What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Cafe Foundation Report

R.P.Ping

Well Known Member
Here is the link to the Cafe Foundation: http://www.cafefoundation.org/

Two quick observations...
I can quit worrying about what I can do to get my cylinder head temps down during climb. The report indicates at an ambient temp of 76f, peak cylinder temp was 462f during climb and I can agree with that! Not the best design for cylinder cooling. Also, does not work well at all in Arizona in the summer time with ambient temps in excess of 100f.
The article states approach speed of 80mph and touch down of 70. What???? Now I have a straight 9 with the little wheel in the back so for what difference that would make on the approach I don?t know, but I fly my final at 56kts (64.4mph) and I touch down at stall speed of about 43kts (49.5mph).
It would be interesting to hear other comments about the report.

60 hours and haven fun!

Roger Ping
90869 RV-9
 
cylinder head temps on climb

I read an article on avweb about six months back on power settings during climb out. The Pelicans Perch if I remember right is the name of these articles and they are really informative. Anyway, one of the techniques to try is to leave the throttle all the way in at the stop during climb. While this seems like it would make the problem worse both carburated and injected engines are suppose to run richer at full throttle than when you start to pull it back. After trying this on my 9a the EGT's came down in climb dramatically and the CHT's came down at least 50 degrees F. Give it a try worry free because the 0-320 can run all day at that power setting. If I set for 25 sq. on climb durint the summer the temps look a little creepy, but leaving the throttle in and setting only the prop back to 2500 rpm makes everything look much better.

Blue Skies,
 
80 too high

I have 75 hours on my 9A and I prefer 70 mph on approach, unless there's a gust factor. For me 80 mph is a little fast and it makes a lot of difference in landing distance. It's very controlable at 70mph full flaps. Re: CHTs' I live in Florida and flew this summer. I have never seen CHT above 400 in climb and usually stays around 350 to 370 in cruise. YMMV. Jack
 
Bryan Wood said:
one of the techniques to try is to leave the throttle all the way in at the stop during climb. While this seems like it would make the problem worse both carburated and injected engines are suppose to run richer at full throttle than when you start to pull it back.

Blue Skies,

Bryan, I agree, but that still doesn?t help out here in AZ. The carburetor adds a little more fuel for extra cooling when at full power. I climb out at 110kts full power and full RPM and when it?s hot out, I have to lower the nose and pull power way back to get the temps down.
I will take a look at that report though...Thanks

(#64) http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182176-1.html

RP
 
Last edited:
Woah!

R.P.Ping said:
peak cylinder temp was 462f during climb

I'd be very careful around these temps. Aluminum gets soft and heads towards the "melt" condition at 400 degrees. If you see temps this high, I'd be making a serious change. I never like to see CHT temps above 380 degrees. In climb a few things could be wrong, a bad CHT sensor, a mixture setting that is right at 50 or so degrees rich of peak, really poor cooling (ala, non-existant), bad timing, etc.

If it were me and I were trying to get any longevity out of my engine, I certainly would start to resolve this problem. Either a plemum design for the baffles or working with the manufacture to determine a better cooling option.

Those are just darn right scary numbers by my book.

my .02,
Alan
 
hi cht's

Have you checked for flashing? It is not that uncommon and will cause problems like your talking about. My father in laws ECI's had flashing between the cooling fins and his temps were high like yours after getting his engine overhauled a few years ago. By the time they quit telling him that this was normal and machined out the bad casting he had damaged his engine. At a couple of hundred hours oil consumption started to go up but the engine lasted until the warrenty was past. You don't want this to happen to you.

A local 9A pilot was having the same problems as you and his also turned out to be flashing. After removing the material the temps came down to normal right away. Contact me off group and we'll set it up so you can talk to him for the specifics.
 
Scary?

aadamson said:
I'd be very careful around these temps. Aluminum gets soft and heads towards the "melt" condition at 400 degrees. If you see temps this high, I'd be making a serious change. I never like to see CHT temps above 380 degrees. In climb a few things could be wrong, a bad CHT sensor, a mixture setting that is right at 50 or so degrees rich of peak, really poor cooling (ala, non-existant), bad timing, etc.

If it were me and I were trying to get any longevity out of my engine, I certainly would start to resolve this problem. Either a plemum design for the baffles or working with the manufacture to determine a better cooling option.

Those are just darn right scary numbers by my book.

my .02,
Alan


Alan..... Not at the "darn right scary" level, but certainly high.

The certification limit on most of the Lycoming O-360 and O-320 engines was 500 F CHT MAXIMUM.
Now Lycoming says that this is too high, and has recommendations for 435 F max. in climb and 400 F in cruise... but they haven't (can't?) change the original certification limits....

Pick from this index..
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=support/publications/keyReprints/operation.html

But, as Tim Allen would say...."It's only the manufacturer's instructions, and what do they know..." ... :)

gil in Tucson ... with a hot running Tiger... cooling is the subject of much discussion in the Grumman mailing lists....
 
Yep, I know.... But

I do know what Lycoming says, and I know what most of the engine guys preach, and this is the major area of difference (we'll leave LOP alone for now :)). I also know that Aluminum get's pretty soft around 400 degrees. And pistons are made from aluminum. At temps of 450+, I bet it wouldn't take any pressure to deform the piston and he was talking higher than that. I know what Lycoming says, but I hope I never get there, nor let one get there. A CHT probe in a Cast cylinder with a Steel sleeve with FINS, is going to disappate some of the heat that the internal piston sees. The AL piston inside that sleeve is gonna retain it. So if the CHT is 450+, I'll bet the piston is hotter at any moment in time.... And that is down right scary.

We are talking over 100 degrees hotter than *any* temps I've seen in any 4 or 6 cylinder airplane that I've flown. That to me means that there is a problem, could be a bunch of things, but if I've got 20+k of investment hanging on the front of my airplane, and I'm letting it quide me around, I sure am not going to let it get that hot, especially when there are things that can be done to mitigate those temps.

At the minimum, heat causes expansion, and the expansion rate is not linear with increases in heat, so you are just beggin for something to crack. Maybe not this flight, but it's gonna happen. Why else do people have problems with cracking #4 cylinders on Lycomings... It's usually the worst cylinder to cool.

Perhaps one mans opinion, but as they say, "to each their own" (and experimental aircraft are excellent examples of this.. Every seen to that are identical? :).

Alan
 
Not Just My Problem

Guys, everybody here is talking like this is just my problem? Don?t forget, I got the 462f from the Cafe Foundation report. This is from VAN?S airplane not mine. Seems to me this is an acceptable situation according to Van?s. If this is how Van?s engine is running I?m sure I?m not the only other guy out there with high CHTs. Now that I got that off my chest? ;)
I was talking with a local many time RV builder today and his advice was to cut the lower potion of the bottom cowl about 2 inches forward to open up the air outlet of the cowling. You can bet I?ll try that soon and report back.
And no, there isn?t any flashing in the cylinder fins.
Thanks for all the comments?That?s what this forum is all about.

RP
 
Comment

RP,

I hear ya that there are others with the same problem... Doesn't make it right, correct, or good for your engine.

As a small update, I did find that the molten point of AL is 662 degrees F. However, the pistons in our airplanes are no 100% AL, they have some silicon in them and probably some other metals that I can't think of right now. Most of those have evern lower melting points.

I'm not trying to tell you that your pistons are going to MELT away, but something is just not right with CHT's of almost 470! degrees.

Before you go cutting your cowling. I'd do some more checking. There is very interesting science with making cowlings flow air. It's not inlet pressure that causes air to move in a cowling, it's actually creating a Low pressure somewhere (usually done with cowl flaps creating that Low), and then the high from the inlet rushing to the low created with the cowl flaps. Plenums help direct the air over the critical parts. There is also a phenomina where you can actually create drag that slows down the airplane from the inlet air, pushing back out. I know in mooneys, they have a problem in the early ones where the air would come in the inlet on the P-factor side, and promptly rush out the other opening because it had a lower pressure. This cause cooling to suffer until you fixed this problem.

I wish I could point you at where to go, but I don't know. I just know that 470 degrees, especially in a climb *cant* be good for your engine... Whether Vans says it's ok or not! There are smart people around and some have figured this out. The guy that makes the "streamlined" cowlling for the 6 and 7 also makes plenums, it would be worth talking with him about the 9.

Be careful, but yes I agree, lots to be learned about lots of topics and the forum is a wealth of info.

Alan
 
aadamson said:
As a small update, I did find that the molten point of AL is 662 degrees F. However, the pistons in our airplanes are no 100% AL, they have some silicon in them and probably some other metals that I can't think of right now. Most of those have even lower melting points.

I'm not trying to tell you that your pistons are going to MELT away, but something is just not right with CHT's of almost 470! degrees.


Alan

Alan... you are crying wolf again.... Aluminum alloys are different, and do not melt at 662 F or less as you state....

A quick web search gives a common race car forged piston alloy of 2618 (described as "aircraft technology").

It's material properties are here, and one line says it has good strength at up to 575 F ... they even heat treat it at 980 F ... so we know it's not melting at almost 1000 F.

http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/2618.asp

I agree - don't run your cylinders too hot.. but use the manufacturer's numbers as a guide, and don't worry about that aluminum piston melting... :)

But the FAA did certify the engines up to 500 F...

gil in Tucson ... facts always work better...
 
Now wait just one minute

Crying wolf? My comment was that AL melts at 662 degrees. I believe that is fact. At least on the web searchs that I did. My other comment was that I didn't think that 470 degrees was a good place to run your CHT's on climb. If the engine is certified to 500 degrees, why run it to the max? 470 is less than 10% away from the maximum. If heat is the enemy of an air cooled engine, and all the engine guys suggest that 400 degrees should be maximum on CHT, then why take the chance that running it up to 500 will cause no damage?

Seriously, I don't see where I cried wolf.... If you want to run yours at 500, go for it... my money and time are more valuable than having to worry about engine longevity and the costs of a top overhaul or broken airplane because I decided it was ok to push the limit.

Like my other comment... "to each their own", I'm just not going to...

Pretty simple :)
Alan

ps. this isn't about "scarying" people into doing something like the big bad wolf... Heck if I were that good, I'm in the wrong profession, hollywood would have hired me long ago. More this is about common sense.
 
Last edited:
Cafe Report

Having a pension for the numbers I love these Cafe reports, I would love to see a RV-7 test.

As far as temp I think one has to remember these guys are running at gross wt, above standard temp and slower climb speeds for extend periods. Most RV'ers climb out at a much higher speed for better cooling and better forward visibility. It was "MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE CLIMB" with 76F OAT indicated at 4000 feet. This is +31F above standard DAY! So yes 462F CHT is too hot. More telling is CHT in the cruise runs of about 410F on few runs. I would say Van's prototype is running a little hot but it looks controllable (by pilot operating procedure). Keep in mind they are working to basically 100F day (SL) temps.


I agree 462F CHT is too high and so does Lycoming. If you want your engine to last 400F CHT is a max for continuous operation, less is even better.

There are temps much higher than the those in the CHT probe well. The combustion itself is in the 3000F-4000F range (max temp of combustion). Most of that extreme temp combustion is expelled before transferring it's heat to the piston, cylinder wall and to the valves; The exhaust valve in particular is exposed to hot combustion the longest and is what takes a beating, so temp its really critical for those little steel sodium filled valves and the valve guide and seat. CHT is only an indirect indication of what the valves are doing, they are way hotter. Mixture is so important to keep the internal (valve) temps down.

It is the excess fuel that cools the exhaust gases (and exhaust valve), and that is why I am NOT a fan of Av-webs advice of leaning from takeoff using base line EGT. In an air cooled engine a rich mixture is critical to cool during high power operations. Lycoming's prime advice is do NOT lean above 75% power. Obviously if you saw ++400F CHT you would keep the mixture rich or en richen it and lower the nose for more airspeed.

What happens is it gets so hot, you get all kind of nasty things happening to the oil, like tremendous deposits on the valve guides as you gas off and cook the oil at those extreme temps. The valve stem and guide is where the valve transfers its heat as well as the valve seat. Yes the metals are hot and closer to melting, but he real issue is at some point you will cook oil and the valves causing burnt valves, seats or guide issues. The deposits will cause valve sticking. The oil temp returning from the heads is 25F hotter than what you are reading in the cockpit. When valves stick they allow hot gas to leak past the seats, which erodes the valve and valve seat. High temps are more insidious than just hot metal.

George
 
Last edited:
George, I think you may have been the first to hit on the most relevant problem with high temps, and that is reaching the flash point of the oil. Different oils vary, but flash points of oils are generally a minimum of 400F up to about 485F.

Not being a metallurgist, I can't offer a professional opinion, but my gut tells me that any of the metals found in engines will resist "melting" at even the highest running temps, but when the oil starts heat flashing, that's when you've got a real problem both short term and long term.

It seems to me that controlling cooling is most important from the standpoint of operating within the safe temperature range of the oil we use more than the metals themselves which may be the reason for Lycoming lowering their recommended allowable temps.
 
I work in The aluminum die casting trade and we run 380 aluminum at around 1200-1250 in a molten state to cast parts. I have a customer that runs pure aluminum to make electric motor armatures. I will ask him what the melt temperature is for that and report back. I am sure that the type of aluminum that is used in pistons would not begin begin to melt anywhere near 600 deg.

I use to fly two stroke ultralights and one thing you don't ever do is pull the throttle back during climb out. In a two stroke the fuel has a lot to do with cooling the piston. Pulling the throttle back just a little is the best way to sieze an engine. Once the plane is leveled off and proper cooling is restored then you can back off the throttle. I would think some of this logic would transfer to four strokes as well. I would want an engine mointor on al four cylinders if I were going to experiment with this procedure. The CHT's in a two stroke will climb so fast that by the time you see it on the CHT gage it is too late. Not trying to preach, just my own feeble thoughts.
 
Last edited:
It's getting hot in here..

Highflight said:
George, I think you may have been the first to hit on the most relevant problem with high temps, and that is reaching the flash point of the oil. Different oils vary, but flash points of oils are generally a minimum of 400F up to about 485F.
I think you hit the nail on the head, if you operate with the normal temp range (even if it is hot) you can expect to not melt metal. I do have have a back ground in mechanical engineering and not chemical, but I have read The Sky Ranch Engineering Manual by John Schwaner. (Skyranch engine book) It is excellent and its like staying at a Holiday Inn. Many of the additives in oil start to come out and you just plan break the oil down faster. It has been a while since I read the book, but it is well explained and anyone can understand it. Bottom line high CHT has a direct relation on exhaust valve temp and wear.

The point about lubrication is the exhaust valve needs dissipate heat and that is done thru the seat and stem to guide. The oil in the little space is under tremendous temps and pressure. The combo can produce deposits causing valve problems and the dreaded "top overall". What is the oil temp in that little space? I know there is data on it, but it is all relative to the CHT and it is much higher than what you read on the OT gauge.

I highly recommend Sky Ranch's Engineering book. It gets into everything: metallurgy, fatigue, residual stress, common operation, maintenance and assembly error and the affect, lubrication, engine performance (operation dos and dont's and why). You don't have to be an engineer to read it. This is a must read for any Lycoming/Continental pilot, especially if you are getting your engine overhauled. There is a bunch of info on what to ask and check for when selecting over-haulers and decisions you need to make.

Yes you can melt a hole in an aluminum piston, I have done it twice, once in a hot rod car with a Chevy V8 and once in a plane engine. The plane engine was a O-235 Lyc experimental engine with high compression pistons. I was flight testing the engine in a Piper Tomahawk to get a STC for a company. This engine is also common in the Grumman Yankee. The purpose STC was to increase to compression. The STC really just used stock Lycoming pistons from a certified verson of the same engine. Long story short, Lycoming once offered the O-235 in both low and high compression. The low compression has 118hp and the high about 125hp. Although the HC version of the O-235 was certified by Lycoming and flown on production planes, it was withdrawn from the market. It worked fine on the test stand, but in the field pilots where causing detonation, leading to the burning hole in piston syndrome! Ouch!

(When the piston blew the airplane shook fairly wildly and I made a partial power forced landing at a small grass strip. The engine was removed right there and overhauled, flown and STC was granted; since there was already another STC for the same mod; Lycoming still has the certified engine with the same compression on the books. Consider this before you buy your HC pistons for you Lycoming. We never figured out why this happened, but the engine stayed in the plane and flew it for years with no problem, last I heard.)

How does aluminum melt when detonation happens? Normally combustion is in a "swirl" motion with a controlled steady flame front. With detonation the heat of combustion is held much longer in the chamber and there is no boundary layer between piston and the flame front of the combustion. In a manner it is an instantaneous blow torch but now directly against the metal. There are temps around 4000F happening in there instantaniously. If it happens too early (pre ignition) while the piston is on the way up it can be desastrious.

(Interestingly enough in jets the temps are so hot no metal on earth can take the heat, but with the use of internal "bleed air", the combustion is controlled in the "burner can" so not to directly contact metal. If it did the engine would melt and I am talking about exotic high temp steels, not aluminum. Starting jet engines is critical for that reason and why they are spooled up first with just the starter before adding the fuel. Once it is spinning fast enough to provide the internal protective layers of air, the fuel is added with a whooosh and an increase in RPM and the whine.)


High CHT's alone will not burn a hole in aluminum, but detonation will do the dirty deed. To avoid the long explanation the word "detonation" is self explanatory. A sudden spontaneous uncontrolled explosion. Bottom line the pressures and temps build quickly in the combustion chamber and the piston is the one that tends to get pounded. There is a laundry list of items that can be damaged but the piston hole is one of them.

When we are talking run of the mill high CHT's, it is different (usually) than detonation. Detonation can lead to high CHT, but detonation happens so fast the CHT is not sensitive enough to detect the onset of detonation. Detonation can cause damage in seconds. In cars the detonation detectors are sometimes microphones! Aircraft engines are too loud to use this technique. You know how you can hear the "ping" in a car; that is pre ignition. You will never hear that in a plane. Since the car is trying to keep the mixture as lean as possible it runs on the edge of detonation. Car engines with small pistons and water cooling are more forgiving to detonation. In air cooled engines we need that little extra fuel to cool the combustion and improve cooling overall, especially the exhaust valves.

As long as you have normal timing, mixture (rich above 75%) and no fault or malfunction that can lead to pre ignition, you are NOT going to melt metal. Malfunctions that can cause detonation, or more correctly pre ignition first than detonation, is a cracked spark plug ceramic insulator. A hot spot in the plug can cause the mixture to pre ignite well before top dead center. The preignition may lead to detonation. Again detonation is runaway combustion that is abrupt and at much greater pressures and temps. Once it starts damage can occur very quickly.

Again in the sky ranch book, John address lubrication in great detail. It really is a must read and well worth the $20. I have a copy and will not sell it. I needed to re read it, it is that good. I also recommend going to the Lycoming web site and reading the key reprints. The key reprints was published by some very knowledgeable old timers at Lycoming for years and there are pearls of wisdom in there.FLYER- Key reprints from Lycoming on Operations and Maintenance

George


rv9aviator said:
I use to fly two stroke ultralights and one thing you don't ever do is pull the throttle back during climb out. In a two stroke the fuel has a lot to do with cooling the piston. Pulling the throttle back just a little is the best way to sieze an engine. Once the plane is leveled off and proper cooling is restored then you can back off the throttle.
Jim: Interesting and yes there is some correlation. The only comment I would make is the valves on the Lycoming are critical and the two-stroker has no valves as such, but the point is valid. As I mentioned in the Lycoming key reprints, one recommendation is to make slow changes in throttle and mixture changes.

George
 
Last edited:
aadamson said:
... My comment was that AL melts at 662 degrees. I believe that is fact. ...
Be careful of the units. Aluminum does melt at ~ 662 deg CELSIUS or 1223 Deg Fahrenheit.

-mike
 
Tail between legs

Ah, shucks... Guess I messed that one up....But it doesn't change the problem. 470+ F degrees of CHT, in a climb is not healthly for your engine.

That's really the point I wanted to make. And I'd hate for anyone to continue to run one that way and have problems down the road. It's just too much $$$ (and skin) to do that.

I'll go back to lurking and building now... I did get all my pushrods prep'd, alodyned, and ready for paint...

Alan :>
 
A good write up on CHT

From a old Avweb article:
Ref: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How about CHT, Anyway?

CHT can be measured by a thermocouple washer under a spark plug, or by a probe screwed into a threaded boss in the cylinder head casting. The latter is probably more accurate. But there are wide temperature variations at different points around the circumference of the cylinder barrel, with some poorly-baffled cylinders showing up to 150? F difference between the hottest and coolest points! Poor baffling will also show up in large variations between cylinders.

But we've got to start somewhere, and again, the old manuals reflect a great deal of experience:


http://www.avweb.com/newspics/pp18n.jpg

(Note: above graph does not show absolute values but you can see the yeild strenght drops sharply above 200C and above 232C (450F) for get it you are loosing strength. Now this is is a 1940's somthing graph and does not directly apply to a little Lycoming but it is interesting,gmcjetpilot)


This chart from the Pratt & Whitney "The Aircraft Engine" shows what happens to aluminum alloy used in the cylinder heads and pistons of our engines. This is a scary chart, because it's obvious that even at normal operating temperatures, we've already given up a substantial amount of strength. The redline CHT on my IO-550 is 460? F, well out in the "short period of time" area. I would prefer to stay out of that region entirely, and looking at the sharp gain in strength going from 450? F to 392? F (200? C), I think the conservative pilot ought to limit CHT to that 200? C value, as much as possible.

There is some support for this. The P&W book goes on to say:

"The higher limiting temperature (500? F) is for a restricted period of time, and is confined to take-off, to maximum performance in climb and level flight, and emergencies. The temperature limit for restricted operations should, therefore, be used for the shortest possible time only, and must never be exceeded."

"The lower limiting temperature (450? F) is the maximum for continuous operation. It should never be exceeded except under the restricted operating conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph. It is sound practice to hold the cylinder head temperature 50? F (30? C) below this limit to keep the cylinder head materials at high operating strength." [emphasis mine.]


That puts us squarely at 400? F, a nice, easy-to-remember number.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take what the author says sometimes with a grain of salt, he likes to promote the GAMIjectors (tm), but its still good old info. George
 
Last edited:
Alan, I just noticed you were talking about Temps in Celsius and I was talking Fahrenheit. As Paul Newman would say (A failure to communicate) :eek:
 
Last edited:
I'm used to seing CHTs in the lower 300's with a Cont O-470 so it's kinda surpriising to see 400 plus numbers reported in the CAFE data. Are high CHTs experienced on RV 6/7/8s as well? I'm under the impression the cowling is similiar.

RSmith
 
RV's are HOT!

RSmith said:
I'm used to seeing CHTs in the lower 300's with a Cont O-470 so it's kinda surprising to see 400 plus numbers reported in the CAFE data. Are high CHTs experienced on RV 6/7/8s as well? I'm under the impression the cowling is similar.

RSmith
O-470 in what? How fast are you going with that O-470?

RV's are going almost 200 mph or more on 160 HP. To make planes go fast you can't have lots of excess cooling drag. I don't have a lot of Continental experience, or at least Cont'l experience with engine monitors.

RV's are tightly cowled but it seems to me from my experience, this particular RV-9A tested and subject of the cafe report is running 30-40F hotter than average. I expect most RV's in the summer (which is when this test apparently was taken with equivalent field or surface ambient temps of 100F) to run CHT's in the 380F range. My personal experience in my RV-4 is 380F is a peak except in the most hot conditions (Arizona in the summer).

Some RV's run cold others hot. You are correct that cowls are similar but the RV-4 is known to run very cool. Why I don't know. CHT tends to be a factor somewhat of model but also engine. The 200HP IO360 runs hotter than any other engine in the RV. Regardless anything under 400F CHT is goodness, most run well below this CHT temp.

There is no issue. Again remember they where running it WIDE open flat out on a very hot day. Apples and Apples. Take your O-470 out and fly it wide open throttle at full RPM and climb out at Vy to 8,000 feet and leave it wide open while you cruise around on a 100F degree day and tell me what CHT you have, airspeed and fuel flow. Again to go fast you can't be OVER cooled.

G
 
George, thanks for the reply. My bird is a venerable 182 with big holes and cowl flaps- lucky to get 140 mph going straight down......

Looked at some old figures on CHTs (I have an engine monitor-- and live in Phoenix). June 29. 6500/21"/2300 - about 65%: 324/318/335/326/318/360. June 29. 8500/21"/2300- about 65%: 320/320/343/328/304/344. June is pretty warm (damn warm) in AZ but I didn't record the OAT. I guess I just don't run more than 65%. On climb, I run at 23" and 2450- about 75%. Don't have any recorded CHT figures, but I recently replaced a cylinder and was watching its CHT carefully as I climbed. Got up to 389 at which point I lowerd the nose and reduced the temp. The others were a lot lower.

Just an education for me. Guess the tightly cowled RVs just run hotter. And faster. Clearly, a reduction in drag makes the RVs go 140 mph straight up!

Roger
 
I haven't been able to access the Cafe Foundation's web site for a few days... are they having a problem or am I?
 
it's not just you

I tried to access the CAFE Foundation page yesterday and today...no luck. Must be on their end. jack
 
Build9A said:
I tried to access the CAFE Foundation page yesterday and today...no luck. Must be on their end. jack

Not sure that this probably helps too much, assuming they get their website figured out, but the report is also in two of the summer issues of Experimental Aircraft Technology. Be warned: if you haven't read it yet and are not a -9 builder, you will wish you were one after reading it! :cool:
 
ExpAircraftTech

Speaking of Experimental Aircraft Technology magazine, I've tried several times over the last 2 weeks to reach these people to purchase a subscription and back issues. No response to emails. No response to phone messages. I finally reached their sales office and was told the editorial office had phone problems (still unresolved) and they were going to transition to electronic format from paper.
Anyone else have any luck reaching this outfit?
Steve
 
What?

Build9A said:
I tried to access the CAFE Foundation page yesterday and today...no luck. Must be on their end. jack
Joking? I know EAA had a bit of the parting of the ways, but was surprise to read in the letter form the EAA Pres, Tom P., in the last Sport Pilot he was lavishing compliments on Cafe Foundation and claiming there long and undying support?


I wrote Tom when they I though the made decisions to not publish Cafe Foundation reports and support them any longer. I guess they support them? I am confused what the stand is. If you like the Cafe Foundation and the reports write the EAA, Tom Poberezny in particular and tell him what you think about Cafe Foundation and the lack of technical articles in Sport Aviation Magazine. (I don't have his address, does any one? Could be:
tomp(at)eaa.org, tpoberezny(at)eaa.org? not sure).


Any way I want a RV-7 test. George
 
RV9A flap position

For those who are flying their 9A, what flap position do you use for takeoff under normal takeoff conditions? I noticed that the CAFE report mentioned take off with full flaps? I don't use full flaps, in fact I don't usually use any flaps during the takeoff. Just wondering if any of you have experimented with no flaps, 1/2 flaps and full flaps for take off? Comments appreciated. Jack
 
Full flap takeoff

I have 12,000 hours and 1000 in RV's and don't personally know any RV or plane for that matter that uses full flap for takeoff. Of my RV time none in a RV-9 BTW, but would be amazed if that was normal procedures. I don't have the report in front of me, but if that is what it said I might guess it is a typo. G
 
typo

G: I think you are right. The reference to full flap take off is on page 3 in the chart at the top of the page. After reading it, I think the full flap reference was probably supposed to be on the next line down regarding landing speed. The narrative says that they used 15 degrees of flaps on take off. je
 
Cafe airspeed error

In the Cafe report for the 9A they found a 7 or so mph error in the airspeed indicator/pitot system showing lower airspeeds than actual. It has been a while since reading the report, but my memory seems to be coming with 2mph of error in the pitot system, and 5 or so in the indicator.

On my 9A the same appears to be the case. When flying beside two certified planes I fly with often my airspeed indicator seems to be almost exactly 7 or 8 mph lower than theirs (true). Trying to collect better information I flew the plane at 7500' at 90 degrees apart at 0,90,180, and 270 writing down the speed at each heading after it settled in. Later using the on line calculater I found on the Livermore EAA's local site determined that the airspeed indicator is in fact reading low.

On other trips when flying with other RV's, sixes for clarity here, my airspeed indicator seemed to match with the others. I guess what I'm trying to ask is if there is a trend for the pitot systems and airspeed indicators read low on RV's? Have any of you done 4 way runs to check the accuracy of your airspeed indicators? Just curious... If your going to have problems I guess these are the kind to have. Serendipity?

Here's a link to the airspeed calculator.
http://www.reacomp.com/true_airspeed/index.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top