Yeah, I lose a lot of sleep over this BS. Wait, not really [emoji12]

P.S. My wingtip is totally 1" better than yours!!!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skalywag wrote:Yeah, I lose a lot of sleep over this BS. Wait, not really [emoji12]

P.S. My wingtip is totally 1" better than yours!!!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, the take away here is to keep posts shallow and non technical else the trolls come out from under their bridge.

I agree that "book is book" re rigging instructions,
but IMHO achieving "book" speeds isn't always possible.
For most airplane these book speeds were obtained with clean airplanes (minimal antennae etc), fresh everything, perfect rigging, etc.
You might acheive book speeds, or maybe just come close.
But the "book" figures for some airplanes are not realistic.
Old BD Maule for example put out some rather astonishing cruise speed specs for his airplanes,
I doubt many people have been able to duplicate them.

StillLearning wrote: I am far from one who will ignore problems or symptoms of problems.


other than the ball being a touch to the left when I fly by myself, I don't see any issues. I cruise at 152mph, not sure if that is normal or not. I have tried flying with a touch of rudder to center the ball and without centering the ball and I do not find any measurable difference in speed.

Do you see the conflict in your statements?

"Book" for me also is kind of meaningless, the motor is bigger, the leading edge is different, tailwheel and mains are different, wing tips are different, I don't know where it is "supposed" to be.

This is kind of the point. I've never rigged an airplane that wouldn't make book speed without being able to account for it. It doesn't have to make the numbers, but there should be a reason (big tires, tons of towel racks that used to be antennas, etc.)

The last one I did from scratch burned 3 GPH more than my dad's bird (both 185s) on the ferry flight home. Now the only difference between them is only due to tire size. Seems like a worthy venture to me...

Bigrenna wrote:…..The flap gaps will help with some speed, but really should be tossed for better short field perf. Its very easy to remove them w/out any deficits to the paint. PM me if you want the skinny on that. ...

I discovered whan I removed my flap gap seals a few years ago that the airplane had been painted after they were installed.
Besides a row of itty bitty cherrymax holes, I also have a thin strip of unpainted / mispainted skin.
Actually not very conspicuous, except to me, and my airplane's not a show piece anyway,
but this is a possible consequence you should be aware of.

Seaplane drain holes now.....not a bad mod to keep the wings dry.

Gary

Nice opening post, Greg.

I wish someone more specialized had helped me with my pre-buy back in 2016. We're now finishing a process of fixing multiple issues in the tail that will ultimately add up to about $14K in parts & labor -- almost all of it would have been caught by a savvy inspector.

The breadcrumb trail originated with a wing heavy condition.

J

Bigrenna, I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your original post. Is there any chance of emailing me the article you reference?

I've been around aircraft a lot of years now and have only seen anyone completely re-rig an aircraft once. About 35 years ago my Dad flew an old engineer, Vern Trueman, out from the States to Australia. Vern was an Ag Cat man and completely re-rigged Dad's 3 Ag Cats and he couldn't have been happier. He burnt less fuel, found the long days less fatiguing and said he stalled out of turns far less. Dad loved his Ag Cats, and never more then when they were rigged correctly.

I was 15 at the time and thought it was all a bit of mystery and a dark art.