What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Aerocentro's Side Stick

Palamedes

Well Known Member
I saw this the other day and it was again linked to me by a friend; http://aerocentro.com.br/usa/

Scroll down a bit and click "PN: SSR10SIDE STICK DLX SYSTEM" then scroll back up and you'll see that they offer a side stick for the RV10.

Here is the image they provide;

revista_aero_centro_2016-4.jpg


I honestly like the idea of a side stick for a number of reasons but I'd like to discuss with you guys the pro's and con's of such a device in a RV-10.

Main con being, it's not something directly approved of by Van's. That's a fairly large sticking point to me.

Also I think you'd have to have a really robust door arm rest, but I could be wrong there..

If you could get past the first, and solve for the second one it'd likely be comfy.

Thoughts?
 
Even above it not being approved by Van's for me would be the weight (assuming the cost doesn't make you choke).

A lot of guys would pay $5400 to remove 26.4 lbs from their airplane.

In my opinion, a casual willingness to add that kind of weight just for the thought that it would be better to not have a stick between their legs shows a lack of understanding of how much the airplanes performance is effected by its total weight.

Rather blunt I guess, but you did ask for opinions......
 
Hard to see, but it appears to not have a forearm rest.

Might be a tad uncomfortable.

I am however a big supporter for side sticks :cool:
 
A lot of guys would pay $5400 to remove 26.4 lbs from their airplane.


The pics didn't specify if the weight was an increase of 26.4 pounds over the stock sticks and linkage or, if that was the total weight of the kit. I suspect the total would be less of an increase once the stock sticks were removed from the equation.

And for the record, I have never worried about an "extra" 26.4 pounds in my RV-10...:p

~Marc
 
Last edited:
Before spending that much I'd want to know what the 'gear ratio' was, e.g. In a full flap forward cg, trimmed for 75kias, how much pull is required to hold the flare?
 
Before spending that much I'd want to know what the 'gear ratio' was, e.g. In a full flap forward cg, trimmed for 75kias, how much pull is required to hold the flare?

I agree with Bob, but I'd go a step further and say that I'd want to fly one and see how the control harmony works out. You're goign to have considerable pitch throw, and not as much roll - and the leverage on roll is going to be quite different.

I like side sticks - but generally when they are electronic, fly-by-wire controls. I've flown some mechanical ones that really don't give good control harmony or forces.

Interesting idea though!
 
The sidesticks I've known of generally have control systems designed for relatively small control forces. As Paul mentioned, harmony is important, and it's not necessarily easy to achieve. With the forces reduced low enough and harmony achieved, sidestick control is by the wrist, not the arm. Since the arm is not involved, it's necessary to have an armrest to keep it still. Otherwise, control precision is difficult to achieve because arm movement leads to unintended large control inputs.

It's possible that this installation isn't a real sidestick controller, but merely a sideward-displaced control stick. If this is so, then Paul's comments are entirely to the point.

Finally, it's not difficult to make an alternative control system. But it is difficult to make one that has excellent harmony, good ergonomics, doesn't waste a lot of panel space, and which isn't excessively heavy.

Dave

Dave
 
Great responses guys.

I think I like the concept of a side yoke, but I've never actually flown one.

Really I think the big thing that is stopping me from moving forward;

1. The cost. That's more avionics I could be getting.

2. The fact that it's not a Van's addition. I didn't even take into consideration the harmony aspect of it. But rather it's not something tested and approved of. The same reason I'm not adding extended tanks.

The weight issue I don't really see.. not with an RV-10.
 
and...time

Also factor in the additional time involved. Even the simplest changes end up being bigger projects than you think...
 
The weight issue I don't really see.. not with an RV-10.
Whenever someone offers you a mod for your airplane, and you want to evaluate whether it's too heavy or not, there's a simple test. Take the parts, and throw them up in the air. If they come down again, the mod is too heavy.

(Paraphrased from Dick Hiscocks, designer of the deHavilland Beaver, when he gave us a lecture on aircraft structures and light aircraft design while in university... Not sure if it was his quote originally or if he borrowed it as well...)
 
Jason
I note from your bio that you are a student pilot. When you have a few real cross country flights in your log book you will realize how important an extra 26 pounds is....

26 pounds is 4.5 gallons of fuel, 20 minutes in an RV10, sometime that will be Really important
26 pounds is that extra suitcase on a long holiday
26 pounds is extra camping gear for Airventure
26 pounds is a lot of avionics
26 fixed pounds is an extra 26 pounds of weight on every landing for the life of the plane
The list goes on.....
 
People who have researched such things will tell you that for precision tracking tasks a sidestick is probably the worst inceptor that there is. Airliners use them to clean up the cockpit and since 99% of the flight is on autopilot it doesn't matter. Fighters use them to save space and weight. This would be the first sidestick I've seen that adds weight. Given the cost, weight and adverse effect on handing qualities I would say that this mod makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine why anyone would do it.
 
People who have researched such things will tell you that for precision tracking tasks a sidestick is probably the worst inceptor that there is. Airliners use them to clean up the cockpit and since 99% of the flight is on autopilot it doesn't matter. Fighters use them to save space and weight. This would be the first sidestick I've seen that adds weight. Given the cost, weight and adverse effect on handing qualities I would say that this mod makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine why anyone would do it.

Passenger comfort is the only one I can think of. On the other hand, it is possible to make the passenger stick removable to eliminate that issue.
 
Jason
I note from your bio that you are a student pilot. When you have a few real cross country flights in your log book you will realize how important an extra 26 pounds is....

26 pounds is 4.5 gallons of fuel, 20 minutes in an RV10, sometime that will be Really important
26 pounds is that extra suitcase on a long holiday
26 pounds is extra camping gear for Airventure
26 pounds is a lot of avionics
26 fixed pounds is an extra 26 pounds of weight on every landing for the life of the plane
The list goes on.....

Let me add to this 2 observations from flying a number of X/Cs at gross and packed to the gills:

1. With 4 pax 26 lbs could be the difference in whether you take bags or not
2. It's not just the added weight, but where that weight is with ref to CG. More weight forward in an RV10 is no bueno.

Beyond that I've never flown a side stick so have no comment pro or con on the configuration but I echo that even simple mods tend to take way more time than you initially anticipate.
 
On the upside: I played with the side sticks at their booth at Oshkosh and they seemed comfortable to use. I'm still considering them in spite of the weight.

(you can find older posts about it here before, too)
 
Didn't work for Van

During the initial development of the RV-10, Van pursued using side sticks. After a number of attempts that didn't measure up to Vans standards of control balance and harmony, he decided to stick with a stick.
 
During the initial development of the RV-10, Van pursued using side sticks. After a number of attempts that didn't measure up to Vans standards of control balance and harmony, he decided to stick with a stick.

This is true.

That doesn't mean that the designers of the system being discussed here didn't find ways to to overcome the design challenges that were encountered (many that have been mentioned here in other posts).... the only way to know would be to fly an RV-10 that had the side stick installation.
 
The question is not how, but why.

I flew a Lancair 4 with side sticks and hated it. I would never put one in any RV. Why screw up one of the best characteristics of an RV?

Carl
 
Disclaimer- I did not build our RV-10 but have built a Kitfox and Zenith 750.

PROS (as I see them)
1. Everyone should build the plane they want.
2. It appears to give you a more open feel.
3. If it works well you will have something cool to talk about at KOSH.

CONS
1. It adds weight in the wrong place.
2. It adds cost.
3. It adds time to the build. (weeks?)
4. Not many have gone before to really know how well they work.
----a. Ergonomically as previously mentioned.
----b. Functionally safe? Probably.
5. Insurance may cost more. My insurance forms asked if built to plans.
6. There is nothing wrong with the stock design.

I personally like to follow the plans to the letter. Particularly with control surfaces.

Incidentally, if you are squeamish about adding extra fuel, I think this is an absolute no.
On the other hand, I want somebody to go for it and let us know how it works out.
 
Last edited:
The question is not how, but why.

I flew a Lancair 4 with side sticks and hated it. I would never put one in any RV. Why screw up one of the best characteristics of an RV?

Carl

I found the Lancair controls very heavy for a side stick. ok in cruise, didn't like it as much in te pattern or maneuvering flight.

Looking at the picture, it appears that aft stick requires moving the whole arm aft,not just the wrist. If this is the case, I think it will take more getting used to and compromise the balance of the controls. If it does retain RV control harmony, it would be great.
 
The question is not how, but why.

I flew a Lancair 4 with side sticks and hated it. I would never put one in any RV. Why screw up one of the best characteristics of an RV?

Carl

If it ain't broke, and it ain't, then....

I am all for experimental aviation, and people are free to try whatever they want. So by all means go for it if that's what floats your boat. But I think people should be aware of what to expect. And 26 lbs is a huge amount of weight. The entire stick and torque tube assembly on my -4 couldn't weigh more than 3 or 4 lbs.
 
One thing to check... How does the center mixing system work, and is its design very similar to the Piper control column? Cherokees have been having trouble with their system in recent years. At the very least, try to eliminate that failure point with any new system!
 
Last edited:
On the "how it works", I think this is the picture you want:

Side%20Stick%203.jpg


Yes, another downside is that it takes away avionics mounting space (but on the other side, if you mount that avionics elsewhere you can make up for the weight distribution).
 
Rodrigo

This is what experimental aviation is about. If it rocks your boat then go for it. 26lbs is heavy, so is my 50lbs aircon. You build it for yourself not the members on the forum.
 
Exactly...

Yep, that is what this hobby is all about. Everything from box stock to almost unimaginable. Make it your own but be aware that there are times TLAR Engineering works..and times it doesn't...
 
Rodrigo

This is what experimental aviation is about. If it rocks your boat then go for it. 26lbs is heavy, so is my 50lbs aircon. You build it for yourself not the members on the forum.

Very true. But it is always better to go into doing a mod on such an important part of the airplane after having done some due diligence and understanding the risk vs reward. Aircon is probably not going to affect the basic flying qualities of the airplane. That is what the OP was about - exploring the pros and cons. I assume that if we had major reservations about it then that's what he wanted to hear about. The final decision is still his.
 
That sure looks like a big bite of real estate behind the panel. It would have a big impact on avionics placement or anything else you plan to put there. Looks like a disaster to me. It can't really help the control feel and likely will make it worse. I don't see an upside.
 
S. Africa?

I have a vague memory of seeing pictures of an RV-10 in S. Africa, or was it in S. America that had a turbine engine and side sticks. Don't know how it flew tho.
 
Afaik there's only one turbine RV-10, and it doesn't use side sticks.
There are *turbo* RV-10s from Aerocentro that have side sticks.
 
I would like to know if is acts as a side stick or yolk? The Cirrus is a side yolk and I have many hours in Cirrus, I think I would prefer the feel of a stick.

I have received this info on the system from Aerocentro:

..this side stick was developed back in 2009, and we already have more than 6000 hours flying on this system.
Last year we show to the market in Oshkosh the new generation of the Side Stick, which is more easy to install, lighter and has smoother controls.
 
side stick

are these guys still around the link to their web site doesn't work and I couldn't find them with google
 
Good morning,

Yes I regularly fly the Cirrus.

As for the RV-10, there was very little stick pressure between the side yoke and the center stick. The only noticeable concern I had was in left roll. The side yoke came very close to the side of the cabin. This may have been due to the interior paneling. there is a lot of it. the Side yoke plane is on the heavy side for RV-10's as it had air conditioning and a number of other mods along the way.

The trim was very sensitive probably due to the gain settings. As you would trim back on final the action was very quick and pronounced requiring a number of short blips to get it where you want it.

Over all there were no stand out concerns with the installation, geometry or forces. If you are familiar with a Cirrus then you will be just fine.

Between the Cirrus and the RV-10 I find the Cirrus to have a heavier feel on the control surfaces. This is most likely due to the different design wing, ailerons and geometry. The Cirrus is a heavier plane overall and very stable for IFR flight. The RV-10 is a bit more nimble and remains nimble even with the side yoke. The Cirrus is very nose heavy and while the flight controls can be set initially in a neutral position you very quickly end up with nose up trim.

I have not had any bad or concerning issues with the side yoke in either plane. I much prefer a side control whether it be a yoke or side stick as in the Lancair. It gives me plenty of room for the space to be used for other purposes such as a slide out desk tray.

Getting in and out of either plane is no different.In fact, I find it easier getting into the RV-10 with the side yoke rather than the center stick. It is also out of the way when needing to do anything under the console of working in the tunnel.

next time i fly the RV-10 I will get pictures and post.

Ron
 
If you have a real fascination for a sidesrick, you can plop down 800K for a new Cirrus, or build a real nice -10 for 200K. I don't understand why some people feel the need to screw with a good design, as well as all of the engineering and headaches that are involved with such a major modification.
 
Thats the beauty of the experimental class we are in. If you want a side yoke you can build/install it at a relatively lower cost than the Cirrus. If thats what you want. I am sure there are some sort of modification you have done to your -10 whether major or minor that have deviated in some way from the plans. The difference is irrelevant to the fact that you have the flexibility because of the class to do it.

My -10 is a center stick....i like, i will keep it that way....some want a side yoke, nothing wrong with looking into it.....there a lot of them flying.
 
Back
Top