Restoring an RV6

Slider, nothing else. But, always with supertracks (https://flyboyaccessories.com/)

That’s easy. Slider every time🙂. I get fed up of drying out the interior of the DA40 when it chucks it down, just as we are getting out.
Also slider does not have the same risk in high wind and you can taxi with it slightly open on very hot days.

The RV-8 isRV14 wrote:

The point I’m trying to make is trivial: there are trade offs to every configuration. Good idea to point them out

Yes, there are tradeoffs with a constant speed prop. My Hartzell is awesome, but it is heavier and more expensive to purchase and maintain than a FP. I doubt there are many on this forum that have not seen this debate played out 100s of times on the internet. 🤣

In any case, we are all looking forward to the comprehensive report, with all the pros and cons, all weight/CG, and all flight test results in before-after comparative charts, which will no doubt be published here on EuroGA by @IO390 following not only his FP → CSP move, but the rest of the implemented mods

Dan wrote:

Next question would be, why has the CSP ever been conceived, and is being applied (as installed and used) in a majority of RVs

correct me if I’m wrong, but according to my memory, the factory build RV10 prototype was the first one which flew with a constant speed prop. RV6 was certainly engineered with a FP prop

Dan wrote:

One specific condition… of which there are hundreds, thousands, millions on each and every flight?

Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough, let me rephrase my statement:
If someone wants the fastest RV6, then FP prop would be the way to go, of course performance at other speeds will suffer
if the goal is to achieve the shortest takes take off, then again get a fixed pitch propeller
if one wants to win every single dogfight, than FP prop is a must have it would not be the fasted AND shortest take off airplane at the same time though

The point I’m trying to make is trivial: there are trade offs to every configuration. Good idea to point them out

at one specific condition

Absolutely.
One specific condition… of which there are hundreds, thousands, millions on each and every flight?
Next question would be, why has the CSP ever been conceived, and is being applied (as installed and used) in a majority of RVs, as well as SEPs?
And the still non-answered basic query, are u driving in 2nd or 3rd gear drive on your car?

PS
That will be my last take on this one @RV14. Feel free to open a new thread on FP vs CSP, pros and cons, good luck

Dan wrote:

you obviously don’t have the W&B of a typical RV-6

Of course I’m not gonna debate you on a “typical” RV6. It’s super easy to build an overweight aircraft and even easier to add kilograms over the years.

Dan wrote:

I’d rather say a CSP will offer an « increase in power », at all levels and airspeeds. With a CSP you will be able to get rated power at any altitude or temperature, which one definitely does not get with a FP.

Governor would consume power and add weight, that means less power and more drag, because aircraft will be flying at a higher angel of attack
CS Prop will always be heavier than an equivalent FP one, therefore again more drag

And please allow me to correct you on this one:
Dan wrote:

CSP will offer an « increase in power », at all levels and airspeeds

FP prop would / might outperform CS prop at one specific condition

where more weight on the nose

We could probably argue thru the nite… you obviously don’t have the W&B of a typical RV-6… which I happen to have
Believe me, or probably believe me not, but a typical-6, as originally designed, will be tail heavy with its wooden prop and O-320. Adding weight up front (maybe installing a CSP) will permit a MTOM operation which would in most other cases not be possible as the rear CG would be compromised before.

less power are not desired

Say what? I’d rather say a CSP will offer an « increase in power », at all levels and airspeeds. With a CSP you will be able to get rated power at any altitude or temperature, which one definitely does not get with a FP.