Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:33 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Mike Whisky)
2. 04:09 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Jesse Saint)
3. 06:00 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Carl Froehlich)
4. 06:38 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Rene Felker)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Tim Olson)
6. 08:05 AM - : n46007 performance (David)
7. 09:08 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Rene Felker)
8. 09:11 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Jae Chang)
9. 09:30 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Tim Olson)
10. 09:48 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Ben Westfall)
11. 10:20 AM - Extra fuel (Kelly McMullen)
12. 10:44 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Tim Olson)
13. 10:53 AM - Re: Extra fuel (Linn Walters)
14. 10:59 AM - Re: RV10 performance (Bob Turner)
15. 11:40 AM - Re: Extra fuel (Kelly McMullen)
16. 12:05 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Tim Olson)
17. 12:42 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Jae Chang)
18. 03:02 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Kelly McMullen)
19. 04:20 PM - Re: RV10 performance (Rocketman1988)
20. 05:16 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Bob Turner)
21. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: Extra fuel (David Leikam)
22. 08:17 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Don Mc Donald)
23. 08:17 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Tim Olson)
24. 08:28 PM - Jae::::Re: Extra fuel (Danny Riggs)
25. 08:38 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Kelly McMullen)
26. 09:38 PM - Re: Extra fuel (Bob Turner)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
I attached my T/O table based on my T/O performance test. Please note that max
RPM is reduced to 2500 due to noise regulation here in CH. Aircraft was at MTOW
2700 lbs / 1225 kg. take-off configuration flaps 1 = 0 degrees.
--------
RV-10 builder (flying)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425436#425436
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_206.jpg
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
We have hit 22,000 close to gross, but it sure didn't like it up there. Over
18,000 the climb us terrible and the IAS is approaching stall.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:19 AM, David Leikam <arplnplt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up to?
> I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build up
s coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it up th
ere with ease.
>
> Dave Leikam
>
>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>
>> The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly
easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature e
ven at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can phys
ically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real pr
oblem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we b
ecome far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we ca
me from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I co
uld ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
>>
>> Spoiled rotten, we are.
>> Thanks VANS for the great kit!
>> Tim
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrot
e:
>>>
>>> We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and u
sed about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs gre
at there.
>>>
>>> A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and ha
s to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> 352-427-0285
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail
.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just
over 10,000.
>>>>
>>>> Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Os
hkosh.
>>>>
>>>> Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
>>>>
>>>> Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned f
or max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
>>>>
>>>> We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is a
bout 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that
point since it was easy to identify.
>>>>
>>>> That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
>>>>
>>>> For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 900
0, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at leas
t 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
>>>>
>>>> --Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data p
oint I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field e
levation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind
the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has b
een any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000
is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider l
ike nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone cre
ated or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177
RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the
260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density alt
itude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV10 performance |
17.5K in mine. Photo taken just after leveling off. This was during the 40
hour test phase - so solo (light).
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 performance
We have hit 22,000 close to gross, but it sure didn't like it up there. Over
18,000 the climb us terrible and the IAS is approaching stall.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:19 AM, David Leikam <arplnplt@gmail.com> wrote:
I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up to?
I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build ups
coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it up
there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly
easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature
even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can
physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only
real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet
that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans
that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know
that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used
about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great
there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to
stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse@saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over
10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from
Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for
max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about
3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that
point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000,
right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least
1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point
I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field
elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a
wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb
has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of
5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to
consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has
anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance
data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on
200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30%
improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data
points?
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
D========================
===================
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
D========================
===================
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV10 performance |
20,100 with rate of climb of 100=99 a minute. Gross weight of
2800 at takeoff, CG on the aft edge and a little beyond. Done during
testing to determine service ceiling
IFR flight between Ogden Utah and Las Vegas with just me and my
wifeplus bags 19,000. My wife does not like to fly in
the cloudsO2 mask is a pain..
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 performance
We have hit 22,000 close to gross, but it sure didn't like it up there.
Over 18,000 the climb us terrible and the IAS is approaching stall.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:19 AM, David Leikam <arplnplt@gmail.com> wrote:
I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up
to?
I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build
ups coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it
up there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how
amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any
temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much
luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just
amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing
capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved
back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to
my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna
172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and
used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10
performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and
has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse@saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor
<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just
over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from
Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned
for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is
about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by
that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over
9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were
at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data
point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200
field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was
not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule
of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length
in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other
factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all
subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and
landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800
and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would
expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has
anybody other DA data points?
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
16,500 with the family fully loaded....but it didn't climb very well.
I'm sure we could have made it higher, but I don't find much point
in going over 14K very much. It starts to become work again.
We don't carry O2 on all flights. I kind of missed it on the one
we just got back from though (write-up coming within 24 hours).
The problem (in my mind at least) with using 16-17k+ to stay above
the weather is that you don't have any performance margin left.
If you're plenty happy to be stuck back into the CB's, then fine,
but if you really want to stay "on top", you have already pushed
into the area where performance of the plane may not give you
much room. To each their own, but I just find it to be more
work as you pass 14K.
Tim
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | : n46007 performance |
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV10 performance |
For you flat landers that may be high enough, but for us guys with granite
at that altitude higher is needed. :)
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 performance
16,500 with the family fully loaded....but it didn't climb very well.
I'm sure we could have made it higher, but I don't find much point in going
over 14K very much. It starts to become work again.
We don't carry O2 on all flights. I kind of missed it on the one we just
got back from though (write-up coming within 24 hours).
The problem (in my mind at least) with using 16-17k+ to stay above the
weather is that you don't have any performance margin left.
If you're plenty happy to be stuck back into the CB's, then fine, but if you
really want to stay "on top", you have already pushed into the area where
performance of the plane may not give you much room. To each their own, but
I just find it to be more work as you pass 14K.
Tim
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
+1 from me. The main challenge for me at high altitude airports like TVL
is to remember to let the speed build up sufficiently and not expect it
to literally jump off the ground like usual. My home airport is at sea
level, so it is too easy to get used the power. Now at home when i am
solo, i typically TO with partial power 1 or 2" less MP and save the WOT
for higher altitudes.
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
On 6/24/2014 9:10 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how
> amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most
> any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much
> luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are
> just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these
> amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots
> if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so
> attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy
> owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
>
> Spoiled rotten, we are.
> Thanks VANS for the great kit!
> Tim
> Do not archive
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
HAHA! Yeah, you got me pegged. ;)
Actually, 15K I think will get you over any granite in the lower 48,
right? (But definitely not with proper IFR clearances).
I wouldn't mind some day, just once, taking a cross country flight
where I only have the wife and I, and minimal baggage. I'm sure my
opinions are set because of my common mode of flight....loaded to
about gross, 4 seats filled. Man what that plane could do if it
were just me in the front, and the wife in the baggage area...for
better cruise C.G. performance, of course. :)
Tim
On 6/25/2014 11:07 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
>
> For you flat landers that may be high enough, but for us guys with granite
> at that altitude higher is needed. :)
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV10 performance |
Or better yet with your wife in the front and you in the baggage area!!! ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 performance
HAHA! Yeah, you got me pegged. ;)
Actually, 15K I think will get you over any granite in the lower 48, right?
(But definitely not with proper IFR clearances).
I wouldn't mind some day, just once, taking a cross country flight where I
only have the wife and I, and minimal baggage. I'm sure my opinions are set
because of my common mode of flight....loaded to about gross, 4 seats
filled. Man what that plane could do if it were just me in the front, and
the wife in the baggage area...for better cruise C.G. performance, of
course. :) Tim
On 6/25/2014 11:07 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
>
> For you flat landers that may be high enough, but for us guys with
> granite at that altitude higher is needed. :)
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
A friend with a Lancair IVP has plumbed in a bladder in his baggage
compartment that holds ~ 20 gal. He needs that for long range, as he has a
turbo-prop up front.
The bladder is setup with quick disconnects so it can come out when load is
more important than range.
Seems like that would be ideal for the -10, to have an extra 15-20 gal to
not exceed baggage compartment loading, and to give you full IFR reserve
over standard tank capacity, while not changing wing loading or bending
moments. Don't recall if anyone has done baggage compartment tank of any
kind. I know the couple options for extra wing tanks, but am not thrilled
with having more wt further out the wing span. I suppose you could plumb in
a transfer pump to move the fuel to a wing tank after using up 60-90 min
fuel out of that tank.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
Ha! Yeah, with me back there the cruise would be even faster!
Tim
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 11:48 AM, "Ben Westfall" <rv10@sinkrate.com> wrote:
>
>
> Or better yet with your wife in the front and you in the baggage area!!! ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:30 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 performance
>
>
>
> HAHA! Yeah, you got me pegged. ;)
>
> Actually, 15K I think will get you over any granite in the lower 48, right?
> (But definitely not with proper IFR clearances).
>
> I wouldn't mind some day, just once, taking a cross country flight where I
> only have the wife and I, and minimal baggage. I'm sure my opinions are set
> because of my common mode of flight....loaded to about gross, 4 seats
> filled. Man what that plane could do if it were just me in the front, and
> the wife in the baggage area...for better cruise C.G. performance, of
> course. :) Tim
>
>
>
>> On 6/25/2014 11:07 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
>>
>> For you flat landers that may be high enough, but for us guys with
>> granite at that altitude higher is needed. :)
>>
>> Rene' Felker
>> N423CF
>> 801-721-6080
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm not fond of fuel in the cabin. I'm also not fond of sitting in an
airplane and trying to relieve myself in a bottle while flying the
plane. Ok, so I have an autopilot ....... I am really fond of stopping
at 3-4 hours to hit the head and stretch my legs.
Linn
On 6/25/2014 1:20 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> A friend with a Lancair IVP has plumbed in a bladder in his baggage
> compartment that holds ~ 20 gal. He needs that for long range, as he
> has a turbo-prop up front.
> The bladder is setup with quick disconnects so it can come out when
> load is more important than range.
> Seems like that would be ideal for the -10, to have an extra 15-20 gal
> to not exceed baggage compartment loading, and to give you full IFR
> reserve over standard tank capacity, while not changing wing loading
> or bending moments. Don't recall if anyone has done baggage
> compartment tank of any kind. I know the couple options for extra wing
> tanks, but am not thrilled with having more wt further out the wing
> span. I suppose you could plumb in a transfer pump to move the fuel to
> a wing tank after using up 60-90 min fuel out of that tank.
> *
>
>
> *
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
Guys, we need OAT data too. It's density altitude that matters here.
I've been no higher (that I recall) than 16,500' density altitude but that was
with just 2 adults and some luggage, and it flew fine. Weight makes a big difference.
As to the original post: you cannot compare a 177 and -10, even of similar weight,
and extrapolate climb rates, without knowing more information, like lift and
drag data. But if you could magically put 260 HP into the cardinal and keep
the weight the same, you'd see a huge increase in climb rate - a lot more than
30%.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425481#425481
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Unless you throttle back you aren't going to do 4 hours IFR and have
required reserves. I understand the fuel in the cabin, although not sure it
is much different than the fuel in the tunnel issue.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Linn Walters <flying-nut@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm not fond of fuel in the cabin. I'm also not fond of sitting in an
> airplane and trying to relieve myself in a bottle while flying the plane.
> Ok, so I have an autopilot ....... I am really fond of stopping at 3-4
> hours to hit the head and stretch my legs.
> Linn
>
>
> On 6/25/2014 1:20 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> A friend with a Lancair IVP has plumbed in a bladder in his baggage
> compartment that holds ~ 20 gal. He needs that for long range, as he has a
> turbo-prop up front.
> The bladder is setup with quick disconnects so it can come out when load
> is more important than range.
> Seems like that would be ideal for the -10, to have an extra 15-20 gal to
> not exceed baggage compartment loading, and to give you full IFR reserve
> over standard tank capacity, while not changing wing loading or bending
> moments. Don't recall if anyone has done baggage compartment tank of any
> kind. I know the couple options for extra wing tanks, but am not thrilled
> with having more wt further out the wing span. I suppose you could plumb in
> a transfer pump to move the fuel to a wing tank after using up 60-90 min
> fuel out of that tank.
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
That's not really true. I've had numerous trips where my fuel burn
came out to 10.0gph for the entire flight. That's 6 hours of
total range, and I've never landed with less than 10.2 in the
tanks...but that was nearly 5 hours of flying when I did it.
It's plenty possible to come in with 45 minute reserves after
a 4 hour flight. The trip I just flew I averaged 9.2 to 9.8gph
once I reached cruise...so 4 hours very reasonable.
But, we do use the bottle.
Tim
On 6/25/2014 1:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Unless you throttle back you aren't going to do 4 hours IFR and have
> required reserves. I understand the fuel in the cabin, although not sure
> it is much different than the fuel in the tunnel issue.
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I got tired of flying solo and looking at all the empty space. I decided
to use the extra space and put a 32 gal aux fuel tank secured in a rear
passenger seat. I can remove or install it empty in about 10 mins. Once
you fly with the extra fuel, you will never ever want to go back! I was
able to fly SFO to Kansas to JYO in 15 hours total time or in 13 hours
of air time. I had some delays on my one planned fuel stop (actually
ended up being 2 because an FBO was closed), so i know i can do even
better next time. Even on shorter flights, it is nice not worrying about
getting fuel all the time.
My only disappointment is knowing that Van will never consider
engineering an extra fuel option. I would do that mod in a heartbeat!
Also, i considered keeping the extra fuel in the baggage compartment,
but i think the rear seat is better. Access to the baggage area is more
difficult for installing and removing. Also, it is potentially harder to
add fuel in the baggage area. I can easily add fuel if i want through
the big doors without much effort.
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
If you are burning 10 gph, you are not even close to 75%, i.e. you have
throttled back or
gone higher than where 75% is available. LOP 10 gph=150 hp.
Even lean of peak, 75% is 13 gph or 195hp. That is 4.6 hrs of fuel,
which is less than 4+45,
ignoring you also need fuel to go to alternate. No question you can
extend range by going slower.
On 6/25/2014 12:04 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> That's not really true. I've had numerous trips where my fuel burn
> came out to 10.0gph for the entire flight. That's 6 hours of
> total range, and I've never landed with less than 10.2 in the
> tanks...but that was nearly 5 hours of flying when I did it.
> It's plenty possible to come in with 45 minute reserves after
> a 4 hour flight. The trip I just flew I averaged 9.2 to 9.8gph
> once I reached cruise...so 4 hours very reasonable.
>
> But, we do use the bottle.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 6/25/2014 1:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> Unless you throttle back you aren't going to do 4 hours IFR and have
>> required reserves. I understand the fuel in the cabin, although not sure
>> it is much different than the fuel in the tunnel issue.
>>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 performance |
Y'all be careful out there...
In the aircraft I fly at work, the max speed and min speeds are shown on the airspeed
tape. As we get up near the airplanes limit, it is REALLY eye opening
how little margin there really is...
There is a reason it's called "coffin corner"...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425504#425504
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
So the nice thing about EAB is you get to choose.
700 nm trip? Your choice: put in an extra 20 gal, run 75%, get there in 4 hours;
or keep standard tanks, run 10 gal/hr, get there 20 minutes later and $75 richer.
If I did a lot of really long cross-countries, and was happy with the 'personal
bladder' issues, an extra tank would look attractive if it could eliminate a
fuel stop. Fuel stops never seem to take less than an hour.
But I think I'd draw the line at re-fueling inside the cabin. How do you keep from
flooding the cabin with fuel vapor? In fact I see re-fueling and venting as
major issues to be figured out with aux tanks-even more so if you want them
removable.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425507#425507
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I dont believe you need a vent with a bladder style tank that collapses as it empties.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> So the nice thing about EAB is you get to choose.
> 700 nm trip? Your choice: put in an extra 20 gal, run 75%, get there in 4 hours;
or keep standard tanks, run 10 gal/hr, get there 20 minutes later and $75
richer.
> If I did a lot of really long cross-countries, and was happy with the 'personal
bladder' issues, an extra tank would look attractive if it could eliminate
a fuel stop. Fuel stops never seem to take less than an hour.
> But I think I'd draw the line at re-fueling inside the cabin. How do you keep
from flooding the cabin with fuel vapor? In fact I see re-fueling and venting
as major issues to be figured out with aux tanks-even more so if you want them
removable.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425507#425507
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Got pictures?
Don McDonald
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com> wrote:
>
>
> I got tired of flying solo and looking at all the empty space. I decided to use
the extra space and put a 32 gal aux fuel tank secured in a rear passenger
seat. I can remove or install it empty in about 10 mins. Once you fly with the
extra fuel, you will never ever want to go back! I was able to fly SFO to Kansas
to JYO in 15 hours total time or in 13 hours of air time. I had some delays
on my one planned fuel stop (actually ended up being 2 because an FBO was closed),
so i know i can do even better next time. Even on shorter flights, it is
nice not worrying about getting fuel all the time.
>
> My only disappointment is knowing that Van will never consider engineering an
extra fuel option. I would do that mod in a heartbeat!
>
> Also, i considered keeping the extra fuel in the baggage compartment, but i think
the rear seat is better. Access to the baggage area is more difficult for
installing and removing. Also, it is potentially harder to add fuel in the baggage
area. I can easily add fuel if i want through the big doors without much
effort.
>
> --
> #40533 RV-10
> First flight 10/19/2011
> Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Actually that was WOT at 9,000 and 11,000'.
13.5 gph is what I may see if I were running ROP.
I almost never see flows over 11gph, and I definitely can count on being
under 12gph for any x/c trip unless I'm down low (under 7000) where
I don't generally fly LOP. If you fly in the 13k-14K range you'll be
more in the
8's for gph, and people like Jesse Saint have had flights in the 7's at
higher
altitudes. So no, that wasn't pulled back...but you're correct that it
was high enough to not be at 75%. It's not really a matter of "going
slower"
however. Sure, we're not getting full speed since we're LOP, but we're
cruising
in the mid 160's LOP.
Tim
On 6/25/2014 5:01 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> If you are burning 10 gph, you are not even close to 75%, i.e. you
> have throttled back or
> gone higher than where 75% is available. LOP 10 gph=150 hp.
> Even lean of peak, 75% is 13 gph or 195hp. That is 4.6 hrs of fuel,
> which is less than 4+45,
> ignoring you also need fuel to go to alternate. No question you can
> extend range by going slower.
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
What are you using for a rear seat tank?
> Date: Wed=2C 25 Jun 2014 12:42:05 -0700
> From: jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel
>
>
> I got tired of flying solo and looking at all the empty space. I decided
> to use the extra space and put a 32 gal aux fuel tank secured in a rear
> passenger seat. I can remove or install it empty in about 10 mins. Once
> you fly with the extra fuel=2C you will never ever want to go back! I was
> able to fly SFO to Kansas to JYO in 15 hours total time or in 13 hours
> of air time. I had some delays on my one planned fuel stop (actually
> ended up being 2 because an FBO was closed)=2C so i know i can do even
> better next time. Even on shorter flights=2C it is nice not worrying abou
t
> getting fuel all the time.
>
> My only disappointment is knowing that Van will never consider
> engineering an extra fuel option. I would do that mod in a heartbeat!
>
> Also=2C i considered keeping the extra fuel in the baggage compartment=2C
> but i think the rear seat is better. Access to the baggage area is more
> difficult for installing and removing. Also=2C it is potentially harder t
o
> add fuel in the baggage area. I can easily add fuel if i want through
> the big doors without much effort.
>
> --
> #40533 RV-10
> First flight 10/19/2011
> Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
> do not archive
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tim,
GAMI and others have shown that for normally aspirated engines in the
compression range of the 260 hp IO-540, fuel flow times 15 equals
horsepower. If you are flying at 10 gph, it is not possible to be
generating over 150 hp. If you are ROP, it takes 10.8 to 11.0 gph to
generate the same horsepower. Vans said the plane goes 153 kts at 55%,
full gross, or 156 kts at 2200 lbs. 11gph would be 165 hp or 64% LOP.
So even though Van's does not give figures for 65% and you are running a
bit less than that, you are at a more efficient power setting than 75%.
You can generate 75% at upwards of 10,000 ft IF you choose to up engine
speed to 2600 or 2700. Limiting rpm to 2300 or 2400 will also limit max
power, and has the same effect as reducing throttle.
Generally one does better to run 75% IF flying into significant headwind.
On 6/25/2014 8:17 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Actually that was WOT at 9,000 and 11,000'.
> 13.5 gph is what I may see if I were running ROP.
> I almost never see flows over 11gph, and I definitely can count on being
> under 12gph for any x/c trip unless I'm down low (under 7000) where
> I don't generally fly LOP. If you fly in the 13k-14K range you'll be
> more in the
> 8's for gph, and people like Jesse Saint have had flights in the 7's
> at higher
> altitudes. So no, that wasn't pulled back...but you're correct that it
> was high enough to not be at 75%. It's not really a matter of "going
> slower"
> however. Sure, we're not getting full speed since we're LOP, but
> we're cruising
> in the mid 160's LOP.
> Tim
>
>
> On 6/25/2014 5:01 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> If you are burning 10 gph, you are not even close to 75%, i.e. you
>> have throttled back or
>> gone higher than where 75% is available. LOP 10 gph=150 hp.
>> Even lean of peak, 75% is 13 gph or 195hp. That is 4.6 hrs of fuel,
>> which is less than 4+45,
>> ignoring you also need fuel to go to alternate. No question you can
>> extend range by going slower.
>>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kellym wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Generally one does better to run 75% IF flying into significant headwind.
>
If by better you mean less fuel burned, that's true - but only for headwinds over
100 knots!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425523#425523
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|