VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-9/9A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2022, 10:47 PM
skelrad skelrad is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 384
Default Explain Gross Weight for Engine Choice

What drives a gross weight changing with an engine size? I guess I expected the recommended gross weight to be the same for an airframe regardless of the engine in it, but the 9A has a different gross weight recommendation depending on the engine.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	E404833A-178A-4216-88D7-FF22090700D6.jpeg
Views:	266
Size:	243.5 KB
ID:	31513  
__________________
Brandon
RV-9A: Fuselage in progress
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2022, 11:02 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 746
Default

The engine horsepower would make a difference in the airplane's performance depending on maximum gross weight. That's maybe why Van's has the lower gross weight limits with smaller engines, in order to maintain their performance goals for the airplane, e.g., takeoff distance, rate of climb, etc.

However, the Van's RV-9/-9A Weight and Balance Data Quick Reference documents only show the Recommended Gross Weight of 1750 lbs (and the Maximum Utility Category Weight of 1600 pounds), with no mention of any horsepower-dependent recommended gross weight limits.

RV-9:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-cont...9/01/RV9wb.pdf
RV-9A:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-cont.../01/RV9Awb.pdf
__________________
Carl N.
RV-8
KAWO

Last edited by RV8JD : 09-25-2022 at 11:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-26-2022, 08:00 AM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 6,098
Default

My DAR granted me 100 pounds over based on my IO-360 and constant speed prop. He said anything more than that, and he wanted to see some engineering and performance test data, but he would grant 100 pounds for the engine/prop combo.

Of course, when I'm loaded close to gross, I'm carrying that excess weight as fuel in the wings very near the CG line too.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2023 dues paid
N16GN flying 1,250 hrs and counting on 91E10; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, IFD440, G5
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Repeat Offender - 10 empennage in process.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2022, 10:00 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 3,291
Default Interesting

Interesting because as the manufacturer of the aircraft, you can assign any weight you want as long as it is tested during phase 1. Wasn't there a guy that put a 3600 lb gross on an rv-10? I had not heard of a DAR that requires engineering analysis for modifications...until now. The other question is if provided with said analysis, would the DAR have the credentials to verify the analysis?
__________________
Bob
EAA Tech Counselor
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10-ER
N464RL
In Paint at Evoke!
Garmin G3X-T, Barrett EFII S32, CAI, MTV-9B

Dues+ Paid 2022,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2022, 10:18 AM
skelrad skelrad is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 384
Default

Huh. I hadn't given it a ton of thought. I just assumed the gross weight was what the airframe could physically "handle," as opposed to also making considerations for performance.
__________________
Brandon
RV-9A: Fuselage in progress
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2022, 10:27 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 13,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skelrad View Post
Huh. I hadn't given it a ton of thought. I just assumed the gross weight was what the airframe could physically "handle," as opposed to also making considerations for performance.
You’re not alone! Many pilots are told that gross weight is based solely on what the structure can handle, but in fact, many aircraft over history have their gross weights based on minimum climb performance.

Here in the RV world, with power-to-weight ratios that would be considered ludicrously generous in the Cessna or Piper world, it can be hard to see that - but check out the limiting performance on a C-150 on a hot day in Denver and you’ll see that they can barely climb.

So yeah….give thanks for the overpowered Rv’s, and have compassion for the folks that have to worry very day about density altitude…..
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.