What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV10 Grove versus Beringer Wheels and Brakes

J

jfr3

I'm New Here
:cool:About to order an RV10 kit and wanted some input on the wheels and brakes. Any recommendations on which ones Grove or Beringer? What is the difference?
 
Last edited:
Primer War

We all like what we are using especially if it's served us well. Only human instinct. For me I like the tubeless aspect of Michelin tires on Beringer wheels. Plus, with Beringer they use Sens Air which allows me to monitor temps and pressures without physically checking. (Bluetooth) Only need to add air every 6 months. 425 hours on the mains and brake pads. Nose wheel looks like it will go 750 hrs +. Absolutely no shimmy. Results may vary.......
 
Suggest you research the brake energy and torque ratings of the various choices and make your decision in an informed manner.

Run the numbers on an RTO at rotation speed at the maximum gross weight you plan to “certify” at and see which of the brake choices meet or exceed your needs.

I did and chose Matco. The Beringer ratings were acceptable too, but I couldn’t justify the cost delta versus Matco. The Beringers have some other benefits/features that might make them worthwhile to you.
 
I’ve had Matco on my RV-10 for almost 2300 hours. Plenty of stopping power when needed. We’ve installed them on many other 10’s as well. The price is great, too.

Vic
 
Meh. All the systems work—IMO you can’t go wrong with any of them. You’re not stopping a fully loaded 747. I’ve got Grove and they work just fine.
 
I disagree

Auburntsts said:
Meh. All the systems work—IMO you can’t go wrong with any of them. You’re not stopping a fully loaded 747. I’ve got Grove and they work just fine.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that - my first job out of college was with Boeing as a Flight Test Engineer working primarily with landing gear and brakes.

I think you might find that the stock brakes are marginal to potentially inadequate on a fully loaded RV-10 (especially with an increased gross weight above 2700 lbs) and even more so after a long taxi at a high density altitude airport.

It’s not hard to run the numbers. Matco even provides a brake energy calculator here - https://matcoals.com/technical-support/how-to-choose/
Try it out and then look up the specs on the brakes you are considering.
 
Original Clevelands are marginal.

Auburntsts said:
Meh. All the systems work—IMO you can’t go wrong with any of them. You’re not stopping a fully loaded 747. I’ve got Grove and they work just fine.
Click to expand...

The original Cleveland brakes on the 10 are marginal, at best. You may only need them to work really hard once, and they won't. The fade really quickly with hard stopping. I needed them once. Suffice it to say Marco brakes were installed as soon as I got home.

George Happ at Matco continues to improve upon them as well. :)

Vic
 
vic syracuse said:
The original Cleveland brakes on the 10 are marginal, at best. You may only need them to work really hard once, and they won't. The fade really quickly with hard stopping. I needed them once. Suffice it to say Marco brakes were installed as soon as I got home.

George Happ at Matco continues to improve upon them as well. :)

Vic
Click to expand...

Point taken. I was referring to the current options (MATCO, Grove, and Berringer) which I don’t believe include Cleveland so I should have been more clear in my OP.
 
KatanaPilot said:
I think you might find that the stock brakes are marginal to potentially inadequate on a fully loaded RV-10 (especially with an increased gross weight above 2700 lbs) and ….
Click to expand...

I have the original Clevelands and agree with others, they are a bit on the marginal side, especially if hot. But I also think it’s unfair to invoke over-gross operations. Once you go down that rabbit hole there are lots of things that get ‘marginal’.
 
BobTurner said:
I have the original Clevelands and agree with others, they are a bit on the marginal side, especially if hot. But I also think it’s unfair to invoke over-gross operations. Once you go down that rabbit hole there are lots of things that get ‘marginal’.
Click to expand...

Didn’t want to follow you down the rabbit hole, but there is engineering justification for increasing the maximum gross takeoff weight above 2700 pounds if you have extended range tanks. All the more reason to have adequate brake energy available for an RTO at gross weight.
 
brettwmyers said:
What is that justification, exactly? I am installing ER tanks and am curious...
Click to expand...

The very short answer is that additional fuel in the wings reduces wing bending.

Suggest you get a copy of Ken’s engineering report for the ER tanks and have a read. It’s pretty thorough and even so - not a bunch of engineer speak.

Ken is quite adamant about increasing only the MTOW and not the MLW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top