What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Set a new personal speed record in my RV9A

Status
Not open for further replies.
...
This “NO 360!!” Policy stems from one thing and only one thing. Vans did not want big engines in the RV9A for fear of it competing with the more expensive kits. When the secret came out that a bigger engine makes this airplane a 200+ knot airplane they came up with this true airspeed policy which, ask any aerospace engineer, is completely bogus. The airplane knows IAS only.
...

A 180 hp -9 cannot hit 200 knots unless pointed downhill.

The -9 kits are roughly equal in price to the -7. The -14 kit is more expensive because of the higher level of refinement. Marketing has nothing to do with the established V speeds, Van's doesn't operate like that.

There are a number of aerospace engineers on this forum, at least one is on this thread and said don't do it.

I think you need to do some research on your own. In the meantime, please observe the V speeds. When your airplane comes apart the next time you point the nose down like you described, we will all pay for it with higher insurance rates, public fallout from the bad publicity, and your family might just miss you.
 
Last edited:
No documents that I have on the RV9A show the Vne as an TAS. I spoke to my instructor about this, and he confirms Vne is an IAS. Please folks, off the high horse.

From the RV9A manual, chapter 15 ?Flutter testing of factory prototypes has resulted in establishing a NEVER EXCEED SPEED (Vne) of 210 statute mph for the RV-3, 4, and RV-6/6A, 230 statute mph for the RV-7/7A/8/8A, and 210 statute mph for the RV-9A.?

Do you see true airspeed listed there? No? Neither do I.

To cover my rear end, I made a logbook entry stating that the aircraft was put into Phase I, Vne tested to 210 MPH indicated, no adverse affects seen, and Vne established at 210 MPH indicated. Hopefully this satisfies those members who were worried about exceeding some sort of limit. :cool:


For others that purchase a used experimental aircraft...............

Phase 1 can only be flown within the limits of the map in the "OPS limitations" for that aircraft.

So, if you change the location of the aircraft, you need to apply for a new designated phase 1 location where you are based, if you want to go back into phase 1.
 
...

Think about it ? if the airplane suddenly now knows true airspeed, why is the limit not tied to true airspeed OR groundspeed, whichever it hits first? :rolleyes:

I am all ears; please do tell, why not base the speed limit on groundspeed if it was simply due to flutter?

You really do need to do some research on the differences between Ground Speed, Indicated Air Speed, and True Air Speed!
 
Thanks but no thanks. My CFI has given me a good checkout, and he knows his stuff.

This ?NO 360!!? Policy stems from one thing and only one thing. Vans did not want big engines in the RV9A for fear of it competing with the more expensive kits. When the secret came out that a bigger engine makes this airplane a 200+ knot airplane they came up with this true airspeed policy which, ask any aerospace engineer, is completely bogus. The airplane knows IAS only.

Think about it ? if the airplane suddenly now knows true airspeed, why is the limit not tied to true airspeed OR groundspeed, whichever it hits first? :rolleyes:

I am all ears; please do tell, why not base the speed limit on groundspeed if it was simply due to flutter?

WARNING: Snowflake feelings will be melted here. Important Safety Message Follows

Earl,


TIME TO LISTEN CAREFULLY


You have been receiving polite, far too polite advice on your outstanding levels of stupidity.

I am Australian and we are less polite, rather more blunt and to be frank about it, we call a spade a spade. You are being a pharquing idiot.

You have had some of the more experienced pilots and engineers in the Vans community try nicely to not jeopardise the people who live under where you fly, or any pax you may take. Frankly you, I could not care less about. But the rest of us on planet earth would rather take our chances with coronavirus than fly with you.

TIME TO PULL YA HEAD IN. PRINT THIS THREAD AND GIVE IT TO YOUR CFI.

Where is Paul Dye when you need him, he would tell you this far more politely than I can. But your CFI is clearly as stupid as you are.

So far Vans factory engineering folk have contributed, test pilots, and as an engineer who has built planes, assists in building and flown thousands of hours in them.....my qualifications to comment on this topic are at the lower end of the qual list.

VNE as IAS is very much a limitation with a small margin, however RV models, all of them, have a limitation with respect to VNE as TAS because of flutter.

Vans builds in a small margin, and this allows for builder variation in mass balancing etc.....and who knows what else. Maybe Scott can expand on that, but Van's have written about this many years ago. Flutter is often impossible to stop. Well it can be self correcting, and i am sure you would agree that is bad.

Unless you are operating under some carefully planned test flying program your flying and your attitude would constitute reckless flying and I suspect the FAA have a position on this.

I would ground that plane and have it inspected by someone who knows how to do a thorough analysis of the overspeed, and implement an additional inspection regime for every annual inspection. And by the way publish the N number so nobody buys it thinking it is a perfect airframe.

Feel free to call me a F'wit, a w@nker, or any other term that us Aussies could not give a $h!t about........I dont care. But some poor American might be severely disadvantaged permanently by your level of stupidity and pig headedness.

Do you have a wife, child or mother? Stop being so selfish.


PS: Doug R or any mods...... this is a stern dressing down for a serious safety breach, please do not delete or edit it.
 
Last edited:
Overspeed

Earl, please make certain your CFI knows that you have also deeply exposed him to tremendous liability by publishing not only your (the two of you) collective deep lack of knowledge and understanding of aerodynamics but also a casual approach to correcting this. After the airplane comes apart, you may not care but your family's lawyer or the lawyer of the people impacted by falling airframe, Lycoming or body parts will not be nearly as casual.

Please, you and your CFI, read the attached article. If you two still refuse to understand or accept these aerodynamic facts, you are beyond help.

We are not picking on you brother. We want you to enjoy your beautiful aircraft for years to come.

https://www.australianflying.com.au/news/vne-and-flutter-explained
 
Last edited:
This whole thing is becoming eerily similar to the sad story of the late Daniel Bernath, who was told in this forum and others repeatedly the errors of his ways, and eventually crashed and killed himself.

This could have been an excellent learning experience after which you could count your blessings, inspect your aircraft, and move on. You have been given definitive information on the subject from Vans engineers themselves.

It is unfortunate you would choose to adopt the "anti-authority" attitude, and I hope it isn't referenced one day in an NTSB report.

Please be safe.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Earl

Guys,

I think Earl is a troll. I just ran a FAA Airman search for the state of Idaho. There is no record for an Earl Findlay. Suggest we just quit responding.
 
Think about it — if the airplane suddenly now knows true airspeed, why is the limit not tied to true airspeed OR groundspeed, whichever it hits first? :rolleyes:

I am all ears; please do tell, why not base the speed limit on groundspeed if it was simply due to flutter?

Daniel Bernath has come back to haunt us, and I fear this will end the same way.
 
I am building a 9A and have an IO360 in the garage to install. I just earned my pilots license last year so I am a total newb in piloting and building an airplane. This guys attitude makes me feel so much better about myself and my attitude. My CFI with over 22000 hours told me there's always something to learn. I am going to be SUPER conscious with my speeds and my glass panel will help me with that.
If I had a guy with a 9A and a 360 in it offer to meet with me and talk airplanes and give me tips on the airframe and engine I would jump at the chance. This guys "thanks but no thanks" remark tells us all we need to know. I just feel sory for anyone that rides with him or ends up under his airplane parts when they fall from the sky.
That article linked from Australian Flying was awesome.
 
Think about it ? if the airplane suddenly now knows true airspeed, why is the limit not tied to true airspeed OR groundspeed, whichever it hits first? :rolleyes:

This is truly sad. The article you were referred to explains this in painstaking detail. Somewhat pathetic that you didn't bother to read it and instead choose to blindly follow your conspiracy theory and your all knowing CFI.

Larry
 
Guys,

I think Earl is a troll. I just ran a FAA Airman search for the state of Idaho. There is no record for an Earl Findlay. Suggest we just quit responding.

Not in Idaho, or any other state, according to the register.

And no aircraft registration, either.

Some of the detail and comments just don't add up.

This is the internet, after all!
 
Earl Findlay, Occupation = Retired Mechanical Engineer. Really? REALLY???

Again, Something just not adding up here. I’m seconding the troll vote.
 
Well if this "Earl" is indeed a fabricated troll he has unwittingly served a purpose. If it wasn't evident before, his 2 forums topics have proven how this community looks out for each other and cares about their fellow aviators. I am proud to be associated with such a generous group of very intelligent caring people!!
 
One thing I just noticed when reading about Daniel Bernath is that his flight in 2013 where he ran out of fuel originated in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. An odd coincidence :confused:
 
All evidence points to this OP Earl Findlay guy as a troll posting for personal entertainment. Surely if the guy does exist and does own an RV-9A, someone on this forum would be able to vouch for him. If not, and forum administrators are not able to verify his identity and ownership of an RV, he should be removed permanently from the forum. It serves no useful purpose to allow trolls on this forum who are here for their own personal entertainment spreading false information and lies.
 
It serves no useful purpose to allow trolls on this forum who are here for their own personal entertainment spreading false information and lies.

Yeah, Twitter has that problem all the time ;)
 
Well if this "Earl" is indeed a fabricated troll he has unwittingly served a purpose. If it wasn't evident before, his 2 forums topics have proven how this community looks out for each other and cares about their fellow aviators. I am proud to be associated with such a generous group of very intelligent caring people!!

An order for an RV14 kit would be easy to confirm.....;)
 
Guys, Earl Findlay has been posting stuff on here for around a year. I doubt that even the CIA would craft such an elaborate history if the purpose was just to eventually troll a bunch of amateur airplane builders/flyers.
 
Not listed as a builder or owner of any aircraft I can find in the FAA registry.
 
Sounds like a troll, however I am skeptical. Perhaps his real name is not what he posts under. Maybe the plane is registered to a company.

Whatever the case, if this is genuine, then all the good work many have done in the EAB world for improving safety among the fleet will be undone if this attitude is allowed to flourish.

I am pleased to see the VAF community is not tolerant of that behaviour.
 
Thanks for amplifying the point Larry.

Everyone that contributes to the discussions here on VAF has the potential to unintentionally misinform thousands of others. We should all always keep that in mind.

This really doesn't surprise me though.

Only days after the most recent RV-9 V speeds discussion, which included details regarding Vno being as (or maybe more) important as Vne, one of the outspoken RV-9 owners answered a question in a different thread with "....not a problem. My 180HP 9A can't reach Vne even at full throttle" :(

I suspect Scott is either misquoting me, or taking a limited specific point I make out of context.
 
The one good thing I see from this thread is that anybody who read it and has any common sense now understands that VNO is very important and VNE is based on TAS.
 
I looked at the Flight Aware history for Coeur d'Alene and couldn't find any evidence of a RV9 operating out there.

I'd really like to know what motivates somebody to start a charade like this and keep it going for close to a year (if thats what happened.)
 
I looked at the Flight Aware history for Coeur d'Alene and couldn't find any evidence of a RV9 operating out there.

I'd really like to know what motivates somebody to start a charade like this and keep it going for close to a year (if thats what happened.)

yeah, but there is really no point in trying to understand a twisted mind.
 
Larry,

It really doesn't matter what the CFI (mistakenly) thought, he was way over the indicated airspeed too.

Way over what? Maybe Vno, but not indicated Vne. The indicated limit of 210 mph is about 182 knots. The OP's stated 234 KTAS would be approximately 180 KIAS (I used 16,400' PA, 29.92 in Hg and 35F OAT, reasonable numbers for this time of year.)..

I'm not trying to justify what the OP did, just pointing out that he likely was not over indicated Vne and especially not "way over".

Skylor
 
Way over what? Maybe Vno, but not indicated Vne. The indicated limit of 210 mph is about 182 knots. The OP's stated 234 KTAS would be approximately 180 KIAS (I used 16,400' PA, 29.92 in Hg and 35F OAT, reasonable numbers for this time of year.)..

I'm not trying to justify what the OP did, just pointing out that he likely was not over indicated Vne and especially not "way over".

Skylor

Except that, as noted multiple times in this thread, Vne for Vans is true airspeed, not indicated. So yes, he was over. Quite a bit over.

Though now it's appearing more likely the entire event was a fabrication, so there's no point rehashing it.
 
Except that, as noted multiple times in this thread, Vne for Vans is true airspeed, not indicated. So yes, he was over. Quite a bit over.

Though now it's appearing more likely the entire event was a fabrication, so there's no point rehashing it.

I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing Bill's claim that he was not only way over TAS VNE but also way over IAS VNE. Read the quote in my original post.
 
It seems that it would be simple for Vans to A) Immediately update the incorrect manuals to list Vne in TAS and B) Publish an official and easily accessible statement that simply states that "Vne is expressed in TAS", perhaps in the form of a service bulletin or notification to update old manuals and panel markings. Yes, they have published other articles over the years that delve into the issue, but I think a simple statement would be best. Had I not decided to research the subject, I could have been using the wrong speeds as well. As I mentioned, my 2016 build manual specifically stated that Vne was given in IAS. My EFIS has the option to convert Vne to either IAS or TAS - if I had trusted the manual, I'd have picked the wrong option. Again, I did further research. Many others did not. Such an important issue, why allow any confusion? I know it's frustrating to have to "dumb things down" for the "lowest common denominator" but I want to keep my insurance rates low!

Chris
 
Last edited:
Earl Findlay

Here's another thread from our buddy Earl.

Thread title - engine dies momentarily.

Quote:
For the last 25 hours, since I finished the condition inspection, about five times now, when cruising or descending, the engine stalls out for just a split second and then comes back alive. By the time one can react, it's back and purring.

I changed the spark plugs at the last condition inspection and did a compression check (78, 78, 79, 80). Oil analysis was good.

Pmag and Lightspeed ignition.

Should I change out my plugs again? Or any suggestions where to start? Prior to the RV flying it's been 25 years since I flew. I have about 50 hours on it now. Maybe this is not abnormal and I have forgot about it? Absolutely no other trouble indications.

This guy has to be a troll. He's enjoying getting everybody excited and seeing our reactions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top