Learning about the RV-10

[Dabb]

Hi,

I am a mechanical engineer living far from USA, my city is 900km north of Antartica´s shores on an island south of Argentina. Here weather is harsh. I want to have a plane capable of carrying me, my two kids and luggage in comfort at 165 knots TAS, doing 1500 miles trips split in two legs. There are a lot of RVs but very few RV-10 in my country, I have to go to some EAA meetings and be lucky to see one in order to talk to the owner. There is one that made it to Oshkosh some time ago. But in the meanwhile winter is coming and I have time to plan and learn about the aircraft I am willing to build. I already have a turbocharged lyco 360 which is doing near 210hp. I know I will have to install this engine and some mods will be mandatory, but here it is hard to choose neither buy anything so I should be grateful to have it. And this is one of the reasons I want to make a good analysis before adapting this engine.

In order to learn about the aircraft I would like to load its characteristics in a software (https://www.pca2000.com/index.html). It has really worked perfect for other airplanes I have checked in the past for me and friends. Once you have a working model and calibrated with real data, its really easy to check different missions, engines and setups (bigger fuel tanks, etc) . I already purchased the pendrive from VANS with the RV10 plans, but I was missing some information and I will really appreciate your help with this.
Some of the data that is hard to get from the USB plans is:
.- Wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers airfoils and their angles of incidence compared to the thrust line.
.- Weight of fuselage, wings and stabilizers without anything else attached to them.
.- Control surfaces´ angle of displacements and any schematics of the control mechanism lever ratios in order to assess trim and pilot input. I have a nice assembly drawing without any dimensions in order to draw it with the control surfaces in solidworks. How those control surfaces are balanced any dimensions for excentricities at their pivot point or additional weights.
.- Flaps displacement path.

Thanks in advance for your time reading these lines and excuse my english since its not the local language here. I already built a shred where I can build the aircraft, started buying some tools and talked to the VANs kit local dealers. In the meanwhile I will be reading VAF and trying to learn the most I can from the RV10s. I will share the end result for you to use with this software and I upload my results in the post once they are checked to be good enough.

Kind Regards!

Diego

 

[Mike S]

Diego, welcome to VAF.

The RV 10 really wants the weight and power of the IO540, I have doubts that you could get the performance you want with the 360T.

Good luck, hope you can make things work out.

 

[Dabb]

Diego, welcome to VAF.

The RV 10 really wants the weight and power of the IO540, I have doubts that you could get the performance you want with the 360T.

Good luck, hope you can make things work out.

Thanks Marks! I really want to check it out and do my numbers, thats why I ask for this data. If not, I will have to trade this engine for a 540.

 

[Auburntsts]

Seems to me a 10 with a turbocharged 360 might do reasonably well up high, but it's going to be a dog getting up there with only 210hp especially anywhere near GW. IMO you'd be way better off trading or selling the 360 and get a 540, which as Mike mentioned, is the powerplant the plane was designed around. Also there might be some weight and balance issues you're going to have to address plus engine mount and cowling mods.

 

[rocketman1988]

Considering that everything loaded in a -10 moves the CG aft, the weight of the engine becomes a considerable issue. You need that weight to balance everything else or you will always be CG limited instead of gross weight limited.

 

[Jjackh10]

Cowl and a modified motor mount could push the engine fwd a bit. Maybe make room for the battery in the engine bay. His motor has a little extra weight with the turbo. Add a relatively heavy CS prop and I'd think you could get the CG acceptable. You'd probably end up with a plane that performs a bit better than a SR20 which isn't bad. I love me some horsepower, but it would be a pretty nice plane and still out perform the certified options.

 

[BobTurner]

As you may know, Vans originally built two RV10 prototypes - one had a Continental IO360 (6 cylinder) engine rated at 220 or 230 HP. As usual, the lower HP airplane cruised a bit slower and climbed much slower, and Vans eventually decided not to pursue that kit. When things settle down at Vans, you may be able to get more details from them about the performance of that airplane, how they handled cg issues, etc. Also, the wing airfoil was designed by Steve Smith, who is active on VAF. He may be able to answers to some of your questions in that area.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

As you may know, Vans originally built two RV10 prototypes - one had a Continental IO360 (6 cylinder) engine rated at 220 or 230 HP. As usual, the lower HP airplane cruised a bit slower and climbed much slower, and Vans eventually decided not to pursue that kit. When things settle down at Vans, you may be able to get more details from them about the performance of that airplane, how they handled cg issues, etc. Also, the wing airfoil was designed by Steve Smith, who is active on VAF. He may be able to answers to some of your questions in that area.

The engine used was the Continental IO-360ES 6 cylinder. Same basic engine as the one used in the SR20.
It’s weight is quit a bit more than an angle valve 4 cyl Lyc, which is what made it work c.g. I wise.
I have about 10 hrs of time flying it.
It flew nicely and was very smooth. It is a little more limited utility wise because of the empty CG position.
It, of course, had lower overall performance, and in my opinion is not worth the trade-off from just starting with an IO 540 Lycoming

 

[MGR1977]

Hi,

I am a mechanical engineer living far from USA, my city is 900km north of Antartica´s shores on an island south of Argentina. Here weather is harsh. I want to have a plane capable of carrying me, my two kids and luggage in comfort at 165 knots TAS, doing 1500 miles trips split in two legs. There are a lot of RVs but very few RV-10 in my country, I have to go to some EAA meetings and be lucky to see one in order to talk to the owner. There is one that made it to Oshkosh some time ago. But in the meanwhile winter is coming and I have time to plan and learn about the aircraft I am willing to build. I already have a turbocharged lyco 360 which is doing near 210hp. I know I will have to install this engine and some mods will be mandatory, but here it is hard to choose neither buy anything so I should be grateful to have it. And this is one of the reasons I want to make a good analysis before adapting this engine.

In order to learn about the aircraft I would like to load its characteristics in a software (https://www.pca2000.com/index.html). It has really worked perfect for other airplanes I have checked in the past for me and friends. Once you have a working model and calibrated with real data, its really easy to check different missions, engines and setups (bigger fuel tanks, etc) . I already purchased the pendrive from VANS with the RV10 plans, but I was missing some information and I will really appreciate your help with this.
Some of the data that is hard to get from the USB plans is:
.- Wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers airfoils and their angles of incidence compared to the thrust line.
.- Weight of fuselage, wings and stabilizers without anything else attached to them.
.- Control surfaces´ angle of displacements and any schematics of the control mechanism lever ratios in order to assess trim and pilot input. I have a nice assembly drawing without any dimensions in order to draw it with the control surfaces in solidworks. How those control surfaces are balanced any dimensions for excentricities at their pivot point or additional weights.
.- Flaps displacement path.

Thanks in advance for your time reading these lines and excuse my english since its not the local language here. I already built a shred where I can build the aircraft, started buying some tools and talked to the VANs kit local dealers. In the meanwhile I will be reading VAF and trying to learn the most I can from the RV10s. I will share the end result for you to use with this software and I upload my results in the post once they are checked to be good enough.

Kind Regards!

Diego

Now I am curious to know on which island you live...?

 

[Dabb]

Now I am curious to know on which island you live...?

Tierra del Fuego Island, Ushuaia City.

 

[Mike Meehan]

Tierra del Fuego Island, Ushuaia City.

My wife and I were just in Ushuaia a few weeks ago. Would've been happy to sit down and talk with you about our RV-10. Another time.

 

[Jim F]

I just did first flight of my 10 3 weeks ago and second the thoughts about the IO-540. It is a fantastic engine and with the vans discount (still in place) it is a great deal, espectially if you take advantage of the engine-prop discount.
Considering the remoteness of your location and the lovely weather in that part of the world, I think you would be well advised to stick to the letter and detail of the plan and not get creative. The RV-10 has been tested and refined over two decades and even small modifications can be asking for trouble.
You want a reliable and fast airplane that can go the distance you expect. The 10 will be that if you build it as designed.

 

[Dabb]

My wife and I were just in Ushuaia a few weeks ago. Would've been happy to sit down and talk with you about our RV-10. Another time.

Its amazing how small is the world today. I wish you had a nice holiday at my province. There will be a next time!

 

[Dabb]

As you may know, Vans originally built two RV10 prototypes - one had a Continental IO360 (6 cylinder) engine rated at 220 or 230 HP. As usual, the lower HP airplane cruised a bit slower and climbed much slower, and Vans eventually decided not to pursue that kit. When things settle down at Vans, you may be able to get more details from them about the performance of that airplane, how they handled cg issues, etc. Also, the wing airfoil was designed by Steve Smith, who is active on VAF. He may be able to answers to some of your questions in that area.

Its clear to me that 210hp its not enough for most of you flying RV10s. The Cg can be solved, the issue is if the plane ends up being to underpowered that it become dangerous to fly.
I would love to start playing with the RV10s in my program. I know the airfoil must be propietary design so I will go for the same as a RV8. But I will like to know what can be measured easily from any RV that would be the angle of the wings and elevators respect to the thrustline since in the VANs plans it is not stated and while it can be measured in the Autocad, I am not sure of the precision of this method. Similar to model the control surfaces.

 

[Jjackh10]

Its clear to me that 210hp its not enough for most of you flying RV10s. The Cg can be solved, the issue is if the plane ends up being to underpowered that it become dangerous to fly.
I would love to start playing with the RV10s in my program. I know the airfoil must be propietary design so I will go for the same as a RV8. But I will like to know what can be measured easily from any RV that would be the angle of the wings and elevators respect to the thrustline since in the VANs plans it is not stated and while it can be measured in the Autocad, I am not sure of the precision of this method. Similar to model the control surfaces.

It's all opinion. There is a real reluctance to deviate from plans on this forum, but elsewhere folks still experiment in experimental aviation. A Cirrus SR20 is 350lbs heavier, and flies fine with a normally aspirated 210 horsepower. Certainly not dangerously underpowered.

Since your engine is Turbo'd, the gap between it and the preferred 540 diminishes every foot above sea level. Somewhere around 7000' density altitude the horsepower is equal. And above there you would out perform a 540.

 

[AirShowFan]

Certainly not dangerously underpowered.

Whenever I want to rent a four-seater, I try to book the local 200hp SR20. It's a very nice airplane, comfy and decently fast, nice handling... but its max climb rate and short-runway capabilities don't come close to RVs, not when it's full. And "full" either means "full fuel" or "full seats", definitely not both at the same time. This is all fine; In this way, the 200hp Cirrus is no different from the Cessnas/Pipers/LSAs that we all learned to fly in.

However, most RVs are overpowered enough that you can pretty much "Just fill it up, hop in and go", and that's kinda nice. The high horsepower-to-weight ratio of most RVs lowers the pilot's workload (No more having to estimate people's weight and figure out how much fuel you can put in, then calculate the DA and look up how much runway you need... except in relatively unusual combinations of baggage, altitude, temperature, and runway)... and, most importantly, it also makes for a safer airplane, all else being equal. It's probably at least a part of why we chose RVs.

It's all opinion.

That's true. And I bet that most RV pilots' opinion is that it's generally worthwhile to have a lot of hp relative to the airplane's weight (which is to say; VAF might be the wrong place to find support for the idea of a 210hp RV-10).

 

[Jjackh10]

Whenever I want to rent a four-seater, I try to book the local 200hp SR20. It's a very nice airplane, comfy and decently fast, nice handling... but its max climb rate and short-runway capabilities don't come close to RVs, not when it's full. And "full" either means "full fuel" or "full seats", definitely not both at the same time. This is all fine; In this way, the 200hp Cirrus is no different from the Cessnas/Pipers/LSAs that we all learned to fly in.

However, most RVs are overpowered enough that you can pretty much "Just fill it up, hop in and go", and that's kinda nice. The high horsepower-to-weight ratio of most RVs lowers the pilot's workload (No more having to estimate people's weight and figure out how much fuel you can put in, then calculate the DA and look up how much runway you need... except in relatively unusual combinations of baggage, altitude, temperature, and runway)... and, most importantly, it also makes for a safer airplane, all else being equal. It's probably at least a part of why we chose RVs.



That's true. And I bet that most RV pilots' opinion is that it's generally worthwhile to have a lot of hp relative to the airplane's weight (which is to say; VAF might be the wrong place to find support for the idea of a 210hp RV-10).

As I said earlier I'm all about horsepower. But the OP's question was around feasibility and safety. His desire is to use an engine he already owns vs spending a ton of additional money getting a new engine. Plus I'd guess engines aren't any easier to come by on his little island than they are here. So an airplane that performs a bit better than the cirrus, cessna, piper options might be a good way for him to go.

 

[Mconner7]

I have flown my -10 out of some live in airstrips well after midnight. To keep it quiet, I have taken off at 23”/2300 and it performs just fine, better than most certified planes. I disagree that 210 hp is dangerous, my 250 hp motor makes my plane scream. If you fly at gross, you may need 1500’ to takeoff vs 1000….yawn.

 

[Dabb]

As I said earlier I'm all about horsepower. But the OP's question was around feasibility and safety. His desire is to use an engine he already owns vs spending a ton of additional money getting a new engine. Plus I'd guess engines aren't any easier to come by on his little island than they are here. So an airplane that performs a bit better than the cirrus, cessna, piper options might be a good way for him to go.

Hi Jack,

You got it right. I want to make sure that I can use this engine safely and check how to put the cgs into the right place by moving things to the front or modifying the engine mount and cowlings. I would love to build it with 260HP but a new engine here cost 2.5 times the price at USA.

 

[Dabb]

I have flown my -10 out of some live in airstrips well after midnight. To keep it quiet, I have taken off at 23”/2300 and it performs just fine, better than most certified planes. I disagree that 210 hp is dangerous, my 250 hp motor makes my plane scream. If you fly at gross, you may need 1500’ to takeoff vs 1000….yawn.

23"/2300 it is almost 70% power, which would be 180hp. Thanks for the numbers.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

Hi Jack,

You got it right. I want to make sure that I can use this engine safely and check how to put the cgs into the right place by moving things to the front or modifying the engine mount and cowlings. I would love to build it with 260HP but a new engine here cost 2.5 times the price at USA.

One obvious thing you could do is move the battery forward. 25 lbs moved 8 feet or so would make a real difference. And 210-220 turbocharged hp should be fine, other than reduced acceleration and climb at lower altitudes.

 

[rocketman1988]

One obvious thing you could do is move the battery forward. 25 lbs moved 8 feet or so would make a real difference. And 210-220 turbocharged hp should be fine, other than reduced acceleration and climb at lower altitudes.

Substantially reduced climb…

 

[Jjackh10]

Substantially reduced climb…

A SR20 is 300+ pounds heavier and climbs at 780fpm at sea level on a standard day. Sure, a "substantial" reduction from a 260hp RV-10 at 1450fpm, but certainly safe.

Drop the 300+ lbs of fiberglass and parachute in a cirrus, along with anything other than sea level standard, and that gap won't be very "substantial".

 

[Jjackh10]

Hi Jack,

You got it right. I want to make sure that I can use this engine safely and check how to put the cgs into the right place by moving things to the front or modifying the engine mount and cowlings. I would love to build it with 260HP but a new engine here cost 2.5 times the price at USA.

Mconner7 has demonstrated takeoffs in his with around 180hp, So 210hp is demonstrated to be safe. I know everyone likes to play engineer and do maths. I'd wager a motor mount pushing the motor forward enough to use the stock cowl, combined with moving the battery to the firewall (using the space gained by pushing the engine fwd), would solve the cg issue.

The lighter engine and shorter/ lighter battery cables would also reduce your empty weight quite a bit. Meaning a smaller performance gap vs 540, or more useful load than 540.

 

[Dabb]

I am really grateful for all your insight about the engines and perfomance of the RV. I will do my best to use the engine I already have and thats why I want to know your opinions and also work out the idea in some aircraft design tools in order to learn more about the RV10 design capabilities.

Well looking for the data to model the plane at the computer I measured from VANs plans:
.- 1º angle between wing and thrustline and horizontal elevators are completely parallel.
.- Looking at the assembly and aluminium sheets specs I will work out the best estimate I can for the only fuselage weight and cg, so I can then model all the accesories, engine, etc cgs.

 

[rocketman1988]

A SR20 is 300+ pounds heavier and climbs at 780fpm at sea level on a standard day. Sure, a "substantial" reduction from a 260hp RV-10 at 1450fpm, but certainly safe.

Drop the 300+ lbs of fiberglass and parachute in a cirrus, along with anything other than sea level standard, and that gap won't be very "substantial".

Until you try it at a non standard summer day…

 

[rocketman1988]

Mconner7 has demonstrated takeoffs in his with around 180hp, So 210hp is demonstrated to be safe. I know everyone likes to play engineer and do maths. I'd wager a motor mount pushing the motor forward enough to use the stock cowl, combined with moving the battery to the firewall (using the space gained by pushing the engine fwd), would solve the cg issue.

The lighter engine and shorter/ lighter battery cables would also reduce your empty weight quite a bit. Meaning a smaller performance gap vs 540, or more useful load than 540.

I would bet that if you took the time to “do maths” you’d find that your assumptions aren’t quite accurate.

 

[vic syracuse]

Experimental aviation is just that---everyone is free to experiment. My observation over the years is that the majority of airplanes fly best with the engine for which they were designed. Yes, there are exceptions, but the majority of them are ADDING horsepower, not REDUCING it. The P-51 Mustang and even the Kitfox's and Super Cubs are great examples. I don't say this lightly, but I would not want the reduced horsepower you are talking about in my 10, especially given your mission of 2 adults, 2 kids (they do grow) and luggage. I know this might seem like heresy, but you might be better off financially and safetywise investing in a C-182 or a Bonanza (given your speed desire). As someone mentioned, trade the 360 for a 540 (even a carb'd one would do you better than the 360). The time and money you will spend on making the 360 work will most likely be offset by the time of trying to make the 360 fit. Sure there are changes you can make, but you would be surprised at how making some seemingly-little changes can wreak havoc downstream, requring lots of other mods.