What's new
Van's Air Force

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

I am afraid of my 360 powered RV 9A

Status
Not open for further replies.
....

Help educate the masses, answer the questions that need to be answered (bookmarks or other), and when this mess is over we can shake hands and I'll buy you a beer and you can call me whatever you want to call me.

It's not particularly YOU that makes me cranky like that - it's the memory of me when I was in that stage looking for data, and finding it so hard to get good hard facts. Then along comes another case of exactly that, and nobody does what obviously needs to be done. You represent the Mother Ship, more is expected of you, for good or not.

And for Earl - by way of illustration of Scotts point on Vno - just a few hours ago this morning I was coming from Houston to Midland at 6000' to avoid some truly horrendous winds higher, and was in the turbulence of a passing cold front. I had to pull power back by a few inches of MAP to keep comfortably under Vno in constant light-to-moderate turbulence. Up higher you can't get there, but down that low you certainly can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and this is another thread when having Mothership take position or explain would have been nice.

Why is Vans, save for the sales dept, not represented here on VAF?
 
Support

and this is another thread when having Mothership take position or explain would have been nice.

Why is Vans, save for the sales dept, not represented here on VAF?

I agree, that might have saved a bit of angst. Though I also learned a fair bit from the discussion.

I am sure that VAF saves Vans from an ongoing bunch of support calls, and therefore real time and money. So hopefully there is recognition of that by the Mothership and some assistance to DR to help keep this community going...
 
and this is another thread when having Mothership take position or explain would have been nice.

Why is Vans, save for the sales dept, not represented here on VAF?

I agree, that might have saved a bit of angst. Though I also learned a fair bit from the discussion.

I am sure that VAF saves Vans from an ongoing bunch of support calls, and therefore real time and money. So hopefully there is recognition of that by the Mothership and some assistance to DR to help keep this community going...

The mothership has very clearly taken a position, do not install a -360 in a -9. While he's not posting in an "official" capacity as a Van's employee per his signature, Scott has very clearly and concisely laid out why they set the horsepower maximum to 160hp. That is their design and the company line; I'm not sure what more you want from Van's on that front.

With that being said obviously in experimental aviation you can put ANY engine on the airplane. and it's ultimately up to the pilot to ensure the plane is operated in a safe manner, whichever engine is installed. but if you're looking for Van's to say go ahead and install a -360 if you do x, y, z, you'll be safe is not going to happen; that is not what the airplane was designed for. plus, their lawyers would faint :D Those same lawyers might be why Scott or other Van's technical employees aren't posting in an official capacity.

as for the OP i guess I'm confused on how you ended up with a -360 powered -9 if you weren't comfortable with the extra horsepower? were you not aware it was "overpowered" when you built/bought it? did you have an experience that scared you? as others have said it can certainly be operated in a safe manner, it will just take extra attention on your part. If you decide you don't feel comfortable with the extra horsepower, you're down to a engine swap or to sell the airplane.
 
We Like Power!

....My personal street vehicle weights in at 2067 Lbs. It is powered by one of our
engines, an all aluminum 461 Cu. In. turbocharged V8 that is producing 1,435 HP.
This car has put down several passes at 250+ MPH (gear limited) but needless to
say I don't do this on a daily basis. I do like having this power, is it needed, no, can
I do without it, yes. This is one of the things that makes life fun for me, and I am
very capable of deciding when and how much of this particular luxury I need. If it
isn't abused, or treated with a lack of respect there is no reason I shouldn't be able
to have it. I personally am not in need of someone deciding for me, how steep of a
hill I can climb, how fast I can accelerate Etc. That kind of rational would dictate all
cars can only have enough HP to go the speed limit, (this is coming soon with self
driving junk). This is one of the big attractions to the experimental aircraft, as in
the ability to customize to your desires and or needs. Freedom of choice, "Freedom"
being the key word! I believe a guy capable of building an airplane, is most likely
capable of operating the red knob appropriately. Just my opinion, and we all have
one. Be safe out there, and enjoy life. Thanks, Allan:D
 
I believe a guy capable of building an airplane, is most likely
capable of operating the red knob appropriately. Just my opinion, and we all have
one. Be safe out there, and enjoy life. Thanks, Allan:D

This is where we need to be carefull here. Lots of people come here looking for guidance and many, like the OP on this thread and many lurkers, did not build the plane, so can't use that as a benchmark on competence and ability to research risk reward.

Another thing to consider is liability if you sell that 9 with a 360 to someone else and they die from an airframe failure, that has negligence written ALL over it for the builder. Kit manufacturer clearly recommends NOT to install a 360 to avoid potential airframe failures. Look at the John Denver case for similar issues (builder moved fuel selector to a non-standard location and paid dearly for it - settlement amount is unknown). Vans even wrote a public document stating this and outlining the risks; You could expect to see that presented to the jury. The best liability shield is to follow the kit Mfg's guidance. Far more difficult to prove negligence in those cases, where you followed expert and reputable guidance. Concurrence of others on VAF does not fall into that category.

Larry
 
Last edited:
This is where we need to be carefull here. Lots of people come here looking for guidance and many, like the OP on this thread and many lurkers, did not build the plane, so can't use that as a benchmark on competence and ability to research risk reward.

Excellent point. The questions on VAF that are posed by individuals who have purchased an RV often demonstrate a breathtaking lack of mechanical knowledge. These individuals obviously come from the certificated community and are pilots who haven't a clue how all that noise under the cowl is created. Their aviation background is as a pilot, not a mechanic (or aircraft builder).

Valid answers to these questions are usually offered on this forum by informed and experienced builders/pilots, but I fear we often forget how little we knew when we didn't know how little we knew.......
 
I have no concerns if some want more power and know exactly what to do /not do with that extra power.

That said, just to offer another perspective for the benefit of those still building or thinking about building and who are perhaps putting more weight on this thread in helping them make decisions than they should:
1. In 8 years of flying my 160hp fixed-pitch RV-9 in the mountainous west, often at high density altitudes, NEVER have I needed, or even really wished for more power. Not saying it’s bad to have it, just that even without it my plane will far outperform anything I could ever have afforded in the certified world. When is enough enough?
2. One of the greatest resources we have here on VAF are a couple of Vans people who, for obvious liability reasons, can’t offer as much explanation as we sometimes wish they would. Still, if you read between the lines, they are providing some really good information that all of us here on the forum benefit from. Don’t be one of the people who chase them away!

To the original poster... don’t be afraid of what you built, even if I has more power than it needs or was designed for... just make sure you or anyone who pilots it knows its limitations. Good luck and have fun!
 
Last edited:
Valid answers to these questions are usually offered on this forum by informed and experienced builders/pilots

Yes, valid answers by informed and experienced builders/pilots... the rest is to be treated as rumours.

The OP worries about having an O-360 iso of a maximum recommended size O-320 in his -9. The question was why, as to what parameter could be the most dangerous, such as airspeed, loading, stalling, structural, etc, so he can apply the necessary caution or/and restriction whilst operating his ship.

Having somebody from Vans to officially explain that why, like some other companies on VAF such as Garmin do, would help.
 
I personally am not in need of someone deciding for me, how steep of a
hill I can climb, how fast I can accelerate Etc. That kind of rational would dictate all
cars can only have enough HP to go the speed limit

I agree 100%, but you have to keep in mind the OP posted that he was concerned about his -9 with a -360. I haven't seen anyone saying he shouldn't be able to have it or that it shouldn't be allowed; just that if you do have one you need to pay close attention to multiple factors that are more easily exceeded with the extra power.
 
Allan, enjoyed, and agree with, your commentary, and description of your "personal street vehicle". If I'm reading this right, it has 10 more horsepower than my first Navy airplane - the mighty 1425 hp., R-1820 powered, North American Aviation T-28 Trojan. "No substitute for cubic inches", eh?

Doug
Seattle area
 
I dunno, we've seen a couple of turbo RVs which will exceed 220 KTAS if you want to try that. You don't need to use all that power if it scares you.

Simple solution here, limit MAP and/or RPM to hold power down to 320 levels.

Can install a throttle stop if you can't trust yourself...

End of story.
 
I agree 100%, but you have to keep in mind the OP posted that he was concerned about his -9 with a -360. I haven't seen anyone saying he shouldn't be able to have it or that it shouldn't be allowed; just that if you do have one you need to pay close attention to multiple factors that are more easily exceeded with the extra power.

....You are absolutely correct, and I really didn't address the original post at all.
I went off on my rant and should have perhaps been a bit more tactful. I do feel
if you are going to fly an airplane, you should know the definition of your V numbers,
and pay attention to them. I come from a different place, and the goal in my
turbocharger business, our engine and dyno shop, high end off-road truck and
sand car building businesses is to give the customer as much HP as possible.
so far with many hundreds of customers, and over 2K vehicles built in our shops,
I have yet to have even one, come with the complaint of having too much HP.
I have not even considered a liability issue as being a driving force in any build.
It would be more likely I get sued because I failed to meet their HP expectations.
Wow! There I go again. Thanks, Allan..:D
 
I have not even considered a liability issue as being a driving force in any build.
It would be more likely I get sued because I failed to meet their HP expectations.
Wow! There I go again. Thanks, Allan..:D

Big difference between someone paying you to create an HP monster and Selling a full assembled "standard" RV-9 to an average buyer. It is easy for someone to assume that your RV-9 is similar to all the others along with their their demonstrated safety record. There is no inherent negligence when someone asks you to build a 1400HP vehicle and then kills themselves due to the abundant power.
 
Boy that went sideways fast...

Oh my. ‘Civil’ is literally the third word on the front page of VansAirForce.net, so you’ll understand why I’m locking this thread. I went back and cleaned up some of the posts. I thought that better than deleting the whole thread - there is some good info in it.

Please play nice in my house. Pretty please.

v/r,dr

PS: I locked the thread before Mothership Greg could post this. I copy/pasted his emailed words below:

DeeCee 57 said:
and this is another thread when having Mothership take position or explain would have been nice.

Why is Vans, save for the sales dept, not represented here on VAF?

For the record, we don't actually have a sales department. :) We are a small shop that tries to keep the cost to you down as low as we can. Our support team stays very busy with email and phone support for when you need it, and a few of us participate here on VAF to try to contribute to the community.

The mothership did take a position on this, both in this thread, on other threads on VAF, and in documents we've published in the past. For the record: Scott works at Van's and has worked here for more years than almost every other employee. He posts on behalf of Van's and also offers some of his own opinions where it seems appropriate. So do I, for that matter. We are community members and builders just like you.


I am sure that VAF saves Vans from an ongoing bunch of support calls, and therefore real time and money.**So hopefully there is recognition of that by the Mothership and some assistance to DR to help keep this community going...

Van's supports Doug's business financially - we purchase advertising - and in other ways. And in reality, we often get more calls of certain types in our support department because of something that comes up on VAF, so it's not as simple of an equation as "VAF reduces the Van's tech support load." For certain the VAF forums and community is a truly great and very important asset! I've been leveraging it for years myself. But even I was surprised when I started getting involved in support discussions how many support calls/emails are something along the lines of, "Yes, I read my plans pages and I get it, but this other guy on VAF said xxx." And yes, we answer those questions, too. :D

And, I'll put forward a more human, personal note that I'd just ask everyone to consider: We all (builders, pilots, Van's employees, etc.) are under a lot of stress right now and some of us have some incredibly difficult things happening in our lives. The kinds of things that don't get added to the VAF posts talking about RV-9 airspeeds, powerplants and Van's recommendations. All of us, collectively, could probably do well to take a step back and relax a bit. I had a boss once who took the common adage of "Don't wait, say/do something!" and instead made it, "Don't say/do something, just wait." It can be useful when opinions are strong and people are a little edgy/grumpy/getting old (that's a reference to me, not anyone else!) and whatnot (especially in the Internet age). And, for people who are experiencing tough times right now (I know there are some of us here in that situation) our hearts go out to you (and we thank you for your support, too!)

Related to the original topic... For the OP, who's flying an aircraft that causes him apprehension, there is one first-best route I would recommend above all others, and which someone suggested earlier in the thread. Get some training in your airplane from a competent and recognized RV training CFI. We have a list on the Van's web site.

Finally, when we use the term "Van's recommends" as connected to a design spec, two things that are good to to keep in mind:

1) We have specifically designed and tested the airplane for what is recommended. Of course, we stick to that -- it's what it was designed for with all appropriate and standard structural margins built-in, etc. It's based on actual math, not desire. The engineering safety margin belongs to the engineers, and our margins are based around industry-accepted practices.

2)**When you build the airplane, you make your decisions about engines, operating limits, modifications, etc. and you own them. When Van's doesn't recommend something, or even if we specifically recommend against something, that doesn't mean someone's going to show up at your shop to yell at you or anything like that. It's your airplane, and they're your decisions. We will consistently state the position of the designers and what our numbers and limits are. Especially in instances where there seems to be a lack of understanding regarding something, to where it could be propagating info that at the very least would be frustrating but potentially even be dangerous to the literally thousands of others that will be reading it. If we revise the numbers or a design for any reason, we will also state that. The choices you make relative to the factory's recommendations is your prerogative and responsibility as the builder of an experimental aircraft. We have said in the past and will reiterate here, that just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. But the choices are yours to make.

Okay, now let's go flying. :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top