If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Long wrote: With a four-banger, the pistons tend to stop halfway along the bores. That would put the front throw either up or down. That would mean that the prop stops in the vertical position when it's indexed this way. Correct? It's actually about 45 degrees from vertical. That indicates that the prop was indexed to allow hand-propping, not indexed for the least vibration. George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
No these were all planes by different owners and we have a self service fuel
station. -- Roger Long "Kyler Laird" wrote in message ... "Roger Long" om writes: While walking to my plane, I noticed that all the props were at the same angle. It looked like someone had gone out and arranged them. This *is* done sometimes, isn't it? It's something I've suspected but never investigated. The reason I suspect it is that I think that I've noticed my props having been turned after an FBO has moved it. I assumed that they want the props near horizontal for towing. That would be especially true for a single (tractor) engine plane. --kyler |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:19:08 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote: snip That indicates that the prop was indexed to allow hand-propping, not indexed for the least vibration. sig snip On Wed, 05 May 2004 02:30:47 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III" wrote: With a four-banger, the pistons tend to stop halfway along the bores. That would put the front throw either up or down. That would mean that the prop stops in the vertical position when it's indexed this way. Correct? Unsure. Honestly have never really thought about it from this perspective. As you posted above, I seem to remember when indexed according to "the book", the descending blade would typically stop approximately 45 degrees from the "top" (vertical).. It would seem reasonable to me that this would be one bolt hole away (in the direction of rotation) from being aligned with the #1 throw. I'm sorry I cannot be more specific, it's been several years since I left GA. If you don't "use it", you eventually start to "lose it", I guess. TC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:36:12 -0600, MikeM wrote:
wrote: I have checked the vibe level in-flight on numerous occasions, on aircraft that acted "strange" after a standard dy-bal. How do you get the wire from the accelerometer/position pickup into the cabin during flight? ty wraps and 200 MPH tape. The newer balancing equipment can log the vibe signature through a wide frequency range and is useful in these cases also. The older CH spectrum analyzer could also do a survey of a range of frequencies. Since the only place that you can put a weight is on the prop spinner backing plate, can Prop balancing do anything except cancel the "first order" mass imbalance (usually called a "static" balance)? You are correct on most engines you do not have access to the rear of the crankshaft. Wouldn't you have to have access to the other end of the crankshaft to add weights there in order to be able to do a true multi dimensional "dynamic balance"? Yes I'm not trying to be argumentative; just trying to understand the claims made by the purveyors of prop balancing services. It would seem to me (and forgive me, it's been a few years) that on a constant-speed propeller that achieving cruise rpm is quite do-able. I'm thinking that we useta set the rpm approx. 100 rpm over the desired "cruise" setting using the throttle, and retarded it using the prop control. I have wondered that during a ground run, doesn't the buffeting caused when the prop tip swings within a couple of inches of the ground induce wierd vibrations in the moving propeller that might not be there if the prop where swinging in free air? This would give a 2 X per rev vibration. Mass imbalance gives a 1 X per rev vibration. In other words, wouldn't it be preferrable to record vibration data during an actual flight, and then postprocess it into a "where and how much weight" solution later? Much more trouble and the chance of removing some paint when removing the tape holding the wires exists. A proper dy-bal job performed by a knowledgeable technician is a decent value. We did all the company aircraft mainly because we owned the box... What is a typical charge for this service? Most A&P's that work on helicopters have the balancer needed. Thanks, MikeM What you are trying to do is balance to 0.1 IPS or less. To do this requires corrections in the range of a few gram-inches. This is the weight in grams multiplied by the distance said weight is from the center of rotation. All props have some slop in the mounting to the crankshaft. Lets say you have a prop that weighs 22 Lb or about 10 kilograms. If it has a 0.001 inch slop between the prop and the crankshaft bolts then 0.001*10,000 grams is 10 gram inches. The correction weight would be 2 grams at 5 inches or 10 grams at 1 inch. To get an acceptable vibration level I used to balance a tail rotor of a H269 helicopter to within one tenth of a gram. It does not take many bug splatters to equal this amount! John |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:36:12 -0600, MikeM wrote:
How do you get the wire from the accelerometer/position pickup into the cabin during flight? Depends on the install. Ty-raps, oil door/cowl flap/cowl, "wing window"/cabin door and duct tape. Put the reflective tape on the prop face (instead of the back) and shine the strobe through the window. The newer balancing equipment can log the vibe signature through a wide frequency range and is useful in these cases also. The older CH spectrum analyzer could also do a survey of a range of frequencies. Since the only place that you can put a weight is on the prop spinner backing plate, can Prop balancing do anything except cancel the "first order" mass imbalance (usually called a "static" balance)? Wouldn't you have to have access to the other end of the crankshaft to add weights there in order to be able to do a true multi dimensional "dynamic balance"? I'm not trying to be argumentative; just trying to understand the claims made by the purveyors of prop balancing services. If you haven't figured it out by now, I am not selling a darn thing, nor do I tend to avoid controversy. You bring up some valid points, I'll do my humble best to address them. I'm not an engineer, just anonymous guy on Usenet that might know how to balance props-with trial and error, a little elementary physics, and some phone calls to powerplant and propeller engineers-and has possibly balanced quite a few over the years. Standard disclaimer-This info is worth exactly what you paid for it. As you've indicated, the best way (I'm aware of) to do a vibe survey is to mount a velocimeter as close to the front of the engine as practical, and another on the accessory case. In a perfect world, with a simple 1st order front end "prop" shake, the rear of the engine will be driven in the opposite direction as the front (when the front is pulled "up" by the vibe, the rear is being pushed "down"). Reducing a simple mechanical imbalance by adding weight to the prop hub/backplate will reduce the amount of vibration measured at both ends of the engine. A mechanical imbalance on the rear of the engine will have the same affect (effect?) on the front. In most cases, reducing the the measured 1st order vibe at the front will also reduce it at the rear. In other cases, adding additional weight to take the vibration cycle "beyond" 0.0 IPS, actually creating vibration 180 degrees out of phase from the original imbalance (at a reduced level) will reduce the measured vibration at the rear of the engine by a larger amount. My thoughts are that this would tend to reduce the 1st order vibes that are felt from the driver's seat. The problem (common to most aspects of GA maintenance) is the average owner wants the job performed yesterday with $$ spent being the primary consideration. The quickest way to do that is to reduce the vibe level at the front (single velocimeter installed) to below .1 IPS. It is also the most practical/economical method. A spectrum analyzer comes in handy when diagnosing "strange" vibrations, or when a massive reduction in 1st order vibes doesn't seem to make a big difference in the cockpit. The most common cause of this that I have seen is 1/2 order vibration. The frequency is lower, it tends to shake the panel (and your backside) a lot harder. We used an old low-tech box, but it was simple to dial in 1/2 the rpm, and measure the 1/2 order vibe. Again, as you've indicated, IMHO this is nothing that can be remedied by adding weights to the hub/backplate. It just allows you to "see" that there are higher levels of other vibration frequencies present, and confirms that the backside is giving the brain good data. I really think it is impossible to change the levels of these vibrations at non 1/1 frequencies by hanging weights on the front. Is any of this making sense? Forgive me if it is not, some of this stuff is hard for me to describe face-to-face, let alone with fingers and a keyboard. I have wondered that during a ground run, doesn't the buffeting caused when the prop tip swings within a couple of inches of the ground induce wierd vibrations in the moving propeller that might not be there if the prop where swinging in free air? In other words, wouldn't it be preferrable to record vibration data during an actual flight, and then postprocess it into a "where and how much weight" solution later? OK, I have seen what effect (affect?) gusting winds have on dy-bal jobs, hence the reference to balancing in the hangar. I've often wondered the same thing. The only in-flight checking I have done has been on the "weird" ones, and typically did not see a big difference in the 1st order levels between ground runs and in flight. If I had a better answer based on personal observation, I would share it. Again, remember, the average guy just wants it done cheap and in a hurry, and end up with a turbine-smooth result. What is a typical charge for this service? No idea. Had a prop shop next door, so had a relatively high volume of dy-bal jobs. At that time we were more concerned with taking care of our customers by offering the additional service (balanced with the capability to do our own 'planes inexpensively) than making a profit. When I got out of GA several years ago, we charged $150.00 for a basic single-engine dy-bal which included 1 hour of shop labor. That would usually cover a survey run, installing "test" weights, a final run, and basic permanent weight installation. Any additional labor was charged at the normal shop rate. A twin was $300.00 and included 2 hours of labor. At that time, due to a relatively well-defined FAA ruling (that was several years old, just hadn't trickled down to the field) if no approved maintenance manual procedure for dy-bal/weight attachment was present, a 337 was required. Not a real big deal to fill out a 337, but it takes time. And at that time, GA "approved" dy-bal procedures where pretty much non-existent. Am not sure if that has changed in recent years. Our equipment was basic, and experience with how much weight needed to be added where was a necessity. I had a knack for it, and usually didn't have to do a lot of weight swapping and additional survey runs. The primary advantage to the newer digital equipment is that it uses a optical "tach" pickup, and tells you exactly how much weight to add and where. A secondary advantage is the ability to do spectrum analysis. The disadvantage is that with anything other than the "perfect world" scenario, you're right back to trial-and-error and experience. Apologize for the length; TC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:22:52 -0600, mikem wrote:
Toecutter and John, thanks for the informative responses. I am interested in the methods. I have a few more ?? Sure thing. Are the accelerometers two axis (X-Y) or single axis? The units I am familiar with are all single axis. If single axis, are they mounted so as to be sensitive left-right or up-down? Mounting is the semi-tricky part. The instructions say to mount securely as close to the front of the engine as possible, with the "axis" pointing as directly at the center of the crank, perpendicular to it. I have mounted them off-set somewhat, just makes figuring out where to add the weights (and the amount of weight) a little trickier. Do all balancers use the second accelerometer on the accessory case? The ones that I am familiar with are two channel units. They can be used one sensor per engine on a twin, or as front/rear, just depends where you bolt them on. Do the engine mounts allow more up-down, or left-right shake if the engine-prop are out of balance? Here's the deal, with a strobe-type unit, the engine rpm is dialed into the box (after fine-tuning it is an accurate way of checking the ship's tach) and the strobe pointed at a piece of reflective tape placed on the back of the prop blade. With the engine running at the desired rpm, the stobe will "stop" the tape somewhere in the circle of rotation, and the box will indicate the measured amplitude of the vibe. When the engine is shut down, the prop is rotated to the same position it was in with the blade "stopped". The sensed "heavy spot" is now aligned with where the velocimeter is mounted, the weight is added 180 degrees (directly opposing) the velocimeter. Since the heavy spot is rotating 360 degrees during engine operation I see no relationship in regard to left/right up/down vibration and the engine mounts. A Lycoming "dyna-focal" mounting is supposed to make it easier for the engine to vibrate "around" it's center of mass, front to rear. but we're sorta getting in over my head. Is the criteria for "best subjective" balance some combination at what the front and rear accelerometer see? With regard to 1st order vibration, a qualifed yes. In other words, if all you had to work with was the front accelerometer, and you balanced to minimise its amplitude at the fundamental shaft rotation, could you create a situation that the pilot may interpret as making things worse? Not typically, I've always assumed that since the front and rear are for the most part flying in formation with the vibes 180 degrees out of phase, reducing the front side will tend to reduce the rear side level also. I know this is an elementary way to look at it, but I'm kind of a simple guy. Every once in awhile this is not the case. I am really not sure in the case of 1/2 order vibration that it gets "worse", but removing/reducing the 1st order vibe can make others that are present seem "worse", or at least overall vibe level apparently un-changed. The quickest way to do that is to reduce the vibe level at the front (single velocimeter installed) to below .1 IPS. It is also the most practical/economical method. Is this "good enough" in most cases? Yes. In most cases, when a single that shows up with anywhere from a ..4-.9 IPS level can be reduced to below .1 (sometimes is can be reduced to next to nothing) using a front-mounted sensor, there will be a definite change in the overall vibration level in the cabin. As I indicated before, if the apparent vibration level stills seems high, a rear sensor and/or a specturm analyzer can help point a finger in the right direction, but a dy-bal probably ain't gonna help much. ..1 IPS is the maximum "balanced" level, if on the initial survey run the level is above 1.0 IPS, adding weights/performing a dy-bal is NOT recommended. Have only seen this a half dozen or so times. Yanking the prop and checking the static balance is the first step, then a more thorough inspection of the prop/engine until a problem is found. The only "mechanical" explanation I can imagine for 1/2 RPM vibration modes is that there is a weak cylinder, which in a 4 cycle engine only fires every other shaft rotation? That was my thinking also, but personally never came across a flat cylinder, or any other combustion cycle-related mechanical problem to back it up this theory. To clarify, I am not saying that you are incorrect. Makes perfect sense. I am an engineer and know enough about electronics, instrumentation, mechanics, & digital signal processing to be totally dangerous. Heh, sounds suspiciously like me walking across the ramp pushing a toolbox carrying a cordless screwdriver with a full charge (totally dangerous). Is the 337 necessary to do the ground testing, or only testing during flight, or to drill a hole and put a bolt into the spinner backing plate? Um, er, the flight-testing is gray-area stuff. The way I understood it at the time, is that if no procedure was in place, adding (or removing) weights in any manner required a 337. The thought is that the engine is required to be balanced within certain limits via the repair/overhaul specs, likewise the propeller. Since a typical dy-bal will likely put the static balance of the propeller assy outside of published limits, it is a major alteration. Likewise as you indicated, if no mechanical provision for securing the weights is provided, this is also an alteration. Since I was lucky enuff to have a prop shop next door, I had access to current technical data (and parts) which allowed me to use the propeller provisions for static balance weights for a lot of balance jobs. I have run into some balancer equipment salesmen at airshows who make all sort of claims about "you dont have to know anything to use our equipment" which automatically set off my "bull**** detector". Heh, tend to have a relatively low tolerance for it myself. Have only demo'ed the new digital stuff. If you've got a decent local guy that thinks dy-bals are something he/she wants to get into, ACES useta keep a couple of demo machines available for demo use. Am not pimping for ACES, was just one of the digital demos that I remember doing (was either the 2015 or the 2020). Just did a web search, and here is a link to dload their operating manuals, if you're interested in more info on how-to: http://www.acessystems.com/manuals.htm Again, it's been awhile since I used them, but they use a photo tach pickup to spot/stop the reflective tape. After the survey run, the machine tells you the moment/angular location of the correction weight needed. The tape is lined up with the optical pickup, and the angular reference is from this point. A calculator function allowed you to input the arm (distance from the center of rotation) of the desired weight mounting point, and would calculate the weight required. It also allowed you to "split" the location, inputting the angular locations of the available mounting points if one was not available in the proper location. The solution would tell you how much weight to put at each location. A second run would confirm the final solution. For a basic single velocimeter balance job to below .1, the machine will do just about all of the heavy-lifting. But beyond that, the tech has to kinda know what's going on. Appreciate your experience and willingness to share it Any time. If I don't hang around here and throw in a little now and them, I'm going to forget more about what I've learned in GA than what I already have... TC |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hello Folks,
Its been awhile since I've checked the group. I'd like to make a few comments to an old thread from early May. Toecutter covered the bases pretty well. a few things I might add: A fixed pitch prop that is not indexed correctly,not aligned with the crankthrows as closely as possible, will still leave a 0.3- 0.4 IPS reading on the aft of the engine. As per constant speed props, I can't say for sure because its hard for to install one out of position! However there have been problems with some models initially that were corrected by the mfg. The Grumman AA-5 to the 5A to the 5B give different index instructions. Basically same engine and prop on all. The first 300 serial numbers of the Mooney M20J have a service bulletin to rearrange the crank flange bushings to bring the prop axis closer to the crank throws. This changes the engine from an IO-360-A1Bx to an IO-360-A3Bx, (I forget the suffix's last number). Also somewhere in the Lycoming Svc Bltn book is one is about the same for some of the Aviat Husky's. I always run two channels if possible. It gives me a good idea of the crank/rod balance quality. Maybe 1 out of 40 times something else will show up. There been instances where the prop balance was very good to begin with but didn't the engine had a rear vibration that needed to be considered. Anybody remember the rod bearing AD on the Piper Mirage? The 1/2 order vibration felt in the cockpit is a product of the combustion pulse. Equipment salesmen will tell you it is camshaft imbalance but that is a crock. During a flight test, leave the rpm the same but take away the MP to 15" or less, the 1/2 spike will reduce to minimum. The same with some of the higher order harmonics. If the engine is running in good shape, and a strong 1/2 is felt in the cockpit, then its an isolation problem. It could be lord mounts or something like an exhaust pipe hitting the cowl. Maybe a rocker box cover rubbing inside a Bonanza cowl. Toecutter is right though, some pilots only notice it after a prop balance, even though it was there all along. I could write a few pages about customer perceptions of vibrations. My experience with twins? It does make a difference in the cockpit! I have a handful of particular stories about twins. I might had been the culprit that caused the Feds to mandate 337's back in 1990-91. I did some work in another FSDO's turf and they called my FSDO. I was shut down for two months and the FAA memo calling it a major alteration was published. Even then though many many operators never bothered. And many Feds neither. It use to be stated in the ACES procedure but now is not. The addition of hardware to a prop bulkhead is an alteration unless it is permitted in the mfg's maint. manual. At that time, it was only in a few turboprop manuals. Mooney came out with their own bulletin and checked every plane off the line. Beech started doing it recently, but you won't find any note in the logbooks! After I checked a 75 hour SN Baron, I called the tech rep. I don't think Cessna or Piper bothers. It is an airframe alteration since the airframe mfg is the final authority as to what spinner model is installed on the airframe. Sometime around 1999, a memo out of some office in the Anchorage FSDO called it a minor alteration and stated it superceded that previous memo. I have always used boilerplate 337 forms that I fill in the blank. I still complete them. Heck I use them to renew my IA! The three major brands of equipment all work on the same principles. It just the interface to the operator that varies. I've used a Chadwick 192 since 1988. Sure a rookie can use the newer equipment easily, but experience certainly helps, and helps in the most important of all: customer service. Take care Kent Felkins Tulsa wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:22:52 -0600, mikem wrote: Toecutter and John, thanks for the informative responses. I am interested in the methods. I have a few more ?? Sure thing. Are the accelerometers two axis (X-Y) or single axis? The units I am familiar with are all single axis. If single axis, are they mounted so as to be sensitive left-right or up-down? Mounting is the semi-tricky part. The instructions say to mount securely as close to the front of the engine as possible, with the "axis" pointing as directly at the center of the crank, perpendicular to it. I have mounted them off-set somewhat, just makes figuring out where to add the weights (and the amount of weight) a little trickier. Do all balancers use the second accelerometer on the accessory case? The ones that I am familiar with are two channel units. They can be used one sensor per engine on a twin, or as front/rear, just depends where you bolt them on. Do the engine mounts allow more up-down, or left-right shake if the engine-prop are out of balance? Here's the deal, with a strobe-type unit, the engine rpm is dialed into the box (after fine-tuning it is an accurate way of checking the ship's tach) and the strobe pointed at a piece of reflective tape placed on the back of the prop blade. With the engine running at the desired rpm, the stobe will "stop" the tape somewhere in the circle of rotation, and the box will indicate the measured amplitude of the vibe. When the engine is shut down, the prop is rotated to the same position it was in with the blade "stopped". The sensed "heavy spot" is now aligned with where the velocimeter is mounted, the weight is added 180 degrees (directly opposing) the velocimeter. Since the heavy spot is rotating 360 degrees during engine operation I see no relationship in regard to left/right up/down vibration and the engine mounts. A Lycoming "dyna-focal" mounting is supposed to make it easier for the engine to vibrate "around" it's center of mass, front to rear. but we're sorta getting in over my head. Is the criteria for "best subjective" balance some combination at what the front and rear accelerometer see? With regard to 1st order vibration, a qualifed yes. In other words, if all you had to work with was the front accelerometer, and you balanced to minimise its amplitude at the fundamental shaft rotation, could you create a situation that the pilot may interpret as making things worse? Not typically, I've always assumed that since the front and rear are for the most part flying in formation with the vibes 180 degrees out of phase, reducing the front side will tend to reduce the rear side level also. I know this is an elementary way to look at it, but I'm kind of a simple guy. Every once in awhile this is not the case. I am really not sure in the case of 1/2 order vibration that it gets "worse", but removing/reducing the 1st order vibe can make others that are present seem "worse", or at least overall vibe level apparently un-changed. The quickest way to do that is to reduce the vibe level at the front (single velocimeter installed) to below .1 IPS. It is also the most practical/economical method. Is this "good enough" in most cases? Yes. In most cases, when a single that shows up with anywhere from a .4-.9 IPS level can be reduced to below .1 (sometimes is can be reduced to next to nothing) using a front-mounted sensor, there will be a definite change in the overall vibration level in the cabin. As I indicated before, if the apparent vibration level stills seems high, a rear sensor and/or a specturm analyzer can help point a finger in the right direction, but a dy-bal probably ain't gonna help much. .1 IPS is the maximum "balanced" level, if on the initial survey run the level is above 1.0 IPS, adding weights/performing a dy-bal is NOT recommended. Have only seen this a half dozen or so times. Yanking the prop and checking the static balance is the first step, then a more thorough inspection of the prop/engine until a problem is found. The only "mechanical" explanation I can imagine for 1/2 RPM vibration modes is that there is a weak cylinder, which in a 4 cycle engine only fires every other shaft rotation? That was my thinking also, but personally never came across a flat cylinder, or any other combustion cycle-related mechanical problem to back it up this theory. To clarify, I am not saying that you are incorrect. Makes perfect sense. I am an engineer and know enough about electronics, instrumentation, mechanics, & digital signal processing to be totally dangerous. Heh, sounds suspiciously like me walking across the ramp pushing a toolbox carrying a cordless screwdriver with a full charge (totally dangerous). Is the 337 necessary to do the ground testing, or only testing during flight, or to drill a hole and put a bolt into the spinner backing plate? Um, er, the flight-testing is gray-area stuff. The way I understood it at the time, is that if no procedure was in place, adding (or removing) weights in any manner required a 337. The thought is that the engine is required to be balanced within certain limits via the repair/overhaul specs, likewise the propeller. Since a typical dy-bal will likely put the static balance of the propeller assy outside of published limits, it is a major alteration. Likewise as you indicated, if no mechanical provision for securing the weights is provided, this is also an alteration. Since I was lucky enuff to have a prop shop next door, I had access to current technical data (and parts) which allowed me to use the propeller provisions for static balance weights for a lot of balance jobs. I have run into some balancer equipment salesmen at airshows who make all sort of claims about "you dont have to know anything to use our equipment" which automatically set off my "bull**** detector". Heh, tend to have a relatively low tolerance for it myself. Have only demo'ed the new digital stuff. If you've got a decent local guy that thinks dy-bals are something he/she wants to get into, ACES useta keep a couple of demo machines available for demo use. Am not pimping for ACES, was just one of the digital demos that I remember doing (was either the 2015 or the 2020). Just did a web search, and here is a link to dload their operating manuals, if you're interested in more info on how-to: http://www.acessystems.com/manuals.htm Again, it's been awhile since I used them, but they use a photo tach pickup to spot/stop the reflective tape. After the survey run, the machine tells you the moment/angular location of the correction weight needed. The tape is lined up with the optical pickup, and the angular reference is from this point. A calculator function allowed you to input the arm (distance from the center of rotation) of the desired weight mounting point, and would calculate the weight required. It also allowed you to "split" the location, inputting the angular locations of the available mounting points if one was not available in the proper location. The solution would tell you how much weight to put at each location. A second run would confirm the final solution. For a basic single velocimeter balance job to below .1, the machine will do just about all of the heavy-lifting. But beyond that, the tech has to kinda know what's going on. Appreciate your experience and willingness to share it Any time. If I don't hang around here and throw in a little now and them, I'm going to forget more about what I've learned in GA than what I already have... TC |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 PM |
Ivo Prop on O-320 | Dave S | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 04 03:04 AM |
Prop Pitch Question | Eugene Wendland | Home Built | 2 | April 25th 04 03:22 AM |
IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 6th 03 11:43 PM |
Metal Prop vs. Wood Prop | Larry Smith | Home Built | 21 | September 26th 03 07:45 PM |