Quote:
Originally Posted by pilottangocharlie
Is the performance with the IO-340 measurably better than Vans lists with the 320? That is a great looking 9A!
|
Thanks. It was 5 years of my life building so I wanted to make sure it looked as good as it feels to fly.
Is it measurably better? Well, I am not sure what "measurably better" actually means but it does perform very well. I think where I really see the advantage is in climb.
At present the highest I have had the plane was at 14.5K on a cross country this summer. During that trip I was cruising at 10.5K when I had to climb to get over a bank of clouds. They kept growing taller the further along I went. So I started by climbing to 12.5K. That did not work so went to 13.5K. No go. Then to 14.5K. During this particular flight I was running about 170 mph with the engine set at WOT with HP running about 69%. I was at PEAK EGT and burning about 8.5 gph. To gain altitude I did nothing to the throttle or mixture settings (
fixed pitch so no prop adjustment either). I simply dialed in the new altitude on the EFIS and let the autopilot fly to the new altitude. I did notice the engine "lugging" just a bit but the RPM only dropped marginally (
perhaps 100 RPM). The airplane pitched up and climbed to the new altitude at around 450-500 fpm. Even at 14.5 when I finally leveled off I was still showing 450 fpm climb without any adjustments to the throttle or mixture from the cruise settings.
I cannot specifically say that during cruise the plane is "measurably better" in performance from Van's numbers. I do think the extra HP allows me to throttle back and cruise at the given numbers while burning less fuel doing it. At any rate, I have nothing but praise for this engine setup. I think the RV9A and the ECI IO-340 are a perfect match. It all works very well for me.
Live Long and Prosper!
Linear Mode
