what else happens, that is if you are at 60kts at the flair, No bounce and no noise from the tires, ya hoo! My passengers think I'm an expert pilot. Oh! one thing I want to point out, if you want to have a good flying airplane, lay off the twinkie's.

But then of course......... sometimes the steep elevator approaches are fun. May scare the passenger to death, and you have only one chance of making the flare right with perfect timing......... or you fall straight through the flare and what little ground effect there might be. Thats why I do it both ways, as I originally said.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[roee]

Grrrr? Seriourly...

David,

If you care to re-read this thread, you will find that:

1. The problem presented in the original post was inability to keep the nose up on landing. Not high descent rate on approach.

2. I did make specific suggestions on a logical course of action for investigating the cause of the problem, and then possible remedies depending the actual cause (see post #11).

3. I also pointed out why some of the other suggestions made on this thread, while they may be good general advice and certainly well intentioned, do not actually address the heart of the problem at hand (see post #21).

With respect to the suggestions you had made, I'll try again to explain. Keeping some power in on approach, and even into the flare, is a fine way to manage descent rate. No problem there. However, an airplane that's incapable of keeping a nose-up attitude at landing speeds without engine power -- that's a problem. See the difference?

If you'd like to debate the issue on technical/factual/logical terms, that's most welcome. Presumptuous personal rants, please keep them to yourself. Have a nice day.

-Roee

Roee, once you start flying your '7 you may understand this a bit better, but to put things in perspective, these RV's with constant speed props come DOWN FAST at idle. A '9 with a constant speed prop, full flaps and idle power is coming down at 1000' per minute. Your '7 in that configuration is coming down 1250-1300 per minute. A bit more than most folks want to deal with for a normal flair and landing. Carrying a bit of power lets you reduce this to a reasonable 500' per minute or so that you can make a decent flair while pulling the power. And if your airspeed is right your WILL NOT float a country mile.

The folks that always want to tell everyone to land with no power need to realize that not all airplanes are the same. These airplanes really land MUCH better by flying them at the proper airspeed with just a "touch" of power up the the point of flairing. Then you can reduce power and flair together. A full flap, idle power approach in a constant speed '9 is so steep that you have to see one to believe it. Completely impractical for a "normal" pattern. The fixed pitch airplanes aren't nearly as draggy in this configuration so its not as big a deal for them.

Note that the original issue was holding the nose up after the mains are on (and probably getting it high enough to start with). Jeff only has an hour or so in the airplane so he's surely flying it a little on the fast side. I sure did at that point. But now (450 hours and 5 years) I'm much more comfortable at lower airspeeds. This is an issue because the '9 has a HUGE trim change with speed. MUCH more than the 6's 7's and 8's. So to reduce the stick forces to where they need to be, the trim needs to be adjusted (rigged) so that you can trim out the forces down to around 65knots or so. I'm completely out of trim at 65 knots on my '9 when solo and full fuel. Certainly you have plenty of stick regardless of trim position BUT the forces can get pretty high and most folks just will not pull hard enough (or raise the nose enough).

The '9 is a beautiful landing airplane. When slowed down and not driven onto the ground its as sweet as any you will fly.

I'm just suggesting to Jeff to check a few other things before carrying around a bunch of "unnecessary" ballast.

Sorry for the rant, hope I didn't step on too many toes.

 

[pierre smith]

My 6A...

...only had 245 # on the nosewheel at initial W@B calc. Catto three-blade.

How much weight does a CS prop have on the nosewheel? End of discussion.

Best,

 

[carguy614]

nose weight

I agree that a heavy nose may be the issue here, but my 9A with a metal prop,(not CS), has a nose weight of 242, and Pierre says his 6A with the Catto is 245.
I have had the pleasure of flying Pierre's very nice 6A, and holding the nose off in his 6A was much easier and way slower to drop than on my 9A.
I have only flown 4 RV's to date, so I am no expert by any means, but it would suggest that there may be some differences in this particular characteristic of the 9/9A, and comparing it to other RV's may not be totally valid.
Like I said, raising the flaps makes a lot of difference, I fly it no flaps most of the time, as suggested by Pete Howell and a couple of others.
Regards,
Chris

 

[L.Adamson]

1. The problem presented in the original post was inability to keep the nose up on landing. Not high descent rate on approach.

What we don't know here is the airspeed. The C/S prop will bleed off airspeed much more quickly than the fixed prop, and if you're not on top of it, the nose will be coming down sooner if you're not getting the stick back quick enough. So I don't know if it's an actual case of the inability to keep the nose light, or just not being use to it. If CG's are within limits, I think it's more a case of getting use to it. My 6A is heavy on the nose side (nothing like an Egg Sube), but I can still keep the nose light with elevator.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

 

[David-aviator]

I agree that a heavy nose may be the issue here, but my 9A with a metal prop,(not CS), has a nose weight of 242, and Pierre says his 6A with the Catto is 245.
I have had the pleasure of flying Pierre's very nice 6A, and holding the nose off in his 6A was much easier and way slower to drop than on my 9A.
I have only flown 4 RV's to date, so I am no expert by any means, but it would suggest that there may be some differences in this particular characteristic of the 9/9A, and comparing it to other RV's may not be totally valid.
Like I said, raising the flaps makes a lot of difference, I fly it no flaps most of the time, as suggested by Pete Howell and a couple of others.
Regards,
Chris

For sure the 9A is a different beast, it has a John Ronz wing whereas all other RV's have the Van's air foil.

A neighbor friend is building a 9A and the last time I was in his hangar he was working on the elevator trim tab, I couldn't believe how large it is compared to the 7A trim tab. I measured both and the 9 tab is about twice the area of the 7 tab. That's an indicator of how different the two machines are aerodynamically. I've had a ride in a 9 but have not landed one so have no direct experience in that part of flight but in flight it felt like a Van's airplane but not quite as responsive.

Some of the discussion here has gone theoretical and/or otherwise into technique. That's ok, whatever works, works. The idea that a bit of power going in the flare is always good with many airplanes, especially those with a heavy nose. I've flown airplanes that would fall out of the sky going into the flare without power, others, it doesn't seem to matter. Generally, the constant speed prop is a speed brake when compared to a fixed pitch prop. I've had both on this same airplane and the difference is remarkable. I can come in at idle from 50' with the fixed pitch prop but could never do that with the constant speed prop unless there was 10-15 knots of speed to bleed off.

Trim on final is a matter of technique. Some guys like to hold back pressure, some don't. Some even like to trim nose up and hold forward pressure so going into the flare is just a matter of relaxing forward pressure. In fact, some auto land systems are designed to do just that. It's all a matter of technique, whatever works, works.

A problem with a heavy nose RV is not having sufficient elevator trim to trim hands off on final. That was true of my machine with Subby before adding ballast at the HS. That little tab was at full travel and it was not enough. Insufficient trim should be fixed on way or another, be it on the high end of the speed envelope or on final.

This is way off topic, but with the wide speed range of these machines, I wish there were an in-flight adjustable trim tab kit from Vans for the rudder.