AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Prop Clocking Matters          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aircraft Design & Building View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Kyle Boatright Guest Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:11 am    Post subject: Prop Clocking Matters I have always clocked the prop on my RV-6 so it stops at 10:00 and 4:00 when viewed from the front. The idea being that this is the best orientation for hand propping if I ever needed to do that. During my recent condition inspection, I mistakenly reinstalled the prop with either a 120 degree lead or a 60 degree lag from normal, depending on how you look at things. On my trip to SnF, I noticed that there was considerably more vibration than normal, particularly at higher power settings and rpm, but otherwise things were fine. I noticed the same thing when I flew earlier this week. Due to an in-process installation of a 12V outlet in the cockpit, there is an unclipped zip tie visible during flight which has not been clipped. With the prop normally clocked, the tip of the zip tie hardly moves. When the prop was indexed differently, the end of the zip tie shook like a double jointed hooker on dollar day. OK, maybe not that bad, but I felt a real need to work that line into my narrative... So, today I reindexed the prop. And we're back to a very smooth engine/prop combination, which makes me a happy camper. It made up for the fact that the videographer (me) completely screwed up the recording of a prop stopped glide test I conducted earlier this week when I went to altitude and shut down the engine for about 5 minutes of glider time.. I had great intentions of filming all of the instrument readings (ASI, VSI, etc) during the test and having the prop visibly stopped in the background of the video. Unfortunately, I must have missed when I went to push the record button, because I had zero, zip, nada, nothing, when I went to review the recording. I can tell you that 80 knots indicated is the minimum sink speed on my RV-6 with the prop stopped, and the sink rate is 700-750 fpm at that speed. Also, it requires 140 knots indicated to get the prop windmilling again to restart the engine. And, with the prop stopped, the engine/prop combination is extremely smooth.... ;-) KB Back to top Marc J. Zeitlin Guest Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:11 am    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters Kyle Boatright wrote: Quote: I can tell you that 80 knots indicated is the minimum sink speed on my RV-6 with the prop stopped, and the sink rate is 700-750 fpm at that speed. Huh. That seems fast, for an RV-6 (sink rate seems reasonable, though). Van's lists the stall speed as 49 mph (43 kts). I would have expected min. sink speed to be somewhere around 1.2 Vs, or 51 kts. 80 kts (92 mph) seems really high. My COZY has a stall speed of about 70 mph (61 kts), give or take, and the min. sink speed is around 80 mph (70 kts), with a max L/D around 95 mph (83 kts). Sink rate at min. sink is around 550 fpm. Do you have sink rates for speeds from Vs up to 120 kts or so? I'd be interested in seeing the #'s. Thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marc_zeitlin (AT) alum (DOT) mit.edu http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2007 Back to top Kyle Boatright Guest Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marc_zeitlin (AT) alum (DOT) mit.edu> wrote in message news:463aa42e$0$4654$4c368faf (AT) roadrunner (DOT) com... Quote: Kyle Boatright wrote: I can tell you that 80 knots indicated is the minimum sink speed on my RV-6 with the prop stopped, and the sink rate is 700-750 fpm at that speed. Huh. That seems fast, for an RV-6 (sink rate seems reasonable, though). Van's lists the stall speed as 49 mph (43 kts). I would have expected min. sink speed to be somewhere around 1.2 Vs, or 51 kts. 80 kts (92 mph) seems really high. My COZY has a stall speed of about 70 mph (61 kts), give or take, and the min. sink speed is around 80 mph (70 kts), with a max L/D around 95 mph (83 kts). Sink rate at min. sink is around 550 fpm. Do you have sink rates for speeds from Vs up to 120 kts or so? I'd be interested in seeing the #'s. Thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marc_zeitlin (AT) alum (DOT) mit.edu http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2007 A couple of things might come into play... 1) 80 knots was the indicated airspeed, and is subject to whatever errors are present in my ASI and pitot/static system at that speed. 2) An RV-6 has a pretty low aspect ratio and therefore gets really draggy as you approach stall speed. This may tend to increase minimum sink speed. I didn't try to evaluate the glide outside a range of about 60 knots indicated to 90 knots indicated. KB Back to top Dale Alexander Guest Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters I went to Lycoming school several years ago. One of the memorable items mentioned was that if an owner re-clocks the prop to make hand-propping easier, cracks in aluminum brackets and filament failures in instrument bulbs most likely would result. The instructor mentioned that this was due to a high frequency vibration (one that the pilot may not notice) that would result from an out-of-balance condition. His moral to the story, if these conditions exixt on your plane, check the index position of the flange master dowel to the prop. Your combination was out-of-balance enough to notice before failures began. Dale Alexander "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message news:bfudncfzHemxC6fbnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com... Quote: I have always clocked the prop on my RV-6 so it stops at 10:00 and 4:00 when viewed from the front. The idea being that this is the best orientation for hand propping if I ever needed to do that. During my recent condition inspection, I mistakenly reinstalled the prop with either a 120 degree lead or a 60 degree lag from normal, depending on how you look at things. On my trip to SnF, I noticed that there was considerably more vibration than normal, particularly at higher power settings and rpm, but otherwise things were fine. I noticed the same thing when I flew earlier this week. Due to an in-process installation of a 12V outlet in the cockpit, there is an unclipped zip tie visible during flight which has not been clipped. With the prop normally clocked, the tip of the zip tie hardly moves. When the prop was indexed differently, the end of the zip tie shook like a double jointed hooker on dollar day. OK, maybe not that bad, but I felt a real need to work that line into my narrative... So, today I reindexed the prop. And we're back to a very smooth engine/prop combination, which makes me a happy camper. It made up for the fact that the videographer (me) completely screwed up the recording of a prop stopped glide test I conducted earlier this week when I went to altitude and shut down the engine for about 5 minutes of glider time.. I had great intentions of filming all of the instrument readings (ASI, VSI, etc) during the test and having the prop visibly stopped in the background of the video. Unfortunately, I must have missed when I went to push the record button, because I had zero, zip, nada, nothing, when I went to review the recording. I can tell you that 80 knots indicated is the minimum sink speed on my RV-6 with the prop stopped, and the sink rate is 700-750 fpm at that speed. Also, it requires 140 knots indicated to get the prop windmilling again to restart the engine. And, with the prop stopped, the engine/prop combination is extremely smooth.... ;-) KB Back to top Guest Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters On May 4, 4:55 am, "Kyle Boatright" <kboatrig...@comcast.net> wrote: Quote: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marc_zeit...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in messagenews:463aa42e$0$4654$4c368faf (AT) roadrunner (DOT) com... Kyle Boatright wrote: I can tell you that 80 knots indicated is the minimum sink speed on my RV-6 with the prop stopped, and the sink rate is 700-750 fpm at that speed. Huh. That seems fast, for an RV-6 (sink rate seems reasonable, though). Van's lists the stall speed as 49 mph (43 kts). I would have expected min. sink speed to be somewhere around 1.2 Vs, or 51 kts. 80 kts (92 mph) seems really high. My COZY has a stall speed of about 70 mph (61 kts), give or take, and the min. sink speed is around 80 mph (70 kts), with a max L/D around 95 mph (83 kts). Sink rate at min. sink is around 550 fpm. Do you have sink rates for speeds from Vs up to 120 kts or so? I'd be interested in seeing the #'s. Thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marc_zeit...@alum.mit.edu http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2007 A couple of things might come into play... 1) 80 knots was the indicated airspeed, and is subject to whatever errors are present in my ASI and pitot/static system at that speed. 2) An RV-6 has a pretty low aspect ratio and therefore gets really draggy as you approach stall speed. This may tend to increase minimum sink speed. I didn't try to evaluate the glide outside a range of about 60 knots indicated to 90 knots indicated. Any short-winged airplane will sink pretty good when slow. My Jodel stalls at around 40 but it's sinking so fast by the time I get there that the stall speed is irrelevant. If I get below 60 indicated the bottom falls out pretty quick. Prop indexing has something to do with the prop's orientation during the power pulse. Most of these opposed engines have a slight rocking moment around the vertical axis, caused by the offset of the opposing cylinders, and if the prop is more or less horizontal during the biggest push, it will prevent most of that rotation just because of the location of the blade masses and felt vibration wil be minimized. Having the prop at 10:00/4:00 has the prop passing through the horizontal during much of the power stroke. That's what I understand, anyway. Vibration analysis defies intuitive thinking so I might be all wet. Something I don't understand is the idea that old guys have told me: if the alternator belt on your 6-banger Continental with its three-bladed prop keeps flipping off,. rotate (re-index) the prop 180 degrees and it will stop doing that. It works, too: on a 185 we used to have, the alternator belt regularly flew off until we rotated that prop. I didn't think a three-blade prop would have any sweet spots, but as I said, vibration analysis defies intuitive thinking. Dan Back to top Peter Dohm Guest Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 3:43 am    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters "Dale Alexander" <dalexan48 (AT) dslextreme (DOT) com> wrote in message news:133mfjq4kqh5t5e (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com... Quote: I went to Lycoming school several years ago. One of the memorable items mentioned was that if an owner re-clocks the prop to make hand-propping easier, cracks in aluminum brackets and filament failures in instrument bulbs most likely would result. The instructor mentioned that this was due to a high frequency vibration (one that the pilot may not notice) that would result from an out-of-balance condition. His moral to the story, if these conditions exixt on your plane, check the index position of the flange master dowel to the prop. Your combination was out-of-balance enough to notice before failures began. Dale Alexander It really is not my specialty, and I do not know in the case of aircraft engines, or for current production automotive engines, but it was common for manufacturers not to "zero balance" a lot of the older automotive engines. That means that the flywheel was heavier on one side because it acted as either all, or more likely part, of one of the crankshaft balance weights. Just a little "food for thought." Peter Back to top Morgans Guest Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:01 am    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters "Peter Dohm" <lefty133 (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote Quote: It really is not my specialty, and I do not know in the case of aircraft engines, or for current production automotive engines, but it was common for manufacturers not to "zero balance" a lot of the older automotive engines. That means that the flywheel was heavier on one side because it acted as either all, or more likely part, of one of the crankshaft balance weights. That is now part of the function of the harmonic balancer, on today's auto engines. -- Jim in NC Back to top Guest Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters On May 4, 5:01 pm, "Morgans" <jsmor...@charterJUNK.net> wrote: Quote: "Peter Dohm" <lefty...@bellsouth.net> wrote It really is not my specialty, and I do not know in the case of aircraft engines, or for current production automotive engines, but it was common for manufacturers not to "zero balance" a lot of the older automotive engines. That means that the flywheel was heavier on one side because it acted as either all, or more likely part, of one of the crankshaft balance weights. That is now part of the function of the harmonic balancer, on today's auto engines. -- Jim in NC Sometimes. Many of them aren't heavy on one side. The "harmonic" part comes from the fact that it's two pieces of metal, an inner hub and outer ring, with rubber between them. The rubber-mounted ring (pulley) dampens the high-frequency vibrations created along the crankshaft, or "ringing," that can cause catastrophic crankshaft failure if its amplitude happens to increase at some resonant RPM. It's there to "detune" the crank. Short, stiff cranks usually don't need them. Dan Back to top Morgans Guest Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters <Dan_Thomas_ wrote Quote: Sometimes. Many of them aren't heavy on one side. I'm not surprised. The engines I am most familiar with are weighted, but I don't have much exposure to a lot of engines. I should have used another weasel word like "some of." Quote: The "harmonic" part comes from the fact that it's two pieces of metal, an inner hub and outer ring, with rubber between them. Right, which is why I said "part of the function." -- Jim in NC Back to top Kyle Boatright Guest Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:28 am    Post subject: Re: Prop Clocking Matters "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message news:N4idndVDZp2PjKbbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com... Quote: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marc_zeitlin (AT) alum (DOT) mit.edu> wrote in message news:463aa42e$0$4654$4c368faf (AT) roadrunner (DOT) com... Kyle Boatright wrote: I can tell you that 80 knots indicated is the minimum sink speed on my RV-6 with the prop stopped, and the sink rate is 700-750 fpm at that speed. Huh. That seems fast, for an RV-6 (sink rate seems reasonable, though). Van's lists the stall speed as 49 mph (43 kts). I would have expected min. sink speed to be somewhere around 1.2 Vs, or 51 kts. 80 kts (92 mph) seems really high. My COZY has a stall speed of about 70 mph (61 kts), give or take, and the min. sink speed is around 80 mph (70 kts), with a max L/D around 95 mph (83 kts). Sink rate at min. sink is around 550 fpm. Do you have sink rates for speeds from Vs up to 120 kts or so? I'd be interested in seeing the #'s. Thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marc_zeitlin (AT) alum (DOT) mit.edu http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2007 A couple of things might come into play... 1) 80 knots was the indicated airspeed, and is subject to whatever errors are present in my ASI and pitot/static system at that speed. 2) An RV-6 has a pretty low aspect ratio and therefore gets really draggy as you approach stall speed. This may tend to increase minimum sink speed. I didn't try to evaluate the glide outside a range of about 60 knots indicated to 90 knots indicated. KB I look up the old 1993 CAFE report where they extensively flight tested an RV-6a. That airplane's minimum sink speed was determined to be 70 knots, but that was using their "zero thrust" testing method. With that technique, it is as if the prop doesn't exist - it neither provides thrust or drag. Not a terribly good measure, if you ask me, because getting rid of the prop in flight isn't a user selectable option on most airplanes. In addition to instrumentation differences (CAFE does a very good job installing and calibrating the instruments in their test aircraft), my airplane has some physical differences from the test airplane. First, mine has the stock cowl, which may be draggier than the test airplane. My airplane has lower drag gear leg fairings and wheel pants than the test aircraft. In addition, the test aircraft had a nosewheel, as opposed to my taildragger. What does all of this tell us? Dunno. KB Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aircraft Design & Building All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.