What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Speed Brakes for the RV9

Why??

I have not built yet so I am no expert but to me it seems like a unnecessary use of 4000 smackers. The RVs have a pretty good sink rate anyway so I can't imagine why one would need speed brakes. If you have not already decided to do so, why not put that extra money into a CS prop? From what I hear and seen from my one RV ride, the CS prop works pretty well as a speed brake and has the added benefit of better take-off performance. If you have already decided to put a CS prop on your plane, why not put this extra $4000 into your panel or into your bank account?
 
no need for speed brakes

Warren

You won't need them. I have a fixed pitch prop on my 9A and it's a non issue. I land on a short grass strip most every day and have no problems. My home airport is a big freight airport and I fly with DC8's and 9's in the pattern so I have to keep my speed up sometimes, it's really no big deal. You can enter the pattern rather fast and still slow down enough to get the flaps down to land. Have some faith that Van designed a great plane and save the 4000 for gas money.
 
Agree, it's a non-issue. On my fixed pitched 9A, pull the throttle and keep the nose up and she'll slow down in time even if you're still doing 100+ on downwind. If not, go around and buy 50 tanks of gas with the $4000.
 
Drag Brake excess money or altitude

You have the best drag break in the world already, it is called landing gear.

I suggest you follow Van's advice: Keep it simple, keep it light and go fly. To be blunt a speed brake on a RV-9 is a waste of money, time and extra weight. Any RV pilot will tell you it is not an issue. The only time it is an issue is if you screw up and forgot to descend or you are IFR and ATC screwed up. ATC will sometimes expect or want you to increase rate of descent to clear other traffic. The first one you can control and the second is IFR only and rare situation that is solved with "UNABLE".

RULES (so you arrive at your airport at the right speed and altitude):

>A simple 3 to 1 ratio is magic. For ever 1000 feet altitude you need 3 miles.
>To slow 20 mph airspeed (level clean) you need 1 mile (for small power reduction).
>For every 10 mph tail wind you need another 1 mile.

Example: 190MPH at 10,000 feet and 10mph tail wind, Field Elv 0 feet.
Altitude:10x3=30 miles
Speed (to slow 100mph) 90/20 = aprox 5 miles
Tail wind = 1 mile

So you need to start down 36 miles away from the airport to enter the pattern in this example. Assume you reduce MAP 1" and no change to RPM. You can come down and slow down way faster, but I am being nice to the engine. Also you don't want to come down faster than 1000 fpm.

Normally you descend at cruise speed or slightly less. High-speed descent in smooth air is higher drag and will get you down sooner but it is not as comfortable. Remember you should keep the engine warm. Try not to reduce manifold pressure or MAP more than 1" every few minutes. If you have a CS prop, reduce RPM for less drag or increase RPM for more drag (like down shifting). Lycoming says the cylinder should not cool faster than 50F/min. Once you get you cylinder temp stable after a few minutes you can keep reducing power, if you need to get down faster.

If you are flying a plane in the Fight Levels (18,000? above), retract gear and need to get down fast for instrument approach procedures, or a jet with low drag, yes I can see a speed brake.

In the pattern you can easily plan ahead with practice. RV-9? No

Why? Why a speed brake?

HOW TO SLOW DOWN?
You should always keep the power up to keep the engine warm and never make large throttle changes. It will kill your engine. If you ever want to slow fast, roll to a 90 degree bank and make a steep 2-3g turn. You will bleed airspeed like crazy, 40 MPH slower in a few seconds. In fact if you are hot on the down wind and can't get to back to 100mph (with out pulling the throttle to idle which is bad technique) you can make a steeper bank and increase G's to bleed speed. Once rolled out on base, now well below 100mph get flap out and set normal power and fly approach path. Another way to get to that last few MPH to flap extension speed (100mph) on downwind, pull back power a little more and start a slight climb. Once slowed, again flaps 1/2, re-set power and get back to pattern. You will gain less than 50 feet or so to get the job done.

Cheers George
 
Last edited:
Gas it is

I will buy the gas.
Flight levels? Well George I do not plan on flying my RV that high. I guess that I had a misconception on what speed brakes do. I thought that they might be useful in the pattern. On the numbers every time? The best solution would be to buy the gas and practice. What was I thinking? I am trying to keep this thing simple.

Thank You
Warren
http://ahyup.com
:D
 
gmcjetpilot said:
HOW TO SLOW DOWN?
You should always keep the power up to keep the engine warm and never make large throttle changes. It will kill your engine.

So this is one area that I still take issue with. I have heard some opinions that "shock cooling" really is only an issue with the larger engines that the 0-320 / 0-360's that we run.

Also, Mike Seager teaches pull to idle on downwind to slow. He has many thousands of hours on his trainers doing just that every day and his engines are not "killed"

In the Rv9 especially people tend to have a hard time slowing it down if they are not willing to close the throttle.

Just some more thoughts on the issue...
 
To idle or not to idle

akarmy said:
So this is one area that I still take issue with. I have heard some opinions that "shock cooling" really is only an issue with the larger engines that the 0-320 / 0-360's that we run.

Also, Mike Seager teaches pull to idle on downwind to slow. He has many thousands of hours on his trainers doing just that every day and his engines are not "killed"

In the Rv9 especially people tend to have a hard time slowing it down if they are not willing to close the throttle.

Just some more thoughts on the issue...
Fair enough, Mike has no doubt lots of experience and if he thinks pulling the throttle to idle, OK. Mike Seager is teaching low time pilots, often with no high-performance experience, so it is easier teaching the throttle than planning 5 miles ahead method of speed control. However I don't think it is the only way or ideal or even preferred. I am fully aware that most first time RV pilots are flying the hottest thing they have ever flown, performance wise. I am not criticizing low time pilots, Mike?s technique or his teaching method, but I would not teach it this way. No right, wrong, just different. Fly the plane; don't let the plane fly you. I try to teach pilots transitioning to their fast RV to think way a head, 5-15 minute ahead. At RV speeds you can be doing 3 to 3.5 miles a minute. It is more headwork than hand and feet skill, which is a challenge to teach sometimes.

For me I teach a gradual stepped reduction in power from cruise to initial approach speed, final approach power and than idle at touchdown, with out oscillating power back-N-forth, which is a little more elegant. Yes you will slow quicker with idle power, but if you ask Mike, I think he would not disagree with a slow, continuous, gradual reduction in power.

With a fixed pitch prop, slowing can be a little bit of an issue in any RV (apparently a little more in the RV-9), but again with proper planning there is no reason to go to idle until you are in the flair. With a constant speed prop going to high RPM slows you down without pulling the throttle (MAP) back. With a C/S prop it is more reducing the residual thrust not adding drag, but it does feel like you are adding drag. A fixed prop has quite a bit of residual thrust even at idle. Also with a wood prop, guys run higher idle to overcome the lack of prop flywheel inertia, which compounds the problem. So may be going to idle is all they have to get the speed in some cases.

To be honest 99% of my RV time is with a constant speed prop. I do have friends with fixed props and doing formation flying with them is a pain because they can't slow as quick, even with idle power. In formation flying you are jamming the throttle all the time. Really not good for the engine, but you have to do what you need. It is like the skydiver-jump planes. They go thru several cylinders every few 100 hours.

Engine cooling:
From Lycoming and other sources going to idle in flight is not a great thing to do for many reasons, albeit doing it for a few seconds on down wind the damage may be small but not insignificant. One issue is with out heat in the cylinder, lead scavenging additives in the fuel don't work. You heard the term "loading up"? Hot plugs are happy (lead free) plugs. Granted a momentary idle and than back to power will not load the plugs. Also I think pilots should practice idle power approaches time to time to keep current on forced landings, regardless of engine longevity.

Second, read Lycoming's recommendation for operating their engine. Throttle changes and quick cooling can cause ring and valve issues. Just from common sense an engine that is held at a constant RPM will last longer than one with a throttle jockey. A gradual reduction in of power in the pattern to touch down is only one-way to fly, but it should reduce or minimize engine wear.

Bottom line is "you got to do, what you got to do." How much engine damage are you doing? I don't know, probably little, but what is the affect of not changing your oil often? If you understand internal engine stress in the reciprocating parts, especially valve train of an engine, any change in RPM causes "jerk" or shock loads (jerk = acceleration of acceleration). Maintenance, activity and operation is key to long life of your engien, so throttle to idle is only a small part of the picture. From Lycoming they only address long idle descents from altitude, not pattern work. However in another article they talk of slow throttle movment. SO if you must go to idle, move the throttle slowly.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/mai...keyReprints/operation/avoidSuddenCooling.html
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/mai.../operation/proceduresAvoidStickingValves.html

RV-9:
I don't know about the Magic of the RV-9, it is clean but is not a glider. May be it has a better glide ratio than other RV's and is optimized for slower (lower stall) speed, but a little pre-planning and airmanship can overcome a low drag airframe. Have you ever been in a commercial airliner and felt the thrust coming up-down-up-down-up-down, than you know what I mean about an elegant approach and an abortion. Sometimes you have to chop-N-push to get it down, but that should not be the normal procedure, in my opinion. (It pisses the flight attendants off when the airsick bags get filled.)

TECHNIQUE:
Either come screaming in the pattern, chop the power to idle, slip, do what ever you can to slow down to get the flaps out, OR you can plan ahead, pull the power back to an appropriate partial MAP/RPM and slow gradually over a longer period (distance). With out jockeying the throttle, use a gradual continuous reduction in power and not power oscillations to control speed. Control speed by planning ahead and aircraft configuration (flaps). It is like driving to a Red light with your foot on the Gas and at the last minute stomping the brakes, vs. seeing the light will change to red and coasting and gradually braking. One style is smoother and burns less gas.


Cheers George

ATC told the airline pilot: "I need you to get down faster."
Pilot: "uhaa ...this is as fast as I can get down."
ATC: ...got crossing traffic, I kept you up too long,....uhaaa don't U got speed brakes on that thing?
Pilot: uhaa, Roger I do have speed brakes... but they are for my mistakes, not yours...
 
Last edited:
A long one...

I'd like to chime in here again after George's post and after I've had more experience in my 9A. No -- a speed brake is still a bad idea. Even if it was not $4000 but free, I'd still not build one into my plane. Of course, I didn't add steps either, but I digress. I love George's post. In my opinion, he does describe a better way. It is the way I was taught. I try to do exactly as he describes, but....but the 9 is a different beast, especially with 160 HP. and a fixed pitch prop. This is anecdotal, but here's my perspective.

This plane loves to fly. According to Van's, it'll fly well with 118 HP. Put 160 in it and pulling the power back a little does nothing. A little lower and it does next to nothing. For illustration let me use some numbers. These are illustrative only, not exact, I'm only making a point. If I'm doing 130 knots indicated and I pull the power back to something like 2200 RPMs, then the nose will drop a touch and but the speed will drop very little unless some back pressure is applied to the stick. So one must trim it for level flight to slow down at all (of course). So I do, and back at straight and level I'm just flying a little slower than I was before, but not descending. Pull it back to 2100 RPMs again, nose will drop but with no back pressure on the stick the speed will not move very much. Trim for straight and level again and now I'm at 112 knots indicated, but not descending. Keep going -- 1900 RPMs, 97 knots. 1700 RPMs, 89 knots, 1500 RPMs 83 knots, 1300 RPMs (very near idle) and I'm at 78 knots - stills straight and level and finally in the white arc. I really don't know if these numbers are accurate numbers, but the point is that anything above some really, really low power setting and I'm either climbing or outside white arc. Its just that simple. With idle power, at 65 knots I measured 422 feet per minute descent rate over a 3 minute period. With any power at all, she won't descend without pointing the nose down and picking up speed. This is at solo weight, so I'm sure it'll be better with ballast.

Saturday, I was determined to fly the best, most controlled pattern I'd ever done. After a 20 nm flight, I started 5 miles away from the airport, and I slowed her down slowly. Watching the cooling rate (I have an EIS which measures cooling rate), I tried to get her to the white arc asap. Power back a little more...slow a little...trim...get to TPA...a little more...in the pattern now, slow a little...white arc...fly the pattern slowly...then flaps... When I finally got on the ground my engine was so loaded up that when I slowed to turn off the runway, it died. After restarting and clearing the engine, I came back to my home airport. With only 20 hours or so on my plane, I was concerned. I spent all afternoon and evening on Sunday making sure I didn't have any engine problems. I checked everything, and verified my idle and idle mixture was good. I consulted others. I did another 45 minutes of ground running and checking idle, trying to load it up. My engine is running great. But with all that cooling air and no power, it loaded up. I did T&Gs the 'old' way that evening with no problems -- I come into TPA about 100 feet low, pull the power abeam the numbers and pull up to get that 100 feet back and to slow her down. Add flaps and come back in with a little power until final. That's the way I do it...approximately. I intentionally did the slow entry into the pattern thing again yesterday just to prove that was the issue. I didn't let the engine die this time, but I did get it loaded up again -- idling a little rough and having to 'goose' it a little on rollout just to make sure it wouldn't die.

The way that works best for me is a mixture of both things discussed by Andy and George - cooling her slowly (less than 50F/min) and going to idle somewhere late in the pattern to slow her down. They aren't mutually exclusive. I can know my exact cooling rate with the EIS. So, I start cooling her down slowly about 3 to 5 miles out or more depending on altitude until I get her to about 350 F. I come into the pattern at 95 to 100 knots to keep from running the engine at such a low power setting for a long time. And then I cut to idle power somewhere late in the downwind. If I cool her down to about 350 before the pattern, it seems she won't cool off faster than 50 F/min thereafter even at idle power. The cooling curve seems to be steeper at temps above that.

I guess the whole point of this post is to say that I've found that Andy and George are both right. Be mindful of cooling her down too fast, but you're going to have to cut the power at some point. In my 20 hours and 40 landings or so I've found it unavoidable. Maybe there's a way. I guess I'll just have to go fly some more and keep looking for it.

Brian N9612S
 
Brian,
Thanks for your comments.

Among other thoughts, it sounds like a water cooled power plant might just be a better choice for a 9/9A where a lot of idle power will be needed- no shock cooling to worry about. In addition, fuel injection sounds like a big plus to keep mixture controlled during extended idle periods.

Your comments about the high efficiencies thru the normal speed envelope make me wonder if a small-displacement, turbocharged motor (like a Raven converted Geo, for example) might be a better choice for the 9 than a bigger motor. Use turbo power boost for initial climb, then cut back power (basically turn off the turbocharger) for the rest of the flight. Ill bet some truly outstanding mileage benetits would result (Geos get >50mpg in cars; they were designed for high rpm operation, unlike most other automotive engines.
 
cobra said:
Your comments about the high efficiencies thru the normal speed envelope make me wonder if a small-displacement, turbocharged motor (like a Raven converted Geo, for example) might be a better choice for the 9 than a bigger motor.
She needs the weight up front of something similar in size to a Lycoming. I wouldn't go much lighter. And let me be clear, prolonged idle isn't something that you have to do. You just have to go to idle at some point to get her slowed way down. I've just haven't found a way to avoid idle power until the flair as described earlier in the thread. But there could be a way...I consider myself still learning.

I'd still choose a carbureted Lyc if I had to do it again.
 
RV-9A gas mileage and an 0-320 engine

I have 45+ hours on my RV-9A and it is in the paint shop now. I have time to read and post again before things get busy again. I spent some time up at 10,000 to 12,000 feet cruising during my 40 test hours. On one 512 mile trip (GPS ground track), the fuel burned during the 4-hour flight gave better than 23 statute miles per gallon. That was cruising at 165 MPH true airspeed and confirmed by GPS.

The engine is an ECI Titan O-320, 160 HP, carburetor, one MAG, one LSE solid-state ignition.

Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
www.n2prise.org
 
Pardon me gents for I have no Rv9 "yet".

This is a good discussion. I would like to make a few personal observations. My background is ex. CFI, jump pilot, freight hauler, corp pilot and airline guy with a few hours in RV's.

1) I fly a jet during the day which is factory equipped with speed brakes. They are rarely used. Only to cover my mistakes as mentioned before.

2) When descending, plan to reach TPA 5-10nm from the field. This gives you some breathing room.

3) If needed, fly a bigger pattern with sharp edges and high bank angles. No need to be a cowboy, 50 degrees is plenty.

4) When doing a straight-in, fly a tad low on final and balloon upwards to slow. Once again smoothness is key.

5) Don't go full rich on descent and landing. Preserves heat and the plugs will thank you. Make it instead part of your go-around flow: mix, props, throttles, flaps, gear etc.

6) My view of shocking the engine is this: it's crucial with a turbo'd engine at high altitude. Why? because the engine is making sea level heat with very little cooling from the thin air up high. Most normal engines make less heat as they climb because of power loss, so the reduced cooling ability of high altitude is largely offset. Please note I advocate smooth power changes as a rule and baby my engines as much as the next guy. Many a night I peered through the cowl vents of a 421 Cessna and watched the orange glow of the turbo housing. 30 inches MP at 20,000ft makes a ton of heat. Rapid power reduction here is understandably bad.

7) My jump plane was a ratty 206 Cessna. That ship had every right to have bad jugs but didn't. Luck maybe, just an observation, not scientific at all.

7) Food for thought - why are we not concerned with shock heating on takeoff and promoting reduced thrust takeoffs when conditions permit.

I promise I'm not a know it all - just been dealing with it like ya' all have.
 
Back
Top