Turboprop 10?

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by paul330

OK - here's the thing.

The US experimental rules allow you guys to put in whatever engine you wish without any testing or justification. Without wishing to be rude, the US way is "bigger is better". 180hp RV-9s, 320hp RV-10s etc etc. None of the VANS aircraft need more than the recommended max - although I am certain lots of people will now write in and justify their huge engines!

All VANS are trying to do is to moderate things and try and quantify the dangers and issues involved with putting in an unnecessarily large engine.

And before anyone says it, yes - I know - that's why it's called experimental......

What? 180 HP RV-9 is not a big engine. Now, putting an IO-540 in a -9 would be something! BTW, a -9 with an O-360 will not hit Vne unless there is some serious speed mods done to it.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by N941WR

What? 180 HP RV-9 is not a big engine. Now, putting an IO-540 in a -9 would be something! BTW, a -9 with an O-360 will not hit Vne unless there is some serious speed mods done to it.

The recommendation of nothing bigger than an O-320 for the RV-9 has nothing to do with VNE.

It is a function of VNO, and to some degreeVH, VMO.

VNO on an RV-9 can be easily exceeded in level flight with a 180 HP engine.

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by paul330

OK - here's the thing.

The US experimental rules allow you guys to put in whatever engine you wish without any testing or justification. Without wishing to be rude, the US way is "bigger is better". 180hp RV-9s, 320hp RV-10s etc etc. None of the VANS aircraft need more than the recommended max - although I am certain lots of people will now write in and justify their huge engines!

All VANS are trying to do is to moderate things and try and quantify the dangers and issues involved with putting in an unnecessarily large engine.

And before anyone says it, yes - I know - that's why it's called experimental......

And we still, in some remote corners of the United States, enjoy the God given right to choose as we wish what means in which to pursue happiness. Even if it doesn't conform to the "world's standards".

[airguy]

Originally Posted by paul330

the US way is "bigger is better".

We do these things..... because we can.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

I swore I would not get drawn into this again, but I cannot help myself....

Please get involved more often. That post should be a sticky somewhere on the forum, or a front page article. Most informative safety-related post i've read here in at least a month.

[BenNabors]

Originally Posted by majuro15

I'm interested in this as a second option to the IO-540. At the rate that 540s are getting hard to find used and the higher and higher cost of new ones, this could be a doable project if reliability and compatability proves they are on par. Not to mention the fuel issue and price of 100LL (and/or replacement later on). This is what experimental aviation is all about! I'll put oxygen in my plane anyway, be happy to get up to 18K and do 200knts IAS but 300knts GS!!!

Vne is generally limited by flutter which is a function of fluid speed over the lifting surface. IAS is base on the pressure generated on the lifting surface and/or the pitot hole. Structures can flutter well below the published Vne TAS when IAS is uncorrected for density altitude. I had the same idea until I did some reading.