Has anyone here put a turbo on a -10?

[rv6ejguy]

I always wonder why some people want to flout the manufacturers Vne recommendations. Yup we have folks who've exceeded Vne and lived to tell about it. Do that at your own risk though. If you do get flutter, it can all be over in seconds. That wouldn't a good end to your day as you plummet earthwards surrounded by aluminum confetti as one fellow put it.

There appears to be a good margin of safety built in which is why we haven't seen many accidents attributed to flutter. Maybe a good idea to leave it that way.

Not every RV is built exactly the same as Van's test aircraft which is why they have a wide buffer I suspect.

There are other airframe choices if you need to regularly go 220+ knots. Just my 2 cents.

[burrm]

I too have been thinking about this. Reading the aforementioned article, the main concern from Van's seems to be the possibility of exceeding VNE, which should be calibrated in TAS as opposed IAS. Point well taken and understood.

I am by no means an expert, but it seems that with modern avionics such as the G3X, from what I've read it should be possible to calibrate the VNE arc on the airspeed tape in terms of TAS as opposed to IAS. So, theoretically regardless of flight conditions, as long as you don't venture into the red arc (calibrated in TAS), you should still be able to enjoy the improved climb performance, higher service ceiling etc. of a turbo while still remaining safe below VNE?

[smash603]

Originally Posted by burrm

I am by no means an expert, but it seems that with modern avionics such as the G3X, from what I've read it should be possible to calibrate the VNE arc on the airspeed tape in terms of TAS as opposed to IAS. So, theoretically regardless of flight conditions, as long as you don't venture into the red arc (calibrated in TAS), you should still be able to enjoy the improved climb performance, higher service ceiling etc. of a turbo while still remaining safe below VNE?

I think with the prevalence of modern glass cockpits and the capabilities that they bring to easily display TAS it seems like it would be fairly easy to identify and remain below Vne without a problem...

From what I understand Van?s has built in a margin of safety with a Vne of 200kits TAS, should we build in another margin of safety and only fly at 170kts TAS?

[rv6ejguy]

A good RV-10 will already true 170 KTAS. There is little point in the turbo if that's your target.

[smash603]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

A good RV-10 will already true 170 KTAS. There is little point in the turbo if that's your target.

That?s what I am saying, Guys run 170kts consistently.... is there a problem with targeting 195kts? Or is the margins that Vans built in not enough margin?

[airguy]

Originally Posted by smash603

That?s what I am saying, Guys run 170kts consistently.... is there a problem with targeting 195kts? Or is the margins that Vans built in not enough margin?

Engineering margins belong to the engineers. Exceed them, and you're a test pilot.

[rocketman1988]

"...Engineering margins belong to the engineers. Exceed them, and you're a test pilot..."

That's a fact.

"...If you do get flutter, it can all be over in seconds..."

That's a fact...and it doesn't matter how good a pilot you think you are.

[smash603]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

"...Engineering margins belong to the engineers. Exceed them, and you're a test pilot..."

That's a fact.

"...If you do get flutter, it can all be over in seconds..."

That's a fact...and it doesn't matter how good a pilot you think you are.

So targeting 195kts True in cruise is completely acceptable?

[rv6ejguy]

190-195 KTAS seems a reasonable limit to me- if the air is smooth.

[rocketman1988]

As Ross said, I would think that acceptable in smooth air...

Now consider the increase in fuel flow to get that extra 15-20 knots...it?s always a compromise because of the TANSTAAFL principle...