Experimentals

flyingriki

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
910
Display Name

Display name:
flyingriki
Experimental Performance

I know some of you guys live to bash us so go for it! Hope this fellow doesn't mind the cross post, identity deleted....

Recently I picked up an oxygen system and have been putting it to good use flying back and fourth between Houston, TX and Greenville, SC.

Typically the east bound flights take less than five hours and going west can add as much as an hour. Also, the east bound flights tend to be higher than west bound because I'm trying to take advantage of the winds or avoid them. Even with good tailwinds I usually land half way for a bio break and $4.45 a gallon fuel.

Even though my engine has a carburetor hanging from the oil sump, the dual P-mags allow me to run LoP, which helps with my fuel burn.

Today pretty much the entire US was covered with clear skies and before leaving the office I checked the winds aloft. 15,000 feet was forecast to be going my way at 35 to 40 knots. I thought that if I could get up there, then maybe I would have enough push to make the 720 mile flight non-stop.

Leaving Pearland (KLVJ) I contacted Ellington Departure and asked for flight following, which they promptly gave me and cleared me into Houston's Class Bravo at or below 3,000'. That is what I have come to expect, no big deal.

When Ellington handed me off the next controller asked me what altitude I would like I asked for 15,500', expecting they would hold me at 6,000' until well clear of incoming traffic. When the controller cleared me directly to 15.5 I stumbled in my reply and the controller wanted me to verify I was going to head up that high.

With 15,500' and 500 FPM dialed into the SkyView, up I went. Going through 8,000' I was at wide open throttle and leaning as I went up. It was also time to turn on the oxygen.

Those long wings on the -9 are amazing!

Even though the engine could only produce 48% power at 15.5 I was still going up at 500 FPM without any hesitation. I did notice some Dutch roll going on the last 1,000 feet or so. I'm not exactly sure what that was about.

Level at 15.5 I was pickup up 40 to 50+ knot tailwinds, the Dutch roll stopped, and the air was glass smooth. Great news, I knew I could make it all the way without stopping. What I didn't count on was being able to lean the engine to where it was putting out just over 40% power while burning just a nick over five gallons per hour.

With a burn rate of 5 GPH and a Ground Speed over 200 knots, I could easily make the 720 mile flight without stopping. Had I gone up to 17.5, I could have picked up another 10 knots of tailwind. Maybe I'll do that the next trip. (My feeling was to take flying up high like that in baby steps and not jump off a cliff.)
 
Last edited:
A simple web search on some of the more unique phrases yields the original post on VAF. These days there is nothing to be gained by leaving off attribution.
 
No bashing whatsoever (all flying is awesome), but no mention of the fuel burn getting to 15.5k...
 
No bashing whatsoever (all flying is awesome), but no mention of the fuel burn getting to 15.5k...
He did mention leaning as he climbed. It's pretty straight forward with the proper instrumentation.

Given 500fpm to 15.5 is roughly .5 hours and it's an RV9 which normally has something no bigger than a 360, the fuel burn in the climb would not be all that significant relative to the flight.

That kind of high performance personal travel using minimal resources is exhilarating, no doubt. Nothing like a tail wind
 
I've heard, absent the giant tailwind, it is not advantageous (fuel or otherwise) to climb high for NA airplanes.
 
I've heard, absent the giant tailwind, it is not advantageous (fuel or otherwise) to climb high for NA airplanes.

Depends. The higher you go, the higher your TAS for a given power setting, meaning increased efficiency. An airplane (like an RV) with a surplus of power can do quite well up high. At some point, the engine loses enough power that you can't maintain your desired cruise speed, so that's one practical limit. Oxygen is another, and the airplane's service ceiling and/or high altitude flight characteristics are another.
 
Fltplan.com will give you a nice comparison of speed and fuel burn for various altitudes if you put your airplane profile accurately in the program. It is seldom that it pays to climb on a shorter flight. My experience with a longer flight is that climbing helps most when it lets you avoid a fuel stop and the resultant time delay. Of course, each person values their minutes or hours differently so some may always say it's worthwhile to climb and save 1 gallon or to stay low and save 5 minutes or whatever.
 
A simple web search on some of the more unique phrases yields the original post on VAF. These days there is nothing to be gained by leaving off attribution.

Some folks get upset with what I've heard called "cross posting". Got chewed out once so don't know the proper etiquette....not hiding anything.
 
No bashing whatsoever (all flying is awesome), but no mention of the fuel burn getting to 15.5k...

It's not much Aeric. I get to 10.5 (solo) in about 12 horizontal statute miles starting at 1800 FPM and ending at about 900 FPM so can't have burned much. I remember how long it took in a C-172 so I understand your thought. Of course he got such great numbers with a nice tailwind. I've been throttled back to 2500 RPM over the Sierras on the way to Vegas and saw well over 200 knots on the GPS - that was a good day! Not so good coming home a couple days later....
 
Nothing to bash. Nothing illegal or unsafe here. Just an example of what a typical EAB can do with the right winds. I've done over 900 miles in the Velocity averaging 200 kts and done 700-800 mile flights in the Glasair also averaging 200 kts.
 
I've heard, absent the giant tailwind, it is not advantageous (fuel or otherwise) to climb high for NA airplanes.

Depends. The RV9 is on one end of the non-LSA line (smaller engines, bigger wing), MY RV10 on the other (260HP, 4 place). Raleigh to KEYW is my 700+ miler. With light winds, I can do it non-stop with IFR reserves. Though I consider 7-8k my sweet spot, going to 10 or 12 or even 14-15 can eliminate the stop, burn less fuel and save an hour.

LOP is key, leaning in the climb is a small help (faster climb and less fuel), accurate and comprehensive instrumentation is fundamental. Getting to a destination safely, cheaply and fast is a fun thing to chase. What else is there to do on a longish leg than drink coffee, plot one's way around weather and optimize the flight?

Oh, and flying summer skies in the east is often all about flying over as much weather as possible.

All of which is to say, adding O2 to my EAB cruiser has added significant capability even in the eastern US.
 
200 kts on 5 gph is some pretty economical travel. I wonder how many RVers have tackled turbo normalizing?
 
200 kts on 5 gph is some pretty economical travel. I wonder how many RVers have tackled turbo normalizing?
I do not believe many have. While some have hung larger engines than recommended by Vans, like in the case of the plane this thread is based upon, the issue of exceeding VNE is a concern.
 
Certainly quite good performance. From the various reports of electronic ignition benefits at altitude, that's something I would really like in the 310.
 
I think my trips are most efficient, cool, usually smooth between 8500-12500. I have tried various power/mixture settings as well as altitudes. At 16,500, similar wind conditions, I lost about 20 ktas down to 140 ktas, gained 2 nm/gal to 17 nm/g, noticed the 5 degree deck angle to maintain altitude(gross/aft limit, 32'9" stubby wings), noticed highest cowl outlet temp(230F), noticed improved radio reception, noticed no GA traffic and noticed my 32 nm glide range. Sure would be a bad place to catch on fire(hence my cowl outlet temp sensor). I think I was close to 9 gph, but I was hauling 4.
 
200 kts on 5 gph is some pretty economical travel. I wonder how many RVers have tackled turbo normalizing?

RV's are pretty tightly cowled and turbos generate a lot of under-cowl heat. We have a lot of very good experimental data working with cooling inlets and exits to cut the cooling air drag while still getting good cooling, and the guys that do the most work with the cooling drag mods have shown you get a better payback with a larger NA engine and cut the cooling drag down. Many of the 9 and 9A builders (myself included) have installed IO360's in the plane for that reason rather than the recommended 320.
 
Back
Top