VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-9/9A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-02-2010, 12:13 PM
scard's Avatar
scard scard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 2,686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator View Post
Go with a Barrett light weight IO360 and Catto prop and you'll never regret it.
That is exactly what I would do if I built another -9A.
__________________
Scott Card
RV-9A N4822C flying 1850+hrs. / Cedar Park, TX
Track
RV8 Building - fuselage / showplanes canopy (Done!)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-02-2010, 03:06 PM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.P.Ping View Post
I have close to 500 hours on my 9. I have a 160 HP O-320 with a Hartzell constant speed prop. Weight and balance is right on and the plane performs wonderfully all the way to 17,500 ft. There is a huge difference between a 150HP and a 160HP and a HUGE difference in climb performance and comfort when cruising when using a CS prop. Also 1 gph less fuel consumption with a constant speed prop when in cruise. Donít worry about being light. If you can carry more because you have a little engine and composite prop you have no performance to carry the extra weight. My 2 cents.
Around here, we're constant speed prop fans too. We do live in mountain country with airport elevations beginning around 4000' msl. The constant speed allows for a brisker takeoff, quieter cruise flight, and excellent braking effect when getting back to the pattern. Lot's of RV's around here (including 9's), and C/S props are by far the majority.

L.Adamson --- RV6A/ Hartzell CS
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-07-2010, 12:35 PM
MauiLvrs's Avatar
MauiLvrs MauiLvrs is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KTCY
Posts: 642
Default There is a reason...

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.Adamson View Post
Don't tell anybody.......... but his new replacement engine for the damaged 0-290 is a 180HP 0360. That's 20 HP over Van's recommendation for the RV9.
One time ... On Barnstormers ... There was a guy selling a 9 ... with a 200hp IO-360 ... would cruise at 225 mph ... Beyond Vne.

The folks at Van's design some really nice airplanes, and certainly had a good reason to restrict the 9 to 160HP.

Before you decide to beef up the engine ... Probably should read this "Why can't I use a larger engine?"

JMHO...
__________________
Dave & Trina
RV-9A Flying - 330 Hrs. Painted Finishing the interior.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:22 AM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 3,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MauiLvrs View Post
One time ... On Barnstormers ... There was a guy selling a 9 ... with a 200hp IO-360 ... would cruise at 225 mph ... Beyond Vne.

The folks at Van's design some really nice airplanes, and certainly had a good reason to restrict the 9 to 160HP.

Before you decide to beef up the engine ... Probably should read this "Why can't I use a larger engine?"

JMHO...
While you are certainly correct to be concerned about top speeds, flutter margins, and Vne in any aircraft, this is a PILOT problem, not an EQUIPMENT problem. It is the pilots primary duty to manipulate ALL controls in the aircraft (which includes power) to keep the aircraft within its flight envelope. If the pilot is incapable of acting as a pilot, then I still say he (or she) should stay on the ground, rather than trying to idiot-proof the airplane.

Know your limitations, and act within them.
__________________
Greg Niehues - VAF 2017 dues paid
Garden City, TX
N16GN flying! http://websites.expercraft.com/airguy/
Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:09 PM
AK4x4's Avatar
AK4x4 AK4x4 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PAWS (Wasilla, Alaska)
Posts: 130
Default Super-9 ??

I may get in trouble with the more conservative folks, but I would install an ECI IOX-340S (185hp and lightweight) and whirlwind 151 constant speed. I wouldnt even rule out raising the compression to 10/1 with electronic ignition. Just an observation but compairing VNE on the RV-4 vs. routine airspeeds from the HRII crowd it seems the safety margins for VNE are well.. generous. Russ
__________________
Russell Brown
A&P/IA
"Happiness may never be sensibly pursued as an end in itself, because happiness is the by-product of achievement." -- Northcote Parkinson (paraphrase)
Wasilla, Alaska
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:42 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 9,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK4x4 View Post
Just an observation but compairing VNE on the RV-4 vs. routine airspeeds from the HRII crowd it seems the safety margins for VNE are well.. generous. Russ
Also remember that the RV-4 was designed as an aerobatic aircraft. The RV-9 was NOT!
IMHO, the RV-9 and -10 were most likely not designed with limits as conservative as the aerobatic steeds.
__________________
Mel Asberry..DAR since last century
A&P/EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Specializing in Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft
<n168tx(at)flytx.net>
North Texas (8TA5)
RV-6 Flying since 1993
175hp O-320
3-Blade Catto (since 2003)
FRIEND of the RV-1
Eagle's Nest Mentor
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:57 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 10,960
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK4x4 View Post
I may get in trouble with the more conservative folks, but I would install an ECI IOX-340S (185hp and lightweight) and whirlwind 151 constant speed. I wouldnt even rule out raising the compression to 10/1 with electronic ignition. ...
Russ,

I looked at the IO-340 when picking the O-360 to replace the O-290-D2 in my -9. It turns out the O-360 puts out more HP, costs less, and only comes in a few pounds more. In fact, with a composite CS prop (Whirl Wind) it is still lighter than an O-320 w/ a FP metal prop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
Also remember that the RV-4 was designed as an aerobatic aircraft. The RV-9 was NOT!
IMHO, the RV-9 and -10 were most likely not designed with limits as conservative as the aerobatic steeds.
I couldn't agree with you more Mel.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-09-2010, 09:35 AM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 3,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
Russ,

I looked at the IO-340 when picking the O-360 to replace the O-290-D2 in my -9. It turns out the O-360 puts out more HP, costs less, and only comes in a few pounds more. In fact, with a composite CS prop (Whirl Wind) it is still lighter than an O-320 w/ a FP metal prop.


Yep. My primary reason for choosing an IO360 vs the IO340S was that I want to be able to run Mogas, which means lower compression pistons, which rules out the 340. Current plan is an ECI IO360 with Whirlwind CS prop.
__________________
Greg Niehues - VAF 2017 dues paid
Garden City, TX
N16GN flying! http://websites.expercraft.com/airguy/
Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-09-2010, 03:40 PM
Finley Atherton Finley Atherton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 685
Default

Just had this random thought someone may be able to answer.
The RV-9 can float excessively in the flare if the speed is a bit high or if the idle is set too high. Would the bigger 180 HP engine with its bigger FP prop be likely to increase the length of the flare all other things being equal? The bigger engine/prop would produce more thrust at idle rpm, but possibly offsetting this the bigger prop would present a larger surface area to the airstream and therefore give a bigger engine/prop braking effect.

Fin
9A
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-09-2010, 05:16 PM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finley Atherton View Post
Just had this random thought someone may be able to answer.
The RV-9 can float excessively in the flare if the speed is a bit high or if the idle is set too high. Would the bigger 180 HP engine with its bigger FP prop be likely to increase the length of the flare all other things being equal? The bigger engine/prop would produce more thrust at idle rpm, but possibly offsetting this the bigger prop would present a larger surface area to the airstream and therefore give a bigger engine/prop braking effect.
The larger engine with a fixed pitch prop on the 9, just won't help with any braking effect. The C/S will, and a 9 will actually fall through a flare.......just like my 6A, if you don't watch the airspeed. You wouldn't think a 9's wing would act like a heavier sink rate 6, but it does.....when combined with a C/S that can slow the plane down so fast.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
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 03:41 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.