|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

10-05-2006, 06:35 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Righty
From what I hear, this airplane has plenty of performance with 160 hp. I think I saw a post by someone in Utah the other day where they said that the -9 was perfect for the high DA's.
|
Without coming up with exact numbers at the moment (it was the other guy's plane), a 9A with even just 150 HP has about two and a half times the climb performance of an older Cessna 172 with the same HP engine, and close to double the airspeed ----- in the mountainous areas of Utah.
The 160 on a 9(A) really IS perfect for the higher density altitudes. The 172 I flew the other day, felt like a "slug" in comparison. In fact, it was no comparison at all. Not even in the same ballpark!
edit: The 9A mentioned here, has a Hartzell C/S prop
Last edited by L.Adamson : 10-05-2006 at 06:57 AM.
|

10-05-2006, 09:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 233
|
|
Good Compromise
I have 140 hours on my 9 and appreciate the cruise performance compromise verses fuel burn. Although I don?t get 30 mpg my average of 22 mpg is much better than my old '53 Pacer's 13.5mpg. My average cruise speed is 152 to 158kts at altitudes of 10,500 to 14,500 with a couple of thousand more feet thrown in for density altitude. Another 20 hp at these altitudes would still allow for plenty of airspeed margin and I have to say that is a nagging thought. Although for another 10 kts, fuel burn would increase by at least 1gph bringing mpg down to 20.5. So for what it is the 9 is a great airplane.
If I want to run at 75% at 8,000 ft I can get 167kts, but I just don?t go there.
__________________
Roger Ping
KDVT Phoenix Deer Valley
RV-9, O-320, 160HP, C/S
Last edited by R.P.Ping : 10-05-2006 at 09:55 PM.
|

10-07-2006, 11:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 24
|
|
Tangent to thread: 180 hp "Super 9"
First: I agree with all those who say that 160 hp is the max and the ideal for the 9.
Second: The parallel valve 180 hp lycoming has one of the best power to weight ratios. It is very reliable and easy to come by as well. It would be cool to have a 9 non-acro, cross-country cruiser type airplane that used the 180 hp engine and could carry two adults and a few kids. Just super-size it so to speak. What could we call it. The 9.5. Since it would be between the 9 and the 10. What do you think? Is there a demand for this?
__________________
I'm just grateful to be here.
|

10-08-2006, 06:59 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
|
|
Rear seat
There have been builders who installed a side facing seat in the baggage area for a toddler. Just do weight and balance check,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga
It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132
Dues gladly paid!
|

10-08-2006, 07:32 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 823
|
|
RV9 w/200 hp
About 5 months ago I flew in an RV9A with 200hp modified Superior. The performance was breath taking. Like being in a GTO in a former life. We went from 4000msl to 13,500 in what seemed to be a couple of heartbeats.
DA had to be 5000 or more but with the c/s prop, this beautiful 9 pinned your butt into the seat. How long will it all last? Dunno, but the pilot is 82 years young has has been flying since forever.
My bird will have a 170hp Superior (auto gas) and when I asked for a quote, the ins company never asked what engine.
|

10-08-2006, 04:05 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 497
|
|
RV-9.5A
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 63scrounger
First: I agree with all those who say that 160 hp is the max and the ideal for the 9.
Second: The parallel valve 180 hp Lycoming has one of the best power to weight ratios. It is very reliable and easy to come by as well. It would be cool to have a 9 non-acro, cross-country cruiser type airplane that used the 180 hp engine and could carry two adults and a few kids. Just super-size it so to speak. What could we call it. The 9.5. Since it would be between the 9 and the 10. What do you think? Is there a demand for this?
|
Wow... very similar thoughts to what I have been wondering lately. It would be nice to have a "Van's 9.5" - and be able to carry a third person - ie: small adult, or maybe a couple children. I also like the idea of sticking with an O-360 vs. going to the -540. I don't need 200 mph. I'd like to have 160 mph/900fpm@6,000' at gross weight.
I briefly have looked at the Zodiac CH-640 for this reason. But haven't been able to find too many flying - or associated pilot's reports on them. (oh, and they use a yoke instead of a stick).
Last edited by Phyrcooler : 10-08-2006 at 04:10 PM.
|

10-08-2006, 05:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lapeer, MI D95
Posts: 58
|
|
160hp 9A
We have a O-320 160hp w/80 pitch Sense, dual elctronic Lightspeed ign. We(wife and I) always cross country plan on over 8000ft 180-185mph at 7gph at 2550rpm, 325-350cht, 1250-1320egt. Our climb is 1200-1400fpm depending on how much stuff we have loaded in the back.
Hope this helps.
Frank
N821BF
240+hrs still flying with my grin
|

10-08-2006, 08:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 274
|
|
I just purchased an unused Mazda Renesis 4-port rotary engine for my 9A (imported from Australia for ~ $1800)- it has the same installed weight as the O-320 and is rated at 210 hp @ 7200 rpm. Most flying will be at 6000 rpm or less (180 hp). Planning to install IVO in-flight adjustable prop. I plan to use that extra HP for quick takeoffs and to improve weight margins a bit (my family are large), not for excessive speeds.
I live in Utah (like my friend Larry Adamson) and agree it is the ideal high-flying plane for the Rocky Mountains. It is important to remember that we lose ~25-30% sea level rated HP at these altitudes w/o turbocharging, so larger-than-suggested motors are probably a good idea here.
__________________
Mike Parker
RV-9a under construction
w/Mazda rotary- Renesis
|

10-08-2006, 09:48 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 438
|
|
it has the same installed weight as the O-320 and is rated at 210 hp @ 7200 rpm.
How do you know?
Tracy's website says exactly the opposite...will be heavier than an O-320.
Please show data from whence your statement comes.
|

10-09-2006, 09:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 274
|
|
Jconard- I think you misquoted/misunderstood Crook.
Quoted from Tracy Crooks excellent manual "Aviators Guide to Mazda Rorary Conversion", page 109, in the section labeled Engine Weight Breakdown: "It is useful to compare it (Mazda 13b) to the Lycoming O-320. The installed weight is going to be about the same....".
The same data is also referenced in Crooks sales brochure. FWIW, I've seen similar data from several other sources that confirm or better Crooks figures.
Tracys measured engine weight, including PRSU and cooling system/coolants: 288 lbs. Firewall forward weight: 345 lbs, which added mount, exhaust manifold and muffler, and oil. That setup used 3 Mikuni carburators; Im using FI which should be a bit lighter. FWIW, I have not seen any definate weight numbers from Lycoming- they apparently do not like to post specs for comparison.
The Renesis is ~10 lbs lighter than the older 13B. The S-beam mount will also be a few pounds lighter (and probably stronger) than Tracy's 1/4" thick aluminum plate sandwiched between oil pan and engine design that uses a 4 point pre-mount and a modified Vans Dynofocal mount system. My engine just arrived from Australia this week; the B/L reported weight was 220 lbs, which including a 4 piece-METAL pallet made from 2 -18" long x 2" square steel tubing and 2- 2" angle welded together and strapped to the motor. It also included a heavy intake manifold that will be replaced with a much lighter tuned substitute optomized for sustained 5000-6000 rpm operation.
To be fair, we need to add in propeller weight too. Hydraulic C/S props tend to be heavy. Im planning to use the comosite IVO magnum in-flight adjustable propeller @ 24.2 lbs (26.7 lbs for 3-blade version). The Lycs vibrate too much for this prop and are not recommended. This prop is rated up to 700hp and has worked well on other rotary and Subaru installations.
__________________
Mike Parker
RV-9a under construction
w/Mazda rotary- Renesis
Last edited by cobra : 10-09-2006 at 02:20 PM.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.
|