RV 6

[drseti]

Frankly, I don't see much advantage to a turbocharger unless it's turning a constant speed prop (which, of course, the SLSA rules don't allow).

[MovingOn]

Delete

[designrs]

Not to advocate a the "wink, nod and placard" of a clearly overpowered LSA, but I'd be thrilled to fly legal throttle-back and get 120 kts cruise, anytime, on demand. Most LSA's I've flown realistically only see about 105 kts. Maybe 110 on a good day.

Sure, if you run WOT you might see 120 kts, but not too many people want to do that.
I'd rather have a realistically usable 120 kts and the placard.

If we are entitled to 120 kts, we should be able to have it!
Does anyone get 120 kts all the time in their LSA?

[drseti]

Does anyone get 120 kts all the time in their LSA?

Sure - downhill with a tailwind!

Realistically, I see 105 kts in a normal cruise. Can push it to 110 at WOT, 6.5 GPH, but what's the point?

[designrs]

Does anyone get 120 kts all the time in their LSA?

Sure - downhill with a tailwind!

Realistically, I see 105 kts in a normal cruise. Can push it to 110 at WOT, 6.5 GPH, but what's the point?

So wouldn't you want more throttle and a placard?

[CharlieTango]

I routinely see 123kts TAS at less than 75% power, 5gal/hour. Summer I slow down to maybe 119.

I wanted a low wing design but the CT performance, roominess, payload range and handling won over low wing looks.

[dstclair]

I get 119 KTAS at 5250rpm in my Sting which is around 5gph.

[drseti]

So wouldn't you want more throttle and a placard?

Maybe for a personal aircraft. Certainly not for a primary trainer.

[drseti]

I get 119 KTAS at 5250rpm in my Sting which is around 5gph.

All the composite planes have lower drag (hence higher speed) than the metal ones. My reason for choosing sheetmetal was strictly maintenance-driven. If speed were my priority, I'd certainly look at the Sting (or the CT, or the...)

[Jack Tyler]

WRT Richard's point above, getting 120 kts might satisfy but it's the mix of performance capabilities for the owner's mission that distinguishes one LSA from the next. I think this is the exact point that Charlie Tango is making. After finding the RV-12 lacked both volume and weight payload for our needs, we looked at the RV-6 and found the payload volume to be insufficient and I knew that planes built on a jig would require a more thorough and experienced pre-buy than e.g. the RV-7. And on my field this week, I was chatting with one of our EAA chapter members and hearing laments about his RV-7 being less than he'd hoped because of his concerns over the nose gear leg's vulnerability on unimproved runways (as we've discussed here before). It's getting that mix or balance of capabilities that's the challenge.

In response to Paul's Q about 'What's the point?' when being able to fly faster but burning more fuel, I'd suggest there are multiple reasons why faster can be better than slower. Which is why most of us covet the faster a/c over the slower one, all else being equal.

[designrs]

In response to Paul's Q about 'What's the point?' when being able to fly faster but burning more fuel, I'd suggest there are multiple reasons why faster can be better than slower. Which is why most of us covet the faster a/c over the slower one, all else being equal.

Because you can! Having the option to fly faster. You can always slow it down when you wan to fly slow but you can't get there faster if you don't have the capability.

[drseti]

Certainly, everybody understands the allure of speed. My point in "what's the point?" is that, in my plane, WOT makes little sense, in that it buys you only 5% more speed on 30% more fuel. If you want more speed, go with a sleeker, less draggy airframe - you won't get there with power alone.

Oh, and a constant speed prop makes a huge difference. As does retractible gear. But now, we're no longer talking LSA

[designrs]

Oh yeah. I'd have no interest with flying with the throttle to the firewall all the time. Excess wear and tear plus extra fuel burn just for a couple of knots. But I'd looooove to honor a placard to stay LSA legal in a more powerful aircraft where I could adjust the throttle between say 70% to 85% for an easy 120 kts any time smooth air allows.

[CharlieTango]

I'd have no interest with flying with the throttle to the firewall all the time. Excess wear and tear plus extra fuel burn just for a couple of knots....

It all depends where you live and fly. I generally do not have 75% available to me even at WOT so that is where I fly all the time. Same with previous Lycomings and Contis. The altitude restricts your fuel burn as well, I can only burn 5 gal/hour at WOT. The speed difference between 60% and 70% power is worth the extra fuel.

[dstclair]

Because you can! Having the option to fly faster. You can always slow it down when you wan to fly slow but you can't get there faster if you don't have the capability.

Don't most of these topics fall into defining the mission and purchasing a plane that fits the mission? If speed is one, then LSA really is not a good choice. Also, just having a faster (legal) LSA isn't going to make a lot of real difference (other than braggin' rights ). Let's assume you have a 'slow' LSA at 105kts and a 'fast' one at 120kts. Both embark on a 500nm trip (no wind). The slow LSA takes 4.76 hrs and the fast one takes 4.17 making for a 36 minute difference. Now determine exactly how many 500nm trips/year your mission calls for -- which probably isn't more than one or two. Half the distance and you're only talking a ~15 minute transit difference. This is not material for me and, it is likely, not material for the majority of missions that an LSA can fill.

If your mission really needs speed that will make a difference on longer trips, then you're looking at needing a PP and a complex single like a Cirrus, Diamond, Bonanza, etc.