Webb

Well Known Member
Sponsor
I ran the speed comparisons to Van's numbers for a RV7A with a 180 hp engine with a CS prop. At 55% and 75% power at 8,000 feet, I used several different combinations, check in 2 directions, leaned to between 75 and 100 degrees ROP, used several different MP and RPM combinations that will give you the percent of power, and averaged the numbers.

What I learned:

My plane is about 8-9 mph slower than Van's numbers at these power settings. Hmmm....I looked at the Van's website and blew up the 7A photos. The difference. I have things hanging on the plane they don't unless I can't see them). Steps, a VOR/GS antenna, ELT antenna, GPS puck, MB antenna, wing tie down rings, and second comm antenna. Since I built a cross country traveler IFR traveler, I'm satsified with the numbers.

For those that are asking how to build a faster plane, everything you have hanging out will cost you about 1 mph. Perhaps this would be a fairly decent rule of thumb.

The second thing I learned. Higher RPM for the same power setting will cost you more in fuel for the same speed. Want to run 55% on economy cruise - then crank the prop back and add more MP. The prop set at 2,100 rpm gave me about 24 miles per gallon, when set at 2,400, I was burning more gas. This doesn't make sense to me since you are producing 55% power, however the fuel flow meter says different. I'll check this one out again. And of course, YMMV.

Last thing, because of examining the Mothership's pictures of their 7A, an experience tip comes from this. For you nose draggers, always leave the tail tie down ring in. Van's had theirs in but I could not see the one for the wings. Back in my 172 days during a flair, not once but twice I managed to barely touch the rear tie down ring on the runway due to wind shear. Had it not been there, the tail would not have survived quite as well.
 
I did the test too

I was disappointed in my numbers which I got yesterday. I do have a heavy bird (1159) and was very close to gross weight. I have the steps and 2 antennas hanging out. I was at 7500' indicated (7200' pressure alt) so I don't know how much affect that has but here is what I got for my 7a (no pants or gear leg fairings), c/s 180 hp. I was running 30 degrees LOP to get the associated fuel flows.

TAS/A/S(MPH) RPM MAP FUEL % power
174/163 2450 23 10.5 75
167/154 2350 22 9.5 65
160/147 2250 21 8.5 55
 
I would think those numbers are good running LOP and a heavy airplane, and no leg fairings or wheel pants. Try ROP.
 
Last edited:
I was disappointed in my numbers which I got yesterday. I do have a heavy bird (1159) and was very close to gross weight. I have the steps and 2 antennas hanging out. I was at 7500' indicated (7200' pressure alt) so I don't know how much affect that has but here is what I got for my 7a (no pants or gear leg fairings), c/s 180 hp. I was running 30 degrees LOP to get the associated fuel flows.

TAS/A/S(MPH) RPM MAP FUEL % power
174/163 2450 23 10.5 75
167/154 2350 22 9.5 65
160/147 2250 21 8.5 55

Your numbers are pretty much meaningless without wheelpants and gear leg fairings. Those things will really surprise you!

Those look like really odd cruise settings. You really shouldn't be getting down around 2250RPM unless you're cruising along with a Cessna or something and you're running something like 15".

My typical cruise setting for long trips (meaning loaded down) is 21", 2450 RPM. That gets me 162kts TAS, 8.6gph running ROP at 9500ft.

Lightly loaded, wide open, 23 inches, 2680RPM yields 179KTS TAS.

Also, doing two way runs is not a good way to measure TAS. The best thing is to go to Kevin Horton's very nice RV site and download the 4-way gps run spreadsheet. It only needs three legs to calculate TAS but it uses the fourth to calculate measurement error. Very nice!
 
Tail Ring

I do leave my tail ring in, but not for protection from the ground. If you run a string from the back of the main tire's contact patch to the bottom of the rudder you will see that the ring will not protect it. I wish it did.
 
Webb,

Did you make your own pitot tube per the plans? My indicated airspeeds were originally off and then after some experimenting with the bend on the tube came in line with other RV's.
 
In what way?

Webb,

Did you make your own pitot tube per the plans? My indicated airspeeds were originally off and then after some experimenting with the bend on the tube came in line with other RV's.

What did you do? How did you change the bend or measure it relative to the airflow or wing?
 
The RV-10 project is going well, mating the mid and fwd fuselage pieces this weekend, tail kit is done, lots of subprojects are done. You're welcome to come up and visit anytime, we'll find a place for ya!
 
Your numbers are pretty much meaningless without wheelpants and gear leg fairings.

Webb,
Did you make your own pitot tube per the plans? My indicated airspeeds were originally off and then after some experimenting with the bend on the tube came in line with other RV's.

The test speeds (if you are converting IAS to TAS) are also meaningless until a calibration verification check of the airspeed indicator is done.

The comment about the speed gain from the gear leg and wheel fairings is also correct. The main gear leg fairings probably produce the most significant change.
RV fairings are not just mostly for looks like they are on many other airplanes.
 
I was disappointed in my numbers which I got yesterday. I do have a heavy bird (1159) and was very close to gross weight. I have the steps and 2 antennas hanging out. I was at 7500' indicated (7200' pressure alt) so I don't know how much affect that has but here is what I got for my 7a (no pants or gear leg fairings), c/s 180 hp. I was running 30 degrees LOP to get the associated fuel flows.

TAS/A/S(MPH) RPM MAP FUEL % power
174/163 2450 23 10.5 75
167/154 2350 22 9.5 65
160/147 2250 21 8.5 55

FWIW... Any speed test IMO should be done in calm air with the 4-way GPS method, here's my fav... http://www.reacomp.com/index.html?true_airspeed/index.html. Then, nothing "real" until fairings are installed. Like others, my fairings added 17 mph which I thought amazing. Also, for testing I like to go high enough to use WOT at 22-23" as that kills pumping losses and increases efficiency. For cross country I go at least to 8500-9500', 22"x23-2400 RPM and lean the IO-360 just 10 deg or so LOP which gets 8GPH & 180 mph or so. Blended airfoil prop. Seems to me you are burning a bit too much fuel. Is it injected?

Regards,
Jerry
 
injection

Yes, my plane is injected and has electronic ign. I will install the fairings/pants and go for another run in a couple of weeks then report back on the changes.
 
Pitot not the issue

Webb,

Did you make your own pitot tube per the plans? My indicated airspeeds were originally off and then after some experimenting with the bend on the tube came in line with other RV's.

I have a manufactured pitot. Also the reported speeds were ground speed by gps. I did indicated, TAS, and ground speed. Measurements were from my 430.

The TAS was very close to the GPS.

Like I said, I'm satisfied with the numbers since I built it to travel IFR and have plenty of "stuff" hanging.
 
Like I said, I'm satisfied with the numbers since I built it to travel IFR and have plenty of "stuff" hanging.

Webb,

I remembered an old thread about the drag from antennas, and how many ponies they consume, etc., etc. This is just about as nerdy as it has ever gotten on this forum. While I don't expect you will run any of these calculations I thought it would amuse you to see the level of thought that has gone into this stuff in the past.
 
What did you do? How did you change the bend or measure it relative to the airflow or wing?

During a transponder recert I had the person check my airpeed with his equipment and it proved to be fairly accurate. When I told him that my readings were low in flight he looked down the length of the wing from the tip and suggested bending the pitot down. That is what we tried and my indicated speeds came up and seem to match the claimed specs. There was nothing scientific, just this guys educated guess. I guess a measurement of the angle could be taken in relation to the bottom of my wing if you would like it. Again, we just eyeballed it and reduced the bend. A couple of more tries and I finally settled on what seemed to be the sweet spot.
 
Last edited:
I Don't Know About Cruise Efficiency Speeds but ...

I strongly challenge the rule of thumb that asserts everything hanging in the air off of the basic airframe decreases the speed by 1 kt. My three way tests at 6,000 ft density altitude (this usually requires ATC clearance - depending on outside air temp at 6,000 ft pressure altitude) per the www/us-airrace.org handicap procedure and results processed through the National Test Pilot School spread sheet supplied by Kevin Horton, wide open throttle, rich of peak mixture for maximum speed, non-blended airfoil Hartzell prop, 2720-2730 RPM (whatever I can get) do not support that. I have removed the tail tie down ring permanently, temporarily removed the wing tie down rings and sealed the holes, temporarily removed the nav antenna rods (receiving elements), temporarily removed the steps and covered the holes with a thin aluminum plate, and the sum increase in speed has been on the order of 1 kt. - .4 kt of that came from the step removal.

My baseline speed in the original configuration is 170.6 kts. My current racing configuration speed is 182.6 kts. 4 kts were gained with extensive baffling in the lower cowl; 3 kts were gained by replacing the 9" wide tip tanks and 12" stock tips with 3" wide custom tips (homemade); 3 kts were gained with custom (homemade) subwheel fairings that extend to 3/4" from the ground and come right up to the side of the tire (most of that is related to the nose wheel fairing which is the old style - the MLG fairing are the pressure recovery style and the difference with their subfairings is too small for me to measure); and 1 kt was gained by taping the tail control surface attach access openings.

It takes a lot of work to gain 1 kt.

Bob Axsom