What's new
Van's Air Force

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

I have THE fastest RV-9/9a

bsacks05

Well Known Member
Yes, I will claim the title of fastest -9/9A until proven wrong.:p
Here is my proof: http://aprs.fi/?call=kj4efs&mt=m&z=11&timerange=3600
You will notice that my track is more or less straight and level and that I did two runs roughly north/south. (I can fly more accurately but needed a starting data point.)
Average the 181mph and the 184mph and you get 182.5
Want to try and steal my title? Go ahead - just be prepared to prove it.
So come on all you -9/-9As out there with your fancy shmancy glass panels, wall to wall leather interiors and shiny paint jobs, who's the fastest? Right now it's me. (The phone is ringing, must be the endorsement offers rolling in already!)
I bet I can go even faster if I had minimum fuel and threw out the 10 lbs of **** I have in the baggage compartment.
Come on, it shouldn't be too hard to beat a 160hp fixed pitch (wood) carbed -9 should it?
Post your winning results and I will relinquish my title as worlds fastest RV9!! BOOYA:D
 
Bruce,

You got me. However, when I replace my climb prop I'll take you on. Right now the best I can do is 178 MPH at 2860 RPM and my. The problem I have is my continuous power redline is 2600 RPM.

Once I get a new prop, get ready to be taken down! ;)

PS. I couldn't view your flight. It was asking for a Callsign to log in.
 
My bad.
Call sign is KJ4EFS. I thought it would be on the link.
Anyway, I'll take on all 9s. Just be ready to prove it!
 
You know the easiest way to settle this is go and enter yourself in a SARL race. The Air Venture Cup is quickly approaching. Deadline for entries is May 31. As they say "When the flag drops the bull stops". These races are a whole pile of fun and bragging rights too. At least until the next race.
Wayne Hadath
F1 Rocket
Parts Kit (275 hrs)
 
Yes, I will claim the title of fastest -9/9A until proven wrong.:p
BOOYA:D

Bruce, I know this is in fun but do you realize there is at least one 9A running 220hp and many others with 180 hp out there. Who needs a spanking like the one that is coming if one of those guys comes clean with their numbers. I'll be watching anxiously though. :rolleyes: But in the mean time, congrats on having the fastest 9 on the planet, with proof that is. (Will the CAFE Foundations test of the factory 9A count as proof? If so it isn't looking good for your record)
 
You are correct Bryan, this is all in fun. I am really just jazzed about my new APRS install and the info provided by it.
HOWEVER, the CAFE foundation data is not accessible to me via their website for some reason and the only "official" performance data on the 9s is on Vans site. Hmmmmm:rolleyes:
 
Sorry to dissappoint you, but you can't use APRS to determine speed accurately.

Speed is estimated by packet arrival time, and packets may be arbitrarily delayed in the network. Timestamps are of no use, because the APRS.fi website does not use them.

If you look at APRS raw packets, you'll see that many are discarded because the speed is >500 km/hr. This is because the first packet is delayed while the second is not. Two packets close together in time can indicate a large speed.

Now, 500 km/hr is fast, and I have packet logs that prove mine is faster!

Vern
 
Thanks H,
Guess I didn't look in the right spot the first time.
Anyway, I can now proclaim "I have the fastest CUSTOMER built RV9/9A" :D
Bring it on y'all and, oh yeah, bring your data as well. ;)
 
Bruce,

You got me. However, when I replace my climb prop I'll take you on. Right now the best I can do is 178 MPH at 2860 RPM and my. The problem I have is my continuous power redline is 2600 RPM.

Once I get a new prop, get ready to be taken down! ;)

PS. I couldn't view your flight. It was asking for a Callsign to log in.

You actually have a cruise prop. now...it just happens to be optimized for cruising at 10,000 + feet.
Find the altitude that allows you to run full throttle, level, at 2600 RPM and I predict you will easily better his speed (I am assuming you have the fixed pitch Sensenich and that the RPM you quoted was at 4-5000 ft.).
 
You actually have a cruise prop. now...it just happens to be optimized for cruising at 10,000 + feet.
Find the altitude that allows you to run full throttle, level, at 2600 RPM and I predict you will easily better his speed (I am assuming you have the fixed pitch Sensenich and that the RPM you quoted was at 4-5000 ft.).
Sensenich on my 135 HP O-290-D2, nope it is a Catto. There isn't a Sensenich I'm aware of that will work with my engine airframe combination.

As for 10,000 feet, nope, I can still over spin my engine at that altitude.

What I would take Bruce on is a short takeoff contest. I'm thinking I might be able to get off the ground before him.
 
Oop's

Sensenich on my 135 HP O-290-D2, nope it is a Catto. There isn't a Sensenich I'm aware of that will work with my engine airframe combination.

As for 10,000 feet, nope, I can still over spin my engine at that altitude.

What I would take Bruce on is a short takeoff contest. I'm thinking I might be able to get off the ground before him.

I assumed with the 2600 RPM limit you had a Sensenich on an O-320...Sorry.
Your speed is still quite good with an O-235.
It sounds like you do need a different prop.
Get something that will let you turn 2600 at 10,000-11,000. This is where the higher aspect ratio wing on the 9(A) helps it to really perform.
 
Sponsorship Deal

Hey, I'll sponsor you, provided you put my name in 1/4" letters somewhere on your aircraft! How's a dollar sound? :D
 
Bruce, I know this is in fun but do you realize there is at least one 9A running 220hp.......

Sorry Bruce, I owned the 220 HP 9A for 400 hours, and traded it on a -10. 75% cruise was 202 MPH,........... but of course this is not as well documented as your 9A so until it is "proven" you hold the record.;)
 
Sorry Bruce, I owned the 220 HP 9A for 400 hours, and traded it on a -10. 75% cruise was 202 MPH,........... but of course this is not as well documented as your 9A so until it is "proven" you hold the record.;)

Larry, how was the climb? Your old airplane interests me greatly and sharing some numbers would be a great read for us.
 
I assumed with the 2600 RPM limit you had a

Your speed is still quite good with an O-235.
It sounds like you do need a different prop.
Get something that will let you turn 2600 at 10,000-11,000.
Not an O-235 but an O-290-D2. It puts out 135 HP at 2600 RPM and 140 HP at 2800 RPM for five minutes.

I've talked to Craig Catto and need to do some speed runs now that I'm almost finished with all the fairings so he can size a new prop for me.

The goal is to hit 2600 RPM at 8000 feet DA, not 10-11,000. At that DA, I should be able to put out 75% power with full throttle. Right now I'm RPM limited to around 64%. :(

Knowing how well my plane climbs, I can only imagine how one with more HP would do. Larry's former 220 HP -9A sounds like it might go straight up.
 
Last edited:
2600 at 8000 won't get 75%

The goal is to hit 2600 RPM at 8000 feet DA, not 10-11,000. At that DA, I should be able to put out 75% power with full throttle. Right now I'm RPM limited to around 64%. :(

Bill, depending on other things like ram air boost, you should not be able to get 75% with 2600 at the 8000 DA that we all use as 75% air density. You'd need 2700. Roughly estimated, 26/27= .963 or 96% of 75% = 72.2%. Still, you might...

Anyhow, I'm very satisfied with how my re-pitching by Craig worked out. I get about 2650 at around 8500 DA. You will probably be very happy with yours, too.
 
Yes, I will claim the title of fastest -9/9A until proven wrong.:p
Here is my proof: http://aprs.fi/?call=kj4efs&mt=m&z=11&timerange=3600
You will notice that my track is more or less straight and level and that I did two runs roughly north/south. (I can fly more accurately but needed a starting data point.)
Average the 181mph and the 184mph and you get 182.5
Want to try and steal my title? Go ahead - just be prepared to prove it.
So come on all you -9/-9As out there with your fancy shmancy glass panels, wall to wall leather interiors and shiny paint jobs, who's the fastest? Right now it's me. (The phone is ringing, must be the endorsement offers rolling in already!)
I bet I can go even faster if I had minimum fuel and threw out the 10 lbs of **** I have in the baggage compartment.
Come on, it shouldn't be too hard to beat a 160hp fixed pitch (wood) carbed -9 should it?
Post your winning results and I will relinquish my title as worlds fastest RV9!! BOOYA:D
If the measure of "fastest" RV-9A is to be via a two way average on reciprocal headings, then all you need to do is look for a day with high wind speed at altitude. Do two runs at 90 degree to the wind direction, and the average ground speed will be higher, even at the same TAS. E.g., if the TAS is 175 kt, and the wind is 60 kt, the ground speed on each run at 90 degrees to the wind will be 185 kt.

In truth, if the numbers are coming from a two way average on reciprocal headings, they should be subtitled as "most misleading use of statistics", rather than "fastest" :)
 
OK, OK I know I can humbly admit that my little bird may not be the fastest and the thread was posted in jest from the get go.

HOWEVER, as one last data point, I just got in from flying and the results are here: http://aprs.fi/?call=kj4efs&mt=m&z=11&timerange=3600
The average of my NSEW speed runs is 184.5mph. This agrees with what my GPS showed me as my GS during the runs. I will accept this as my "official" top speed.

But much more important than all this, is the fact that none of it would be possible in a country without personal freedoms.
My little flight today is a salute to all those who have sacrificed to make it possible for us to motor around in the beautiful, free skies in speedy little aeroplanes.
 
Oops again

Not an O-235 but an O-290-D2. It puts out 135 HP at 2600 RPM and 140 HP at 2800 RPM for five minutes.

I've talked to Craig Catto and need to do some speed runs now that I'm almost finished with all the fairings so he can size a new prop for me.

The goal is to hit 2600 RPM at 8000 feet DA, not 10-11,000. At that DA, I should be able to put out 75% power with full throttle. Right now I'm RPM limited to around 64%. :(

Knowing how well my plane climbs, I can only imagine how one with more HP would do. Larry's former 220 HP -9A sounds like it might go straight up.

I read O-290 but still typed O-235, Duh.
I know that above 7,500 - 8,000 it is impossible to get 75% power but that still doesn't mean you cant go faster up higher.
The loss of power with altitude is not a linear change relationship with the drag reduction you gain as you climb. Van did a good writeup on this that used to be included in the construction manuals (RV-4, 6, etc). I don't think it is in the manuals any more. I used to own a 160 HP RV-6A with a three blade fixed pitch wood prop. It would true out at 165Kts (190 MPH) at 11,500 - 12,500 turning 2600 RPM at about 7.5 GPH. Because of the lower prop pitch it still had very good takeoff and climb performance (even for a three blade).
The long wing on an RV-9 gives it even more of a performance boost as you cruise at higher altitudes.
This is also the reason that many people think the recommended Sensenich props for RV's are under pitched. For the most part they are not. Using a lower pitch gives you both a climb prop. at lower altitudes, and a cruise prop for high altitude all in the same prop. This goes against what we have been taught to think because most pilots wont bother to try climbing to 10,000 Ft + with a fixed pitch airplane, and there would be no performance benefit in doing so with the props they typically have. Most airplanes of this type have props that prevent a pilot from being able to over rev at low altitudes. This severely restricts the performance as soon as you climb above the altitude at which you can produce max. continuous power. Because of this we have been taught to think that a climb prop and cruise prop are totally different things. they can actually be the same prop depending on what altitude you are using for your data points.

Get a hold of an older construction manual and read the write up Van did on prop selection. It explains it much better than I can.

BTW the RV-6A with 180 HP Lyc. and Sensenich fixed pitch that I own now can over rev at 8,000 ft. I have no intension of changing it.
 
Hi Bruce,

WOW--184.5----that is a bit better than I can do--but wait--my mistake--I thought you were talking kts???

Cheers,

db
 
I get 185mph at 8000DA and am very happy about it! I can't equal Van's top speed down low, but I do gain speed on higher. Our O-320/Catto three blade 9A is considerably faster at 12,500, although I haven't really run three-way speed runs at that altitude and therefore won't quote any figures. Talking to Craig Catto about it, he said that the lower MAP allowed the electronic ignition to advance and increase the rpm, even with somewhat less air. Let's just say I was amazed!

Bob Kelly
 
Larry, how was the climb? Your old airplane interests me greatly and sharing some numbers would be a great read for us.

Climb out was 2700 - 3000 FPM. It was an amazing ride. Where she (I'm too old to be politically correct sorry gals). really shined was at altitude and you needed to climb. At 10,000 MSL I could climb at 750 FPM. N932RV was a sweet plane. Don't let anyone tell you the 220 HP is too much for a 9. ;)
 
Like Bob, I have found that the 9 really likes to cruise above 10K ft. It must have something to do with the Ronz airfoil--in addition to things such as electronic ign. Maybe some of you aero engineers can better explain this, but as the power (and the fuel burn) drops off above 10k, it just does not give up airspeed very fast. For a non-engineer, it seems like the airfoil efficiency overcomes, to some extent, the loss of power in the thinner air. Comments??

Cheers,

db
 
Last edited:
Like Bob, I have found that the 9 really likes to cruise above 10K ft. It must have something to do with the Ronz airfoil--in addition to things such as electronic ign. Maybe some of you aero engineers can better explain this, but as the power (and the fuel burn) drops off above 10k, it just does not give up airspeed very fast. For a non-engineer, it seems like the airfoil efficiency overcomes, to some extent, the loss of power in the thinner air. Comments??

Cheers,

db

I love this thread. It's neat to see information coming out with more and more 9's flying now. Here's some info on mine after a ride this afternoon.

10,300' density altitude, but flying at 9,500' with 22"@2700 167 knots or
192mph. The air was a little choppy and it was hard to hold altitude so I think with smooth air and a little bit of playing with the mixture a couple of more knots could have been squeezed out of her.

8,300' density altitude, flying at 7,500', 24"@2700 168 knots TAS or 193 mph.

One thing that I re-confirmed doing this little test this afternoon is that it isn't worth the fuel burn to go a few knots faster. I usually run full throttle and 2300 rpm and get 162 knots or slightly less if loaded heavy. To get these extra knots the mixture was forward about 1/2" or so from where I'm used to seeing it in order to get enough gas running thru the carb to get on the rich side of peak. The above runs were made at 75 degrees rich.

I agree on the wing taking over up high and have noticed when traveling with other RV's that I have to ring the 9's neck down low to stay up. As we get high however the other planes start running more power and things even out some. There has never been a time though that a 180hp RV cannot run away and leave me if the pilot chooses to.
 
Ouch! You guys are claiming some blistering speeds. And, yes I realize my F/P Sterba wood prop is my Achilles heel in the speed department. Staying within Vans specified max power of 160 is also a handicap.

I also realize that most do not have APRS or some other way to objectively report actual speeds at different headings. Would be nice to see some independent, VERIFIABLE data, though. "Trust but verify" applies here I think.

Of course, if speed was all that important to us we would have built another flavor RV or another type homebuilt altogether.

You guys have me beat (I think). ;)
 
Time to show proof. I have a slightly slower 9A (mine is heavily built and loaded). At the time of picture taken, I was at 9,500', turning the propeller at 2,520 rpm, 74% power and doing 160 ktas (184 mph) (see the lower right corner of the display shown below). The 204 kts (upper left corner) ground speed is more impressive than the true air speed!


204kts.JPG
 
Mines NOT the fastest

Hey Bruce, I just came across this thread. I know it's posted in fun, so I would like you to move over and let me take the "official" top spot for the "Fastest RV-9". My prop is currently out to Catto to correct the "2880" RPM you see. I did get 191 mph on a different run, but no photos to prove it.

pw1ad.jpg
 
Does this count?

Does 247 mph count?

12:46 30.06 -84.33 133° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:47 30.02 -84.28 133° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:48 29.98 -84.23 139° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:49 29.93 -84.18 133° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:50 29.89 -84.13 133° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:51 29.85 -84.08 136° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:52 29.80 -84.03 136° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:53 29.76 -83.98 140° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:54 29.71 -83.94 133° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:55 29.67 -83.88 136° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:56 29.63 -83.84 136° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:57 29.58 -83.79 136° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:58 29.54 -83.74 136° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
12:59 29.49 -83.69 135° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
13:00 29.45 -83.64 134° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
13:01 29.41 -83.59 135° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
13:02 29.36 -83.54 135° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
13:03 29.32 -83.49 135° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
13:04 29.28 -83.44 133° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center
13:05 29.23 -83.39 138° Southeast 215 247 12,900 Jacksonville Center

Ok Ok, it's not a 9 but it looks good......
 
Last edited:
At least the speed was consistent for 20 minutes........and errrrrr the 52 mph push from Mother Nature was nice.
 
Yep, that's smoking fast. In august I saw 250 GS for about 3 hours coming back from Vetterman's flyin. Sucks going the other way though.
 
I know for sure mine isn't the fastest, but I'm certain mine is more fun that all of yours put together :).
 
Yeah, but...

I know for sure mine isn't the fastest, but I'm certain mine is more fun that all of yours put together :).

Yeah, but what about all of mine that's not put together? (okay, okay! I admit it: your airplane is probably more fun than my airplane parts!)

--Stephen
 
I know for sure mine isn't the fastest, but I'm certain mine is more fun that all of yours put together :).

I don't know Scott, mine is a 10 out of 10 on the fun scale. And yes, it's not the fastest Rv-9, in fact, I made no aim toward speed when I made my decision in building. Though, maybe my next plane that'll be an objective. ;)
 
I see that this is a pretty old thread but I am pretty certain that I have the fastest RV9 on the earth. But to be fair it has a turbo charged Yamaha engine. I can go all the way to VNE in level flight but of course fuel burn is not to good that fast...
 
I see that this is a pretty old thread but I am pretty certain that I have the fastest RV9 on the earth. But to be fair it has a turbo charged Yamaha engine. I can go all the way to VNE in level flight but of course fuel burn is not to good that fast...

Hopefully with Vne referenced as a TAS...........
 
I can go all the way to VNE in level flight but of course fuel burn is not to good that fast...

Hopefully with Vne referenced as a TAS...........

There is still no SB or SL from Van's informing pilots and builders that Van's Aircraft changed the definition of Vne from IAS to TAS many years ago for the older RV models. Van's did put out SL for the RV-14 containing that change, and for the RV-12s it's in the POH, but nothing for the older RV models.

And yes, I'm aware of the article "Flying High and Fast" that discusses IAS vs TAS for Vne, but it does not take the place of an SB or SL since SBs/SLs are where pilots and builders go to see SAFETY updates and changes Van's Aircraft makes to RV models.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For those with steam gages, and those with EFIS' that have not set Vne in terms of TAS.

i-t32pVQR-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi Carl
I figured you would be the next post in the thread:rolleyes:

And yes, I am aware, that you are aware.

As I have posted in the past, work is being done to address your concerns, it is just not happening very fast.
In the meantime, I think a lot of good work has been done to spread the word from many people including yourself, via the Facebook RV groups and here on VAF.
 
Hi Carl
I figured you would be the next post in the thread:rolleyes:

And yes, I am aware, that you are aware.

As I have posted in the past, work is being done to address your concerns, it is just not happening very fast.
In the meantime, I think a lot of good work has been done to spread the word from many people including yourself, via the Facebook RV groups and here on VAF.

Hi Scott,

No need for the 'roll eyes' emoticon.

And 'Glacial' would be the appropriate adjective for the speed at which Van's is addressing this SAFETY issue. I see other, less important things coming out of Van's and just shake my head.
 
Last edited:
Hi Scott,

No need for the 'roll eyes' emoticon.

And 'Glacial' would be the appropriate adjective for the speed at which Van's is addressing this SAFETY issue. I see other, less important things coming out of Van's and just shake my head.

Sorry, but I disagree. Vans has been very quick to recommend numerous service and safety bulletins related to their kits, and builders of their kits. I think it’s important to recognize that Vans Aircraft manufactures kits, not airplanes. We, as builders, are the manufacturers of these airplanes. How does this relate to Vne?

The FAA defines VNE simply as the aircrafts never-exceed speed. It is required to be determined BY THE MANUFACTURER during certification testing. What Vne has to do with IAS vs TAS simply put is-or at least should be-a situation wherein flight at VNE guarantees the airframe will be free of flutter, True Airspeed being the design limit here. While VNE isnt determined by reference to a true airspeed in any production airplane, flutters onset is. That becomes our Vne limit.

Why didn’t Vans Aircraft mention that in their early kit builders instructions? I would think it’s because the limits they designed their kit components to are structural design limits, and are relative to Indicated Airspeed. The flight limits (flutter) are determined by the manufacturer - you and me during Phase 1. Did I try to induce flutter during Phase 1 at Vne? NOPE. My builders manual recommended that I trust the engineering and flight testing done on my kit by Vans prior to kit production to ensure flutter margins and not to attempt that myself. I built my plane IAW designed plans and didn’t go there. Inducing flutter at or above Vne is likely a non-habit forming experience.

So much has been discussed about Vne relative to TAS that I’m pretty sure we all understand the distinction. Our airplanes that are at least mildly aerobatic and are susceptible to Vne exceedance, so we need to be keenly aware of the possibilities whenever our nose is below the horizon in a maneuver, and we need to know that our throttle is a very important flight control in that situation.

These are very safe airplanes when built and flown within the design limits, AND within the manufacturer’s limits.
 
I have adopted the TAS VNE as it does not make sense to ever go that fast in this airframe anyways. But thank you for reminding me of this possible flutter situation.
 
While VNE isnt determined by reference to a true airspeed in any production airplane, flutters onset is. That becomes our Vne limit.

Vne IS defined in terms of TAS (or combination of IAS and TAS) for a few certificated airplanes and many sailplanes to ensure that adequate flutter margins exist throughout the normal operating envelope.

Why didn’t Vans Aircraft mention that in their early kit builders instructions? I would think it’s because the limits they designed their kit components to are structural design limits, and are relative to Indicated Airspeed.

The designer sets Vne to insure that the airplane is safe to fly up to that speed for all engineering disciplines, i.e., loads, stress, stability & control, propulsion and flutter.

I believe that Van originally did not envision RVs flying to high altitudes. Van's considered them to be just all-around good sport planes and hence stated Vne in terms of IAS. Then Van's saw that pilot's were flying them to high altitudes, even into the lower Flight Levels, and realized that the existing Vne's may not be adequate to ensure proper flutter margins at altitude. So Van’s just took the existing Vne number and said it was no longer a constant IAS, but now a constant TAS number. Hence the the article "Flying High and Fast" that discusses IAS vs TAS for Vne, along with Smokey’s sidebar article on his flutter incident with his stock RV-4 as he descended from 11,500’.

The flight limits (flutter) are determined by the manufacturer - you and me during Phase 1. Did I try to induce flutter during Phase 1 at Vne? NOPE. My builders manual recommended that I trust the engineering and flight testing done on my kit by Vans prior to kit production to ensure flutter margins and not to attempt that myself. I built my plane IAW designed plans and didn’t go there. Inducing flutter at or above Vne is likely a non-habit forming experience.

When it comes to items like Vne and some other design limits, I disagree. The RVs are kit-built airplanes designed by Van's Aircraft. A minuscule number of builders (maybe none) have the knowledge and/or capability to do comprehensive flutter analyses, conduct a ground vibration test, and conduct flight flutter tests on their completed airplanes to understand where the flutter boundaries are, and thus set Vne appropriately. Maybe some folks racing their RVs at Reno have done some work along those lines, but only Van's has done the work and have the knowledge about their designs necessary to set Vne.

Also, when doing flight flutter testing, using stick raps and rudder kicks, one is NOT trying to induce flutter, but rather measure the amount of aeroelastic damping in the critical flutter modes at ever increasing speeds up to Vd. If that damping level goes below a certain point below Vd (usually g=0.03, where g is aeroelastic damping), then the test is terminated and everyone gets together and scratches their heads and looks for issues and fixes.

So much has been discussed about Vne relative to TAS that I’m pretty sure we all understand the distinction.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that is the case. Many RV pilots and builders, even some on VAF, are unaware that Van’s has now redefined Vne for the earlier models in terms of TAS. As Scott M. points out though, more pilots/builders now know that is the case because of the discussions here and on other forums.

Our airplanes that are at least mildly aerobatic and are susceptible to Vne exceedance, so we need to be keenly aware of the possibilities whenever our nose is below the horizon in a maneuver, and we need to know that our throttle is a very important flight control in that situation.

Couldn't agree more. But in order to do that, RV pilots need to know what Vne is for their airplane and that number has to be supplied by Van's. Since Van's has now acknowledged that Vne should be in terms of TAS for the RVs (and it was many years ago that they did), they need to officially communicate that critical safety-of-flight information to builders and pilots of the older RV models via an SB or SL ASAP.
 
Last edited:
Leaving speed on the table with this prop?

Bruce,

You got me. However, when I replace my climb prop I'll take you on. Right now the best I can do is 178 MPH at 2860 RPM and my. The problem I have is my continuous power redline is 2600 RPM.

Once I get a new prop, get ready to be taken down! ;)

PS. I couldn't view your flight. It was asking for a Callsign to log in.

I'm looking at buying a RV9A with a Sensenich prop. The owner had mentioned that his O320 D2A was placarded against operation over 2600 RPM. I wasn't aware of this and most of my flights are 12,000 to 14,000 and I normally spin my O360 at 2700 RPM in my RV 4 at this altitude.

So, I'm assuming that this a prop/engine placard and wondering if we are leaving some speed on the table with this prop?

Thanks

Tim
 
I believe the Sensenich prop has that 2600 rpm max when used with the O320. Doesn’t apply to the O360.
 
Back
Top