RV-7(A) Cruise Performance Numbers

[SX-ALY]

Hi to all

This is my first post and i would like to congratulate all of you for this amazing forum, support and help you provide to each other builder. You guys act like a family. A big RV family.
I search these forums for months trying to find information about RVs, i visit many builders sites (Dan's and others) and i was impressed by the way those "little" planes performs, handles and flying according to their owners.
I have never seen one in person and all i know is from the internet.
I have my PPL and i flew C-152, 172, Warrior, Saratoga in the past.

My dream airplane is (was?) a Mooney 201, 231 based of their excellent efficiency and speed. I didn't like to cruise at 110 Knots like most of the certified 20+ years (or newer) 4 seat airplanes do. I was impressed by the 170+ knots cruise speed of the 231.

Then i found out about RVs. Van's claims cruise speeds up to 178 knots for a 7A 200 hp, or 172 knots for a 180 hp. (sorry i don't like to talk mph in airplanes, like it is a car)

What i like to ask is if those numbers are true and correct and if they are attainable for the average builder, building according to plans. I see very few builders posting real performance numbers on this forum (unless i couldn't find them). Dan is one of them that actually exceeds them.

What i like to have is an XC cruiser with an "easy" 170+ knots cruise speed not a race drag and the question is if this is possible with an 180 hp engine or you really need the more expensive 200 hp.
I know weight is not a big factor when talking speed (small difference in Van's numbers), but what variables really affect cruise speed other than power?
"Clean & straight" built is one but how "clean" is Van's test aircraft (antennas , steps, smooth surfaces, fairings alignment, etc).
Also i see that Van's 7A has no steps (at least on pictures).

I have more to ask about engines FI Horizontal, Vertical difference in power etc but i dont want my already long first post to be longer than a whole book.

Thanks in advance for your courage to read all this.

Thanos
RV-7A Dreaming

 

[KirkGrovesRV8]

Not a 7A

Hello just for your consideration...I have a 8(not 8A) and have a 0-360 with a Hartzell and get a easy 172-175kts TAS at 8000' burning 8-8.5gph. Flat out at 8000' I get 188kts TAS.

 

[tommylewis]

RV7a cruise

Yes, the RV7a does make Van's book speed numbers with an IO360 and Hartzell prop carrying two people cross country. BUT you will burn some fuel, 8.5 gal/hr or so. So most of the time I go for economy and run 2350/20" lean of peak and get 160 knots at 7 gal/hr at 8-10k. So take your pick. They are great cross country machines for two people and 100 lb of stuff.

 

[zkvii]

Hi Thanos

Like others I tend to pull the power back a bit for cruise, but our 7A with steps, aerials and lumpy bits and a 180hp injected 360 with standard pistons is stable at 10K (11.5K DA), 63% power, 20.8" / 2350, 27.5 lph (7.3 gph) and 161-162 kts TAS.

I'm still trying to work out the "best" numbers for cruise - in comparision if fuel burn is not a problem, straight and level, 1000' DA, WOT / 2650, ~60 lph (15.8 gph), 175 kt IAS.

Both of these tests were close to MAUW - which is two people, luggage, 2/3+ tanks or one up, full tanks and luggage++. Mine is by no means a 'fast' example, rigging has had some time / attention to detail, but goes well.

HTH,

Carl

PS: Dan C's has great numbers from his - it is FAST (& 200hp) but I understand pretty stock in most respects (RAM air a slight difference / mod) in build terms.

 

[pierre smith]

Welcome, Thanos....

....We have a -6A, dimensionally very close to the 7 series, with a three-bladed Catto composite fixed pitch prop, an 0-360/180 HP, pitched for max speed and easily do 170 knots at 2600 RPM and around 9 gph, two aboard.

WOT, we will exceed 174 knots with full fuel and two up at 7500' burning near 10 GPH, leaned.

Yes, Van's numbers are accurate.

Regards,

 

[BlackRV7]

Thanos, my 7 is right on the published numbers. As opposed to the some kit manufacturers, Van's numbers can be expected. There are several RV's in Cincy, mine is just off I-75 just south of Lexington. PM me and I'll set you up so you can get a little touchy/feely........be forwarned....it's will also touch your wallet

 

[rtry9a]

The 7a is a great plane, but from your specifications, it sounds to me like the 9a might be a good choice as well. You can get similiar ~180 speeds with smaller motors in the 0a, just depends on whether you want acro or not. IMHO, The 9a is a better cross country plane (just ask Vans which plane is the most popular with employees...). It is a bit more stable, has a slightly more efficient higher-lift wing, might be better suited for instrument flying. Also, its slow speed handling is better.

 

[Bryan Wood]

Seeing Is Believing

Thanos,

Sometimes you just need to see with your own eyes to believe. From what I remember this RV-7A has 180hp, but I'm not positive. The Mooney is an older 200 hp running at 5,500' at 25sq or some other very high power setting. The Mooney's owner now flys an RV if memory serves me right.

 

[SX-ALY]

Thanos,

Sometimes you just need to see with your own eyes to believe. From what I remember this RV-7A has 180hp, but I'm not positive. The Mooney is an older 200 hp running at 5,500' at 25sq or some other very high power setting. The Mooney's owner now flys an RV if memory serves me right.

Bryan, that was exactly the video that introduce me to RVs. Thanks for bringing it to my view again.

The 7a is a great plane, but from your specifications, it sounds to me like the 9a might be a good choice as well. You can get similiar ~180 speeds with smaller motors in the 0a, just depends on whether you want acro or not. IMHO, The 9a is a better cross country plane (just ask Vans which plane is the most popular with employees...). It is a bit more stable, has a slightly more efficient higher-lift wing, might be better suited for instrument flying. Also, its slow speed handling is better.

Thank you Mike. The reasons that make me prefer the 7 is for a little faster speeds (may with a bigger engine) and greater gross weight. Aerobatics are not a lot in my concern but is good to have them since prices are similar

Thanos, my 7 is right on the published numbers. As opposed to the some kit manufacturers, Van's numbers can be expected. There are several RV's in Cincy, mine is just off I-75 just south of Lexington. PM me and I'll set you up so you can get a little touchy/feely........be forwarned....it's will also touch your wallet

Dana, thank you for your offer, we may find out the way to meet in near future, food is on me of course.
They are not any flying RV7(A)s in Greater Cincinnati area as far as i know. There are 8, 9, 6 but no 7s. BTW i like the color

We have a -6A, dimensionally very close to the 7 series, with a three-bladed Catto composite fixed pitch prop, an 0-360/180 HP, pitched for max speed and easily do 170 knots at 2600 RPM and around 9 gph, two aboard.
WOT, we will exceed 174 knots with full fuel and two up at 7500' burning near 10 GPH, leaned.
Yes, Van's numbers are accurate.

Hi Pierre and thanks for providing your Numbers even if its not a 7. Are those top speeds or cruise (75% power for example ) that you provide cause 2600 RPM seems a little high for cruise (just asking).

Hi Thanos
Like others I tend to pull the power back a bit for cruise, but our 7A with steps, aerials and lumpy bits and a 180hp injected 360 with standard pistons is stable at 10K (11.5K DA), 63% power, 20.8" / 2350, 27.5 lph (7.3 gph) and 161-162 kts TAS.
I'm still trying to work out the "best" numbers for cruise - in comparision if fuel burn is not a problem, straight and level, 1000' DA, WOT / 2650, ~60 lph (15.8 gph), 175 kt IAS.
Both of these tests were close to MAUW - which is two people, luggage, 2/3+ tanks or one up, full tanks and luggage++. Mine is by no means a 'fast' example, rigging has had some time / attention to detail, but goes well.
HTH,Carl

Yes, the RV7a does make Van's book speed numbers with an IO360 and Hartzell prop carrying two people cross country. BUT you will burn some fuel, 8.5 gal/hr or so. So most of the time I go for economy and run 2350/20" lean of peak and get 160 knots at 7 gal/hr at 8-10k. So take your pick. They are great cross country machines for two people and 100 lb of stuff.

Hi Carl and Tommy and thanks for your replies. I understand that most people goes for economy cruise and burns less fuel with LOP and i like to do that also, but i want to be able to cruise with 75% power at 170+ knots with whatever fuel burn for hours if i choose to. (and that according to Van's numbers). I 'm not saying that cruise at 160 knots is slow(is it about 40 knots more of a 172 at MAX speed, WOW!) my point is if the average builder can meet Van's #s without special effort (assuming building according to plans).

Hello just for your consideration...I have a 8(not 8A) and have a 0-360 with a Hartzell and get a easy 172-175kts TAS at 8000' burning 8-8.5gph. Flat out at 8000' I get 188kts TAS.

Thanks Kirk, seems like 8s are faster than 7s and tail wheelers are also faster than nose wheelers. I like to have my flying partner on my side though unless is my mother in law

 

[rv7boy]

Thanos,
I've been a member of this forum for a few years (and a moderator too ) and you've already figured out something I've been wondering about for some time.

I honestly don't know how you insert those multiple quotes in your post. Can you (or someone) tell me? I've just never taken the time to figure it out.

Oh, I hope Doug doesn't "fire" me...or cut my pay!!!

Don

 

[N941WR]

...Hi Pierre and thanks for providing your Numbers even if its not a 7. Are those top speeds or cruise (75% power for example ) that you provide cause 2600 RPM seems a little high for cruise (just asking).

Thanos,

Welcome to the VAF forum and the wonderful world of Van's aircraft!

Running your engine at the redline when at 8000' DA you are putting out 75% power +/-. The engines are rated for this RPM, check your POH's, so those of us with fixed pitched props can and many do run them at those speeds. Down low, I was taught to pull back the power to keep the engine below 75% but up high, it is ok.

As for the speed numbers, I have an RV-9 with all of 135 romping stomping horse power up front and a climb prop and I flight plan at 140 knots burning a little less than 7 GPH. So yes, the -7's with a bigger engine and cruise prop can cruise at the speeds you are seeing.

BTW, yesterday I got my first ride in a friends RV-10. We wanted to do some speed tests after he installed the gear leg fairings and wheel pants on the mains, the nose gear leg and wheel were still uncovered. At 26 squared, that thing trued out at 190 knots. We were both in shock, at both the speed and the fuel flow.

Van has done a great job designing a great airplane!

 

[hecilopter]

Yes the numbers are right on or maybe conservative

My -7A easily gets the numbers and I have a carbureted Superior XP-360 and a Hartzell constant speed prop.

This pic is at about 6000 DA at 2350 RPM. Note the true airspeed of 200 MPH (173 kts)

This pic is at about 6500 DA at 2550 RPM. Note true airspeed of 206 MPH (179 kts)

Wide open down low, I have seen around 215 mph (187 knots).

That was me in the video by the way. And yes the Mooney driver now has his own RV-7A

 

[SX-ALY]

Thanos,
I've been a member of this forum for a few years (and a moderator too ) and you've already figured out something I've been wondering about for some time.

I honestly don't know how you insert those multiple quotes in your post. Can you (or someone) tell me? I've just never taken the time to figure it out.

Oh, I hope Doug doesn't "fire" me...or cut my pay!!!

Don

Hi Don, i ll tell you the secret but it may cost you a ride
Anyway this is my way, it may be an easier one.
When you do "quote" by hitting the button you see the word "QUOTE" in brackets, also at the end of the quoted text you see also "/QUOTE" also in brackets.

I copy the text i like to quote to my reply and copy-paste this text between those two "QUOTE" and /QUOTE in brackets. That makes the text like you see on my multi quote reply.
Those QUOTE words in brackets are commands, Whatever text is included between them are quoted to your reply post.

Edit There is an icon down to every post that has like two apostrophes on it. It says for multi-quote. I just find it out.

Hope was clear.

 

[SX-ALY]

Thanos,

Welcome to the VAF forum and the wonderful world of Van's aircraft!

Running your engine at the redline when at 8000' DA you are putting out 75% power +/-. The engines are rated for this RPM, check your POH's, so those of us with fixed pitched props can and many do run them at those speeds. Down low, I was taught to pull back the power to keep the engine below 75% but up high, it is ok.

As for the speed numbers, I have an RV-9 with all of 135 romping stomping horse power up front and a climb prop and I flight plan at 140 knots burning a little less than 7 GPH. So yes, the -7's with a bigger engine and cruise prop can cruise at the speeds you are seeing.

BTW, yesterday I got my first ride in a friends RV-10. We wanted to do some speed tests after he installed the gear leg fairings and wheel pants on the mains, the nose gear leg and wheel were still uncovered. At 26 squared, that thing trued out at 190 knots. We were both in shock, at both the speed and the fuel flow.

Van has done a great job designing a great airplane!

Thanks Bill, you are right. I just don't fly over 8000 cause all my trips were under 1 hour or so.
If I 'm not wrong i think your plane is a perfect example of the simple very affordable experimental homebuilt aircraft, I think something that Van's had in mind when he designed those planes.
Of course in 2008 everybody wants 200+ mph, 200+ hp, 3500 fpm, EFIS, MFDs, GPS, IFR, Autopilots, Electric trim & flaps, Digital Engine monitors, FADECs, EI, FI ,CS, Superchargers, SI, MI, TI and all little (?) gadgets that you can find now in the market.
I don't say i don't like them, i like to have them ALL, but
a. I can't afford them
b. Add so much weight

But finally thats the freedom of the experimental. You build it the way you like it (and afford it).

Thanks again

 

[N941WR]

Thanks Bill, you are right. I just don't fly over 8000 cause all my trips were under 1 hour or so...

That's one of the great part of flying an RV, they climb so well, going up high, even for short trips, is so easy.

Even when going on a 60 mile trip it is not uncommon to go up to 3,500 to 4,500 feet.

 

[SX-ALY]

My -7A easily gets the numbers and I have a carbureted Superior XP-360 and a Hartzell constant speed prop.

This pic is at about 6000 DA at 2350 RPM. Note the true airspeed of 200 MPH (173 kts)

This pic is at about 6500 DA at 2550 RPM. Note true airspeed of 206 MPH (179 kts)

Wide open down low, I have seen around 215 mph (187 knots).

That was me in the video by the way. And yes the Mooney driver now has his own RV-7A

Hi Rusty
This is a very nice plane and with very good performance!!
Thanks for posting your speeds here, helps a lot.
I guess that Mooney driver must love you!!

Thanks again

 

[L.Adamson]

Of course in 2008 everybody wants 200+ mph, 200+ hp, 3500 fpm, EFIS, MFDs, GPS, IFR, Autopilots, Electric trim & flaps, Digital Engine monitors, FADECs, EI, FI ,CS, Superchargers, SI, MI, TI and all little (?) gadgets that you can find now in the market.
I don't say i don't like them, i like to have them ALL, but
a. I can't afford them
b. Add so much weight

There is something to think about, since I seem to be around the situation a lot, lately.

When you and a group of friends decide to go on these 100, 200, 300 mile "mini" trips for breakfast, lunch, or the scenery.............it's nice to be able to keep up with the group. 40 or 50 knots slower, is just that.......s...l...o....w...e...r.

You may find that many don't want to power back that far; and you'll be left behind. Or you'll have to resign yourself to fly with a group of Cessna's, and be the "pack" leader!

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[SX-ALY]

There is something to think about, since I seem to be around the situation a lot, lately.

When you and a group of friends decide to go on these 100, 200, 300 mile "mini" trips for breakfast, lunch, or the scenery.............it's nice to be able to keep up with the group. 40 or 50 knots slower, is just that.......s...l...o....w...e...r.

You may find that many don't want to power back that far; and you'll be left behind. Or you'll have to resign yourself to fly with a group of Cessna's, and be the "pack" leader!

L.Adamson --- RV6A

Larry, I was just saying that Bill's airplane is an example of an affordable flying machine and i believe it fulfill his goals and give him a big grin.

The reason i start this thread is that i want to be fast enough, and ask for real world speed performance from builders with a I(O)-360 180hp 7A to see if they are getting 170+ knots cruise which is what i like to have.
My intentions, when i start building was (is?) initially to go with a IO-390 210 hp.
Is cheaper than the IO-360 angle valve and has more power.
I don't really care about climbing at 3000 fpm but i really love to go relatively high(12-14K) and still have plenty of power for a nice cruise speed.
I like the versatility of the "big" engine. You can go real fast and if you like, power back and just sip fuel.
I also like all new digital avionics and all features computer technology has to offer to experimental world.
As you see (if i ever make it) i' m not going to be with the Cessna group, but on the other side i don't really care to be first.

 

[jthocker]

Thanos

Come on over to HAO(Cincinnati Area). We have everything you're looking for over there. Examples ECI Titan engines with; fuel injection,carbs, Electronic ignitions, Tapered barrel cylinders, Dynons,GRT's.
No current 7A's(one just left and isn't far away), but there's lots of recent experience with 7A's and 6A's and the latest engine and avionics technology.

 

[SX-ALY]

Thanos

Come on over to HAO(Cincinnati Area). We have everything you're looking for over there. Examples ECI Titan engines with; fuel injection,carbs, Electronic ignitions, Tapered barrel cylinders, Dynons,GRT's.
No current 7A's(one just left and isn't far away), but there's lots of recent experience with 7A's and 6A's and the latest engine and avionics technology.

Hi Jon

You have an RV factory over there under my nose!!!
Sure i 'm gonna visit you. Hopefully you there on Sundays.
I may PM you for more.

Thanks

 

[reak]

Real cruise performance of my Rv7A

Hi Thanos,

This is also my first post but I've been lurking while building for years. My RV7-A has 110 hours. It's been fun and a wonderful learning experience. My RV7A is configured as:

Superior O-360A1A (carburated)
Sensenich FP as 85" pitch
Steps both sides
2 com antennas
external ELT and Transponder antenna

I've measured top speed carefully and at 8000ft ~40F, I consistantly see 170knots, 2700 RPM leaned as recommended by Lycoming for a fixed pitch prop. I don't have fuel flow but it's probably about 9 gal/hour. I measure this using the 3 leg GPS method and get consistant results.

I can go about 3-4 knots faster if I overspeed the engine to about 2750.

Now for the real world part. I never fly at 2700 RPM in curise flight, nor do I know anybody esle who does. I fly at about 2450 RPM and see 156 knots measured as above. I just returned from Las Vegas trip, flying at 12,500 and 13,500 and used an average of 6.3 gallon per hour, leaned as above, the legs were about 4 hours.

Practacalities of an 7A model. You will need steps, at least on the passenger side. Many of my passenger would have difficulty getting in or out of the plane without the steps. If you are atheletic or tall, you could get by without steps on the left.

Here is what I learned about going fast in the last 110 hours. A tail wheel model is faster than a nose wheel model. Get a constant speed prop if you want to cuise at the highest speed. Based on my personal experiece and that of friends, 170 knots is easily doable on 180HP at 75% power but I don't think that 170 knots is a realistic cruise speed with a fixed pitch propeller because of the high RPM required.

Steps and external antennas obvously slow you down but not by much. you You probably won't notice the speed reduction but you will notice the difficulting of getting in and out without steps.

--Brad

 

[SX-ALY]

Hi Thanos,

This is also my first post but I've been lurking while building for years. My RV7-A has 110 hours. It's been fun and a wonderful learning experience. My RV7A is configured as:

Superior O-360A1A (carburated)
Sensenich FP as 85" pitch
Steps both sides
2 com antennas
external ELT and Transponder antenna

I've measured top speed carefully and at 8000ft ~40F, I consistantly see 170knots, 2700 RPM leaned as recommended by Lycoming for a fixed pitch prop. I don't have fuel flow but it's probably about 9 gal/hour. I measure this using the 3 leg GPS method and get consistant results.

I can go about 3-4 knots faster if I overspeed the engine to about 2750.

Now for the real world part. I never fly at 2700 RPM in curise flight, nor do I know anybody esle who does. I fly at about 2450 RPM and see 156 knots measured as above. I just returned from Las Vegas trip, flying at 12,500 and 13,500 and used an average of 6.3 gallon per hour, leaned as above, the legs were about 4 hours.

Practacalities of an 7A model. You will need steps, at least on the passenger side. Many of my passenger would have difficulty getting in or out of the plane without the steps. If you are atheletic or tall, you could get by without steps on the left.

Here is what I learned about going fast in the last 110 hours. A tail wheel model is faster than a nose wheel model. Get a constant speed prop if you want to cuise at the highest speed. Based on my personal experiece and that of friends, 170 knots is easily doable on 180HP at 75% power but I don't think that 170 knots is a realistic cruise speed with a fixed pitch propeller because of the high RPM required.

Steps and external antennas obvously slow you down but not by much. you You probably won't notice the speed reduction but you will notice the difficulting of getting in and out without steps.

--Brad

Very interesting!
At above 8000ft (above 8000ft DA to be exact) you can't make more of 75% of engine power. Of course turning the engine at 2700rpm (or more) for cruise seems too high.
Forgive my ignorance, never flew that high and always set cruise RPM at 2400-2500 RPM in any fixed pitch prop i flew.
So the question is, can you run the engine with a fixed pitch prop that high above 8000 ft DA for hours without any problem??
It seems like a CS propeller shines in that case.

Thanks Brad, appreciate.

 

[rv7boy]

Hi Don, i ll tell you the secret but it may cost you a ride
Anyway this is my way, it may be an easier one.
When you do "quote" by hitting the button you see the word "QUOTE" in brackets, also at the end of the quoted text you see also "/QUOTE" also in brackets.

I copy the text i like to quote to my reply and copy-paste this text between those two "QUOTE" and /QUOTE in brackets. That makes the text like you see on my multi quote reply.
Those QUOTE words in brackets are commands, Whatever text is included between them are quoted to your reply post.

Edit There is an icon down to every post that has like two apostrophes on it. It says for multi-quote. I just find it out.

Hope was clear.

Thanks, Thanos (and Doug ) I feel enlightened now. Really, I learn something new everyday by visiting this site.
Don

 

[pierre smith]

Yes,

So the question is, can you run the engine with a fixed pitch prop that high above 8000 ft DA for hours without any problem??
It seems like a CS propeller shines in that case.

Thanks Brad, appreciate.

...you can, Thanos. In the Cessna Skyhawk manual it shows 75% as 2700 RPM and you can run there all day long. Higher than 8000' and your power goes down and it may not maintain 2700. The 0-360's in helicopters turn around 3000.

A CS prop is three times the weight of a Catto and three times the price. Mel has pointed out before that he's flown out of Leadville, Co, near 10,000' with a tired 150 HP engine and a FP prop. You give up a little climb and a little longer takeoff roll...650' instead of 350'...is it worth it?

Regards,

 

[L.Adamson]

It must be worth it, because I hope I never fly a plane with a fixed pitch prop again! Years ago, I flew the Piper Arrows with C/S. And then it was a few Diamond DA40's with C/S while building the RV. Now that the RV is done and flying...........I absolutely love everything about my Hartzell. Great takeoff performance, quieter in flight, and the C/S opens up many more possibilities in the landing sequence. And that's something the FP props just never can do!

L.Adamson --- RV6A/180HP/Hartzell C/S

 

[SteelMike]

For what it's worth, this is my favorite video of a high-speed RV. Love how the people vacate the runway and the reaction of - apparently - the cameraman!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBKXElY2Qug&feature=related

 

[SX-ALY]

...you can, Thanos. In the Cessna Skyhawk manual it shows 75% as 2700 RPM and you can run there all day long. Higher than 8000' and your power goes down and it may not maintain 2700. The 0-360's in helicopters turn around 3000.

A CS prop is three times the weight of a Catto and three times the price. Mel has pointed out before that he's flown out of Leadville, Co, near 10,000' with a tired 150 HP engine and a FP prop. You give up a little climb and a little longer takeoff roll...650' instead of 350'...is it worth it?

Regards,

It must be worth it, because I hope I never fly a plane with a fixed pitch prop again! Years ago, I flew the Piper Arrows with C/S. And then it was a few Diamond DA40's with C/S while building the RV. Now that the RV is done and flying...........I absolutely love everything about my Hartzell. Great takeoff performance, quieter in flight, and the C/S opens up many more possibilities in the landing sequence. And that's something the FP props just never can do!

L.Adamson --- RV6A/180HP/Hartzell C/S

Just the endless debate of FP vs CS props.
Both has advances and drawbacks, is just a personal choice of purchase cost, performance versatility (climb & cruise) and maintenance cost.
You go with what fits your goal (and you pocket).

 

[SX-ALY]

For what it's worth, this is my favorite video of a high-speed RV. Love how the people vacate the runway and the reaction of - apparently - the cameraman!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBKXElY2Qug&feature=related

Mike

You may consider built or purchase something like this in order to go places likes the one you have on your signature

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zioQVUSWcY

 

[Ron Lee]

You wonder about flying above 8000 feet. I seldom fly that low. When I flew from Fort Pierce FL (FPR) to Crystal River FL (CGC), a distance of about 143 nm, I still climbed to 10,500 feet. You stay above the Cessnas and Pipers.

With a FP prop, I usually run at 2550 to 2600 rpm.

 

[SX-ALY]

You wonder about flying above 8000 feet. I seldom fly that low. When I flew from Fort Pierce FL (FPR) to Crystal River FL (CGC), a distance of about 143 nm, I still climbed to 10,500 feet. You stay above the Cessnas and Pipers.

With a FP prop, I usually run at 2550 to 2600 rpm.

Hi Ron
Thanks for posting.
Do you have an RV-7(A)?, Can you post Speed with those settings, consumption, power %. Thanks!!
I love to fly high may just below oxygen levels. Less traffic, less drag, great mileage with a tailwind, economy, etc.
The planes i had driven wasn't able to efficiency climb up there for 1 hour trip.
C-152, 172, Warrior all have a shallow climb above 5000 ft specially in summer time, so it didn't worth it for the duration of the flight.
RVs are something else, they are powerful(for the weight), slick, and climb at altitude in few minutes, so you can take advance of the high altitude (and with the help of a tailwind) go fast and efficient even with a short(for an RV) 1 hour 150 NM trip.

 

[roadrunner20]

You wonder about flying above 8000 feet. I seldom fly that low. When I flew from Fort Pierce FL (FPR) to Crystal River FL (CGC), a distance of about 143 nm, I still climbed to 10,500 feet. You stay above the Cessnas and Pipers.

With a FP prop, I usually run at 2550 to 2600 rpm.

Sorry, I have to ask as I'm from this area. Why would you climb to 10.5k to go such a short distance over terrain < 200 agl?

 

[SX-ALY]

Hi Dan

Is that IO-360A1A an 200hp engine? Can you post cruise speed with your catto prop, RPM, consumption, altitude. Thanks

 

[SX-ALY]

Sam James cowl SJ cruise performance gain RV-7(A)

One of the other ways to increase your cruise speed is to reduce drag.
Sam James cowl hypothetically does that and claims an 6-8 mph increase in speed (if i' m not wrong).

So are there any that build it that way? And what your Cruise/top speed performance with that cowl compare to Van's numbers?

I red that you need a prop extension to fit SJ cowl, unless you ....what?
Is any limitation of aerobatics, CG, etc with a prop extension?
Any installation problems (many i guess), ever regret it, or went with Van's original after you face all of kind of problems?

Thanks in advance

 

[dhall_polo]

cincy vaf

Hi Jon

You have an RV factory over there under my nose!!!
Sure i 'm gonna visit you. Hopefully you there on Sundays.
I may PM you for more.

Thanks

other vaf in your area:


By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/us

 

[SX-ALY]

other vaf in your area:

Thanks Don for the map.

 

[mannanj]

Cruise

Thanos:

Quit dreaming and start building. It isn't that hard and it's not Rocket Science. The secret is perseverance. Do something toward finishing the plane every day.

As for speeds; I have an engine and McCauley prop from a Mooney 201 in my RV-8. That same 200 hp engine and propeller pushes my RV-8 at an average speed of 175 kts. TAS at 7500 ft. all while loafing along at 2300 rpm and 23 in. MP. I usually burn 8.5-9 gph more or less at this setting. I tend to run a bit RIP. These are GPS verified speeds using a 4 way square average speed. I use these settings 95% of the time on my cross country flights.

I can go full throttle and 2400 rpm and get 185+kts. TAS with increased fuel burn. This test was done before I installed the Grand Rapids Sport with the fuel flow option so I don't know the fuel flow is here but I suspect it is around 10 gph. So far, I haven't felt it necessary to push the rpm's above that.

I have had the Sam James Cowl, plenum and wheel pants on my plane from the beginning, so I can't comment authoritatively on any speed improvements using Sam's products.

Yes, I did have to add an extension to my prop. I only do "Old Man's" aerobatics such as Loops, Rolls, Wing Overs, Cuban Eights etc, so I don't think there's a problem with the extension.

 

[SX-ALY]

Thanos:

Quit dreaming and start building. It isn't that hard and it's not Rocket Science. The secret is perseverance. Do something toward finishing the plane every day.

As for speeds; I have an engine and McCauley prop from a Mooney 201 in my RV-8. That same 200 hp engine and propeller pushes my RV-8 at an average speed of 175 kts. TAS at 7500 ft. all while loafing along at 2300 rpm and 23 in. MP. I usually burn 8.5-9 gph more or less at this setting. I tend to run a bit RIP. These are GPS verified speeds using a 4 way square average speed. I use these settings 95% of the time on my cross country flights.

I can go full throttle and 2400 rpm and get 185+kts. TAS with increased fuel burn. This test was done before I installed the Grand Rapids Sport with the fuel flow option so I don't know the fuel flow is here but I suspect it is around 10 gph. So far, I haven't felt it necessary to push the rpm's above that.

I have had the Sam James Cowl, plenum and wheel pants on my plane from the beginning, so I can't comment authoritatively on any speed improvements using Sam's products.

Yes, I did have to add an extension to my prop. I only do "Old Man's" aerobatics such as Loops, Rolls, Wing Overs, Cuban Eights etc, so I don't think there's a problem with the extension.

Hi Mannan and sorry for my delayed responce.
Thanks for posting and inspiration.
Its definitely difficult to compare speeds between different setups in RVs.
What do you believe about if you switch to Hartzell BA? (kind of theoretical question).

 

[kiwipete]

Saturdays outting

Here's the figures for my trip on saturday.

RV7 with XP-IO-360 and Hartzell BA prop.

Flight time for the day 4.6 hours, 713 nm, average speed (including time taken for 4 departures and approach?s) 155 knots and 160 litres fuel used.
Cruising speed 8000' 165 TAS at 7.7 gal/hr

Peter

 

[SX-ALY]

Here's the figures for my trip on saturday.

RV7 with XP-IO-360 and Hartzell BA prop.

Flight time for the day 4.6 hours, 713 nm, average speed (including time taken for 4 departures and approach?s) 155 knots and 160 litres fuel used.
Cruising speed 8000' 165 TAS at 7.7 gal/hr

Peter

Thanks Peter for your info. Do you ran any 75% speed test (8000 DA, WOT etc).
BTW i sent you a PM.

 

[roadrunner20]

Hi Dan

Is that IO-360A1A an 200hp engine? Can you post cruise speed with your catto prop, RPM, consumption, altitude. Thanks

Sorry I missed your post until now.
No, it is a 180hp, forward induction.

 

[mannanj]

Performance

Hi Mannan and sorry for my delayed responce.
Thanks for posting and inspiration.
Its definitely difficult to compare speeds between different setups in RVs.
What do you believe about if you switch to Hartzell BA? (kind of theoretical question).

Thanos:

I believe that my prop is probably almost as efficient as the Hartzell BA. Maybe it's the Sam James Cowl/Pelnum/Wheel Pants that make me a little faster. I have no quantative proof of either one as this combinations is what I started with.

Saturday, I flew in formation with a friend Allen Holcomb on about a 250 nm. round trip. He has a 180 carburated Lycoming with the standard Hartzell prop. I have a 200 fuel injected Lyc with the McCauley prop. We flew outbound at 4500ft. and inbound at 5500ft. We both were running 2400 rpm and 24 in. Manifold Press. We stayed pretty much equal the whole way.

On the way back at 5500 +or - we both were indicating about 175 + kts. It was about 42 deg F. and both our TAS readouts on different EFIS's showed about 190 kts. I didn't check the pressure alt. He has a Dynon 180 EFIS and I have the GRT Sport EFIS.

When we refueled on our return, I took just under 1 gallon less fuel than he did. Perhaps it was leaning, or maybe a more efficient cowl--plenum setup.

Who knows You can bet that if you build it straight and light, you'll meet or exceed Van's published figures for speed.

 

[Radomir]

You're not meaning MPH by any chance? 190 kts true on 180hp (and not even full power apparently)?? I'd be VERY impressed

Thanos:

I believe that my prop is probably almost as efficient as the Hartzell BA. Maybe it's the Sam James Cowl/Pelnum/Wheel Pants that make me a little faster. I have no quantative proof of either one as this combinations is what I started with.

Saturday, I flew in formation with a friend Allen Holcomb on about a 250 nm. round trip. He has a 180 carburated Lycoming with the standard Hartzell prop. I have a 200 fuel injected Lyc with the McCauley prop. We flew outbound at 4500ft. and inbound at 5500ft. We both were running 2400 rpm and 24 in. Manifold Press. We stayed pretty much equal the whole way.

On the way back at 5500 +or - we both were indicating about 175 + kts. It was about 42 deg F. and both our TAS readouts on different EFIS's showed about 190 kts. I didn't check the pressure alt. He has a Dynon 180 EFIS and I have the GRT Sport EFIS.

When we refueled on our return, I took just under 1 gallon less fuel than he did. Perhaps it was leaning, or maybe a more efficient cowl--plenum setup.

Who knows You can bet that if you build it straight and light, you'll meet or exceed Van's published figures for speed.

 

[kiwipete]

Thanos

Sorry I forgot to say my trip on sat was mostly at 23' 2300
At this it normal has IAS 147 TAS at altitude approx 165
at 24' 2400 IAS 155

I haven't really tried running 8000' WOT figures. I'm quite happy enough at the speeds it's giving which I believe are pretty close to Van's.

Peter

PS If you really want speed there are faster aeroplanes out there. But if you excellent all round performance and the ability to land on grass etc as well as do sports aerobatics then I don't think anything else comes close.

 

[mannanj]

Numbers

You're not meaning MPH by any chance? 190 kts true on 180hp (and not even full power apparently)?? I'd be VERY impressed

Allen said that he was full throttle and 2400 rpm. The air was cold and was as smooth as glass, which I'm sure helped.

 

[SX-ALY]

Thanos:

I believe that my prop is probably almost as efficient as the Hartzell BA. Maybe it's the Sam James Cowl/Pelnum/Wheel Pants that make me a little faster. I have no quantative proof of either one as this combinations is what I started with.

Saturday, I flew in formation with a friend Allen Holcomb on about a 250 nm. round trip. He has a 180 carburated Lycoming with the standard Hartzell prop. I have a 200 fuel injected Lyc with the McCauley prop. We flew outbound at 4500ft. and inbound at 5500ft. We both were running 2400 rpm and 24 in. Manifold Press. We stayed pretty much equal the whole way.

On the way back at 5500 +or - we both were indicating about 175 + kts. It Awas about 42 deg F. and both our TAS readouts on different EFIS's showed about 190 kts. I didn't check the pressure alt. He has a Dynon 180 EFIS and I have the GRT Sport EFIS.

When we refueled on our return, I took just under 1 gallon less fuel than he did. Perhaps it was leaning, or maybe a more efficient cowl--plenum setup.

Who knows You can bet that if you build it straight and light, you'll meet or exceed Van's published figures for speed.

Mannan thanks for posting, TAS at 190KTS are impressive. Also seems that your 200HP engine is more efficient than the CARB 180HP (1 gallon less fuel for the same trip).

Thanos

Sorry I forgot to say my trip on sat was mostly at 23' 2300
At this it normal has IAS 147 TAS at altitude approx 165
at 24' 2400 IAS 155

I haven't really tried running 8000' WOT figures. I'm quite happy enough at the speeds it's giving which I believe are pretty close to Van's.

Peter

PS If you really want speed there are faster aeroplanes out there. But if you excellent all round performance and the ability to land on grass etc as well as do sports aerobatics then I don't think anything else comes close.

No, i don't really need more speed than that. Almost nobody cruise at WOT. Most of the people use more economic settings for cruise and 165Kts seems fairly good.
AFAIK I can't really see any other plane kit or certified that can do RV's speeds at RV's costs (initial and maintenance)

 

[Pbr47906]

Is this an open invitation?

Jon:

Would that invitation still apply to someone and his wife, just starting an 7A, however he is a Boiler fan and she is Notre Dame? (mixed marriage).

Ruley
N277PM

Thanos

Come on over to HAO(Cincinnati Area). We have everything you're looking for over there. Examples ECI Titan engines with; fuel injection,carbs, Electronic ignitions, Tapered barrel cylinders, Dynons,GRT's.
No current 7A's(one just left and isn't far away), but there's lots of recent experience with 7A's and 6A's and the latest engine and avionics technology.

 

[mikerkba]

Westward from Pueblo, CO: High altitude, high TAS

I moved my RV7A with a Superior IO-360, Hartzell Blended Prop, with Rod Bower's Ram Air Box (the earlier fiberglass version, which he since replaced with a beautiful aluminum version) from Virginia to Nevada last weekend.

It was a windy weekend, and I flew the first part of the route (KPUB HVE KELY) a bit higher than usual along this course to avoid turbulence. Later, I talked to an eastbound C-185 that reported a smooth ride at 13.5. So I descended to 14.5 and picked up 8 knots and still had a glass smooth ride.

In the picture below, the EFIS reported a TAS of 174 knots at 16.5 and a quartering headwind of 75 knots. With 55% power showing, the fuel burn was generally 7.1 or 7.2, though I note 7.4 is shown in the image.

FYI: I flew the plane for the first year with no gear or wheel fairings and my best repeatable cruise at 8500 was 152 ktas. With them installed and tuned, I now regularly see 168 or 169 (195 mph compared to Van's estimate of 199) at that altitude. Van's says to expect an 11 or 12 knot increase with the fairings, but that was a conservative estimate in my case, since I gained 16 or 17 knots.

I think the Van's numbers are very achievable. My 5 MPH reduction is probably due to:
- antennas, and
- the aluminum strip used at the base of canopy instead of glassing it in.

Mike (KELY)

 

[dhall_polo]

gps2tas

Hey Mike, others,

Try comparing your TAS as calculated from GPS versus what you're EFIS is calculating. I have discovered that my indicated and true airspeeds are low compared to actual.

Here's a free iphone program to do that. (Program uses fellow VAF'er Doug Gray's algs)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gps2tas/id381224165?mt=8

Don

 

[mikerkba]

Hey Mike, others,

Try comparing your TAS as calculated from GPS versus what you're EFIS is calculating. I have discovered that my indicated and true airspeeds are low compared to actual.

Here's a free iphone program to do that. (Program uses fellow VAF'er Doug Gray's algs)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gps2tas/id381224165?mt=8

Don

This software is useful, but I don't think is computes TAS. No altitude or temperature info intergrated into the formula, which are requred for calculation of TAS. Seems like it has the capabillity to compute winds aloft at yoru altitude though.

 

[Finley Atherton]

This software is useful, but I don't think is computes TAS. No altitude or temperature info intergrated into the formula, which are requred for calculation of TAS. Seems like it has the capabillity to compute winds aloft at yoru altitude though.

I have not used the iphone app but I presume it is similar to the widely used NPTS method, ntps.
My understanding is that these methods are more accurate and do not calculate TAS from IAS/CAS corrected for altitude or temp. Instead they use trigonometry/maths (totally beyond me) to calculate TAS and the wind direction and strength.
I am sure someone with more maths intelligence than me could explain it better.

Fin
9A