RV-9A Real World Numbers

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by KD4JAZ

Pete,
Not sure it is a typo or what, but 800 fpm with an IO360 seems a bit anemic.

Marc

Depending on the OAT's, with a fixed pitch prop, that might be a good number.

[jjbardell]

Real world data for my RV-9A (160HP O-320, Catto 3 blade):

Altitude 7500' DA
TAS 141Kts
Fuel Flow 7.7 Gph (cyl #1/3 set 50 ROP cruise...can't go LOP with carb)
RPM 2,450
Full Fuel, two men (185/190#) and 30# baggage

[SVTPete83]

Originally Posted by KD4JAZ

Pete,
Not sure it is a typo or what, but 800 fpm with an IO360 seems a bit anemic.

Marc

That?s with a 110 knot climb out at 1850 pounds. I get well over 1k if I pitch up to 100.

[Steve Melton]

11.5K, 5.7 gph, prop = 2200 rpm is a sweet spot for me.

[alexe]

Steve,
What is the TAS at those settings and altitude?
Alex

[AlpineYoda]

Okay, stupid question. Go ahead and flame me. My Nomex CAP flightsuit is zipped up....

How are these planes so fast? The numbers above are amazing to me. I?ve flow 172s, 182s, etc with similar horsepower that aren?t within 30 kts of the numbers cited above. It is simply streamlining? If so, why has?t Cessna figured that out in the last 50 years?

[Desert Rat]

No Flaming here, but I believe Cessna DOES have it figured out. There are trade offs for everything and Cessna builds an airplane for a different mission. Look at the C172. It may have the same engine, but it also has 800 lbs more gross weight, a much bigger cabin, an upright seating position that you get into like a pickup truck, and a super robust landing gear that literally generations of flight students can slam into the runway over and over. All that stuff has a huge up side for average joe pilot or a flight school, but it comes at a performance cost.

Beech also has this figured out. The Bonanza has basically the same cockpit dimensions as an RV7, and is very aerodynamically clean, but all that "slickness" takes a lot of labor hours to produce compared to a simpler design, and the market just isn't as big for an airplane like that, which are a couple of reasons that new ones are pushing a million dollars.

[Steve Melton]

Originally Posted by alexe

Steve,
What is the TAS at those settings and altitude?
Alex

11,500 ft and 135 kts TAS. you can fly a long time and the engine is loafing along. engine oil looks new when I change it.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Desert Rat

No Flaming here, but I believe Cessna DOES have it figured out. There are trade offs for everything and Cessna builds an airplane for a different mission. Look at the C172. It may have the same engine, but it also has 800 lbs more gross weight, a much bigger cabin, an upright seating position that you get into like a pickup truck, and a super robust landing gear that literally generations of flight students can slam into the runway over and over. All that stuff has a huge up side for average joe pilot or a flight school, but it comes at a performance cost.

Beech also has this figured out. The Bonanza has basically the same cockpit dimensions as an RV7, and is very aerodynamically clean, but all that "slickness" takes a lot of labor hours to produce compared to a simpler design, and the market just isn't as big for an airplane like that, which are a couple of reasons that new ones are pushing a million dollars.

Other than getting in to the bucket that is our airplanes, I completely disagree with you.

The seating position in an RV is upright and more comfortable. Unlike a Bonanza, the cabin doesn't curve inward, forcing you to sit at an uncomfortable angle.

As for the OP's question, these are real world numbers from my O-360 powered -9. It climbed at 500 FPM from sea level until it pushed over at 17.6 DA while covering some ground.

[ALagonia]

Results from two recent flights.
I have a 9 with O-360 and Catto 3 blade.
All speeds are mph
119 TAS 113 IAS
1550 FPM climb
26.4 MAP 2260 RPM
49F temp
3100 feet climbing

Flight 2
Level at 4000?
8.0 gph
20.7 MAP 2490 RPM
177 TAS 159 IAS