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.

Earl Findlay

Active Member
I fitted my RV9A with a portable oxygen tank and before taking it on a trip on Friday I decided to do a solo check on the system today. I had my RV9A at 17,500 feet today and was impressed with the performance, both of the oxygen system and the aircraft.

I have never flown an airplane so high before today, and now understand why folks like it up there. It's relatively traffic free, it is smooth, and the airplane is happy up there.

To top the day off, I thought I'd have some fun and set off to make a personal true airspeed record as well as a max altitude record today. I left the engine RPM at 2700 on the descent, and took it up to the airspeed redline and excepted whatever vertical speed the airspeed would give at the altitudes on the descent. Out of 16400 feet I peaked at 234 true, 239 groundspeed. What a hoot!!!!

I think you will find me cruising around at the higher altitudes a lot more in the near future.
 
To top the day off, I thought I'd have some fun and set off to make a personal true airspeed record as well as a max altitude record today. I left the engine RPM at 2700 on the descent, and took it up to the airspeed redline and excepted whatever vertical speed the airspeed would give at the altitudes on the descent. Out of 16400 feet I peaked at 234 true, 239 groundspeed. What a hoot!!!!

I guess you're no longer afraid of your O-360 powered RV-9A (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=1427009).

But you forgot the Vne (Redline) numbers in Post #4 of that thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1427009&postcount=4, i.e., Vne (Redline) for the RV-9/9A is 210 MPH TAS/182.5 KTAS.
 
Last edited:
Intervention

... Out of 16400 feet I peaked at 234 true, 239 groundspeed. What a hoot!!!!

I think you will find me cruising around at the higher altitudes a lot more in the near future.
Earl, this is totally not my place, but I won't be able to live with myself if I don't try. You really need to get some more training and knowledge about your aircraft. I strongly recommend scheduling a session with a really good, RV-qualified CFI. There are some not far from you a bit west. I'd call the factory for advice if you can't find one.

If you keep doing what you are doing we'll be reading about you in an NTSB report.
 
What

Dude, no disrespect, but didn?t you read all the posts on this subject?

THE ONE ABOUT TAS?

This is about the dumbest thing I?ve read in quite a while except for maybe the guy who bought an Aerostar and attempted to fly cross country without a pilot license. The only difference is that you lived to tell your ignorant story.

If I misunderstood your post, I am sorry. If I didn?t, please do not get back in an airplane until you understand TAS liminitations at any altitude. If you do decide to try this stunt again, please do so where your flight path will not harm anyone on the ground as you and your plane drops parts and pieces on its way down. Vans designs are pretty darn good, but not when ignorance plays a part by the pilot.

Good luck with your plane and I know you are proud if it, but please fly it within the parameters and try not to give us heartburn from stunts like this. We really do want you to live a long and happy life.
 
Very dangerous - you were truly a test pilot doing that, out in the unexplored area.

The 9A does love high altitude, and the 360 lets you play up there easily - but you still have to respect the V-speeds of the airplane - ALL of them.

Please make sure you understand the effects of altitude on true airspeed, and flutter margins before doing this again.
 
this is goofy. afraid of 360 engine and then way over Vne?

Clearly he is not afraid anymore. Possibly we should have reinforced his fear instead of telling him it was fine. We should all ponder this outcome as we think about giving future advice. This is pretty much exactly the scenario that Scott talks about regarding the 160 HP recommendation.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Clearly he is not afraid anymore. Possibly we should have reinforced his fear instead of telling him it was fine. We should all ponder this outcome as we think about giving future advice. This is pretty much exactly the scenario that Scott talks about regarding the 160 HP recommendation.

Larry

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" :(
 
But you forgot the Vne (Redline) numbers in Post #4 of that thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1427009&postcount=4, i.e., Vne (Redline) for the RV-9/9A is 210 MPH TAS/182.5 KTAS.

Earl, this is totally not my place, but I won't be able to live with myself if I don't try. You really need to get some more training and knowledge about your aircraft. I strongly recommend scheduling a session with a really good, RV-qualified CFI. There are some not far from you a bit west. I'd call the factory for advice if you can't find one.

If you keep doing what you are doing we'll be reading about you in an NTSB report.

Thank you rv8ch. I have been fortunate enough to fly with a "really good rv-qualified CFI" A check out was required by a CFI when I bought the airplane and one of the local instructors in Washington flew the airplane back with me from the midwest. He has built an RV12 and done several transitions for builders, albeit had limited experience in an RV9A. As he's fond of saying "an airplane is an airplane. Don't overthink it." That is where I was going wrong with my thought process of an O320 or an O360. I was afraid of the O360 because of what I'd read not because of what I had experienced. Yesterday was good for me because it cemented in my mind that if you stay under 182 KTAS that will give you a really great true airspeed in the descent and you won't overspeed as long as you control your descent rate appropriately. Of course you can back off on the power too and do a higher descent rate.

The 9A does love high altitude, and the 360 lets you play up there easily - but you still have to respect the V-speeds of the airplane - ALL of them.

Thank you, I was sure to never exceed the v speeds of the airplane.
 
Thank you, I was sure to never exceed the v speeds of the airplane.

I'm confused. In your first post you stated that you "peaked at 234 true"
And here you are stating that you never exceeded the VNE of 182 KTAS.
Even if the 234 is mph, that's still over 203 KTAS.
 
Last edited:
One thing that the OP proved is that the engine size has nothing to do with the ability of the airplane to exceed any V speed and regardless of the engine installed, it is up to the pilot to manage their speed.
 
I'm confused. In your first post you stated that you "peaked at 234 true"
And here you are stating that you never exceeded the VNE of 182 KTAS.
Even if the 234 is mph, that's still over 203 KTAS.
I have not done the calculation but I wonder if Earl is taking the indicated as the V speed and not the True.

I cringed when I read the original post. I confess, I am on the conservative side, on a descend where I can reach close to VNE, I pull the power to stay below it by at least 10 knots.
 
I have not done the calculation but I wonder if Earl is taking the indicated as the V speed and not the True.

Using round numbers, at 17000 feet, standard temperature, 180 KIAS, that gives you a TAS of 236.
 
Using round numbers, at 17000 feet, standard temperature, 180 KIAS, that gives you a TAS of 236.

Thank you for doing the calculation, looks like this may answers it.

At the end of the day, I am happy all has turned out OK with no tragedy at hand. Hope we all learn from this or use it as a reminder.
 
Earl,

Everybody is getting excited here because of conflicting information you've stated. That red line on your airspeed indicator is NOT the max airspeed for your airplane. That red line significantly moves down as you increase in altitude.

Everybody here cares about your safety. Hope its just numbers and terminology mixed up.

Best,
 
Using round numbers, at 17000 feet, standard temperature, 180 KIAS, that gives you a TAS of 236.

Vne is based on True airspeed, not indicated - and would be 210 mph or 182 knots. Either way, it was exceeded.
 
Last edited:
Many of the newer EFIS systems have the ability to display a "barber pole" on the airspeed tape. My AFS 5600 units compensate for the TAS increase and adjust the VNE downward as altitude and TAS increases.
 
Last edited:
Thank you rv8ch. I have been fortunate enough to fly with a "really good rv-qualified CFI" A check out was required by a CFI when I bought the airplane and one of the local instructors in Washington flew the airplane back with me from the midwest. He has built an RV12 and done several transitions for builders, albeit had limited experience in an RV9A. As he's fond of saying "an airplane is an airplane. Don't overthink it." That is where I was going wrong with my thought process of an O320 or an O360. I was afraid of the O360 because of what I'd read not because of what I had experienced. Yesterday was good for me because it cemented in my mind that if you stay under 182 KTAS that will give you a really great true airspeed in the descent and you won't overspeed as long as you control your descent rate appropriately. Of course you can back off on the power too and do a higher descent rate.


Thank you, I was sure to never exceed the v speeds of the airplane.

You really need to do some more homework here. It appears from your comments that all was good while your airspeed indication was 234 (knots or MPH doesn't matter - as either would be too high) (True or indicated doesn;t matter as both are too high). That screams to me that you are missing something. I hope for your sake that I am wrong.

While others are reading KTAS to mean true airspeed, I think you really mean KIAS when referring to 182. Highly suspicious that 182 indicated at your altitude equals 234 true.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Many of the newer EFIS systems have the ability to display a "barber pole" on the airspeed tape. My AFS 5600 units compensate for the TAS increase and adjust the VNE downward as altitude and TAS increases.

To expand a little, a picture helps here. When Vne is input as a TAS value limit, Vne (Redline) is dynamically calculated in terms of IAS based on Altitude and OAT, and is displayed on the IAS speed tape.

As an example, for the RV-8s and -7s, Vne =230 MPH TAS and Vno = 193 MPH IAS. In my SkyView Touch I have the Vne Redline limit input in terms of TAS. In the screenshot below, at 9,800' with an OAT of 36 Deg F, Vne = ~196 MPH IAS as indicated by the Redline.

Note that Vno is always 193 MPH IAS. Also note that above approximately 10,000', Vne is LESS than Vno, and Vno does not appear on the IAS tape, i.e., no Yellow band on the tape.

 
Last edited:
Intentionally throttling to the limit... scary.
Imagine if he owned a Rocket, Legacy, SX-300, or such. Wouldn't be surprised if he approached them the same way...
 
One thing that the OP proved is that the engine size has nothing to do with the ability of the airplane to exceed any V speed and regardless of the engine installed, it is up to the pilot to manage their speed.

Entirely correct. I've been at Vne in gliders.

The important part is understanding the limitation. In this case, the difference between IAS and TAS. Every RV should have a small chart beside the ASI with the IAS/TAS conversion for Vne at various altitudes, or an EFIS that can put the Vne in TAS.

I really hope Earl doesn't take this thread the wrong way. This is a mistake that hopefully results in a lesson learnt the easy way. Get some training, ask for an explanation of what everyone is concerned about. Probably a good idea to have somebody look at the airplane for signs of flutter and other aerodynamic damage. This aircraft experienced an limitation exceedance in the form of aerodynamic overspeed. Van's support would be where I'd start.
 
. Every RV should have a small chart beside the ASI with the IAS/TAS conversion for Vne at various altitudes, or an EFIS that can put the Vne in TAS.
.

This is an excellent suggestion. In fact, it is required for normally certified aircraft if VNE cannot be expressed in a single IAS number.
Scott, is Vans listening? I would think they would want to print and distribute such placards, just for their own liability protection.
 
...
Scott, is Vans listening? I would think they would want to print and distribute such placards, just for their own liability protection.

Why? They don't provide placards for all the other things that we have to have in our planes.

Besides, most modern EFIS's scream at you if you approach Vne.

The OP has an early Dynon EFIS, so it may not do that.
 
Why? They don't provide placards for all the other things that we have to have in our planes.
t.

Because most pilots (maybe especially non-builders) and most CFI?s have never heard of an airplane where VNE was not a single, IAS number.
 
Because most pilots (maybe especially non-builders) and most CFI?s have never heard of an airplane where VNE was not a single, IAS number.

Fair point; however, I always thought it was up the owner/pilot to make themselves familiar with the aircraft prior to flight.
 
This is an excellent suggestion. In fact, it is required for normally certified aircraft if VNE cannot be expressed in a single IAS number.
Scott, is Vans listening? I would think they would want to print and distribute such placards, just for their own liability protection.

Van's needs to back up one step first.

Van's has never published a Service Letter or Service Bulletin for the older models stating that Vne is now defined as TAS (to ensure that proper flutter margins exist at altitude). Many RV pilots and builders are unaware of this change (even those on the VAF forum). Van's needs to do that if they consider Vne to be critical safety-of-flight information (and who doesn't?).

Van's has published an SL for the RV-14s, and revised the POH's for the RV-12s to reflect the Vne-to-TAS change for those airplanes.

Even Van's current documentation for the older airplanes is in error in this respect, where the document Airspeed Indicator Markings by Model shows Vne in terms of IAS and not TAS.

Although Van's published the "Flying High and Fast" article awhile back, that is not widely disseminated. And it certainly doesn't take the place of a Service Letter or Service Bulletin, which people are more likely to find and read.

Van's needs to issue a SL or SB for the older models to advise that Van's has restated Vne in terms of TAS so that information is more widely disseminated. It's way past time.
 
Agree

I agree.
Or, do what the certified folks do and post the VNE using IAS at some predetermined altitude besides sea level.

For the OP, if you are going to be hanging out at those altitudes, have your airspeed indicator be remarked for the VNE for your RV-9a to 152 MPH. Also, you will need to change the little yellow line to begin at 130 MPH. So, you will need to stay UNDER 130 MPH. Be sure to reduce throttle before you descend from altitude to stay under 130 MPH.

Sometime that pesky TAS can be complicated to calculate so hopefully the revised IAS MPH numbers I posted will help you be compliant and live a long and fruitful life.

Van's needs to back up one step first.

Van's has never published a Service Letter or Service Bulletin for the older models stating that Vne is now defined as TAS (to ensure that proper flutter margins exist at altitude). Many RV pilots and builders are unaware of this change (even those on the VAF forum). Van's needs to do that if they consider Vne to be critical safety-of-flight information (and who doesn't?).

Van's has published an SL for the RV-14s, and revised the POH's for the RV-12s to reflect the Vne-to-TAS change for those airplanes.

Even Van's current documentation for the older airplanes is in error in this respect, where the document Airspeed Indicator Markings by Model shows Vne in terms of IAS and not TAS.

Although Van's published the "Flying High and Fast" article awhile back, that is not widely disseminated. And it certainly doesn't take the place of a Service Letter or Service Bulletin, which people are more likely to find and read.

Van's needs to issue a SL or SB for the older models to advise that Van's has restated Vne in terms of TAS so that information is more widely disseminated. It's way past time.
 
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:
 
Joke

This has got to be a joke. I?m done.

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:
 
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:
I have been watching this thread, everybody that responded was trying to make you understand that the VNE is in TAS, if somebody told you different they are mistaken. I believe Vans printed an article about it. The responses are intended to keep you out of a very dangerous situation.
 
Earl
VNE is tas not indicated. You got lucky once. Next time Darwin may get you.

Jack
 
Last edited:
To add to the confusion, my manual circa 2016 says this, not that I ever plan to get anywhere close. I have always used TAS for my Vne/Vno after everything I have read on here, as it does make the most sense to me.

ACtC-3ftNmDQEb17qCwEMpiFk4oS1d8tGili6kTDB2_XALhE7iBvlPAOrYLQ2ollXywbTA7ZoNhNqCTrtUK-eP85v3aIUDD92hMfeML7umDKXZvtx28rmxTrcZ42zCqn9sowP-i-lT3O-AWvHfrfoTE4bh3H=w800-h400-no-tmp.jpg
 
Last edited:
. I spoke to my instructor about this, and he confirms Vne is an IAS.

:

Well that puts me in my place . I foolishly trusted the kit manufacturer instead of your cfi, the true authority on the issue.

I am done. Clearly you don’t need or want our guidance. Best of luck with your new approach. I hope it ends better than the engineering suggests it will.

To scott, the others are right. Vans has not made enough effoort outside of VAF to make this point clear. It is contrary to the industry standard as well as misrepresented in the manual. It is no surprise that many outside this community get it wrong. Vans needs to do more to correct their documentation of such an important data point.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Well that puts me in my place . I foolishly trusted the kit manufacturer instead of your cfi, the true authority on the issue.
...

Larry

Larry,

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

I happen to be in Coeur d'Alene this weekend for work (I am here now). How about we get together and have a one on one discussion? I own an RV-9A with an IO-360, and have spent quite a lot of time researching the limitations of the airframe with the engine, and maybe I can provide you some honest, real world information about this setup, and the things that you may want to watch out for.

Please get in touch if you're interested in spending some time together.
 
I'm in build mode and have never flown any RV as of yet. BUT I know a thing or two about airplanes in general and about flight instruction in particular. I've been an A&P and CFI for just about 30 years now and can tell you with 100% confidence that Flight instructors don't know everything, no matter how knowledgeable they are.

In this case, your instructor is mistaken. It's understandable that he would think that, because the Vne in most certified piston singles is listed as IAS. When I was deciding whether or not to build an RV I also assumed RV's were like that. They are not.

VNE on the RV series is in TAS. Van has made this clear in documentation that was linked and recommended to you in the very first reply to your original post on this thread.

If you are diving that airplane under power at 234 MPH TRUE AIRSPEED you are well above VNE as explained by Vans.

I'm not trying to scare you or argue or whatnot, but you've got 5 pages of people on this forum telling you that you genuinely owe it to yourself and your loved ones to understand this. Please at least consider the possibility that the majority opinion is probably the correct one.

If you like, I'd be happy to talk with you or your flight instructor off line and go through the details, but if you just read what vans published, it should become clear.
 
Last edited:
Attention: Van's

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:

And therein lies part of the problem, Van's lack of disseminating updated information via a Service Bulletin or Service Letter when they changed from Vne being in terms of IAS to TAS for the older models, per my Post #30. I've brought this issue up several times on VAF, and corresponded directly with Van's about it also. I hope that this thread finally gets Van's attention and they finally get official information out before an accident occurs.

But Earl, the responses you received in your thread "I am afraid of my 360 powered RV 9A" clearly communicated the correct info to you. Why you chose to ignore it, or at least question it, is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
And therein lies part of the problem, Van's lack of disseminating updated information via a Service Bulletin or Service Letter when they changed from Vne being in terms of IAS to TAS for the older models, per my Post #30. I've brought this issue up several times on VAF, and corresponded directly with Van's about it also. I hope that this thread finally gets Van's attention and they finally get official information out before an accident occurs.

But Earl, the responses you received in your thread "I am afraid of my 360 powered RV 9A" clearly communicated the correct info to you. Why you chose to ignore it, or at least question it, is beyond me.

This is being worked on (sometimes the gears turn slowly)
In reality though, would it make a bit of difference in this case?
The OP has already been referred to two documents publish by Vans that go into pretty specific details regarding the subject. Along with numerous forum discussions that make it clear ( though I admit there are always posts that muddy the water a little bit).
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the OP should enter the details of post number 1 in his aircraft logbook for any future buyer to see.
Other posts by the same person detail the construction of an RV14, so could he please publish his current 9a aircraft N number for the various prebuy inspection providers to make a note of for when that aircraft comes on the market.
 
Last edited:
A few things.

First, that table of speeds is a big reason why the 9 is the greatest plane that vans offers, 49mph stall (at gross) with 180-200 mph cruise is fantastic! (Yes, slower if it is rough, but that sucks in any case)

Second, flutter sets Vne. Flutter is difficult to predict as it depends on structural natural frequency and aerodynamic driving forces. Structural natural frequency, while straight forward to analytically predict, is difficult to actually predict due to differences is airframe construction, not design. Aerodynamic driving forces are somewhere between difficult and impossible to predict.

Third, as a result of second, significant margins are put in place to make sure that flutter never happens... ever. That means significant margin.

Forth, significant margin can turn into zero margin at unpredictable conditions. One successful, or 100 successful times at exceeeding the limits does not mean the next will end well.

Finally, Vans has stated that Vne is TAS, repeatedly and forcefully. I am building a 9, I plan to put in a 360, and I plan to stay below the TAS limit of 210 at all times, and I will have one of the best performing airplanes of all time.

Tim
 
...To top the day off, I thought I'd have some fun and set off to make a personal true airspeed record as well as a max altitude record today. I left the engine RPM at 2700 on the descent, and took it up to the airspeed redline and excepted whatever vertical speed the airspeed would give at the altitudes on the descent. Out of 16400 feet I peaked at 234 true, 239 groundspeed. What a hoot!!!!

I think you will find me cruising around at the higher altitudes a lot more in the near future.

Earl - I do flight test for a living. I've been a FTE, a TD, and an Air Vehicle Manger. I'd say you need to do a "safety stand down" and figure out a few things before you fly again. First off, you don't seem to have a grasp of the difference between TAS and IAS and that will kill you. Second, you have spent time WAY out of the envelope and that needs to be addressed before the airplane can be flown again. I get nervous at 235 KTAS in my Rocket and limit the RV-8 to 200 - both significantly stronger airplanes than yours. You need to perform an "overspeed inspection" before you take it up again.

You've read some good advice in this thread. I'd suggest you step back, re evaluate, and move forward with a new plan.
 
This is being worked on (sometimes the gears turn slowly)
In reality though, would it make a bit of difference in this case?
The OP has already been referred to two documents publish by Vans that go into pretty specific details regarding the subject. Along with numerous forum discussions that make it clear ( though I admit there are always posts that muddy the water a little bit).

don't think we have any chance of convincing the OP; that is not Van's fault, as he is choosing to ignore published data provided to him. However, he is relying on his CFI's opinion. Folks like that, outside of the VAF community, need to be informed. They help shape the beliefs of pilots.

While some will ignore cuations and limits, I suspect most simply don't know that Van's changed from IAS to TAS. Outside of VAF, I don't believe it is well publicized.

Larry
 
Last edited:
I plan to stay below the TAS limit of 210 at all times, and I will have one of the best performing airplanes of all time.

I am glad to hear that but frustrated to see your post that once again implies to others that read here, that as long as Vne (TAS) is obeyed that all will be fine.

Vno is equally important because it is in esance a high performace airplane that (unlike most of teh other RV's) was not designed to aerobatic load limits, but as is so often mentioned, the great performance of the RV-9 makes Vno a limit that is also very easy to exceed.
 
Vno is equally important because it is in esance a high performace airplane that (unlike most of teh other RV's) was not designed to aerobatic load limits, but as is so often mentioned, the great performance of the RV-9 makes Vno a limit that is also very easy to exceed.

Which is why I referenced rough air in the first point. I plan to pay attention there as well, but rough air is not fun in any airplane; that's my point, not to cavalierly go past Vno.

Tim
 
Earl -

I happen to be in Coeur d'Alene this weekend for work (I am here now). How about we get together and have a one on one discussion? I own an RV-9A with an IO-360, and have spent quite a lot of time researching the limitations of the airframe with the engine, and maybe I can provide you some honest, real world information about this setup, and the things that you may want to watch out for.

Please get in touch if you're interested in spending some time together.

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top