RV-10 Performance numbers

I am disappointed when I saw the performance numbers posted thus far by the flying RV10s...they are SLOWWW

Tim Olson had 161 kts with 22 mp and 2350 RPM ......151kts at 21.5 MP and 2350 RPM........I remember Glen Thomson and others have been posting similar numbers....I have not seen any with 170 kts ....there are many flying RV10 now and many have been asking questions and requesting RV10 operators to post their numbers.....not too many were willing to share theirs..the conclusion I came up is that people are not willing to admit that their Babies do not perform as expected ........

the RV10 flying thus far are relatively well built so slow speed can not be attributed to poor construction....I used to be enthusiastic about my RV10..Now I am not so sure I want one ......I would hesitate before I recommend RV10 to any of my friends....maybe I should have been that Lancair ES....

Without knowing anything about the specific airplanes in question, I would offer this speculation/ observation: many if not most people seem to have absolutely no clue of how to measure and report accurate performance numbers for their airplane (not just the RV-10.)

Sound harsh? Walk down the line at any airshow and look at prop cards, and you'll see. Watch how many posts you'll see about "at 5,000 feet I was indicating 170" and you get the idea.

When people report only a speed, without any other details such as altitude, temperature, engine settings (MP, RPM and fuel flow at least) then I get suspicious. The numbers you cite are a good example. 0.5 inches MP makes a 10 knot difference in speed? There is no way that is accurate. 0.5 inches equates to at best 2-3% power, which doesn't come close to 10 kts.

There was an article in the RVator last year comparing several customer built -10s to the factory models, and IIRC the customer airplanes were as good and in one case faster than the factory models.

RV 10 speeds

Here are more specific details as posted on Tim Olson's web site

6750 ft 21.8" MP 2300 RPM 13.8 GPH 155 kts
8500 ft 21.6" MP 2330 RPM 14.2 GPH 161 kts


more can be found on his site

http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/flights/20060409/index.html

Power Setting?

The cruise numbers are at 2300 RPM. I'm not sure what the power settings are for this particular engine/prop combination, but I'm guessing that it's well under 75% power. Maybe it's somewhere else on the website or maybe I didn't look closely enough, but I'm sure Tim would know.

For Sale?

Attson:

Does that mean you've got a partial kit for sale? You should add it to the Classifieds section of the forums . . .

TDT

Cabernet Sauvignon or Merlot

attson said:

I am disappointed... RV10s...are SLOWWW

Tim Olson had 161 kts with 22 mp and 2350 RPM ......
151kts at 21.5 MP and 2350 RPM........I remember Glen Thomson and others
have been posting similar numbers....I have not seen any with 170 kts ....

I would hesitate before I recommend RV10 to any of my friends....maybe I
should have been that Lancair ES....

Click to expand...

Here are some Van speed numbers (260HP):
Top Speed 211 mph (183.5 kts)
Cruise [75% @ 8000 ft] 201 mph (174.8 kts)
Cruise [55% @ 8000 ft] 180 mph (156.5 kts)

Avg of three RV-10's at 75% tested = 205.7 mph (178.9 kts)

(click)

Would you like some cheese and crackers with your whine....

What else is there to say?

Not sure why you are so negative. You are lucky you have the oportunity to build a nice plane. I mean there are much faster planes but non of them carry 4-people.

As far as the Lancair $61,000 more and 310 HP engine you to can go 12 mph faster:

**The big difference is about the $41,000 kit price plus $20k engine.
....................................RV-10........Lancair ES
Horse Power.....................260 HP............310 HP
Cruise [75% @ 8000 ft]......201 mph..........225 mph
Stall Speed........................57 mph............65 mph
Takeoff Distance.................360 ft............600 ft
Landing Distance.................525 ft............800 ft
Rate of Climb...................1,950 fpm.......2,000 fpm
Ceiling (est.)..................24,000 ft.........18,000 ft
Empty Weight..................1,520 lbs.........1,900 lbs
Gross Weight...................2,700 lbs.........3,200 lbs
Max useful......................1,180 lbs..........1,300 lbs
Fuel...................................60 Gal.............95 Gal
KIT COST.............$34,910/($44,860 QB)....$75,500

If the RV-10 had a 310 HP engine it would cruise approx 6% faster:
201 mph x (310/260)^(.33) = 213 mph,
so the Lancair claimed cruise is 12 mph faster.

A fixed gear 4-place plane that you can build for about $110K and fly
faster than most Bonanzas, Mooney's and Comanche's is pretty awesome.

Before you go and not recommend, the RV-10 you put it in perspective.
Study the all the perf and cost numbers above. The RV-10 fills a very nice
nitch no other plane in its class can, factory, experimental kit, metal or
fiberglass. If you want to go fast build a one or two place.

George

**From: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=33132#post33132

RV10 speeds

George
I had the same thoughts that you have up until I saw the real numbers recently...

except for the factory numbers I have not seen flying RV10s posting real day to day speeds that were cited.
there are 31 flying RV10s now according to VANs web site so hopefully we will get real numbers to go by
based on what I have seen so far the claim that RV10 will outperform Mooneys, Bonanzas etc. are just myths (and propaganda)

I regularly fly my friend's 1985 Trinidad (not a speed demon by any strectch of imagination) and routinely see 155 kts at 22 mp 2300 RPM (3 blade Hartzell prop) fuel flow at 12.5 gph (fuel injected Lycoming 540 standard 2 mags) at 7000 ft. I used to kid with my friend that my RV10 will leave him in the dust now it looks like I will have to eat my words

I built an RV6A (now sold). the 6A with a carbureted O360 gives me 170 kts so I had confidence in Vans numbers ....I hope eventually the 10 will give me the same confidence too...but not yet as of now....

let's call the cat a cat.... RV10 will not outrun Mooneys or Bonanzas...RV10 will be less expensive and maybe more fun to fly... we'll see if they will be speedy as well

Son

RV10 (Mattituck 260 hp-IO540- FI Lightspeed Plasma III and Mag) in the final strech -still trying to decide between a Hartzell and an MT prop

more on RV10 speeds

I also should add that I had the opportunities to fly the Lancair ES Fixed gears 310HP on a few occasions and I was very impressed that we crept up to 190 kts in no time at all... At that time I was trying to decide between the RV10 and the ES..cost was one factor but the deciding factors for me then were (i) the ES only had on door (they do come with 2 doors option now for more $$$$$) (ii) I would prefer to build metal plane than fiberglass (because of my previous experience building a 6A) (ii) the posted performance numbers do not show a significant difference between the 2 planes (I hope that will remain true)


Now TDT ....if someone is willing to make an reasonable offer for my almost completed RV10 then I would certainly sell it and go buy an Robinson R44

Still accurate

attson said:

George
I had the same thoughts that you have up until I saw the real numbers recently...

let's call the cat a cat.... RV10 will not outrun Mooneys or Bonanzas...RV10 will be less expensive and maybe more fun to fly... we'll see if they will be speedy as well

Son

RV10 (Mattituck 260 hp-IO540- FI Lightspeed Plasma III and Mag) in the final stretch -still trying to decide between a Hartzell and an MT prop

Click to expand...

**Hartzell.

Why is there still a question, as far as speed? The factory plane and two other customer built planes posted *over the spec of 201 mph for 75% cruise? (link to RVator flight test, "RV-10 Comparison", page 6, 5th issue 2005.)
(click)
*(N610RV posted a 198mph speed at 8280ft and 2251 lbs, -3 mph from spec, and 3.7mph to 5.1 mph slower than the factory N410RV. RV610RV used a standard Hartzell. The factory plane N410RV, uses a Hartzell BA prop. That would account for the +3 mph difference. The other plane, N64ME had a Hi-compression engine and should have been much faster. It was only slightly faster than the factory RV-10 and was hindered by the 3-blade MT prop, which I estimate cost at least 8 mph in speed verses the faster Hartzell BA prop. Last customer built RV tested, N104ME (for sale BTW) was well over spec at 208.6 MPH!!!! That proves a 260HP/Hartzell BA prop RV-10 will do better than spec.)

What is the argument?

There is no rumor and no urban legend, just facts.

How can you ignore this? What else can you say? Van knows how to record flight data and I think after 25 years he has a rep for giving accurate and repeatable flight test data. The factory plane and 2 out of 3 planes are faster than spec. The one that was not had the standard Hartzell vs. the newer BA prop. Put a MT prop on expect to be slower. (sorry)

As far as Mooney's and Bonanzas I am talking about your typical normally aspirated 60's, 70's planes, not turbo charged planes. If you get into the big engine Mooney or TC Bonanza you are talking big bucks.

A Mooney M20J (which I flew) would do about 190mph true, a little slower than the 195 mph book on 200 HP. The Bonanza about the same on 250 hp. I guess the speed demon of the Beech is the S35 with 285 hp at 178kts cruise. Mooneys are of course are efficient planes, but have a small cockpit/cabin.

I still think Vans numbers are accurate and in the ball park. It looks to me most of the cruise speeds RV-10 builders list are at 65% power or less. Vans, 55% speed is 180 mph (156.6 kts).

I have seen this over the last 15 years with the 2-seat models. Some people complain about their RV-4/6/7/8/9 speed. Some RV's exceed factory speeds easily. Why are some RV's slower? Its due to a combo of many factors. The RV-10 is no different. (MT props are slower, some engines don't make full power due condition or installation like exhaust, baffle / cooling drag issues, airframe rigging, fit finish, gear/wheel fairing alignment.)

All of Van's published speeds I have found them to always be very accurate, fair and realistic. My 1st RV, a 150HP RV-4, walked away from 160HP RV's and even kept up with a few (slow) 180 HP RV's.

As far as comparing a RV-10 to a Lancair-ES or other plane, that is another issue. The best proof is side by side fly off. I still say a RV-10 will meet, match or make the published speeds. The problem with a big plane and big engine is fuel burn. Most people are pulling their IO-540's back a little. At $3.00/gal I would. Is 8 mph a big deal to save a few gph.

The flight test Van conducted on three RV-10's show that it meets the specs. Again what else is there to say?

**However to be fair on one of the customer built RV-10s that Van tested, it has a hot rod engine with may be as much a 310 hp. This hot rod RV-10 had a MT prop? (No one knows for sure since it was not dynoed.) That is why I recommend the Hartzell BA prop. It was not much faster than the 260 HP RV-10 with the Hartzell BA prop. (see article below):



Cheers George

Now ya know....

Well, now you know why I didn't build an ES .... Altho, and I guess I'll have to ping the Lancair community to find out the real numbers, the ES's are usually faster than book, by 10-15kts.

No what is it?

aadamson said:

Well, now you know why I didn't build an ES ....

Altho, and I guess I'll have to ping the Lancair community to find out the real numbers,

the ES's are usually faster than book, by 10-15kts.

Click to expand...

No why I don't know?

Its made of glue and string, cost way more, 25% higher empty Wt., higher stall and less crashworthiness. Other than that, what's your reason?

Oh yea right 10-15kts faster than book!

ha ha lol, sure. That's bunk Dude; I call El Toro Poo-Poo. With 50 HP more you expect it to be a little faster. A RV-10 with the same HP is about 12 mph slower, at the cost of 8 mph higher stall. For this and all the other negatives of the Lancair, give me the RV-10 any day.

Besides, you need to get out of the hanger, you have inhaled too much epoxy fumes. No disrespect but your Lancair ES, as nice as it is, does not interest me or impress me in the slight. But keep bragging, its funny. George

attson
those numbers are correct....you aren't comparing apples to apples.

did everyone forget that 75%@8000' = WOT, i.e. 2700 RPM???

in a non-turbo engine, WOT@8000msl = 75% power (+/- temp, yada yada)

22"/2350 @8000 is appx. 65% power @8000' ...which puts you right at 161KTAS

it's "slow" because it's being FLOWN slow.

Dumb

This is about the dumbest argument I have read on this site yet.

gmcjetpilot said:

No why I don't know?

Its made of glue and string, cost way more, 25% higher empty Wt., higher stall and less crashworthiness. Other than that, what's your reason?

Oh yea right 10-15kts faster than book!

ha ha lol, sure. That's bunk Dude; I call El Toro Poo-Poo. With 50 HP more you expect it to be a little faster. A RV-10 with the same HP is about 12 slower. For all the other negatives of the Lancair, give me the RV-10 any day.

Besides, you need to get out of the hanger, you have inhaled too much epoxy fumes. No disrespect but your Lancair ES, as nice as it is, does not interest me or impress me in the slight. But keep bragging, its funny. George

Click to expand...

George,

I don't get it.. Why are you such an ***?

You obviously don't read the posts you reply to, and you certainly are not educated in the matters that you speak. If you were, you'd have seen that I'm *not* building an ES, and you would have seen that I'm not 10-15kts faster, I'm about 50kts faster! And you would have looked thru the accident database, and also evaluated the "strength of materials" to be educated to say which is stronger, more accident proof, better structurally, etc. My comment on 10-15kts faster that book, would also put the ES about 20-25 kts faster than an 10. I also said, I did not know for sure, but would check with those that own them to see what their performance numbers are. When I get some of those, then we can have an objective discussion.

But alas, you always put your mouth in gear first, before your brain can catch up.

In the past 3 or 4 months of reading this board, and hopefully contributing, I have *never* poked at what *you* fly, or are building. The only thing *I* have done is post a different point of view. And Oh, btw, in case you figured you have me scared away.... Nah.

I guess you just feel the need to counteract *any* sediment to a different ideal than you share.... .... Hey George, come out in the real world, there are lots of airplanes, lots of knowledge to be shared *AND LEARNED* and lots of friends to be made.

Ok, enough of this.... For those that are curious, when I get some real numbers for the Lancair ES (NA with IO-550), and ES-(T) (TC with TSIO-550), I'll publish them back here. You may do with them what you wish.

Beside, its just so much fun being in the fish bowl with SHARKS....

As a final thought... Tell ya what, let's not even fly any airplane or discuss performance numbers.... Let's just take an RV-10 all dolled up and put it next to a Lancair (of any type) all dolled up. Then invite the crowds.... Winner will be determined by which draws the larger crowd ....

Doha!

aadamson said:

George,

I don't get it.. Why are you such an ***? I'm about 50kts faster!

Click to expand...

aadamson, I don't know why are you such an ***? G

PS I have a masters in engineering and structural aerospace engineer, so there . Seriously composite structures are the WORST structure for crashworthiness because they absorb NO energy, don't yield and RUPTURE like an egg. Egg shells are strong but when they crack, YOU are the egg-yoke that gets spit out. Sorry Dude, but you are scrambled. Of course it does not matter the fuel tanks will rupture and nothing burns like glue and string and fuel, so may be its better you get thrown from the wreckage.

PSS the extra energy in your slick flying hot tub is 2^(65/57) = 1.30 or 30 % more energy. Ouch. They don't tell you that at Lancair, but death in a slick HOT glass plane is exponentially proportional to landing speed. 30% is significant. That is why RV's are better, slower stall and better structure for safety. Suck on that.

PISSS: If you think you are going to get on a RV list and BRAG and about your Lancair, "I'm 50 kts faster" and not get things flung at you, you are a silly silly man, but good luck. I wish you well. I personally don't care if you're happy about building a Lancair ES. Do you think anyone else cares? Anyway thanks for making me laugh. Peace. Now go mix some more epoxy and glue your dream bird together. How fast? ha ha ha lol. Chill Mr. Smug Lancair ES guy (ES for Extra Special no doubt).

Jeez Guys,

Glad peace was called, but I loved those Icons.

Rick S.
Loving the fact I only have "limited" epoxy/glass work on the RV-10
"itch itch" "scratch scratch"

Wow, calm it down guys. Lets see what an RV-10 will do with someone that actually runs 25"/2500 RPM. I'd think it'd get up there around 170Kts... Full power would probably get you up around 180Kt's... And I think that someone should build up a 400Hp parallel valve IO-540 like the Harmon Rocket III has and see what we get .

gmcjetpilot said:

PISSS: If you think you are going to get on a RV list and BRAG and

about your Lancair, "I'm 50 kts faster" and not get things flung at you, you are a silly silly man, but good luck. I wish you well. I personally don't care if you're happy about building a Lancair ES. Do you think anyone else cares?

Click to expand...

Just FYI George - read carefully before you attack and call someone a liar. Alan's not building an ES, he's building a modified, fixed gear Legacy if I remember correctly. He just offered to find out some Lancair ES numbers for us (which I'd like to hear about). The all-knowing George gets it wrong.

Well excuse me

skelrad said:

Just FYI George - read carefully before you attack and call someone a liar. Alan's not building an ES, he's building a modified, fixed gear Legacy if I remember correctly. He just offered to find out some Lancair ES numbers for us (which I'd like to hear about). The all-knowing George gets it wrong.

Click to expand...

FYI skelrad, what are you talking about? Yea I guess I was talking 4-place RV-10 vs. Lancair ES and heard that the ES is 10-15 kts faster than what was published. Than I hear the "FG-6" is 50 kts faster than a RV-10? OK fair enough, but we are talking two place and four place and 50 hp differnce. Regardless I kind of doubt the 50 kt number. Liar is such a strong word, I prefer exaggeration or over enthusiastic estimate.

aadamson: "If you were, you'd have seen that I'm *not* building an ES, and you would have seen that I'm not 10-15kts faster, I'm about 50kts faster! My comment on 10-15kts faster that book, would also put the ES about 20-25 kts faster than an 10. I also said, I did not know for sure, but would check with those that own them to see what their performance numbers are. "

Take his 15 kts faster than (ES) book? Add 15 kts to the 225 mph I get 242 mph. That is real fast for a fixed tri-gear 4-place'er. First, I doubt Lancair's published numbers are under that much.

Than he says I'm 50 kts faster than a RV-10. That is 224 kt or 258 mph!! I guess NOW he wants to compare the FG-6, 2-place with more HP to the RV-10. The FG-6 is Lancair Legacy FG, fixed gear with the carbon fiber option and IO-550 (310hp) engine. Got it. I was talking RV-10's vs. ES per the thread, but now it is the FG-6 vs. RV-10, OK.

A FG-6, a normally aspirated 2-place airplane with 3 gear legs sticking out is faster than Reno racers with just two gears sticking out. I can believe 243 mph. Lancair says a Legacy FG with 200 HP goes 210 mph at 8,000 ft. Doing a little math 310 hp would be worth 243 mph. 258 mph? Sounds high. Gear sticking out over 250 mph is tough. When he actually flys he will know. I guess there are none flying?

Originally I was comparing the Lancair ES 4-place with the RV-10. The "FG-6" compared to the RV-7 or RV-8 with 200 HP is a better comparison. The RV-7/8 is 10-12 mph faster than the RV-10. Now we are comparing two place planes, but the Lancair FG-6, has 110 HP more! I can tell you 310 HP in a RV-7/8 would (in theory) go 256 mph! A little over Vne so that's a no-no. However that's what a Rocket does; they do go 250 mph. So who knows may be the FG-6 will win the silver class at Reno? I don't know.

Looking at the race results from Reno 2005 sportsman class:




LANCAIR'S
Lancair's are cruisers, albeit fast cruisers, they are primarily made for cross country, to fly from one super slab to another super slab airport. Nothing wrong with that, but they SUCK for acro and short field. Don't be offended that I say the Lancair SUCK's for acro. Its like a Pitts S2 or Extra 300 pilot saying RV's suck for acro. Lancairs are also over the fence at least 10 mph faster. RV's are special aircraft that, to coin a phrase, have "total performance". So lets just establish that.


Normal flying most of us can afford or want to pay for (fixed gear, less than 300 hp, no turbo or pressurization) has top speed is around 200-250 mph below 8,000 ft. Once you go near or above 250 mph you really need to suck the gear. However at $3.00/gal I am happy to fly at 195 mph, below 12,501 ft with my slow RV-7. The funny thing is the Legacy FG with 200 hp has the same listed cruise as a RV-7/8 with 200 hp.


FLYING HIGH
A turbo Cont. TSIO-550-E Horsepower 350 h.p. @ 2700 rpm fixed gear model (with pressurized cabin) is what Lancair calls their ES-P. Lancair list only speeds at altitude: 270 mph @ 17,500 ft; 293 mph @ 24000 (typical). That is great, but at 8,000 ft you will not see 270 mph, may be 234 mph at great cost in gas. We are talking a $97,000 kit, plus say $70,000 for engine and prop. I guess finish price is pushing a quarter MIL!

Now if you all think FL240 is fun without pressurization, I disagree. O2 is a pain and drys out your nasal passages. I flew an unpressurized Ted Smith (later Piper) Aerostar twin with turbocharged 350hp a side for a few years. Often, to get over weather I went into the flight levels. I hated it. That's not FUN flying to me. If FL240 impresses you, OK, but most RV pilots have a different mission. I just don't have to go that many places in my own plane or need to climb that high.

If all you're going to do is fly @ flight levels and cruise straight & level sucking O2, than NO THANKS. I do that at work. I want a fun plane that's easy to maintain (no turbo), economical and does aerobatics, short field, local flying and X-C equally well, with out needing to sell a kidney. Except for the acro, all RV's do this. The exception is the RV-9/10 which are not acro rated. Lancair's don't handle as well as RV's. Fast, yes I give them that.

I am not into BORING cruising at can't see much altitudes, its, BORING!


Conclusion
The RV-10, is best bang for the bucks 4-place, without the complications of turbo or pressurization. It fills a REAL nice spot for most pilots. A 260 hp RV-10 cruises at 201 mph (or 208 mph). The Lancair ES does a claimed 225 mph. Is an extra 17-24 mph going to make your day. Lets say you fly 6 hour cross country day. That's less than 40 minutes to cover the same distance as the Lancair ES.

As far as two place obviously the RV-7 is my choice. The Legacy FG or FG-6 of Alan's is nice but I like the metal better and much cheaper.

Mr. Lancair: "Let's just take a RV-10 all dolled up and put it next to a Lancair (of any type) all dolled up. Then invite the crowds.... Winner will be determined by which draws the larger crowd ...."

FYI, I don't have a problem with the Lancair's or Mr. Lancair, but I do have a problem with snobbishness. I think the Lancair is ugly plastic with no soul. Hey but this is my taste in dogs. My Dog

The RV's are a totally different kind of plane, for different flying, for differnt kinds of pilots. I have no problem with anyone, but come on its VANSAIRFORCE.NET, not Lancairforce. Not to mention the Lancair is sooooo much more money. By the way the time to climb records are being set by a modified RV-4/Rocket/Exxon Tiger.

The reason guys with "other" planes come to this forum is because RV's are the most popular and active group. I like to think that's because RV's are the best overall plane and happen to also be the best value. So sue me for my opinion. If you are going to advertise how wounderful and superior your "super sky scooter 3000" is over a RV, expect the cons of your design to be discussed and don't cry. Goodbye.

Have a nice day. G

George,
Myself and many others ( Im sure) on the list enjoy the bantering that goes on . Many of us ,myself included dont get involved. Lets just say were observers.
What I would like to know is where do you get the energy and time to post such intricate responses? Please dont stop , I like reading your posts, but am just curious.

RV-10 speeds

I consistently see 168-170 kts at cruise. On the way to SNF I made a note of the numbers because I thought for sure I would get asked at SNF. .
We were at 8K', OAT of 56 F (so a little above standard), 75 gallons of fuel and 2 people.
MP 23.3" and 2360 RPM, F/F 14.5 gph 50 degrees rich of peak, and TAS of 170 kts. The engine is an IO-540-D4 A5 built by Performance Engines out of LA swinging the 3 blade MT propeller.

Just the facts.

Vic

That would be often

skelrad said:

Just FYI George - read carefully before you attack and call someone a liar. Alan's not building an ES, he's building a modified, fixed gear Legacy if I remember correctly. He just offered to find out some Lancair ES numbers for us (which I'd like to hear about). The all-knowing George gets it wrong.

Click to expand...

Quite typical actually....

While I'm not building an ES, I figured I could tap the Lancair community to get some comparitive information. When I get those *fact* based ES numbers, I'll post em back. I now have to short out what a "Super ES" is too.... It seems one person that I've been talking with has one flying and the Factory Demo is called a Super ES.... Hmmm... I know the regular ES is eglass, the ES-P is Carbon (think the wings are eglass still tho). I just have no idea what a Super is.

As far as what I'm building, its the little brother to the ES, the 2 place Legacy, yes, it's the Carbon RG, but with FG substituted. This allows the IO-550 to be used, which is what the airplane was designed for. And yes, and this has been covered, there is one flying (lots in eglass, but only one in carbon) with no body work or paint and typical cruise is 225kts. It's going to body work and paint now so we'll see when it comes out if it's faster or slower. The RG is a 240kt airplane. Also, I'm building it cuz I'm a "go someplace" pilot. And those places tend to be 800nm - 2000nm away. I fly a 150kt 2004 C182T today and I want something thats faster.

Ah, but enough of that, there are threads that cover all of this.... More ES info for you guys to compare with as I get it...

BTW, and I've said it a Million times...Mr Lancair - me, hangs out here because it's nice to learn some of the tricks from the guys building lots of airplanes. While the material varies, there are numerous similarities. FWF, avionics, wiring, finishing, etc.

Alan, I ain't no Lancair guy, but from what I've seen/heard Super ES is ES with IO-550 in it. "Standard" ES was originally with IO-360. There used to be two versions, a few years ago (ES and Super ES).

Actually, Lancair's site still makes reference to both:

quote:

Just because we offer more cabin space doesn?t mean we take a back seat in speed. On the contrary, you can cruise smoothly at 225 mph in the Super ES which features a 310-hp Continental 1O-550 engine. The ES can easily reach 200 mph with its 210-hp Continental 1O-360 engine.

Ah

Radomir said:

Alan, I ain't no Lancair guy, but from what I've seen/heard Super ES is ES with IO-550 in it. "Standard" ES was originally with IO-360. There used to be two versions, a few years ago (ES and Super ES).

Actually, Lancair's site still makes reference to both:

quote:

Just because we offer more cabin space doesn?t mean we take a back seat in speed. On the contrary, you can cruise smoothly at 225 mph in the Super ES which features a 310-hp Continental 1O-550 engine. The ES can easily reach 200 mph with its 210-hp Continental 1O-360 engine.

Click to expand...

Radomir, thanks, that must be it. I didn't realize that the ES could take the 6 cyl Cont 360. I'd dare say that all of them today will be IO550 equiped but thats just a guess.... I really never considered an ES.... Ok, well maybe I did at one time, when I looked at the Columbia's.

vic syracuse said:

I consistently see 168-170 kts at cruise. On the way to SNF I made a note of the numbers because I thought for sure I would get asked at SNF. .
We were at 8K', OAT of 56 F (so a little above standard), 75 gallons of fuel and 2 people.
MP 23.3" and 2360 RPM, F/F 14.5 gph 50 degrees rich of peak, and TAS of 170 kts. The engine is an IO-540-D4 A5 built by Performance Engines out of LA swinging the 3 blade MT propeller.

Just the facts.

Vic

Click to expand...

Vic,

Here's a link to the benefits of running LOP. I've tuned the injectors on my IO-540 and can consistently run 50 degrees LOP with fuel flows down around 9.5 to 11.0 at cruise, depending on MP of course.

http://www.taturbo.com/future.html

Lop

Hi Randy. I went to Airflow performance and did the tuning, but really haven't had much luck in running LOP. As soon as I get to peak or LOP, it starts to run rough. I don't know if it's due to the higher compression pistions (9.5:1) or the elctronic ignition. I do beleive in it, and would really like for it to work. But rough engines don't give me any comfrot factor, and I'd rather not hurt the engine, so I revert to the old standby 50 degrees ROP. Maybe one of these days I will get to spend some more time on it and tweak it.
Thanks!

Vic

Ah, but wait...

vic syracuse said:

Hi Randy. I went to Airflow performance and did the tuning, but really haven't had much luck in running LOP. As soon as I get to peak or LOP, it starts to run rough. I don't know if it's due to the higher compression pistions (9.5:1) or the elctronic ignition. I do beleive in it, and would really like for it to work. But rough engines don't give me any comfrot factor, and I'd rather not hurt the engine, so I revert to the old standby 50 degrees ROP. Maybe one of these days I will get to spend some more time on it and tweak it.
Thanks!

Vic

Click to expand...

Vic,

Your choice of words are very interesting "I'd rather not hurt the engine". Most LOP gurus will tell you that at 50 ROP, you are doing more damage to your engine than you'll ever do at LOP. That happens to be the absolute worst place to run an engine (yes I know what Lycoming says).

If you haven't go read all the Deakins articles - start at www.gami.com.

Now to help you with LOP. First a few questions. Do you have an injected or a carbed engine? What make/model? Do you have an engine monitor that can record individual CHT's/EGT's at a given fuel flow (prefereably one calibrated in .1 gal/hr? )

It's a little harder with a carb'd engine, but still doable, you'll need to use carb heat to make it run right LOP. But if you have an engine monitor do the following. Doesn't matter if it's a 4cyl, a 6 cyl, a Lyc or a Cont. Go to the Gami site, read the "lean test" article. Download the spreadsheet form and go do exactly as it says. Make sure you stay out of the "red box" by doing it at 6500 or higher.

When you are done, come back and post the results. What you are striving for is something on the order of .5 - 1 gal/hr spread with pretty constant EGT's. If you can get there, you'll probably be saving 1-3 gal/hr even if you continue to elect to run at ROP.

Now with that said, there are lots of things that can influence your ability to run LOP. You need to make sure you induction system is up to par with no leaks, etc.

It can be done, it *is* safe for your engine if applied where appropriate, both FI and Carb's work (it's easier with FI tho). The Conts especially seem to benefit from it, due to the tuned induction. But the Lycs can work too. As an example, my 2004 182 with an IO-540 has a "span of almost 2 gal/hr at peak EGT. It won't run LOP, but soon as warranty is out in november, I'll be going there.....That is unless my Lancair if finished

Holy cow! I just checked in on this thread and found the only thing flying to be fur. Guys, as someone once said to me:

Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you still look retarded.

I sincerly mean no offense to anyone who is actually mentally challenged, only to those who appear so.

szicree said:

Holy cow! I just checked in on this thread and found the only thing flying to be fur. Guys, as someone once said to me:

Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you still look retarded.

I sincerly mean no offense to anyone who is actually mentally challenged, only to those who appear so.

Click to expand...

Steve that is so hilarious! I am laughing so hard at all of this but your statement really is the icing on the cake. I am laughing so hard it is hard to see the screen. I only wish I had some of those icons that George has on his post (I love the "rolling on the floor" icon, wish I had it).

RVBYSDI
Steve

vic syracuse said:

Hi Randy. I went to Airflow performance and did the tuning, but really haven't had much luck in running LOP. As soon as I get to peak or LOP, it starts to run rough. I don't know if it's due to the higher compression pistions (9.5:1) or the elctronic ignition. I do beleive in it, and would really like for it to work. But rough engines don't give me any comfrot factor, and I'd rather not hurt the engine, so I revert to the old standby 50 degrees ROP. Maybe one of these days I will get to spend some more time on it and tweak it.
Thanks!

Vic

Click to expand...

I had exactly the same problem, that being a serious stumble just after reaching peak. The stumble is caused by the fuel backflowing in the injector line due to one, or possibly two things. First, it might be caused by inadequate inlet cowling pressure. To solve this, I installed turbo nozzles from AFP. The second cause is that the fuel distributor starts to do funny things below 11 GPH. The real solution to this problem is to use a Bendix flow distributor. Numerous Rocket guys are using the Bendix distributor and none have the stumble problem. I haven't gone that far yet, but the stumble is worse in the winter than the summer so atmospheric conditions appear to affect it.

Gentlemen, I grow weary of the these type threads.

Please read and follow the rules. This is not open for discussion. I'm growing wearing of this back and forth.

Civil, respectful, add value to the RV knowledge base.

Doug
Forum Owner

Lol!

szicree said:

..Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you still look retarded.
..

Click to expand...

LOL This one is a keeper. Oh, my sides are hurting.

Obscufication

aadamson said:

George,
..
You obviously don't read the posts you reply to, and you certainly are not educated in the matters that you speak. If you were, you'd have seen that I'm *not* building an ES, and you would have seen that I'm not 10-15kts faster, I'm about 50kts faster! And you would have looked thru the accident database, and also evaluated the "strength of materials" to be educated to say which is stronger, more accident proof, better structurally, etc. My comment on 10-15kts faster that book, would also put the ES about 20-25 kts faster than an 10. I also said, I did not know for sure, but would check with those that own them to see what their performance numbers are. When I get some of those, then we can have an objective discussion.:

Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe it is just me but I didn't read anything that George wrote that incorrectly referenced any of your statements. On the contrary, from previous discussions, I think it is you that do not read what you are responding to. I only read his questioning the proposition of "10-15kts, faster than book" --which is more likely, the "book" being wrong or people's estimation of their pride and joy's performance?

aadamson said:

George,
..
As a final thought... Tell ya what, let's not even fly any airplane or discuss performance numbers.... Let's just take an RV-10 all dolled up and put it next to a Lancair (of any type) all dolled up. Then invite the crowds.... Winner will be determined by which draws the larger crowd ....

Click to expand...

Didn't know this was a beauty contest, I thought we were talking about performance. Obscufication.

Nice try

I aint gonna bite....I think we beat this horse dead already.

Thanks Doug for kicking some of us in the teeth.

RV10 speeds

Vic
It is reassuring to see you get 170 kts TAS on a regular basis..I notice you have the 310 hp Performance Engine ...I wonder what my 260 hp Mattituck IO540 engine will get me...BTW I am leaning more and more towards the 3 blade MT prop ( sorry ..George !!!! the MT blade just looks cooler, runs smoother and quieter ) Vic ..would you still opt for the MT prop if you do it all over again ?

Thanks
Son

23.3 mp at 8Kft

Vic
do you have ram air or such device in your plane..using the rule of thumb of losing 1 in MP for 1000 ft.... at 8000 ft 22 in MP seems to be the max that i have seen in my RV6A O360 A1A
Son

Wondering

attson said:

Vic
It is reassuring to see you get 170 kts TAS on a regular basis..I notice you have the 310 hp Performance Engine ...I wonder what my 260 hp Mattituck IO540 engine will get me...BTW I am leaning more and more towards the 3 blade MT prop ( sorry ..George !!!! the MT blade just looks cooler, runs smoother and quieter ) Vic ..would you still opt for the MT prop if you do it all over again ?

Thanks
Son

Click to expand...

Son,

Does Vans have any access to this propeller?



The reason I ask is that at Reno, *every* one in the Sport class was running it or similar. In fact Dave Morris, who has flown lots of airplanes at Reno, took off his MT and borrowed this prop from the factory Lancair Legacy Demo plane just to be "more competitive". It was amazing the difference. His top speed probably came up 10-15mph by just switching to this prop.

At least in the case of Hartzell, they did their homework. I just don't know if Van's sells it. It's a model HC-J3YF-1RF/F7391D-3 and I don't know if it's available for a Lyc. These were all Cont IO-550's.

RV-10 performance

Randy and Son, I will try to answer both of your questions as I'm in a hurry to get to a meeting.
No I don't have any ram air addition other than the Van's scoop. I THINK the MP reading is accurate, as I've calibrated it and checked it at sea level, 29.92, and done the low level runway high speed pass to check for any drop.
As for the 310 hp, that is on the dyno at 2800. I limited the engine RPM's to 2700 due to the MT prop, so I believe I am only using/getting 260-270 hp at takeoff, if fuel flow is the proper indicator (let's not get that war started). I see 26 to 27.5 gph at takeoff, depending on temperature and altitude. I think one of the limiting factors might be that the air scoop is too small for more hp at full power and no forward speed. I do get about 1"-2" MP drop at full power, but as I said, it is recovered once the airplane is moving fast.
Yes, I would do the MT prop again. It is REALLY smooth, and I think it is a factor in the high altitude performance, as is the wing and electronic ignition and higher compression pistons. Plus, I live on a grass strip, so the extra blade clearance is welcomed.
Randy, I'll have to ask AFP about the turbo nozzles. Thanks for the advice.

Vic

RV10 and prop

Vic
thanks for the info....

Alan
I don't quite understand which prop you were referring to...Vans does sell an MT prop ...in fact if you order the MT prop...Vans will give you credit for the cost of the spinner that comes with the RV10 finishing kit since the MT prop comes with its own spinner

Son

Better put

attson said:

Vic
thanks for the info....

Alan
I don't quite understand which prop you were referring to...Vans does sell an MT prop ...in fact if you order the MT prop...Vans will give you credit for the cost of the spinner that comes with the RV10 finishing kit since the MT prop comes with its own spinner

Son

Click to expand...

Son,

I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't ask the quesiton correctly. I posted a picture of the prop that I was curious about. You can see it above.

For the sake of simplicity....

Most of the Lancairs running IO-550's are turning the Hartzell blended airfoil 3 blade prop seen in the picture above. That is also the prop that everyone was scampering around trying to get to run in the Silver and Gold races at Reno this year. It was replacing MT props that were running about 10-15mph slower for the same setup. (airplane a with MT was slower than airplane a with Hartzell). I provided the Hartzell number, but I don't know if Vans can sell it, or if only Lancair can, and I don't know if it would work on a Lycoming.

While I like the weight advantage on the MT, it seems that for performance, the Hartzell shown above is better for top speed, as experienced by the guys in the silver and gold sports class race last year.

Hope that helps with clarification.

One Lancair ES comparison

Looks like Book is pretty much spot on.... While this is only a sample of one, it's right in the sweet spot.

At 2900# on a standard, dry, smooth day at 8000 feet my ES trues at about
192kts. I get about 2-3 more with ram air but can't use it on warm days so it is not currently installed. This would be with WOT and 2500 RPM and 75 ROP.

My plane grosses 3400# with empty weight of 2197#. It stalls full flaps at 57 knots.

Click to expand...

More as I get them.

aadamson said:

At least in the case of Hartzell, they did their homework. I just don't know if Van's sells it. It's a model HC-J3YF-1RF/F7391D-3 and I don't know if it's available for a Lyc. These were all Cont IO-550's.

Click to expand...

I don't think Van's will ever offer this since below *about* 300-350 HP, there is not enough power to overcome the drag created by the 3rd blade. Since Van's does not make any plane with such HP requirements, it would be counterproductive to offer such a prop.

A 3 blade on all(?) Van's planes would improve their ramp appeal and climb performance, but cruise performance would suffer.

If I'm not mistaken

w1curtis said:

I don't think Van's will ever offer this since below *about* 300-350 HP, there is not enough power to overcome the drag created by the 3rd blade. Since Van's does not make any plane with such HP requirements, it would be counterproductive to offer such a prop.

A 3 blade on all(?) Van's planes would improve their ramp appeal and climb performance, but cruise performance would suffer.

Click to expand...

William, I agree with your analysis. There are lots of reasons for 3 blades vs. 2. The conversation was in response to someone looking to add a 3 blade MT to an IO-540 on a 10. I simply offered an alternative that had shown to have better speed than the MT. Original quote offered below and hence my comments. I certainly never suggested that Van's put 3b's on all their airplanes. Was just curious if they offered this prop as an option.

son said:

It is reassuring to see you get 170 kts TAS on a regular basis..I notice you have the 310 hp Performance Engine ...I wonder what my 260 hp Mattituck IO540 engine will get me...BTW I am leaning more and more towards the 3 blade MT prop ( sorry ..George !!!! the MT blade just looks cooler, runs smoother and quieter ) Vic ..would you still opt for the MT prop if you do it all over again ?

Click to expand...

Just catching up

Hey guys. I don't usually check in too often but just happend to tonight and see that my posting of my numbers started a bit of discussion.

I'll toss in a few comments:

* I think the guy who said that most people don't know how to get the good numbers is probably spot on. I have no idea what MP/RPM/Altitude I would expect to see top speed at, or what is the most efficient cruise speed. This was my first trip further than about 60 miles with the plane. (I guess 1100
miles is a bit of a big step. ) When I cruised down, I flew even slower, as I was just trying to ensure I had good range, given my low altitude cruise level that day. On the way back, some of my O2 supplies were left behind so we stayed lower than 9500'. I feel the need for 02 earlier than some. So anyway, I'm no pro at getting good numbers.

* When I cruise, I'll gladly give up some kts for some economy if that's the choice. Whatever way is the most efficient is what I'd prefer. The guy who mentioned that it looks like I was flying low on power is right. I tend to lean that way (pardon the pun). Also, I believe LOP operation might be a good way to go, but I'm kind of squeamish to get started on that yet. I want to get to know the plane well first. You only learn when you take it out on a trip, so the opportunity isn't always there.

* I do think I should be pretty close to Van's published numbers if flown correctly. There's an awful lot of piloting errors possible, so if I'm ever given the opportunity to take someone who's more knowledgeable on performance testing along, I'll go for it. My engine is also *just* a 260HP with standard compression. That should actually hurt my economy a bit, from what I understand. But, it should help the longevity...something else that I really want to see.

* I was nowhere near WOT when I recorded those numbers, despite being at higher altitudes. Don't get too depressed on the speeds until you see something that you know is being done to it's fullest extent. Perhaps this weekend if I have good weather I can play for a while. I'm assuming that I can fairly ignore my weight for performance numbers. In the past planes I've flown, adding rear weight actually improved speeds a touch. I'll try to add that spec in to the chart next time though.

Am I disappointed? Well, last time I flew down to the same place, I got there in 10.5 hours. This time I did the same basic flight in 7.25 hours. I think
I can do better than that too. So no, I'm pretty happy. It would *feel* more impressive if I flew by MPH, but I'm a purist who believes KTS and aviation/marine sports are how things should be done. So yeah, if I'm disappointed in anything it's that I can't cruise leisurely at 200KTS. (although on a recent flight I did see 202KTS TAS during a descent to an approach fix)

Just keep building those -10's. Then fly 'em until you have them figgered out. Then post your own numbers. It sure would be nice if more people would log and post their numbers and we could start a performance chart to see what is possible with various engines and props. If you get something figured out perfect...tell me so I can do it too. I never thought that the -10 would be the fastest plane around....but it's the fastest plane around that I can afford in either cash or effort (I hate fiberglass work), so it's all I'm gonna have. Besides that, I've tried to squeeze into a mooney before....OUCH. The -10 is just made fine to fit my family (or larger)...we like the space. I'll trade some kts for that too.

And, if you finish the plane, it'll be worth more than if you sell the uncompleted kit....so finish the thing and if it disappoints you then, turn it over for a new pile of cash to put towards your Lancair/Cirrus/whatever.
For me, the -10 should do just fine.

I'll post more specs on my site as I get them. If nothing else, it keeps
the discussion flowing.

Tim

TimO said:

It sure would be nice if more people would log and post their numbers and we could start a performance chart to see what is possible with various engines and props. If you get something figured out perfect...tell me so I can do it too. I never thought that the -10 would be the fastest plane around....but it's the fastest plane around that I can afford in either cash or effort (I hate fiberglass work), so it's all I'm gonna have. Besides that, I've tried to squeeze into a mooney before....OUCH. The -10 is just made fine to fit my family (or larger)...we like the space. I'll trade some kts for that too.

And, if you finish the plane, it'll be worth more than if you sell the uncompleted kit....so finish the thing and if it disappoints you then, turn it over for a new pile of cash to put towards your Lancair/Cirrus/whatever.
For me, the -10 should do just fine.

I'll post more specs on my site as I get them. If nothing else, it keeps
the discussion flowing.

Tim

Click to expand...

Tim,
The thing to remember here is that Vans now reports 30 (thirty) completed RV-10's. When they tested 3 planes, and that group on average met spec they had tested 10% of the total fleet! As a statistical sample that would be considered sagnifigant. So most -10s like most RV's will probably meet specs. We as a group are still waaaay to early to worry. Van has always given you value for your money, which is why they will list more planes completed than Cessna this year! My reason for getting the 10 is simple, PAYLOAD I want to be ble to carry at least 2 people and ALL the stuff we want to bring. A 200 MPH cruise will be fine thanks.
Bill Jepson

szicree said:

Holy cow! I just checked in on this thread and found the only thing flying to be fur. Guys, as someone once said to me:

Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you still look retarded.

I sincerly mean no offense to anyone who is actually mentally challenged, only to those who appear so.

Click to expand...

Your sincere good intentions notwithstanding, this is less than charitable. Please try to see past the externals and recognize the humanity of our fellow citizens with developmental disabilities. Each bears the image and likeness of his Creator, the same as you and I. Steve

O2 thots

TimO said:

* I think the guy who said that most people don't know how to get the good numbers is probably spot on. I have no idea what MP/RPM/Altitude I would expect to see top speed at, or what is the most efficient cruise speed. This was my first trip further than about 60 miles with the plane. (I guess 1100
miles is a bit of a big step. ) When I cruised down, I flew even slower, as I was just trying to ensure I had good range, given my low altitude cruise level that day. On the way back, some of my O2 supplies were left behind so we stayed lower than 9500'. I feel the need for 02 earlier than some. So anyway, I'm no pro at getting good numbers.

Click to expand...

Warning Thread HiJack coming

Tim, don't feel bad, I've taken a habit of flying on O2 on each cross country, no matter what the altitude.

I've found some interesting Physiological items that effect me at least.

As a note, I use the MH Oxygen Pulse system. It's very nice to have a smallish bottle last 17-20 flight hours (with 2 people on the bottle) and I don't have to worry about being all dried out.

Anyway back on the Hijacked topic.

The FAA suggests O2 for any flight above 5K and for all flights at night. Night vision is dramatically effected by just the slightest amount of O2 decrease in the blood.

I find that when I fly x-country and don't use oxygen, that I'm more exhausted than if I do. It's pretty dramatic with me. If I fly 3 hours to DC at 7-9K and don't use O2, I want to take a nap about 7-8pm cuz I'm tired. If I fly with O2, I don't seem to have that feeling.

Sorry you left O2 stuff behind.... that's always a bummer. I take my portable setup everywhere with me now....

Also for those building and thinking of putting in O2. MH makes a nice (but really expensive) built in system. If you don't want to go there. I stopped by their both while at SNF. They have two things that you can use to make a semi built in install, but save all the money.

- a regulator that screws on a bottle, has a small pnematic switch and 2 jacks for the lines.

- a new 2 port pulse controller, that could be temp installed in a slide in enclosure

Check em out on line at www.mhoxygen.com. while they are more money than the other systems, the pulse setup is certainly worth it.

X-country fatigue

aadamson said:

..I find that when I fly x-country and don't use oxygen, that I'm more exhausted than if I do. It's pretty dramatic with me. If I fly 3 hours to DC at 7-9K and don't use O2, I want to take a nap about 7-8pm cuz I'm tired. If I fly with O2, I don't seem to have that feeling.
..

Click to expand...

Being on the east coast, I haven't had the need to fly high but I've found the one thing that has eliminated the fatigue of long cross countries is the Active Noise Reduction (ANR) Headset. Before I started using ANR even moderate cross countries would leave me fatigued. Now I can fly all day and not be fatigued when I arrive. The theory is that the ANR removes the low frequency rumble that contributes to fatigue.

My headsets are just regular Flightcom DLX upgraded with the ANR kit. Just my observation, YMMV.

Anr

I also used the ANR kits from Headsets inc.

Good product. Good service.

Mike

Anr

w1curtis said:

Being on the east coast, I haven't had the need to fly high but I've found the one thing that has eliminated the fatigue of long cross countries is the Active Noise Reduction (ANR) Headset. Before I started using ANR even moderate cross countries would leave me fatigued. Now I can fly all day and not be fatigued when I arrive. The theory is that the ANR removes the low frequency rumble that contributes to fatigue.

My headsets are just regular Flightcom DLX upgraded with the ANR kit. Just my observation, YMMV.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments William. I also live on the east coast, but do use O2 on all flights regardless of alt. The MH controller can be set to a D5 mode, which turns it on at 5K pressure alt, so it automatically comes one whenever I'm above 5K and shuts off when I go below that Alt.

As for ANR... I've been flying with Bose Series II's since '98 and my wife has a pair of Lightspeed 30-3G's.