0-360 Fixed Pitch Performance Numbers

[uk_figs]

Now that I have the wheel fairings and pants installed I did a few runs today to get some performance numbers for planning etc. I wondered how they compare to others with similar setup. Plane is not yet painted. Numbers are from the Dynon D100.

Altitude RPM MAP %Power TAS (MPH) Fuel Flow (gph)

8500 2300 17 50 160 6.5

8500 2400 19 60 170 7.9

8500 2700 22 77 192 10.5

Leaning was a either peak or 50 deg ROP using the Lycoming technique and watching the Dynon. OAT was 41F. At the WOT setting the RPM would exceed 2700 which surprised me, I have the Van's recommended sensenich prop which I believe is 85 inch pitch. Aircraft weight was about 1550 lbs.

 

[reak]

Hi Dave,

It's nice to see numbers from an aircraft similar to mine. For some reason those with Fixed pitch props don't post their numbers much but here are mine. I don't have have anything like the Dynan in my plane so relied on multiple runs with the 3 leg GPS method from the National Test Pilot school to measure speed. I also don't have any way to measure fuel flow over a short distance therefore cannot comment on that other than to say your fuel flow numbers look similar to what I would expect based on the last 130 hours.

Engine, Superior 0360, Sensenich 85" prop from Vans catalog. The temperature varied from 6-9C over the test days and times. All tests done at 8000ft. No MAP numbers. Leaned using the Lycoming method.

2700 RPM 195 MPH
2500 RPM 180 MPH
2300 RPM 166 MPH
2100 RPM 149 MPH -- limited data

Like you I can also exceed 2700 RPM in level flight, about 2750 RPM is typical. What is interesting is the linearity in the data.

 

[Jeff Vaughan]

Brad and Dave Hello,
I have a TMX0-360 with Sensenich 83 FP. I just installed my wheel pants and fairings. Need to do detailed speed tests but I did check out performance at 8000'. 195 mph 2750 RPM WOT

Will do more detailed collection of data soon. 37.2 hrs flown

 

[whifof100ll]

Is RV-6 data close enough

Here is what I've collected on the various XC's that I've made.

The AFS calculates Density Altitude and that is what is presented here. I did not list the actual flight altutude, but figure it is the closest VFR or IFR altutude. It was collected directly from the automatic log files and converted to MPH for easier comparison to your data.

Interesing to note that the Catto effective pitch goes up with RPM.


DALT MP RPM TAS(MPH)GPH Leaning Effective Pitch
4640 25.8 2780 205.85 15 full rich 82.96854962
5320 23.2 2500 178.25 9.6 50R 71.84427481
5640 22.6 2530 184 9.8 50R 74.16183206
6000 22.2 2580 189.75 9.9 50R 76.47938931
8500 18.9 2320 166.75 7.6 50R 67.20916031
8500 20.1 2400 175.95 8.3 50R 70.91725191
8500 21.1 2500 185.15 9.7 full rich 74.62534351
8500 22.3 2620 194.35 10 50R 78.33343511
8500 24.1 2740 202.4 14.2 full rich 81.57801527
9000 19 2340 166.75 7.8 50R 67.20916031
9000 20.4 2470 178.25 8.5 50R 71.84427481
9000 20.5 2520 182.85 8.9 50L 73.69832061
9000 20.9 2240 157.55 6.2 50R 63.5010687
9000 21.7 2420 173.65 7.5 50R 69.99022901
9700 19.8 2530 184 9.1 50R 74.16183206
9700 20.6 2590 189.75 9.5 50R 76.47938931
9700 21.3 2660 195.5 10.5 50R 78.79694656
12500 18.3 2410 171.35 7.7 50R 69.06320611
12500 18.7 2460 177.1 8.1 50R 71.38076336
12500 19 2500 181.7 8.1 50R 73.23480916
12500 19.6 2570 187.45 8.6 50R 75.55236641
13000 18.5 2460 174.8 7.6 50R 70.45374046
13400 18.8 2610 189.75 9 50R 76.47938931
13400 19.5 2690 196.65 9.9 50R 79.26045802
13700 19 2600 193.2 8.8 50R 77.86992366
18000 16.2 2660 192.05 8 50R,WFO 77.40641221

 

[uk_figs]

Thanks for the numbers

looks like I am in the ballpark albeit a little slower, also seems that 2300 is the best economy cruise setting, get 24.5 mpg and about 700 mile range with reserves, well beyond my (or my wife's) bladder or sitting still tolerance
I think I will mount the dynon connectors externaly so I can get the data dump like the AFS.
Does the Catto give better performance than the stock Sensenich or is this another one of those"primer war" type discussions?

 

[Radomir]

No.. not really a primer war Catto won't give you any appreciably different performance... but will be smoother.. (have numbers somewhere that a friend of mine collected after testing his Catto and my Sensenich on his airplane...)


PS.. dual mags, by any chance? have you played with leaning some? explored LOP? You may be surprised by numbers.. looking at yours, you may be able to pick up speed and drop FF at same time

 

[uk_figs]

LOP

Yes I have dual mags, I was under the impression that it is not really possible to run LOP with a carb setup due to the differences between fuel distribution across the cylinders. The Dynon does provide %power, ROP and LOP display for the stock 0-360 with 8.5 compression which is what I have so I watch that for the peak indication.

 

[Radomir]

Please reivew previous discussions on LOP w/ carb on this forum.. plenty of reading material In short, yes, it's possible to do LOP w/ carb... My experience says dual mags are the limiting factor... and a good EI solves that problem.. (that's why I asked...).

Eg.. at 2,400 RPM @ 8500 ft.. you should be well under 75% power.. so you should be able to lean it all day long.. I'd try... see what happens.. if it's smooth.. you're good to go..


PS.. I NEVER run my engine at around 50ROP.. it is by far THE WORST "place" for MY engine.. but yours may behave differently. By far highest temps (oil and cht) at that setting.. so I avoid it..

 

[uk_figs]

50 ROP

Radomir, what do you mean by 50 deg ROP being the worst place to run the engine?

 

[whifof100ll]

Catto wars

looks like I am in the ballpark albeit a little slower, also seems that 2300 is the best economy cruise setting, get 24.5 mpg and about 700 mile range with reserves, well beyond my (or my wife's) bladder or sitting still tolerance
I think I will mount the dynon connectors externaly so I can get the data dump like the AFS.
Does the Catto give better performance than the stock Sensenich or is this another one of those"primer war" type discussions?

Yep, primer wars.

I have never tried a sensi on my plane so I really don't know, but I have heard that a metal sensi is really good at cruise and top speed. I would expect the wood sensi to be slower since it has a much thicker cross section than the catto or metal sensi.

The catto is definitly lighter than the metal sensi and that was a major factor in my choice. Some view more prop weight a plus due to more forard CG and better stability. Some view it as a negative. I have flown several RV's with different configurations and I prefer ones made to feel light & nimble. Weight at the extremities is a factor in the feel. For a given weight, theoretically a more rear CG will produce less drag at cruise. This is due to less downward force required to be produced by the tail to offset the weight up front, and less wing lift required to offset the tail downforce. I don't know how much of a difference it is in an RV but it might make an interesting experiment.

Later