VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-07-2019, 01:02 PM
Auburntsts's Avatar
Auburntsts Auburntsts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 2,654
Default

My 10 is a solid 160KTS plane on 11.5 GPH LOP, near GW, WOT @ 2350rpm, from 8 to 10K. I can go faster but have to burn a lot more gas to do -- I prefer to have greater endurance especially IFR. For comfort purposes I typically fly no more than 3-hr legs which give me plenty of IFR reserves. The end result is I can be 1000nm from home in 6-7 hrs.

I've picked up some light rime ice on occasion with no ill effects, but icing is really something I took pains to avoid (flying a lot in the mid-Atlantic this can be difficult but to impossible to do but with diligent flight planning and personal mins. it can be done. Highly recommend adding WeatherSpork to your flight planning tool kit). Anyway, FIKI is just not something that I'd care to dive into for an experimental, even one as poplar as an RV. Just too many unknowns as to the behavior of the airfoil and airframe across the range of ice accumulation possibilities plus the behavior that various applications of anti-ice/de-ice would have. Anecdotal posts like mine aren't a substitute for a true a FIKI program. YMMV.....
__________________
Todd Stovall
PP ASEL-IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying!
WAR EAGLE!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-07-2019, 01:16 PM
Toddsanderson Toddsanderson is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auburn, IN
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburntsts View Post
My 10 is a solid 160KTS plane on 11.5 GPH LOP, near GW, WOT @ 2350rpm, from 8 to 10K. I can go faster but have to burn a lot more gas to do -- I prefer to have greater endurance especially IFR. For comfort purposes I typically fly no more than 3-hr legs which give me plenty of IFR reserves. The end result is I can be 1000nm from home in 6-7 hrs.

I've picked up some light rime ice on occasion with no ill effects, but icing is really something I took pains to avoid (flying a lot in the mid-Atlantic this can be difficult but to impossible to do but with diligent flight planning and personal mins. it can be done. Highly recommend adding WeatherSpork to your flight planning tool kit). Anyway, FIKI is just not something that I'd care to dive into for an experimental, even one as poplar as an RV. Just too many unknowns as to the behavior of the airfoil and airframe across the range of ice accumulation possibilities plus the behavior that various applications of anti-ice/de-ice would have. Anecdotal posts like mine aren't a substitute for a true a FIKI program. YMMV.....

Thank you for that information. Your account of 160 knots and roughly 12 GPH appears to be in line with other claims and those doing 170+ knots are running ROP in the 15 GPH+ area.

I think that puts me over the top looking for a 14. I know 15 knots does not seem like much, but it means the world to me as most of my trips are day long x country. Headwinds really make a difference in the percentage of slowdown and every little bit of extra speed helps. Thanks for all the input.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:17 PM
Carl Froehlich's Avatar
Carl Froehlich Carl Froehlich is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
Posts: 1,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toddsanderson View Post
Thank you for that information. Your account of 160 knots and roughly 12 GPH appears to be in line with other claims and those doing 170+ knots are running ROP in the 15 GPH+ area.

SNIP
As with any RV, efficient cruise speed is a result of many factors:
- Rigging. How clean is the plane?
- Weight. There are some real fat boy RV-10s out there.
- Prop. There are smooth props and there are efficient props. I have never found one that is both.
- Drag reduction. I found opportunities to work that on my RV-10.
- Balancing injectors to get smooth LOP operation (I changed out 4 of the 6 injectors, taking the original GAMI spread of over a gallon per hour to 0.1 gallons per hour).
- Pilot proficiently at effectively managing the engine.

I offer if you spend the time and strive toward efficient cruise on an RV-10 build, 170+ knots at 10.5 - 11.5 gph at altitude is achievable. With 5+ hours of endurance you can really get someplace.

My experience flying an RV-14A (not my plane) drove these rules home for me. It had a very smooth (and expensive) composite prop that failed to deliver, rigging was what I would call standard for most RVs, and the plane was very light. It was slower than my RV-10 and really did not burn that much less gas.

Carl
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:45 PM
Toddsanderson Toddsanderson is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auburn, IN
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Froehlich View Post
As with any RV, efficient cruise speed is a result of many factors:
- Rigging. How clean is the plane?
- Weight. There are some real fat boy RV-10s out there.
- Prop. There are smooth props and there are efficient props. I have never found one that is both.
- Drag reduction. I found opportunities to work that on my RV-10.
- Balancing injectors to get smooth LOP operation (I changed out 4 of the 6 injectors, taking the original GAMI spread of over a gallon per hour to 0.1 gallons per hour).
- Pilot proficiently at effectively managing the engine.

I offer if you spend the time and strive toward efficient cruise on an RV-10 build, 170+ knots at 10.5 - 11.5 gph at altitude is achievable. With 5+ hours of endurance you can really get someplace.

My experience flying an RV-14A (not my plane) drove these rules home for me. It had a very smooth (and expensive) composite prop that failed to deliver, rigging was what I would call standard for most RVs, and the plane was very light. It was slower than my RV-10 and really did not burn that much less gas.

Carl
Agree completely Carl. My Last Glasair was about 15 knots faster than the average Glasair out there. I had the injectors to within .2, proper rigging and gear door alignment along with correct baffling. Engine cooling drag is a big deal in many planes.

I usually look for averages to make a determination and so far I am not seeing anyone less than 170 knots LOP in a 14 and some are showing actual straight an level TAS of 175 to 178 knots on 10 GPH. Neither the 10 or the 14 is going to make the trip non-stop, so I want to go as fast as possible, but still be LOP for engine longevity. The fuel savings is just a bonus on the checkbook. I will likely fly the plane 200 hours per year, so if I save $2500 a year in gas that will buy my insurance and some maintenance every year. Engine maintenance is also about 30% less on a 4 cylinder vs 6 as well. If I needed 4 seats I would then have to decide if it would make sense to give up my 170 knot V35 for the 10. One of the big reasons for the new plane is to have the avionics I have come accustomed to. My V35 has triple aspens, 55x, 430ws, etc, but they suck as compared to the G3X touch and integrated autopilot. Putting certified avionics that are 8x more $ to match the G3x in the V35 just doesn't make sense.

If the 10 could be considered a "safe" plane with a 300-350HP engine under the cowl I would be all over that idea. Might be a 190 knot airplane up at altitude with the engine, but then again we are talking about getting into uncharted flutter, possibly higher insurance, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:12 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,796
Default

You did catch that Vne is based on TAS, right? On the RVs, it's not an IAS number.

Just a note of caution about pushing the Vne number. There are a few derivatives of the RV series that succeed in that. The successful ones have generally made some physical changes to raise the flutter speed. Even the Rocket, often mentioned in that group, though, have had a few flutter issues. It takes specialized knowledge to raise the flutter speed in a responsible manner.

Beyond that, though, it takes time. Any change takes far more time than seems at all reasonable when you're thinking about it, and the changes that you'd need to make would necessarily have to happen early in the project. You can't take an existing, built RV and simply drive it fast.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:22 PM
Toddsanderson Toddsanderson is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auburn, IN
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Paule View Post
You did catch that Vne is based on TAS, right? On the RVs, it's not an IAS number.

Just a note of caution about pushing the Vne number. There are a few derivatives of the RV series that succeed in that. The successful ones have generally made some physical changes to raise the flutter speed. Even the Rocket, often mentioned in that group, though, have had a few flutter issues. It takes specialized knowledge to raise the flutter speed in a responsible manner.

Beyond that, though, it takes time. Any change takes far more time than seems at all reasonable when you're thinking about it, and the changes that you'd need to make would necessarily have to happen early in the project. You can't take an existing, built RV and simply drive it fast.

Dave
Yes, I agree on all accounts and that is why I struggle with the 10 or really any RV from a performance standpoint. It is a 160 knot plane on 12 GPH and the 14 is a 175 knot plane on 10 GPH.

The G3 was such an overbuilt air frame that speed did not matter. Jeff LeVelle was turning 420 MPH TAS laps in his unmodified G3 airframe. That was 100 MPH over VNE. I routinely descended well over 300 knots TAS in my G3 with no problem at all.

I realize I need to compromise as I know I can't have the strength of my old G3, high wing loading, near zero risk of flutter, and still have a docile plane like the 14 to keep the wife happy. It is all just trade offs.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:39 PM
ReidVaitor ReidVaitor is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 143
Default One stop shopping

I get you didnt like the cirrus, but if you really want something between a glasair and RV, there is the Lancair IV that will meet the turbo, altitude and speed requirements, but not sure its below 18GPH, also hard to insure because requires a higher skill level, which it sounds like you have. The seating can be more like a Nissan 350z than a maxima however, but there is a side baggage door, etc.. too much? fine than how about the Lancair ES pressurized? both great higher altitude aircraft. I went this route in my thought process, hence my bringing them up.
Honestly, you would be better guided with this site- https://www.myrv14.com/commentary/RV10_or_RV14.html
Best of success coming to your conclusion.

Pascal
-10
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:09 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,796
Default

On the other hand, how about chartering a jet for your trips? No airplane to maintain, no need to be current, no worries about pressurization or oxygen usage or flight planning, and there might even be an attentive cabin crew. Just call 'em up and go.

As Scott Gassaway used to say,

"There's a simpler way and a better plan:
Have it done by another man."

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:13 PM
Toddsanderson Toddsanderson is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auburn, IN
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Paule View Post
On the other hand, how about chartering a jet for your trips? No airplane to maintain, no need to be current, no worries about pressurization or oxygen usage or flight planning, and there might even be an attentive cabin crew. Just call 'em up and go.

As Scott Gassaway used to say,

"There's a simpler way and a better plan:
Have it done by another man."

Dave
Yeah, we do that also on a Citation XLS+, but it is expensive. I feel bad every time I do it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:16 PM
Toddsanderson Toddsanderson is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auburn, IN
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidVaitor View Post
I get you didnt like the cirrus, but if you really want something between a glasair and RV, there is the Lancair IV that will meet the turbo, altitude and speed requirements, but not sure its below 18GPH, also hard to insure because requires a higher skill level, which it sounds like you have. The seating can be more like a Nissan 350z than a maxima however, but there is a side baggage door, etc.. too much? fine than how about the Lancair ES pressurized? both great higher altitude aircraft. I went this route in my thought process, hence my bringing them up.
Honestly, you would be better guided with this site- https://www.myrv14.com/commentary/RV10_or_RV14.html
Best of success coming to your conclusion.

Pascal
-10
The Lancair IVP is a fine plane with a very critical wing. The insurance is just too high and I am not going to school to fly it to keep the insurance. I am considering the Lancair Super ES as a compromise. The ES-P is faster and more comfortable, but the extra maintenance with the turbo and the higher insurance just isnt worth it. THe advantage of the ES over the 14 is the ability to make my trip non-stop.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:42 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.