Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Performance numbers
- Thread starter liteplane
- Start date
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Heliojoe on here has one at New Smyrna beach, Florida but it was not optimized yet, by Craig Catto, so we don't know the current status.
Best,
Best,
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Not saying you can't do it, but why would you? The constant speed props from Hartzell are excellent performers, and relatively cheap for the BA 2 blade.
When you spend that much money, a few dollars is not worth quibbling over. And resale would be adversely affected too.
Just my 20c worth.
When you spend that much money, a few dollars is not worth quibbling over. And resale would be adversely affected too.
Just my 20c worth.
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
You can find used low time 0-540's with solid cranks for <$15k including accessories. Add a Catto prop and an exhaust system and you're in for another $5k. So your FWF is $20k.
The expensive alternative is a $45k engine, plus at least another $10k for prop, governor, and other FWF accessories for a total of $55k.
The FP setup could take a huge expense off of the front end of an RV-10 project, which might make it a doable project for some people, even though the airplane would lose a little performance.
Which brings up the age old issue of if it is better to have a 170 knot RV-10 that climbs at 1200 fpm or not have one at all? ;-)
MrMoisture
Active Member
Keep in mind that a set up like that will have a HUGE impact on resale. The most likely buyer would be someone that does not know the full ramifications of this set up. Kind of like the alt engine builds but less radical a departure.
I also would not be comfortable with loading up a 4 place plane when warm/hot/high. When pilots have the cabin volume they tend to fill it. You know someone would try this in Tahoe on the summer day and end up in the lake.
I also would not be comfortable with loading up a 4 place plane when warm/hot/high. When pilots have the cabin volume they tend to fill it. You know someone would try this in Tahoe on the summer day and end up in the lake.
Auburntsts
Well Known Member
Space Cadet
Well Known Member
Robin, you are way overstating the differences. Fixed pitch props are not even close to an alternate engine setup, they are as well understood and proven, if not more so, than constant speed. The impact on resale value is relative to the value the individual buyer places on the benefits, or lack thereof, compared to the price, and while it may be a factor in someones purchase or not, I would not expect a "huge" discount just for that fact alone (like an alternate engine setup probably would). And the performance of the airplane with said prop is reflected in the operating manual, so there's no "extra" risk for the owner of a fixed pitch prop instead of constant speed if its been properly documented.
I happen to have an RV-10 with a fixed pitch prop, but am not a good source to answer the original question, as my plane is based in Denver where all my takeoffs and climbing is done at altitude, and frequently hot and high (so I don't have good numbers for sea-level, standard-temperature performance charted out yet); and my prop is an unusual design (Elippse prop).
Dwight
I happen to have an RV-10 with a fixed pitch prop, but am not a good source to answer the original question, as my plane is based in Denver where all my takeoffs and climbing is done at altitude, and frequently hot and high (so I don't have good numbers for sea-level, standard-temperature performance charted out yet); and my prop is an unusual design (Elippse prop).
Dwight
grubbat
Well Known Member
Benefits
I don't want to highjack the tread but will offer some benefits to me off the top of my head:
1. Less empty weight and more capacity
2. More engine availability in used market
3. Lower engine costs (used acquisition cost and also overhaul cost)
4. Possible lower fuel burn (tip-toeing on this one since folks say you can pull power back to equal same)
5. Availability of more electronic ignition options
6. Possibly lower stall speed due to lower weight
7. Possibly better handling due to lower nose weight
Not everyone will agree but just thought that it would be neat to see a 0360 180hp constant speed RV-10.
cj
I don't want to highjack the tread but will offer some benefits to me off the top of my head:
1. Less empty weight and more capacity
2. More engine availability in used market
3. Lower engine costs (used acquisition cost and also overhaul cost)
4. Possible lower fuel burn (tip-toeing on this one since folks say you can pull power back to equal same)
5. Availability of more electronic ignition options
6. Possibly lower stall speed due to lower weight
7. Possibly better handling due to lower nose weight
Not everyone will agree but just thought that it would be neat to see a 0360 180hp constant speed RV-10.
cj
1. More capacity only if you kept the 2700 lb gross. But climb rate may be small or non existent with such a large power reduction.
4. An injected engine running lop at low power is probably more fuel efficient than the carb engine, which probably cannot run well lop.
7. Big weight reduction on the nose may make the back seat and/or baggage area unuseable due to aft cg limits.
This sounds a lot like an RV-14 to me!
4. An injected engine running lop at low power is probably more fuel efficient than the carb engine, which probably cannot run well lop.
7. Big weight reduction on the nose may make the back seat and/or baggage area unuseable due to aft cg limits.
This sounds a lot like an RV-14 to me!
Rv10 0360
I have thought about this setup also but figured would be shunned for asking. You are not alone.
CJ
I have thought about this setup also but figured would be shunned for asking. You are not alone.
