 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dlm34077
Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Location: AZ
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:23 pm Post subject: RV10 performance |
 |
|
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pilotdds(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:56 pm Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
You wont be disappointed-but I would be cautious of a gross weight departure at 10000 density altitude in a cardinal but that's just me.TVL is a common airport for me and the rv-10 is one of the best,no,the best non turbo performers I have flown out of there.Havent had to circle the lake yet.Every rv-10 is a little different things like ei and higher compressions can make an even bigger difference at high da.
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dave.saylor.aircrafters(a
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:14 pm Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
[quote] Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: RV10 performance |
|
|
If you're using 2800 lbs for gross you will have a tough time finding comparisons, since most people are using 2700. Remember climb rate is very sensitive to weight.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:52 pm Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com (dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:11 pm Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:
[quote]We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com (dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arplnplt(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:20 pm Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up to?I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build ups coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it up there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
[quote]The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com (dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Whisky
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:32 am Post subject: Re: RV10 performance |
|
|
I attached my T/O table based on my T/O performance test. Please note that max RPM is reduced to 2500 due to noise regulation here in CH. Aircraft was at MTOW 2700 lbs / 1225 kg. take-off configuration flaps 1 = 0 degrees.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
195.43 KB |
| Viewed: |
8437 Time(s) |
|
_________________
RV-10 builder (flying)
#511 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:09 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
We have hit 22,000 close to gross, but it sure didn't like it up there. Over 18,000 the climb us terrible and the IAS is approaching stall.
Jesse SaintI-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:19 AM, David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com (arplnplt(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up to?I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build ups coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it up there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com (dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:00 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
17.5K in mine. Photo taken just after leveling off. This was during the 40 hour test phase – so solo (light).
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:09 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10 performance
We have hit 22,000 close to gross, but it sure didn't like it up there. Over 18,000 the climb us terrible and the IAS is approaching stall.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:19 AM, David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com (arplnplt(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up to?
I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build ups coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it up there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com (dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
012345 |
6789012345get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
678901
2345678901
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution |
234567890123456789
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
93.11 KB |
| Viewed: |
8433 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rene(at)felker.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:38 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
20,100 with rate of climb of 100’ a minute. Gross weight of 2800 at takeoff, CG on the aft edge and a little beyond. Done during testing to determine service ceiling
IFR flight between Ogden Utah and Las Vegas with just me and my wife…plus bags… 19,000. My wife does not like to fly in the clouds……O2 mask is a pain…..
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:09 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10 performance
We have hit 22,000 close to gross, but it sure didn't like it up there. Over 18,000 the climb us terrible and the IAS is approaching stall.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:19 AM, David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com (arplnplt(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
I am curious what the highest altitude anyone has taken their -10 up to?
I had mine up to 17,000 this weekend twice to get over some cloud build ups coming back from OR to WI. I was no where near gross but it made it up there with ease.
Dave Leikam
On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
We took off from UIO (SEQU) at probably 2,800 lbs, rolling uphill, and used about 3,000 ft or less. I think one notch of flaps. The -10 performs great there.
A -10 in Mexico is operating out of a 5,000 MSL airport 600M long and has to stay about 2,500-2,600 max.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com (dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
I've done a max performance T/O near gross weight at a DA that was just over 10,000.
Years ago we departed KEMM (ele. 7300') returning to California from Oshkosh.
Not much wind, warm afternoon. We used RWY 34, which is 8000' long.
Weight was gross less 15 gallons, call it 2600. We ran up and leaned for max power holding the brakes, and used half flaps.
We were well off the ground and climbing abeam the terminal, which is about 3500' of runway. I decided before T/O to abort if not airborne by that point since it was easy to identify.
That departure has been my rule of thumb ever since.
For example, we departed KCDC last earlier this month. DA was over 9000, right at gross weight, and T/O was a complete non-event. We were at least 1000' off the ground by the end of the 8600' runway.
--Dave
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
Does anyone have TO performance data? I have been using the only data point I have; I have an experimental point of 2800 gross, 80F and 5200 field elevation the tower confirmed a ground roll of 2500 feet. This was not a wind the engine prior to brake release type of data point. My rule of thumb has been any density altitude less than 10000 and runway length in excess of 5000 is Ok for a gross departure. Of course there are other factors to consider like nearby terrain and weather but these are all subjective.. Has anyone created or seen the Van's data on takeoff and landing performance data? My C177RG had an empty weight of about 1800 and a gross of 2800 on 200HP; Given the 260 HP of the RV10 I would expect at least a 30% improvement in density altitude performance. Has anybody other DA data points?
012345 |
6789012345get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
678901
2345678901
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution |
234567890123456789
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:41 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
16,500 with the family fully loaded....but it didn't climb very well.
I'm sure we could have made it higher, but I don't find much point
in going over 14K very much. It starts to become work again.
We don't carry O2 on all flights. I kind of missed it on the one
we just got back from though (write-up coming within 24 hours).
The problem (in my mind at least) with using 16-17k+ to stay above
the weather is that you don't have any performance margin left.
If you're plenty happy to be stuck back into the CB's, then fine,
but if you really want to stay "on top", you have already pushed
into the area where performance of the plane may not give you
much room. To each their own, but I just find it to be more
work as you pass 14K.
Tim
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rene(at)felker.com
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jchang10
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 227
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:11 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
+1 from me. The main challenge for me at high altitude airports like TVL is to remember to let the speed build up sufficiently and not expect it to literally jump off the ground like usual. My home airport is at sea level, so it is too easy to get used the power. Now at home when i am solo, i typically TO with partial power 1 or 2" less MP and save the WOT for higher altitudes.
| Quote: | --
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive |
On 6/24/2014 9:10 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
[quote] The thing I keep thinking of when I think of our RV-10's is how amazingly easy we have it. We basically can operate safely at most any temperature even at high altitude, and we can carry nearly as much luggage as we can physically fit into the plane. These planes are just amazing. The only real problem is, once you get used to these amazing capabilities, I'd bet that we become far worse off as pilots if we moved back into the spam cans that we came from. I've become so attached to my airplane that I don't know that I could ever be happy owing a Cessna 172 or piper warrior again.
Spoiled rotten, we are.
Thanks VANS for the great kit!
Tim
Do not archive
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:30 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
HAHA! Yeah, you got me pegged. 
Actually, 15K I think will get you over any granite in the lower 48,
right? (But definitely not with proper IFR clearances).
I wouldn't mind some day, just once, taking a cross country flight
where I only have the wife and I, and minimal baggage. I'm sure my
opinions are set because of my common mode of flight....loaded to
about gross, 4 seats filled. Man what that plane could do if it
were just me in the front, and the wife in the baggage area...for
better cruise C.G. performance, of course. 
Tim
On 6/25/2014 11:07 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
| Quote: |
For you flat landers that may be high enough, but for us guys with granite
at that altitude higher is needed.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bwestfall
Joined: 22 Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Location: Portland, OR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:44 am Post subject: RV10 performance |
|
|
Ha! Yeah, with me back there the cruise would be even faster!
Tim
[quote] On Jun 25, 2014, at 11:48 AM, "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> wrote:
Or better yet with your wife in the front and you in the baggage area!!!
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:58 am Post subject: Re: RV10 performance |
|
|
Guys, we need OAT data too. It's density altitude that matters here.
I've been no higher (that I recall) than 16,500' density altitude but that was with just 2 adults and some luggage, and it flew fine. Weight makes a big difference.
As to the original post: you cannot compare a 177 and -10, even of similar weight, and extrapolate climb rates, without knowing more information, like lift and drag data. But if you could magically put 260 HP into the cardinal and keep the weight the same, you'd see a huge increase in climb rate - a lot more than 30%.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocketman1988
Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: RV10 performance |
|
|
Y'all be careful out there...
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Whisky
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:50 am Post subject: Re: RV10 performance |
|
|
Here you go! During my climb performance test. I had to stop at 15k due to airspace clearance. OAT -9C at MTOW 2700lbs still climbing with 350ft/min at Vy. CHT gets quite high though.
Mike
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
151.45 KB |
| Viewed: |
8382 Time(s) |
|
_________________
RV-10 builder (flying)
#511 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
