rv-7a wrote:

However, my bubble was busted by the Van's RVAtor article on flutter (6th issue 2004). Van’s engineers instructed their readership on flutter – that Vne is really a TAS limit, not an IAS limit. A US Air Force pilot and RV commuter corroborated the Van’s article by telling his disturbing TAS flutter story (first 2005 RVAtor issue). If you haven’t read this, I recommend it for all pilots, no matter what they fly.

 

I’ve decided to follow Van’s advice and restrict my upper airspeed to limit to 200 KTS TAS in smooth air. I don’t want to be a test pilot. Therefore, I’m reconsidering my plan to supercharge the Renesis/RD-1C installation. The weight penalty may not be worth climb performance increase if 200 KTS TAS cruise can be easily achieved with a normally aspirated installation. If I can collect empirical data from RV Rotary flyers, it would sure help my decision.

 

Thanks,

John Burns

rv-7a@comcast.net

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jgburns/Engine/Engine.html for my engine webpage.

 

Intuitively it does not make sense that flutter is a TAS issue. I would be interested in reviewing the engineering/hypothesis on which this is based. The plane "feels" IAS.. not TAS... you can have a TAS of 400 and still have only an IAS of 200 (if you are high enough).. IAS is the dynamic pressure and state that the aircraft experiences. So.. I would be greatly interested in knowing why the engineers are making this claim and what its basis is.
 
Dave