U

USCANAM

Well Known Member
Yesterday was the first chance I've had to utilize the extra power in our 9A.
What we have is a Superior IO-360 , 180 hp with a MT 3 blade constant speed prop.
Flying back from Burlington VT southward over the mountains back to Cape Cod after a front had gone through really made the air rough down low. Flying up, the air was not too bad, but we were on the ground a few hours, and things changed.
Burlington is relatively flat, but the mountains start about 15 miles south. Climbing to 7500 was the initial altitude, but turbulance started to go higher as the hills did.
At 7500' the throttle was all the way in, and MP was 23.5. RPM was 2350.Eventually, we were as high as 10,000', and it was just a simple matter of moving the stick to climb easily at 500fpm, and not lose more than 30 knots.
The only adjustment was to mixture. True airspeed according to the EFIS was 197 mph at 9500', and we were aware of what Van said about to not exceed the 210 true airspeed. Once past the mountains, it was relatively easy to come down at 500 fpm with 18-20 inches of MP. and stay in the green.
And yes, Boston approach let us deviate altitude in order to remain clear of clouds. They didn't have to work us long with the 205 knot ground speed.
Fuel burn for the 400 nautical mile round trip was 25 gallons, with 2.9 hours showing on the engine tach.
Sure beat driving!!
Jack
106 hours.
 
Looking at the stats

USCANAM said:
...
Fuel burn for the 400 nautical mile round trip was 25 gallons, with 2.9 hours showing on the engine tach.
Sure beat driving!!
Jack
106 hours.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to start a P**g contest, but I'm surprised that a 9A did not do better than my 7A, given the very favorable results obtained in the CAFE report on the 9A. You averaged 138 kts GS and got 16 nm/gal. I think we have the same engine and your prop is usually thought of as better than my FP prop.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=217752&postcount=1
2,254 NM, 16.0 hours flight time, 111.7 gallons used. 140.9 kts moving average GS and 6.94 gph average for 20.2 nm/gal.
 
This was probably not ideal conditions

for a CAFE run.
The engine time includes startup at my hangar, a controlled field, taxi a mile to active runway, runup, slightly skirting around Boston class B airspace, headwinds on the way up, being vectored by approach control at Burlington, taxing to parking. On departure, we were vectored 5 miles north, before being allowed to turn south.
Not trying to be too critical with leaning, so were running ROP.
What I was trying to point out in my post was that I was able to use the extra horsepower as I intended, at higher altitudes, and more ease of climb at higher altitudes.
When at lower altitudes, I basically run at 160 hp. settings.
Once off the ground, I climb at 25 square, then cruise around 23 square.
You don't have to use it, but the extra power is nice to have, especially since the engine cost the same as a 160 hp., is only 7 pounds heavier, and 1 inch wider.
Jack
 
Last edited:
Superior O-360 in my 9A

Amen brother. I built a Superior O-360 with low compression pistons for my 9A so I can burn auto fuel (w/o ethanol).

It climbs like a tiger and cruises at 143kias at 7.2 gal, 60% power, all day long.

140 hours and loving every minute.
 
These are precisely the reasons I give when I am asked why I intend to commit suicide by putting an IO360 in my 9A.
 
A funny

This thread reminds me of a cartoon in Sport Aviation from years ago. The image was a BD5 with huge radial cylinders sticking out all around the fuselage behind the cabin and the pilot crammed into a reduced size cockpit with his knees against the canopy.

The caption was: "I've never seen a design that couldn't be modified".

I hope this discription is enough. The comic cracked me up. :)
 
It's a mini van with wings.

My reasoning for the O-360 choice went as follows. The mission of my RV is cross country. Every month The Goddess Who Approves All Purchases (my wife of 40 years) and I make an 800 mile round trip visit to the kids and grandkids in LA.

Basically, the 9A is a mini van with wings.

A CS prop would have added XX lbs to an O-320 and all of that weight would be located at the very front of the airplane.

By using an engine that's less than 10 lbs heavier and not installing a CS prop, the increased weight is distributed further aft than the weight inherent to a CS prop.

Van is rightfully concerned about exceeding the design limits for speed. I used 7.2 compression pistons versus the standard offered in the Superior kit. The result was 168 / 172 hp (according to Superior), and the ability to use mogas which we are able to get w/o ethanol.

The 9 seems happy at 143 KIAS, burns 7.2 gph, 9,500 alt, at <65% power. I run +/-1450 egt, <375 cht, and PK/LOP on the Dynon D180. The D180 reports 27 mpg which is better than The Goddess' minivan.

The minivan reqd 8 hours each way (assuming no traffic around LA which is never). The 9 takes 2.75 hrs. Obviously, the difference between driving and flying cannot be measured. Flying is utterly fantastic.

For my purposes, Mission Accomplished.
 
MrNomad said:
Basically, the 9A is a mini van with wings.
Click to expand...
:eek: Ahhh! No, please don't insult the -9! I prefer to think of the -9 as more of a small touring car - room for 2 occupants and a little bit of stuff that is capable of turning time and some fuel into a lot of distance comfortably. Not the most powerful or fastest, but efficient and handles "well enough". Cars that come to mind include the MINI (standard engine, standard suspension), Honda CRX, Miata (with a hardtop), etc.

Minivan with wings = 182 ;)

TODR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.