Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Feedback Needed - Homebuilt Aircraft Cruise Speeds

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    670
    Pazmany said low wing is better in an upright crash with wing structure below. An inverted crash obviously favors high wing. But inverted crash is usually fatal. So who knows? Too many variables.

  2. #12
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Pazmany said low wing is better in an upright crash with wing structure below. An inverted crash obviously favors high wing. But inverted crash is usually fatal. So who knows? Too many variables.
    But if the plane noses over and comes to rest inverted, the high wing is probably better. High wings usually have more structure in the upper half of the cockpit (think roll cage).

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin View Post

    I also think you're substantially overestimating the RV speeds - the ones I've flown in (or next to) are not as fast as you're listing.

    All my $0.02 :-).
    A lot of it is about engine choice. My 160 hp RV-6 can cruise at 190 mph, but I'm generally running 60-65% and 175 mph. The skinnier airplanes and the ones with more HP go a bit faster. The ones with poor attention to detail go slower. That's for sure.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    But if the plane noses over and comes to rest inverted, the high wing is probably better. High wings usually have more structure in the upper half of the cockpit (think roll cage).
    Yes, a high wing has structure in a roll over. But it is the initial impact that kills. A roll over is generally low impact. I saw a C-172 and a Glastar flip over. Both tipped over very slow with no injuries at all. Sure, the low wing needs some roll bars or cabin structure enough to keep the pilot from hitting

  5. #15
    Anymouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    2A2
    Posts
    255
    Didn't see a Tango on your list. I get an honest 180 knots with mine.

    I only know of two fatal accidents though, both were more than 15 years ago I think. The first was a fellow that was suspected doing unwise things with the aircraft. Things he was told not to do. The second was a fellow that was scud running and ended up on the side of a hill.

    These are both from memory.
    Someday I'll come up with something profound

  6. #16
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Anymouse View Post
    Didn't see a Tango on your list. I get an honest 180 knots with mine.
    I tend to leave off types with fewer accidents, since it's tough to draw conclusions over only a couple of cases. This is why a number of types aren't included.

    On a similar note, I have 17 Nieuport accidents in my database...but no reliable way to tell which are CIRCA/Graham Lee, Aerodrome, Redfern, etc. types. Eleven had VW engines, so I expect they're CIRCA. But, again, not enough accidents to draw conclusions.

    I didn't include the RV-12 as it's tough to differentiate the EAB from the ELSAs in the NTSB reports and FAA registry, and my focus is EABs. I attempt to track them, but generally don't include them on any released analyses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymouse View Post
    I only know of two fatal accidents though, both were more than 15 years ago I think. The first was a fellow that was suspected doing unwise things with the aircraft. Things he was told not to do. The second was a fellow that was scud running and ended up on the side of a hill.
    My 1998-2016 database is showing six Tango accidents in the US, but only one fatal (FTW01LA032, continued VFR into IFR conditions, with icing thrown in). I'm suspecting this is an aircraft nomenclature issue (e.g., aircraft model something that doesn't parse as "Tango"). I'd be obliged for more information, to help tune my database.

    Ron Wanttaja

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    126
    Pulsar XP is homebuilt, low-wing, with cruise speeds between 120-140 mph depending on engine choice.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin View Post
    I also think you're substantially overestimating the RV speeds - the ones I've flown in (or next to) are not as fast as you're listing.
    They go faster when nobody is around.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    160
    This is GREAT information! I hope you find a common thread.

    FAA and ASTM are working similar issues with the new re-write. They plot versus stall speed.

    i also know from previous work at a GA major that shoulder harness or not was a huge factor.

    keep up the great work!

  10. #20
    rv8bldr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Pakenham, Ontario
    Posts
    43
    I get 165kts (189mph) as a cross country cruise on my RV-8. Fixed pitch 3 blade Catto, 200hp IO-360, 9.2 gals per hour. I could go faster, but I'm too cheap to burn more fuel :-)
    -------------------
    Mark
    EAA 367635
    RV-8 C-GURV (Flying since Nov 2004)
    Bearhawk #1078 (under construction)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •