RV7-Archive.digest.vol-ao
April 26, 2007 - August 08, 2007
RV7-Archive.digest.vol-ao
April 26, 2007 - August 08, 2007
Now the performance. Another 7 is based at my airport with the same
engine. His weighs probably 50lbs less. He has the Hartzell BA prop. At
the same power settings my plane will run away from his.
I had the prop dynamically balanced a couple of weeks ago and the
balancer got it to 0.00. He said he has never got one perfect. He also
noted the blades track better than anything he has seen.
Another performance story. Robbie Attaway, (Attawayair.com) has a 6 with
considerably worked ECI IO 360 with the ECI cold air sump and their FI
system. He initially had a Hartzel BA on it. He wanted more speed and
spent ton of money on an Aerocomposites prop. He did not get the
performance he thought he would couple with a couple of structural
issues so he returned it and ordered another Hartzel. The Hartzel lead
time was 4-5 months.
One of my neighbors has a WW 200RV for his plane as was not going to be
using for a while. Robbie put it on his plane and using his words, "the
airplane came to life." He said the plane is considerably faster and
smoother. After only a few hours, he ordered a WW 200RV. Within a few
weeks he had the prop and couldn't be happier.
Many will continue to go with the Hartzel because it seems like "the
standard." If you want a superior prop in performance and smoothness
consider the WW. The company is great to work with. There availability
and service is excellent. This is a big company that isn't going
anywhere. Give them a look.
Robbie will be happy to talk to you about his experiences. He can be
contacted through his web site, www.attawayair.com
Darwin N.Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Flap Bracket Question
Date: Apr 26, 2007
What did I do to fix that?
I built an RV-7! 8^)
You're talkin' about an RV-9 wing on the RV-7 list. Give Van's a call
and I suspect they'll authorize use of a blind rivet there (I won't
pretend I know which type they'll recommend).
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: Smitty
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:12 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Flap Bracket Question
I'm trying to rivet the top angle piece on to the flap bracket and rib
and my offset rivet set and rivet gun won't fit between the ribs for the
center flap bracket. What did you guys do? Here's a pic:
http://smittysrv.com/images/flapbracket.jpg
Thanks!
Smitty
http://SmittysRV.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. Brunke" <jdoody727(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
Date: Apr 26, 2007
Darwin,
Thanks for the input. Do you know of anyone who has put an extension on
the Whirlwind for use with a James Cowling?
John Brunke
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin N. Barrie
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
I haven't read all of the posts on this but I wanted to comment on
this thread. This is my experience with the good and bad and 100%
honest. I have a RV7 with ECI IO 360, dual Pmag set up with Precision FI
system. Nothing hopped up or fancy on the engine. My prop is the
Whirlwind 200RV. I purchased mine from Whirlwind before they were sold
to Titan aircraft.
As has been noted, the 200 RV was designed for RV airframe.
Specifically I cannot say what type of testing or research was done, but
from the performance it clearly works.
On initial flights I was getting significant surging with the prop. If
the throttle was applied slowly there was no issues. If applied quickly
there was a lag then the prop would grab. The best analogy I can give
you, it was like driving a manual transmission car and after getting
rolling you just suddenly let out the last little bit of clutch to get a
little jolt.
At 55 hours and on my last flight before breaking down for paint, a
seal went out in the hub. I initially got a little oil on the
windshield. After landing and shutting down I noticed oil pouring out of
the front of the hub. I took the prop off and boxed it and sent to the
new WW. Greg called me and let me know a seal was apparently installed
improperly during the hub manufacture. He said the seal was most likely
causing the surging. No coverups but an honest evaluation of the problem
and the fix.
The other known problem with the WW has been with the spinner
backplate brackets. I to has this problem but this to was taken care of
with minimal discomfort and down time.
Now the performance. Another 7 is based at my airport with the same
engine. His weighs probably 50lbs less. He has the Hartzell BA prop. At
the same power settings my plane will run away from his.
I had the prop dynamically balanced a couple of weeks ago and the
balancer got it to 0.00. He said he has never got one perfect. He also
noted the blades track better than anything he has seen.
Another performance story. Robbie Attaway, (Attawayair.com) has a 6
with considerably worked ECI IO 360 with the ECI cold air sump and their
FI system. He initially had a Hartzel BA on it. He wanted more speed and
spent ton of money on an Aerocomposites prop. He did not get the
performance he thought he would couple with a couple of structural
issues so he returned it and ordered another Hartzel. The Hartzel lead
time was 4-5 months.
One of my neighbors has a WW 200RV for his plane as was not going to
be using for a while. Robbie put it on his plane and using his words,
"the airplane came to life." He said the plane is considerably faster
and smoother. After only a few hours, he ordered a WW 200RV. Within a
few weeks he had the prop and couldn't be happier.
Many will continue to go with the Hartzel because it seems like "the
standard." If you want a superior prop in performance and smoothness
consider the WW. The company is great to work with. There availability
and service is excellent. This is a big company that isn't going
anywhere. Give them a look.
Robbie will be happy to talk to you about his experiences. He can be
contacted through his web site, www.attawayair.com
Darwin N.Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Not that I know of but my neighbor is going to use the WW and the SJ
cowl. Give Greg call at WW and talk to him. They are great people to
work with.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flap Bracket Question
From: "smittysrv" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com>
Date: Apr 27, 2007
Oopsies. I posted my RV-9 question on the RV-7 list. My bad. That's what I get
for reading email at 4 in the morning. BYW, I ordered an short offset 1/8" rivet
set from Avery's to get to the problem rivet and received it the next day.
Good folks, them Avery's.
--------
Smittys RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=109603#109603
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: cockpit lighting
Date: Apr 29, 2007
Doing some electrical planning.
For those currently active in the rv flying community, what interior
lighting options work best or seem common?
Here's what I'm thinking so far.
- Baggage area light. on/off switch in baggage area, not in panel. So just
a line back to a breaker for planning purposes.
- I'm figuring no map lighting, I'll just rely on portable lighting.
- light to illuminate the cockpit (maybe below the panel) just to help when
getting in/out of the plane at night or to make it easier to find something
dropped. For this I suppose I'd add a switch on the panel itself.
Thanks,
******************************************
Don Hall
N517DG (registered)
rv7 fuselage
http://rv7.donka.net From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: cockpit lighting
Date: Apr 28, 2007
How about just using a compact LED flashlight? ;-)
Playing devil's advocate. Tally up your last 24 months' worth of night
flight hours & honestly assess your needs. LED lights weigh next to
nothing but a few wires here, a few wires there, a few switches here, a
few switches there, it does add up. Imho KISS & light.
Speaking for myself, 1258 hours in my RV-7, only 61 hours at night.
Less than 5%. And this is coming from a guy who used to fly 25-30% at
night. I just don't do it nearly as much anymore. Again, just speaking
for myself, but it's good to be honest about your own "night needs."
So much of what we pile into these airplanes is superfluous. I know
more people who say, "I woulda left that out," than I do people who say,
"I wish I put such-and-such in." An example would be my buddy who is
selling an RV-6 with 3 landing lights, full interior lighting, etc. His
plane is HEAVY. Not the best climber. And that 2% he flies at night,
boy he loves that lighting... ;-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
www.rvproject.com / www.weathermeister.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Hall
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:33 PM
Subject: RV7-List: cockpit lighting
Doing some electrical planning.
For those currently active in the rv flying community, what interior
lighting options work best or seem common?
Here's what I'm thinking so far.
- Baggage area light. on/off switch in baggage area, not in panel.
So just a line back to a breaker for planning purposes.
- I'm figuring no map lighting, I'll just rely on portable lighting.
- light to illuminate the cockpit (maybe below the panel) just to help
when getting in/out of the plane at night or to make it easier to find
something dropped. For this I suppose I'd add a switch on the panel
itself.
Thanks,
******************************************
Don Hall
N517DG (registered)
rv7 fuselage
http://rv7.donka.net
******************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: cockpit lighting
Date: Apr 29, 2007
Thanks, it's always great to learn the "what I wish I had done instead"
lessons before I wish I had done.
I think I'm just going to leave one spot for expansion on the breakers and
plan for no lighting.
******************************************
Don Hall
N517DG (registered)
rv7 fuselage
http://rv7.donka.net From: "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
Subject: Continental Engine?
Date: Apr 29, 2007
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead
of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if
anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I
don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder
Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics.
All these engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It
seems like power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently,
I especially wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when
modifications to raise horsepower are performed. They all have to
raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase crank rap, increase the
loading on the cylinder mounting flange and therefore the engine case,
etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great
design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an
engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy
record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good
care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. Brunke" <jdoody727(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Aileron trim
Date: Apr 29, 2007
Dear Listers,
I'll add to the questions to people currently flying their airplanes.
Do you have aileron trim installed in your aircraft?
If so, have you installed the electric or the manual type and how well
do they work. I had not planned on installing
aileron trim, till a local builder strongly suggested I put it in. I
had a -6 for three years that did not have it and
I never really found it to be a problem. Just curious what others have
encountered.
Thanks in advance,
John Brunke
St. Charles, IL
RV-7, tip-up, almost
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Taylor <mtaylo17(at)msn.com>
Subject: Aileron trim
Date: Apr 29, 2007
I have it in my -7 and probably wouldn't bother with it if I did another. S
ure it does work OK, but it's never really too far out of trim anyway.
Mark.
www.4sierratango.com
From: jdoody727(at)comcast.netTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: Ail
eron trimDate: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:00:19 -0500
Dear Listers,
I'll add to the questions to people currently flying their airplanes. Do
you have aileron trim installed in your aircraft?
If so, have you installed the electric or the manual type and how well do t
hey work. I had not planned on installing
aileron trim, till a local builder strongly suggested I put it in. I had
a -6 for three years that did not have it and
I never really found it to be a problem. Just curious what others have en
countered.
Thanks in advance,
John Brunke
St. Charles, IL
RV-7, tip-up, almost
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "cliff" <exodus(at)gds.co.za>
Subject: Re: Aileron trim
Date: Apr 30, 2007
I use my aileron trim all the time. It is the manual trim and works like
a dream.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: J. Brunke
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:00 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Aileron trim
Dear Listers,
I'll add to the questions to people currently flying their airplanes.
Do you have aileron trim installed in your aircraft?
If so, have you installed the electric or the manual type and how well
do they work. I had not planned on installing
aileron trim, till a local builder strongly suggested I put it in.
I had a -6 for three years that did not have it and
I never really found it to be a problem. Just curious what others
have encountered.
Thanks in advance,
John Brunke
St. Charles, IL
RV-7, tip-up, almost
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron trim
Date: Apr 30, 2007
I use my electric aileron trim all the time. I keep all my crap between
the seats. Not having a knob there is nice imho. However you do it
you'll love it...
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (1260)
www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: cliff
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: Aileron trim
I use my aileron trim all the time. It is the manual trim and works
like a dream.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: J. Brunke
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:00 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Aileron trim
Dear Listers,
I'll add to the questions to people currently flying their
airplanes. Do you have aileron trim installed in your aircraft?
If so, have you installed the electric or the manual type and how
well do they work. I had not planned on installing
aileron trim, till a local builder strongly suggested I put it in.
I had a -6 for three years that did not have it and
I never really found it to be a problem. Just curious what others
have encountered.
Thanks in advance,
John Brunke
St. Charles, IL
RV-7, tip-up, almost
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Wilson" <terry.paradise(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders
in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation
people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the
'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not
seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a
benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their
technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.
I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see
them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the
bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem
to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large
stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my
plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great
design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an
engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy
record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good
care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 01, 2007
From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: Re: -reply from downunder
Terry,
Subaru motors work great, as do Mazda rotary, and some others. Try the archives on this web site for more information than you can read in a day. Also try the Vans Air Force web site at www.vansairforce.net/. I suspect most folks go Lycoming due to the vast knowledge pool and know reliability.
Good Luck with what ever route you choose and have fun.
Mike Ice
Anchorage, Alaska
RV-9, canopy done (finally) motor mount next then on the engine (Lycoming O-320
E3D)
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Wilson
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments about
the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a modern
Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Melbourne
Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are in some
ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes
of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliable
and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seventies.
Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines
as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering engine
ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc
being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is that the
2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is supported, as
in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine management
options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I dont
know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them in gen
aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket because of
the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems
as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors.
But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to
do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone has
considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have a good
feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Lycoming?
I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All these
engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like power
pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about
the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower
are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and therefore
the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design choices
in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine today.
I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very good so
I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it take good
care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,
somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top
notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster
to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation
use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many
years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time
you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner
has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but
have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable
decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly
because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses
and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in
cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is
pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of
say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags
that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor
itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard
pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and
weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy
compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to
that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As
to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone
doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number
of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is
there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it
slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on
that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a
slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts
(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot
of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many
of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for
a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do
very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders
in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation
people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the
'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not
seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a
benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their
technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.
I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see
them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the
bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem
to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large
stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my
plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. <mailto:tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been
great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would
design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the
reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in,
take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Taylor <mtaylo17(at)msn.com>
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a p
lane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospect
ive new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A &
P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away fr
om home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you goi
ng to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I
guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion
in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most
successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.co
m/rv7/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/r
v7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues tha
t he's had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a
considerable amount of time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but li
ke Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or some fu
el injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's quite pleasan
t buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do and t
hen you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to live wi
th it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16
+0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, th
ere are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken i
nto account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I hon
estly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of ho
urs on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pre
tty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a
LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear o
ut, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pre
ssed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs le
ss. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to th
eir old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compre
ssion version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are rema
rkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC s
ystem on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of d
ifferent driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...y
ou wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operatin
g regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is th
ere is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower f
or the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. i
f it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (a
nd thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of ho
urs on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of thos
e will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a v
ery good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very wel
l, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequat
e and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry WilsonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AMTo:
rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a mod
ern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Mel
bourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are
in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' option
s, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliabl
e and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seven
ties. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date
engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering eng
ine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-
up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is t
hat the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is su
pported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine m
anagement options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I d
ont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them i
n gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket be
cause of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the b
ig slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I gues
s Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't hav
e a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Ly
coming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All t
hese engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in tu
rn has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design c
hoices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine tod
ay. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very
good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it
take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at
2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that
turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting
engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this
regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent
failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at
hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the
value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later
on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion
engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true
if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the
annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away
from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are
you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For
those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto
conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I
guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian
Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to
be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by
pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of
time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but
like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or
some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's
quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do
and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to
live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are
outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a
supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit
of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine
for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it
takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember
every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan
Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car
engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and
reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't
know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on
Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots
of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old
clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern
experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have
some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But
the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it
might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will
be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel
and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively
heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that
answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right
there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my
clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a
low compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these
motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you
then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture
right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a
number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do
one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong
suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus
making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is
still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast
airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of
the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has
put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to
me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that
way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what
they do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in
your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the
likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple
of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian
aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering
the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is
not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically
more reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars
from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and
accept more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm
considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru
(read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I
suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world
and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots
of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these
things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every
time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use
oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled
donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due
to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one
to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360
Continental instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other
way). I am curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a
Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall
size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90
cubic inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have
been great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone
would design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that
the reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming
in, take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Taylor <mtaylo17(at)msn.com>
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean tha
t the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automot
ive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Exper
imental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of the exp
eriment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obv
iously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and test
ed.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people
are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11
+0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 27
00RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turn
s at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine spee
d, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises
in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think ha
s a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure p
oints.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand
.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PMTo:
rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a p
lane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospect
ive new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A &
P. Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're awa
y from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you
going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership? Sure
these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I gues
s we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in an
RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most succe
ssful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/R
V-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he'
s had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a consi
derable amount of time to his build. I feel much the same way that these ai
r cooled engines are old tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into t
he 20th century with FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose th
e FADEC route, and it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burni
ng 6.5-7 GPH. In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you wa
nt to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else
has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your deci
sion. Good luck! Markwww.4sierratango.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16
+0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, th
ere are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken i
nto account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I hon
estly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of ho
urs on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pre
tty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a
LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear o
ut, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pre
ssed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs le
ss. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to th
eir old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compre
ssion version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are rema
rkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC s
ystem on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of d
ifferent driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...y
ou wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operatin
g regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is th
ere is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower f
or the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. i
f it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (a
nd thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of ho
urs on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of thos
e will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a v
ery good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very wel
l, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequat
e and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry WilsonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AMTo:
rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a mod
ern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Mel
bourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are
in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' option
s, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliabl
e and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seven
ties. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date
engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering eng
ine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-
up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is t
hat the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is su
pported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine m
anagement options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I d
ont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them i
n gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket be
cause of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the b
ig slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I gues
s Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't hav
e a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Ly
coming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All t
hese engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in tu
rn has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design c
hoices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine tod
ay. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very
good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it
take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net>
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought it
was too heated on one side or the other. It's nice to see a discussion on
the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming
clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it works
(if its not broke don't fix it). Also, the technology is catching up with
the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc, etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have seen
99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent the last 3
years watching Jan support his product and support those pioneers with his
early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I am a firm believer in
evolving with new technology (the computer engineer in me), and in a few
short years we may actually see more people softening up to the idea of an
alternative to the Lycoming. Resale is not a consideration for me at this
point because I have no intention of building this plane only to sell it. I
have faith in Jan and his commitment to the success of his company. If I
read correctly, Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and telling
some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the "Wiz-Bang 3000 -
nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a proven track record by
the Subaru.
My point is - technology changes. We can move forward and even contribute
in a small way to its success or we can use what we are comfortable with
what we know is working at the time. It's a personal decision as personal
as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean that
the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automotive
engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of
the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places
is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and
tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people
are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
_____
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at
2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that
turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine
speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises
in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think has
a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure
points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a
plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the
prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by
an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away
from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you
going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I
guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in
an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most
successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian Meyette
http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat
of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by pioneering such a
task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but
like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or some
fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's quite
pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do and
then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to live
with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/>
_____
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy,
there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken
into account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I
honestly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of
hours on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is
pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say
a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear
out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard
pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs
less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to
their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of
different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler
operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go
wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is
there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower
for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one.
if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts
(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of
hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of
those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a
very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very
well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully
inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in
Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people
are in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional'
options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over
here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliable
and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the
seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more
up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit
is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is
supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine
management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I
dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them
in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket
because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the
big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I
guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. <mailto:tompkinsl(at)integra.net> Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have
a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder
Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All
these engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn
has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design
choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine
today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is
very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and
let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref="ht
tp://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref="ht
tp://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Taylor <mtaylo17(at)msn.com>
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
I can remember when Jan was starting up his engine business, he had a well
worked out package, and seems like he's evolving with the demands of his cu
stomers too. He's certainly done a better job than the Crossbow Subaru peop
le. Are they even still around?
I do embrace new technology for aircraft, despite me going for the 'Lycosau
r' clone, I went with a Blue Mountain EFIS 1, for similar reasons Scott wen
t for the Eggenfellner. I like the EFIS a lot, but I'm still not quite trus
ting it enough to go out and fly IFR. It does have the occasional glitch wh
ich does eventually get worked out by the BMA gang. I guess we all decide h
ow we want to allocate our risks.
Here I am, hating Microsoft and just getting myself up to speed with the la
test copy of Window's Vista on my computer!
Here's to a discussion rather than a debate! Much more civilised don't ya t
hink?!
Regards,
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
From: sshook(at)cox.netTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply
from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:13:10 -0700
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought it w
as too heated on one side or the other. It=92s nice to see a discussion on
the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming clon
es have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it works (i
f its not broke don=92t fix it). Also, the technology is catching up with
the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc, etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have seen
99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent the last
3 years watching Jan support his product and support those pioneers with hi
s early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I am a firm believer
in evolving with new technology (the computer engineer in me), and in a few
short years we may actually see more people softening up to the idea of an
alternative to the Lycoming. Resale is not a consideration for me at this
point because I have no intention of building this plane only to sell it.
I have faith in Jan and his commitment to the success of his company. If
I read correctly, Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliverie
s.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and telling s
ome other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the =93Wiz-Bang 3000
' nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor=92 because of a proven track recor
d by the Subaru.
My point is ' technology changes. We can move forward and even contribut
e in a small way to its success or we can use what we are comfortable with
what we know is working at the time. It=92s a personal decision as persona
l as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook RV-7A (Building) N696JS (Res
erved)
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40To: rv
7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean tha
t the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automot
ive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear. There are indeed
lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Experimental' aeroplan
es, but we really should strive to take as much of the experiment out of it
as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obviously in the eng
ine room. There really is no substitute for tried and tested. It's definite
ly one of those debates that will go on for as long as people are building
these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!! Markwww.4sierratan
go.comRV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11
+0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 27
00RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turn
s at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine spee
d, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises
in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think ha
s a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure p
oints.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand
.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PMTo:
rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a p
lane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospect
ive new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A &
P. Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're awa
y from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you
going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership? Sure
these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I gues
s we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in an
RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most succe
ssful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/R
V-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he'
s had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a consi
derable amount of time to his build. I feel much the same way that these ai
r cooled engines are old tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into t
he 20th century with FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose th
e FADEC route, and it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burni
ng 6.5-7 GPH. In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you wa
nt to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else
has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your deci
sion. Good luck! Markwww.4sierratango.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16
+0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, th
ere are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken i
nto account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I hon
estly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of ho
urs on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pre
tty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a
LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear o
ut, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pre
ssed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs le
ss. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to th
eir old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compre
ssion version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are rema
rkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC s
ystem on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of d
ifferent driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...y
ou wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operatin
g regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is th
ere is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower f
or the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. i
f it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (a
nd thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of ho
urs on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of thos
e will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a v
ery good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very wel
l, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequat
e and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry WilsonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AMTo:
rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a mod
ern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Mel
bourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are
in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' option
s, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliabl
e and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seven
ties. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date
engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering eng
ine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-
up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is t
hat the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is su
pported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine m
anagement options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I d
ont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them i
n gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket be
cause of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the b
ig slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I gues
s Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't hav
e a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Ly
coming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All t
hese engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in tu
rn has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design c
hoices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine tod
ay. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very
good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it
take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http:/
/www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com et=_blan
k>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums.matronics.com hre
f="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV7-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matron
ics.com et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums
.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 02, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Amen!...:)
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean
that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the
automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much
of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those
places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute
for tried and tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as
people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the
fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop
turns at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a
shaft that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by
limiting engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the
same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all
represent failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the
job at hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop
up the value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale
later on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto
conversion engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is
especially true if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and
will need the annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when
you're away from home, all your tools and spares are in your
workshop/hangar? Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or
the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too.
For those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an
auto conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with
subaru's? I guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian
Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to
be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by
pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of
time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old
tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with
FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and
it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want
to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else
has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/>
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are
outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a
supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit
of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine
for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it
takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember
every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan
Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car
engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and
reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't
know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on
Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots
of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the
old clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern
experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have
some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But
the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it
might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone
you will be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so
little fuel and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out
relatively heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know
that answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving
right there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak
but my clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a
big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to
order a low compression version if you want to run regular) quite
happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that
these motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough
for you then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the
mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be
efficient at a number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines
really only do one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em
there. A much simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine
with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the
strong suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled
motor, thus making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the
jury is still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a
fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the
cost of the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no
one has put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not
clear to me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000
hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors
are that way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do
exactly what they do very well, more highly adapted for their
environment rather than woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been
interested in your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of
yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider
the likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a
couple of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors.
Australian aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only
considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size
planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are
dramatically more reliable and last more than twice as long as the
motors in our cars from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft
gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but
I'm considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with
Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the
source. I suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over
the world and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice,
has lots of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and
last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have
on these things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except
every time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old
tech, use oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big
air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines
often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to
use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the
360 Continental instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other
way). I am curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a
Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall
size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than
a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft
may have been great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way
someone would design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is
that the reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the
Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: -reply from downunder
Date: May 02, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Indeed Scott,
And if it wasn't for early adopters such as yourself then there would
never be a market for anything new in aviation...Just look at what has
come about in the last few years in the experimental EFIS, engine
management and autopilot systems.
You bet I jumped all over those!!!
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott R. Shook
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought
it was too heated on one side or the other. It's nice to see a
discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming
clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it
works (if its not broke don't fix it). Also, the technology is catching
up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc,
etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have
seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent
the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those
pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I
am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer
engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more
people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.
Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no
intention of building this plane only to sell it. I have faith in Jan
and his commitment to the success of his company. If I read correctly,
Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and
telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the
"Wiz-Bang 3000 - nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a
proven track record by the Subaru.
My point is - technology changes. We can move forward and even
contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are
comfortable with what we know is working at the time. It's a personal
decision as personal as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean
that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the
automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much
of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those
places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute
for tried and tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as
people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the
fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at
2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that
turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting
engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this
regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent
failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at
hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the
value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later
on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion
engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true
if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the
annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away
from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are
you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For
those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto
conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I
guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian
Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to
be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by
pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of
time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but
like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or
some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's
quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do
and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to
live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/>
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,
somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top
notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster
to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation
use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many
years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time
you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner
has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but
have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable
decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly
because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses
and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in
cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is
pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of
say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags
that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor
itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard
pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and
weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy
compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to
that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As
to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone
doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number
of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is
there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it
slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on
that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a
slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts
(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot
of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many
of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for
a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do
very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders
in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation
people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the
'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not
seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a
benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their
technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.
I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see
them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the
bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem
to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large
stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my
plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. <mailto:tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been
great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would
design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the
reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in,
take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schoen" <flybill2usa(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: -reply from downunder
Date: May 01, 2007
This is an ancient, but worthwhile discussion. It does boil down to
being a personal decision and how we each arrive at our own decision is
perhaps as instructive as the knowledge of the differences, to one still
in the process of making that decision so I will chime in with my own
road to this decision for whatever it's worth.
I can tell you that I truly agonized over it for about 2 years!
I had a Cessna 180 for 22 years and loved the smooth power of the 6
cylinder O-470 Continental engine. Every time I flew an airplane with a
4 cylinder Lycoming engine, I admired the light weight efficient power
they produced but was not impressed by the vibration and seeming
difficulty with starting compared with the O-470. Perhaps one of the
strongest pulls for me was a desire for 6 cylinders. Another was the
shock cooling issue which of course resides in all air cooled aircraft
engines. I towed gliders with Pawnee's powered by Lycoming O-540s which
were smoother and had great power, but shock cooling of the cylinders
was a huge concern.
While magnetos are relatively simple and very reliable over the course
of a 2000 hour TBO they often are at the center of traditional engine
problems.
It is absolutely true that traditional engines are relatively simple
with few failure points, with very long histories of usage and
reliability and that is a very powerful argument in favor of them.
Perhaps their strongest, which was the source of most of my agony in
deciding, but in the end, the smooth power and modern engineering
advancements and perhaps most of all, the reputation of the integrity of
the Eggenfellner organization won the day and I made the decision
knowing the risks and I have chosen the new H6T engine to go along with
a modern 'all glass" cockpit, for my RV-7.
There you have it. You pays your money and makes your choices.
Bill Schoen
RV-7 90%
N727BN (res)
----- Original Message ----- l
From: Scott R. Shook<mailto:sshook(at)cox.net>
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought
it was too heated on one side or the other. It's nice to see a
discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming
clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it
works (if its not broke don't fix it). Also, the technology is catching
up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc,
etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have
seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent
the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those
pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I
am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer
engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more
people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.
Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no
intention of building this plane only to sell it. I have faith in Jan
and his commitment to the success of his company. If I read correctly,
Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and
telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the
"Wiz-Bang 3000 - nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a
proven track record by the Subaru.
My point is - technology changes. We can move forward and even
contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are
comfortable with what we know is working at the time. It's a personal
decision as personal as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I
mean that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with
the automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much
of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those
places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute
for tried and tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as
people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the
fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com<http://www.4sierratango.com/>
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns
at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft
that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting
engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this
regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent
failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at
hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the
value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later
on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion
engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true
if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the
annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're
away from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar?
Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru
dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For
those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto
conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I
guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/
7/>. For some people, like Brian Meyette
http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm
d.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm> it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with
issues that he's had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon
it's added a considerable amount of time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech,
but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC
or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's
quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do
and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to
live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com<http://www.4sierratango.com/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,
somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top
notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster
to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation
use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many
years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time
you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner
has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but
have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable
decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly
because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses
and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in
cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers
is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone
of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags
that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor
itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be
hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel
and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively
heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to
that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As
to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone
doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number
of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion
is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it
slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on
that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a
slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the
parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put
a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me
how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way
for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they
do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of
a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of
builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian
aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering
the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is
not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm
considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru
(read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I
suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world
and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these
things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every
time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use
oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled
donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due
to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one
to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.<mailto:tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great
design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an
engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy
record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good
care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums.matroni
cs.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
com/Navigator?RV7-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums
matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums.matroni
cs.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
gator?RV7-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Fw: [SoCAL-RVlist] Tools for sale
Date: May 04, 2007
FYI...posting this for Ron Milligan. Looks like some good deals...
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: <ronmilligan(at)cox.net>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: [SoCAL-RVlist] Tools for sale
> Sold my RV7 kit a while back and I am just getting around to getting rid
> of a few of the not so useful tools. I have a Rolo Flare, Orndorff video,
> and a 22" hand dimpler/riveter. Here are the item numbers on on EBay:
>
> Rolo Flare: 190108072420
>
> Video: 190108060992
>
> Hand dimpler: 190108075437
>
> If someone could post this to the RV7 list I would appreciate it. I no
> longer have a subscription. Thanks
>
> Ron Milligan
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:SoCAL-RVlist-digest(at)yahoogroups.com
> mailto:SoCAL-RVlist-fullfeatured(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SoCAL-RVlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 04, 2007
From: Bruce Swayze <swayze(at)europa.com>
Subject: Re: A GUIDE TO AIRCRAFT PAINTING & CORROSION CONTROL
Hi Garey,
I was going through some old emails and came across this posting of
yours. I have a question.
Do you still have this information avaiable? Do you, by any chance,
have an electronic copy that can be emailed instead of a hard copy?
Finally, has your price changed any?
thanks,
Bruce Swayze
RV-7A waiting on wing kit
At 03:26 PM 7/16/2005, you wrote:
>
> > This Information comes from my own research which I
>did for
> > my RV-8A, which I am building. Information applies
>to both Aluminum and Composite aircraft. This is the
>3th printing.
> >
> > --------------- ------------- ------------
> >
> > SAVE YOURSELF hundreds of hours of research time and
> > building time, by using the comprehensive
> >
> > "Guide to Painting & Corrosion Control of Aluminum
> > and
> > Composite Aircraft"
> >
> > This book took over 600+ hours of research time by
> > me,
> > a fussy RV-8A Builder. Contains 69 pages of the
> > latest, practical information - summarized and
> > gathered from MIL Standards, Paint Shops, Builders
> > like you (what worked or didn't), Airframe Mfgs,
> > etc.
> > Covers products from PP&G, Dupont, Sherwin W'ms,
> > Sterling, Poly Fiber, Deft, Randolph Paints, PRC De
> > Soto, US Paints, Aircraft Finishing Systems, 3M,
> > etc.
> >
> > Some of the Topics covered in the 30 Sections are:
> > * Aircraft Paints vs Auto Paints and Other
> > Considerations
> > * Corrosion Control
> > * Spray Guns - selecting, adjusting, using
> > and painting problems
> > * Brushes / Rollers used with Primers &
> > Paints
> > * Prep Methods for Painting - Fiberglass,
> > Steel and Aluminum
> > * Epoxy Primers for Aluminum - MIL &
> > Commercial, Solvent & Water Reducible
> > * Primers for Fiberglass & Steel
> > * Wash Primers & Self Etching Primers
> > * Other Primers - Zinc Chromate,Zinc Oxide,
> > Enamel
> > * Paint Types: MIL & Non MIL Polyurethanes
> > Enamel Types
> > Acrylics - Lacquers & Enamels
> > * Acid Etch / Conversion Coatings (Alodine)
> > * Selecting a Paint Shop
> > * 3M Cleaning Pads, Liquid Cleaner
> > compatibility
> > * Paint Booths and their Construction
> > * References - MIL Standards & Tech Orders
> > * Directory of Aircraft Paint Mfgs, Distrib-
> > utors, etc. E-Mail addresses, phone
> > numbers, Application Notes
> >
> > YOUR AIRPLANE is judged by it's Paint Job and it is
> > costly too, so have the latest "Information" in order
> > to make good decisions. Contains plenty of "Do's" and
> > "Don'ts" that save you time, money and frustration.
> >
> > Send a check for $26 to (includes Postage within the
> > US) to:
> >
> > Garey Wittich RV-8A Builder
> > 58 Village Parkway
> > Santa Monica, CA. 90405
> >
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lyle Peterson" <lyleap(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Blaine Aviation Weekend
Date: May 05, 2007
This is coming very soon but it should be a great fly-in. EAA Chapter
237
is having a fly-in pancake breakfast and lunch at Anoka County Airport
in
Blaine, MN on May 19th and 20th
Chapter 237's Famous Pancake Breakfast with sausage and beverage runs
from
7a.m. to noon and lunch of hamburgers, hot dogs and chili runs until
4p.m.
There are two really great aviation museums on the airport. Golden
Wings
Museum has a collection of beautifully restored vintage airplanes that
includes five trimotors. American Wings Air Museum has a collection of
warbirds from WWII to Dessert Storm. They also have a Wright Flyer
replica,
an original 1911 Steco biplane plus many other exhibits.
There was a Swift, an Ercoupe, a Luscombe T8-F plus a lot of other
vintage
airplanes, warbirds and the usual later model airplanes at last year's
event.
There will be a Hangar Dance Saturday evening with the Sights and Sounds
of
Dave Andrews Big Band. This has been a lot of fun for everyone that
attended in past years.
More can be found at www.eaachapter237.org
Thank you,
Lyle Peterson
President, EAA Chapter 237
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. Brunke" <jdoody727(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Flap actuator push rods
Date: May 08, 2007
Dear Listers,
On the drawing for the electric flap installation, the F759A, flap pushrod
has to be drilled out to accept a threaded bolt.
It says on my drawing to drill it to #3. A # 3 bit would be kind of large
for this tubing. Can anyone please tell
me the correct bit number?
Thanks,
John Brunke
RV7 tipup (slowly but surely)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: Herb Feldman <hfaz(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Flap actuator push rods
A #3 drill is the correct tap drill for 1/4 - 28
thread.
Herb
--- "J. Brunke" wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> On the drawing for the electric flap installation,
> the F759A, flap pushrod
> has to be drilled out to accept a threaded bolt.
>
> It says on my drawing to drill it to #3. A # 3 bit
> would be kind of large
> for this tubing. Can anyone please tell
> me the correct bit number?
>
> Thanks,
> John Brunke
> RV7 tipup (slowly but surely)
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rafael" <rafael(at)gforcecable.com>
Subject: RV7A vs RV9A
Date: May 09, 2007
Although I've been flying for over 29 years, I'm about to become a new
builder. I'm evaluating the merits of the RV9A and the RV7A. My interests
are for an airplane that would carry my wife and I on trips from South
Carolina to the Midwest and occasionally to the West coast. Aerobatics are
not a priority, although, if I build the 7, I would like to dip my toe into
this type of flying.
A couple of questions:
Which airplane makes a better IFR platform? I imagine that the 9 would
probably be less responsive (more stable?). Would the 7 behave better in
the bumps (higher wing loading).
If I build the 7, the 180hp, not available in the 9, would get you higher
faster.
For the long trips, I would like to add fuel capacity. What's the added
cost and weight of adding tip tanks? I've heard of 8.5 gal, giving 55 gal
total. Would putting tip tanks on the 7 limit its aerobatic capabilities?
This is my first post, so please let me know if this is the kind of
questions appropriate for this forum.
Thanks and best regards,
Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV7A vs RV9A
Date: May 09, 2007
Although I've been flying for over 29 years, I'm about to become a new
builder. I'm evaluating the merits of the RV9A and the RV7A. My
interests are for an airplane that would carry my wife and I on trips
from South Carolina to the Midwest and occasionally to the West coast.
Aerobatics are not a priority, although, if I build the 7, I would like
to dip my toe into this type of flying.
A couple of questions:
Which airplane makes a better IFR platform? I imagine that the 9
would probably be less responsive (more stable?). Would the 7 behave
better in the bumps (higher wing loading).
**The -9 would be better for IFR.
If I build the 7, the 180hp, not available in the 9, would get you
higher faster.
**Maybe, but not by much, I would say. The -9 has a pretty efficient
wing.
For the long trips, I would like to add fuel capacity. What's the
added cost and weight of adding tip tanks? I've heard of 8.5 gal,
giving 55 gal total. Would putting tip tanks on the 7 limit its
aerobatic capabilities?
**I don't think that there are commercially available wingtanks
available on the -9. I have a Johanssen set for my -6, and I wondered
if I should rig one for gas/endurance, and the other for the effects
longer endurance has on a humans bladder, if you get my drift ;-)
This is my first post, so please let me know if this is the kind of
questions appropriate for this forum.
**Yes, it sure is appropriate. At least this one has to do with RV
related information, which many other post do not anymore.
Thanks and best regards,
Rafael
Enjoy the journey, and welcome!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. Brunke" <jdoody727(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV7A vs RV9A
Date: May 09, 2007
Rafael,
Welcome to the list. If aerobatics are not a priority have you looked
at the RV10? Very roomy with a baggage door that makes loading
a breeze. Just flew down to Sun and Fun from the Chicago area in a
friend's -10. Basically 5 hours flight time each way with a
fuel/bladder stop. Loads of panel space for whatever you want to put in
there.
I'm building an RV7. Although I will take the occasional long trip with
my wife, I mainly want it to go out and play. You can do rolls
all day long and more high G manuevers if you feel the need. For me
the tail wheel has a lot of appeal since it is different from
anything else I've ever flown. It is slightly more challenging
because it's different. Not any harder, just different.
The best part of all this is you have lots of choices. It all depends
what you really want to do. There's also a lot of information out
on the web. Some make it sound like their way is the only way. As a
builder, you can do what is comfortable for you, financially
and safety wise.
Best of luck on your project,
John Brunke
St. Charles, IL
RV7 tip-up in progress
----- Original Message -----
From: Rafael
To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
Although I've been flying for over 29 years, I'm about to become a new
builder. I'm evaluating the merits of the RV9A and the RV7A. My
interests are for an airplane that would carry my wife and I on trips
from South Carolina to the Midwest and occasionally to the West coast.
Aerobatics are not a priority, although, if I build the 7, I would like
to dip my toe into this type of flying.
A couple of questions:
Which airplane makes a better IFR platform? I imagine that the 9
would probably be less responsive (more stable?). Would the 7 behave
better in the bumps (higher wing loading).
If I build the 7, the 180hp, not available in the 9, would get you
higher faster.
For the long trips, I would like to add fuel capacity. What's the
added cost and weight of adding tip tanks? I've heard of 8.5 gal,
giving 55 gal total. Would putting tip tanks on the 7 limit its
aerobatic capabilities?
This is my first post, so please let me know if this is the kind of
questions appropriate for this forum.
Thanks and best regards,
Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2007
From: "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV7A vs RV9A
Rafael,
Where is SC are you?
If you are ever in the Columbia area, we probably can arrange for you to see
an RV9A, RV6's, maybe RV7A, several RV7s under construction, an although you
did not reference such maybe an RV4 under construction and an RV10 just
getting started. Probably could rustle up a ride as well.
Now to your questions ... I think you have received good answers already but
ask yourself the following ...
1. Will MOST of my flying be cross-country?
2. Will I EVER want to do aerobatics?
Both planes fly quite nicely. The stick forces on the 9(A) is a bit
"heavier" as you get farther into the roll to one side or the other but it
still flies "like an RV".
James
On 5/9/07, Rafael wrote:
>
> Although I've been flying for over 29 years, I'm about to become a new
> builder. I'm evaluating the merits of the RV9A and the RV7A. My interests
> are for an airplane that would carry my wife and I on trips from South
> Carolina to the Midwest and occasionally to the West coast. Aerobatics are
> not a priority, although, if I build the 7, I would like to dip my toe into
> this type of flying.
>
>
> A couple of questions:
>
>
> Which airplane makes a better IFR platform? I imagine that the 9 would
> probably be less responsive (more stable?). Would the 7 behave better in
> the bumps (higher wing loading).
>
>
> If I build the 7, the 180hp, not available in the 9, would get you higher
> faster.
>
>
> For the long trips, I would like to add fuel capacity. What's the added
> cost and weight of adding tip tanks? I've heard of 8.5 gal, giving 55 gal
> total. Would putting tip tanks on the 7 limit its aerobatic capabilities?
>
>
> This is my first post, so please let me know if this is the kind of
> questions appropriate for this forum.
>
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
>
> Rafael
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2007
From: Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RV7A vs RV9A
Both will give you immense joy. Last year, I pondered the same Q's. Both
have the same fuselage, but empennage and especially the wings are
different.
That being said...
RV-9 pros - Perhaps a little more stable IFR platform. Better glide
ratio. Lands at lower trainer like speeds. Personally, I like the
aesthetics of the longer wing. Largest engine (O-320/150-160hp) is
ubiquitous on the used (and new) market.
RV-7 pros - Aerobatics of the "gentleman" type. This was my biggest
hurdle - do I potentially want to do some down the road?? I decided not,
but you always have the potential with the -7 (though I know folks who
have admitted doing rolls and even loops in the -9, but great care is
needed to avoid overloading the frame as with any utility category
craft). A little faster with a bigger engine, but also a little more
fuel burn for that increased speed (research I've done shows a slightly
throttled back RV-7/O-360/180hp flying the same speed as an
RV-9/O-320/160hp will have almost the exact fuel burn. This was also
corroborated by a Van's engineer to me. Dan Checkoway's wonderful
machine excepted : ) ). Bigger engine choices - though not really a big
deal. Quite a few RV-9's with O-360's - just be very cognizant of Vne.
Possible resale advantage with the RV-7 due to higher popularity and
aerobatic capability.
I chose the -9 for a cross-country platform and lack of interest in
aerobatics, and frankly I like its looks more with the higher stance on
the tri-gear and longer wing. Really try and get a ride in each, and
play with some aerobatics in the -7. If there is a chance you want to
yank and bank, your decision is made (though a demo ride in a -9 showed
it could be jerked around just fine short of defined aerobatics). As an
IFR platform, a good autopilot will help for the small decrease in
stability - many folks have used their -7's IFR/Xcountry successfully.
Carl
RV-9A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rafael" <rafael(at)gforcecable.com>
Subject: RV7A vs RV9A
Date: May 11, 2007
Thank you very much for this and other replies to my inquiry.
Carl's statement, "just be very cognizant of Vne" raised my eyebrows a bit.
I looked for Vne numbers for the 7A and the 9A in Van's website, but could
not find them.
Does anyone have the Vne numbers on the 7A and 9A.
Best regards,
Rafael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Peters
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
Both will give you immense joy. Last year, I pondered the same Q's. Both
have the same fuselage, but empennage and especially the wings are
different.
That being said...
RV-9 pros - Perhaps a little more stable IFR platform. Better glide
ratio. Lands at lower trainer like speeds. Personally, I like the
aesthetics of the longer wing. Largest engine (O-320/150-160hp) is
ubiquitous on the used (and new) market.
RV-7 pros - Aerobatics of the "gentleman" type. This was my biggest
hurdle - do I potentially want to do some down the road?? I decided not,
but you always have the potential with the -7 (though I know folks who
have admitted doing rolls and even loops in the -9, but great care is
needed to avoid overloading the frame as with any utility category
craft). A little faster with a bigger engine, but also a little more
fuel burn for that increased speed (research I've done shows a slightly
throttled back RV-7/O-360/180hp flying the same speed as an
RV-9/O-320/160hp will have almost the exact fuel burn. This was also
corroborated by a Van's engineer to me. Dan Checkoway's wonderful
machine excepted : ) ). Bigger engine choices - though not really a big
deal. Quite a few RV-9's with O-360's - just be very cognizant of Vne.
Possible resale advantage with the RV-7 due to higher popularity and
aerobatic capability.
I chose the -9 for a cross-country platform and lack of interest in
aerobatics, and frankly I like its looks more with the higher stance on
the tri-gear and longer wing. Really try and get a ride in each, and
play with some aerobatics in the -7. If there is a chance you want to
yank and bank, your decision is made (though a demo ride in a -9 showed
it could be jerked around just fine short of defined aerobatics). As an
IFR platform, a good autopilot will help for the small decrease in
stability - many folks have used their -7's IFR/Xcountry successfully.
Carl
RV-9A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Watson" <pwatsonfnp(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV7A vs RV9A
Date: May 11, 2007
RV7 Vne is 230mph. Not sure about the9.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rafael
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:45 AM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
Thank you very much for this and other replies to my inquiry.
Carl's statement, "just be very cognizant of Vne" raised my eyebrows a bit.
I looked for Vne numbers for the 7A and the 9A in Van's website, but could
not find them.
Does anyone have the Vne numbers on the 7A and 9A.
Best regards,
Rafael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Peters
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
Both will give you immense joy. Last year, I pondered the same Q's. Both
have the same fuselage, but empennage and especially the wings are
different.
That being said...
RV-9 pros - Perhaps a little more stable IFR platform. Better glide
ratio. Lands at lower trainer like speeds. Personally, I like the
aesthetics of the longer wing. Largest engine (O-320/150-160hp) is
ubiquitous on the used (and new) market.
RV-7 pros - Aerobatics of the "gentleman" type. This was my biggest
hurdle - do I potentially want to do some down the road?? I decided not,
but you always have the potential with the -7 (though I know folks who
have admitted doing rolls and even loops in the -9, but great care is
needed to avoid overloading the frame as with any utility category
craft). A little faster with a bigger engine, but also a little more
fuel burn for that increased speed (research I've done shows a slightly
throttled back RV-7/O-360/180hp flying the same speed as an
RV-9/O-320/160hp will have almost the exact fuel burn. This was also
corroborated by a Van's engineer to me. Dan Checkoway's wonderful
machine excepted : ) ). Bigger engine choices - though not really a big
deal. Quite a few RV-9's with O-360's - just be very cognizant of Vne.
Possible resale advantage with the RV-7 due to higher popularity and
aerobatic capability.
I chose the -9 for a cross-country platform and lack of interest in
aerobatics, and frankly I like its looks more with the higher stance on
the tri-gear and longer wing. Really try and get a ride in each, and
play with some aerobatics in the -7. If there is a chance you want to
yank and bank, your decision is made (though a demo ride in a -9 showed
it could be jerked around just fine short of defined aerobatics). As an
IFR platform, a good autopilot will help for the small decrease in
stability - many folks have used their -7's IFR/Xcountry successfully.
Carl
RV-9A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
From: William Bell <wmlbell(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV7-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 05/11/07
Date: May 12, 2007
I am building an RV-7A and the Vne speeds can be found in the
construction manual in Section 15, Final Inspection and Flight Test,
in the Flutter Testing paragraphs. Mine are on page 15-20 although
the pages could be different for other manuals. According to the
construction manual, RV 7/7A/8/8A the Vne is 230 statute miles per
hour and 190 statute mph for the RV-9A.
On May 12, 2007, at 2:57 AM, RV7-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete RV7-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
> Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> version
> of the RV7-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?
> Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 07-05-11&Archive=RV7
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?
> Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 07-05-11&Archive=RV7
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> RV7-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 05/11/07: 2
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 04:46 AM - Re: RV7A vs RV9A (Rafael)
> 2. 06:30 AM - Re: RV7A vs RV9A (Paul Watson)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Rafael" <rafael(at)gforcecable.com>
> Subject: RE: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
>
>
> Thank you very much for this and other replies to my inquiry.
>
> Carl's statement, "just be very cognizant of Vne" raised my
> eyebrows a bit.
> I looked for Vne numbers for the 7A and the 9A in Van's website,
> but could
> not find them.
>
> Does anyone have the Vne numbers on the 7A and 9A.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rafael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Peters
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
>
>
> Both will give you immense joy. Last year, I pondered the same Q's.
> Both
> have the same fuselage, but empennage and especially the wings are
> different.
> That being said...
>
> RV-9 pros - Perhaps a little more stable IFR platform. Better glide
> ratio. Lands at lower trainer like speeds. Personally, I like the
> aesthetics of the longer wing. Largest engine (O-320/150-160hp) is
> ubiquitous on the used (and new) market.
>
> RV-7 pros - Aerobatics of the "gentleman" type. This was my biggest
> hurdle - do I potentially want to do some down the road?? I decided
> not,
> but you always have the potential with the -7 (though I know folks who
> have admitted doing rolls and even loops in the -9, but great care is
> needed to avoid overloading the frame as with any utility category
> craft). A little faster with a bigger engine, but also a little more
> fuel burn for that increased speed (research I've done shows a
> slightly
> throttled back RV-7/O-360/180hp flying the same speed as an
> RV-9/O-320/160hp will have almost the exact fuel burn. This was also
> corroborated by a Van's engineer to me. Dan Checkoway's wonderful
> machine excepted : ) ). Bigger engine choices - though not really a
> big
> deal. Quite a few RV-9's with O-360's - just be very cognizant of
> Vne.
> Possible resale advantage with the RV-7 due to higher popularity and
> aerobatic capability.
>
> I chose the -9 for a cross-country platform and lack of interest in
> aerobatics, and frankly I like its looks more with the higher
> stance on
> the tri-gear and longer wing. Really try and get a ride in each, and
> play with some aerobatics in the -7. If there is a chance you want to
> yank and bank, your decision is made (though a demo ride in a -9
> showed
> it could be jerked around just fine short of defined aerobatics).
> As an
> IFR platform, a good autopilot will help for the small decrease in
> stability - many folks have used their -7's IFR/Xcountry successfully.
>
> Carl
> RV-9A wings
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Paul Watson" <pwatsonfnp(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: RE: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
>
>
> RV7 Vne is 230mph. Not sure about the9.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rafael
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:45 AM
> Subject: RE: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
>
>
> Thank you very much for this and other replies to my inquiry.
>
> Carl's statement, "just be very cognizant of Vne" raised my
> eyebrows a bit.
> I looked for Vne numbers for the 7A and the 9A in Van's website,
> but could
> not find them.
>
> Does anyone have the Vne numbers on the 7A and 9A.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rafael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Peters
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
>
>
> Both will give you immense joy. Last year, I pondered the same Q's.
> Both
> have the same fuselage, but empennage and especially the wings are
> different.
> That being said...
>
> RV-9 pros - Perhaps a little more stable IFR platform. Better glide
> ratio. Lands at lower trainer like speeds. Personally, I like the
> aesthetics of the longer wing. Largest engine (O-320/150-160hp) is
> ubiquitous on the used (and new) market.
>
> RV-7 pros - Aerobatics of the "gentleman" type. This was my biggest
> hurdle - do I potentially want to do some down the road?? I decided
> not,
> but you always have the potential with the -7 (though I know folks who
> have admitted doing rolls and even loops in the -9, but great care is
> needed to avoid overloading the frame as with any utility category
> craft). A little faster with a bigger engine, but also a little more
> fuel burn for that increased speed (research I've done shows a
> slightly
> throttled back RV-7/O-360/180hp flying the same speed as an
> RV-9/O-320/160hp will have almost the exact fuel burn. This was also
> corroborated by a Van's engineer to me. Dan Checkoway's wonderful
> machine excepted : ) ). Bigger engine choices - though not really a
> big
> deal. Quite a few RV-9's with O-360's - just be very cognizant of
> Vne.
> Possible resale advantage with the RV-7 due to higher popularity and
> aerobatic capability.
>
> I chose the -9 for a cross-country platform and lack of interest in
> aerobatics, and frankly I like its looks more with the higher
> stance on
> the tri-gear and longer wing. Really try and get a ride in each, and
> play with some aerobatics in the -7. If there is a chance you want to
> yank and bank, your decision is made (though a demo ride in a -9
> showed
> it could be jerked around just fine short of defined aerobatics).
> As an
> IFR platform, a good autopilot will help for the small decrease in
> stability - many folks have used their -7's IFR/Xcountry successfully.
>
> Carl
> RV-9A wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rafael" <rafael(at)gforcecable.com>
Subject: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 12, 2007
First of all, I thank all who provided me with input in making the decision
between a 9A and 7A. I have decided to build the 7A. It has not been an
easy decision. Basically the balance tilted towards the 7 after considering
the Vne and the added performance with the 360 engine.
Now I would like help with a couple of other decisions. First, IO-360 vs
O-360. I was leaning heavily towards the injected engine, carburetor heat
being the issue. However, after attending an EAA meeting this morning and
talking to an RV-8 builder with a beautiful 8A with an O-360, I'm no longer
sure. What advantages does the fuel injection have? Performance?
Reliability? Ease of installation? Maintenance? Any other? I believe cost
and weight penalty are close for either engine.
The other decision is between Constant Speed and Fixed Pitch prop. It is my
understanding that the CS will provided better takeoff and climb figures and
marginally better cruise performance. I'm wondering if this performance is
worth the extra $6500 or so for the CS. I'm leaning towards the FP
implementation, but I would like to hear comments.
Thanks and best regards to all,
Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 12, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
FI is more efficient and shows up most when running lean of peak (LOP).
this can be a saving in the order of 1.5GPH at cruise. Carb heat is the
big one, not really required on the FI but Vans does have a rudimentry
warm air system...Just in case.
FP vs CS...depends on if the extra 300FPM its worth it to ya....Resale
value is higher of course with a CS...and there is the "cool"
factor...:).. I belive stopping distances are improved with the CS as
well.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rafael
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:11 PM
Subject: RV7-List: Initial biuld decisions
First of all, I thank all who provided me with input in making the
decision between a 9A and 7A. I have decided to build the 7A. It has
not been an easy decision. Basically the balance tilted towards the 7
after considering the Vne and the added performance with the 360 engine.
Now I would like help with a couple of other decisions. First, IO-360
vs O-360. I was leaning heavily towards the injected engine, carburetor
heat being the issue. However, after attending an EAA meeting this
morning and talking to an RV-8 builder with a beautiful 8A with an
O-360, I'm no longer sure. What advantages does the fuel injection
have? Performance? Reliability? Ease of installation? Maintenance?
Any other? I believe cost and weight penalty are close for either
engine.
The other decision is between Constant Speed and Fixed Pitch prop. It
is my understanding that the CS will provided better takeoff and climb
figures and marginally better cruise performance. I'm wondering if this
performance is worth the extra $6500 or so for the CS. I'm leaning
towards the FP implementation, but I would like to hear comments.
Thanks and best regards to all,
Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Taylor <mtaylo17(at)msn.com>
Subject: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 12, 2007
I went with a constant speed prop for my IOF-360. It's great for descents t
oo as you don't have to worry about overspeeding your engine. Just push the
nose forward and go for it! When you throttle back with a constant speed p
rop, it's like putting the brakes on which is also nice coming into the pat
tern at warp factor 7. Just before you enter, throttle back and you'll be a
t pattern speed before you know it. Mine's a three blade MT BTW. It's not a
s fast in cruise.
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
From: rafael(at)gforcecable.comTo: rv9-list(at)matronics.com; rv7-list(at)matronics.
comSubject: RV7-List: Initial biuld decisionsDate: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:10:3
First of all, I thank all who provided me with input in making the decision
between a 9A and 7A. I have decided to build the 7A. It has not been an
easy decision. Basically the balance tilted towards the 7 after considerin
g the Vne and the added performance with the 360 engine.
Now I would like help with a couple of other decisions. First, IO-360 vs O
-360. I was leaning heavily towards the injected engine, carburetor heat b
eing the issue. However, after attending an EAA meeting this morning and t
alking to an RV-8 builder with a beautiful 8A with an O-360, I=92m no longe
r sure. What advantages does the fuel injection have? Performance? Relia
bility? Ease of installation? Maintenance? Any other? I believe cost and
weight penalty are close for either engine.
The other decision is between Constant Speed and Fixed Pitch prop. It is m
y understanding that the CS will provided better takeoff and climb figures
and marginally better cruise performance. I=92m wondering if this performa
nce is worth the extra $6500 or so for the CS. I=92m leaning towards the F
P implementation, but I would like to hear comments.
Thanks and best regards to all,
Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 12, 2007
Rafeal
When I started my project (Sept 2004) I wasn't sure what I wanted. But as
the project unfolded I decided (very slowly) to turn a Van's
quick/light/simple flyer into a mega buck high speed/leading edge
technically/very costly RV7A......ECI Titan IO360/cold air
induction/FI/EI/ALL GLASS-Electric Panel/WhirlWind 200RV CS prop/custom
interior.................$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I just coundn't
resist...........Now if I build another RV It is going to be built
simple/light weight/night VFR/less costly......
I know those that are flying can give better stats on the difference in the
all important velocity factor between a simple and complex
craft.....but....I believe one would get as much utiliy out of a less costly
simple plane as compared to the 777 that some of us are trying to build.
Good Luck in your build/decided on your mission/and have fun!!!!
Frank @ SGU RV7A 'NDY"
>From: "Rafael" <rafael(at)gforcecable.com>
>Reply-To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>To: ,
>Subject: RV7-List: Initial biuld decisions
>Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:10:32 -0400
>
>First of all, I thank all who provided me with input in making the decision
>between a 9A and 7A. I have decided to build the 7A. It has not been an
>easy decision. Basically the balance tilted towards the 7 after
>considering
>the Vne and the added performance with the 360 engine.
>
>
>Now I would like help with a couple of other decisions. First, IO-360 vs
>O-360. I was leaning heavily towards the injected engine, carburetor heat
>being the issue. However, after attending an EAA meeting this morning and
>talking to an RV-8 builder with a beautiful 8A with an O-360, I'm no longer
>sure. What advantages does the fuel injection have? Performance?
>Reliability? Ease of installation? Maintenance? Any other? I believe
>cost
>and weight penalty are close for either engine.
>
>
>The other decision is between Constant Speed and Fixed Pitch prop. It is
>my
>understanding that the CS will provided better takeoff and climb figures
>and
>marginally better cruise performance. I'm wondering if this performance is
>worth the extra $6500 or so for the CS. I'm leaning towards the FP
>implementation, but I would like to hear comments.
>
>
>Thanks and best regards to all,
>
>
>Rafael
>
_________________________________________________________________
Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2007
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: RV7A vs RV9A
I don't know what it is for the 9/9A, but it has to be higher than your
number as the top speed (solo) with a 160hp engine is listed as
197mph.on Van's website. I am quite sure that Van would not list a top
speed higher than Vne!
Dick Tasker
William Bell wrote:
>
> I am building an RV-7A and the Vne speeds can be found in the
> construction manual in Section 15, Final Inspection and Flight Test,
> in the Flutter Testing paragraphs. Mine are on page 15-20 although
> the pages could be different for other manuals. According to the
> construction manual, RV 7/7A/8/8A the Vne is 230 statute miles per
> hour and 190 statute mph for the RV-9A.
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2007
From: Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RV7A vs RV9ARV7A vs RV9A
RV-9 Vne is 210 mph. Here is a link from Van's discussing Vne and
flutter - http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf .
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rafael" <rafael(at)gforcecable.com>
Subject: RV7A vs RV9A
Date: May 13, 2007
James,
I'm in Aiken, SC. I would absolutely love to take a look at the projects
and would gladly pay all expenses for a ride in an RV. I'm retired, so any
time any day is convenient for me.
My decision once more changes to the 9A over the 7A. Last night a voice
kept telling me: Keep It Simple Stupid! After running a spread sheet with
the number$, a 9A with a fixed pitch prop, and an O-320 engine would plenty
of airplane for me.
My cell # (803)292-7410
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Clark
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV7A vs RV9A
Rafael,
Where is SC are you?
If you are ever in the Columbia area, we probably can arrange for you to see
an RV9A, RV6's, maybe RV7A, several RV7s under construction, an although you
did not reference such maybe an RV4 under construction and an RV10 just
getting started. Probably could rustle up a ride as well.
Now to your questions ... I think you have received good answers already but
ask yourself the following ...
1. Will MOST of my flying be cross-country?
2. Will I EVER want to do aerobatics?
Both planes fly quite nicely. The stick forces on the 9(A) is a bit
"heavier" as you get farther into the roll to one side or the other but it
still flies "like an RV".
James
On 5/9/07, Rafael wrote:
Although I've been flying for over 29 years, I'm about to become a new
builder. I'm evaluating the merits of the RV9A and the RV7A. My interests
are for an airplane that would carry my wife and I on trips from South
Carolina to the Midwest and occasionally to the West coast. Aerobatics are
not a priority, although, if I build the 7, I would like to dip my toe into
this type of flying.
A couple of questions:
Which airplane makes a better IFR platform? I imagine that the 9 would
probably be less responsive (more stable?). Would the 7 behave better in
the bumps (higher wing loading).
If I build the 7, the 180hp, not available in the 9, would get you higher
faster.
For the long trips, I would like to add fuel capacity. What's the added
cost and weight of adding tip tanks? I've heard of 8.5 gal, giving 55 gal
total. Would putting tip tanks on the 7 limit its aerobatic capabilities?
This is my first post, so please let me know if this is the kind of
questions appropriate for this forum.
Thanks and best regards,
Rafael
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
http://forums.matronics.com
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics(at)cencula.com>
Subject: Re: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 13, 2007
I've been wondering some of the same things as Rafael, but would like to add
one more question:
When selecting an engine, does the choice of fixed pitch vs CS have any
bearing on choosing Dynafocal I vs. Dynafocal II?
I read a posting on this list that indicated Dynafocal II was intended for CS
props. The argument was that the center of mass is further forward on a CS
installation, so the focus of the mounts is further forward to match that and
reduce vibration.
Is this actually true? I've been able to find no other info to back this up,
although I have found quite a few people flying Dynafocal I motors with CS
props (which would seem to contradict the posting).
The posting is here in case anyone wants to read it:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5148244?KEYS=dynafocal_&_engine_&_code?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=8?SERIAL=07422721769?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
Thanks,
Mike Cencula
On Saturday May 12 2007 04:10 pm, Rafael wrote:
> First of all, I thank all who provided me with input in making the decision
> between a 9A and 7A. I have decided to build the 7A. It has not been an
> easy decision. Basically the balance tilted towards the 7 after
> considering the Vne and the added performance with the 360 engine.
>
>
> Now I would like help with a couple of other decisions. First, IO-360 vs
> O-360. I was leaning heavily towards the injected engine, carburetor heat
> being the issue. However, after attending an EAA meeting this morning and
> talking to an RV-8 builder with a beautiful 8A with an O-360, I'm no longer
> sure. What advantages does the fuel injection have? Performance?
> Reliability? Ease of installation? Maintenance? Any other? I believe
> cost and weight penalty are close for either engine.
>
>
> The other decision is between Constant Speed and Fixed Pitch prop. It is
> my understanding that the CS will provided better takeoff and climb figures
> and marginally better cruise performance. I'm wondering if this
> performance is worth the extra $6500 or so for the CS. I'm leaning towards
> the FP implementation, but I would like to hear comments.
>
>
> Thanks and best regards to all,
>
>
> Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "sportypilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com>
Subject: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 13, 2007
Dynafocal I is the standard engine case type where the engine connects
To the engine mount, conical is the older style engine cases and they
Can be converted to dynafocal I for about 400.00 at places like ECI,
Dynafocal II was an oddball engine type done on a few factory type
Aircraft, these choices have nothing to do with CS or fixed pitch
Crankshafts, those differences are only if the crankshaft has a
Hollow end on the crankshaft.. Vans sells all three mounts,but they
Will Make you sign a not return form for the conical or Dynafocal II
Engine mounts.. I would stick with the dynafocal I mount and you still
Can buy an engine that has the hollow crankshaft and use a fixed pitch
Prop (it takes plugs in the end of the crank) and later you can move
Up to constant speed prop when you can afford it.. having options is
A good thing.. these items are in the preview plans.. if you have them
Danny..
I've been wondering some of the same things as Rafael, but would like to
add
one more question:
When selecting an engine, does the choice of fixed pitch vs CS have any
bearing on choosing Dynafocal I vs. Dynafocal II?
I read a posting on this list that indicated Dynafocal II was intended for
CS
props. The argument was that the center of mass is further forward on a CS
installation, so the focus of the mounts is further forward to match that
and
reduce vibration.
Is this actually true? I've been able to find no other info to back this
up,
although I have found quite a few people flying Dynafocal I motors with CS
props (which would seem to contradict the posting).
The posting is here in case anyone wants to read it:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5148244?KEYS=dyna
focal_&_engine_&_code?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=8?SERIAL=07422721769?SHOWBUTTONS
=YES
Thanks,
Mike Cencula
On Saturday May 12 2007 04:10 pm, Rafael wrote:
> First of all, I thank all who provided me with input in making the
decision
> between a 9A and 7A. I have decided to build the 7A. It has not been an
> easy decision. Basically the balance tilted towards the 7 after
> considering the Vne and the added performance with the 360 engine.
>
>
> Now I would like help with a couple of other decisions. First, IO-360 vs
> O-360. I was leaning heavily towards the injected engine, carburetor heat
> being the issue. However, after attending an EAA meeting this morning and
> talking to an RV-8 builder with a beautiful 8A with an O-360, I'm no
longer
> sure. What advantages does the fuel injection have? Performance?
> Reliability? Ease of installation? Maintenance? Any other? I believe
> cost and weight penalty are close for either engine.
>
>
> The other decision is between Constant Speed and Fixed Pitch prop. It is
> my understanding that the CS will provided better takeoff and climb
figures
> and marginally better cruise performance. I'm wondering if this
> performance is worth the extra $6500 or so for the CS. I'm leaning
towards
> the FP implementation, but I would like to hear comments.
>
>
> Thanks and best regards to all,
>
>
> Rafael
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2007
From: Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Initial biuld decisions
I posted this on the RV-9 list as you posted your query there, too.
Rafael,
A couple things:
1) Regarding Vne and the O-360, it shouldn't be a big deal with the
RV-9. There are quite a few O-360 powered -9's out there, and you won't
flirt with Vne in cruise. The only time it would be an issue is in a
dive/descent, a small part of your time flying. One will need to watch
for Vne with both the O-360 or O-320 in a descent - the former will make
it a bit easier to get close in a more shallow descent. Just throttle
back, that's it. The attention to this is no different than other
critical areas of flight, such as the landing.
2) Between the O- and IO-360, there are many threads on this in the
archives for the various forums. Weight will be a non issue. The
injected models main advantage IMHO is to run lean of peak and achieve 1
gph improvement in fuel burn. A more balanced fuel mixture to each
cylinder is possible. You don't have to worry about carb icing. But,
there is some complexity, higher fuel line pressures, need for a return
fuel line to a tank and more expensive fuel selector, more difficult hot
starts. There are others on these forums that have much more real world
info since I'm still a builder.
3) FP vs CS prop - this is one of the the top three debates that rage
amongst the OBAM market (along with to prime or not, slider vs tip-up,
etc). I'm still deciding on that one, and have a year still to worry.
Frankly, I'm leaning toward an FP - lighter weight, MUCH cheaper, less
maintenance/overhaul issues. Craig Catto builds a beautiful 3 blade prop
that I have flown behind in a -9 - smooth, excellent craftmanship, and
costs $1800. He (and other manufacturers) can set you up with a prop
that is coarse pitched that will give you Van's cruise numbers.
Comparing performance numbers from various builders shows cruise numbers
about equal between a properly configured cruise FP vs a CS. You will
sacrifice climb rate/takeoff distance a bit, so if you fly into hot and
high or short fields all the time, then you need to re-think this. But
honestly, I do all my flying in Illinois and elsewhere into airports
with at least 3500' strips - really look at Van's T/O and landing
numbers with a FP prop in the -9. There are few places where you can't
go that a CS will make a difference. On the flip side a CS resell may be
better, especially with the -7. Acro and formation flying have some
benefit with a CS. One thing against the FP is slowing down and descent
rate. Coming into the pattern and trying to slow down takes a little
more forethought and earlier energy management with the FP, since the CS
can give a little drag when in fine pitch and help out. This is
particularly so with the -9. Basically, I think the argument is a little
silly, as some practice will make you competent. I fly a Dakota with a
CS, but have no trouble when I grab the glider-like Diamond DA-20 with
FP after practicing with it a little once or twice. So, for me, I'll
likely go with the FP and use the $5000 saved over the CS for about 1500
gal of avgas. That's quite a few cross-country trips!
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. Brunke" <jdoody727(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 14, 2007
Dear Carl,
In your well written response you wrote:
> there is some complexity, higher fuel line pressures, need for a return
> fuel line to a tank and more expensive fuel selector, more difficult hot
> starts.
In my search for engines that started at Sun and Fun, I specifically asked
the fuel
return question to most of the engine sales people. Aerosport and
Mattituck both
said a return line is not needed in their fuel injection systems. I can't
remember
the response of the other engine groups, but reducing complexity is probably
better for sales.
I always assumed one would be required also. That eliminates some of the
complexity issue and relief for
me since I had already sealed up my tanks.
That also means a less expensive fuel selector, so that might bring the
injection
system somewhat closer in price to the carb system.
As for the hot start issue that could be a problem. Lycoming is now
selling non certified engines and
Jon ( the project manager, sorry I can't remember his last name), showed me
a return loop that ties into
the fuel line between the tank and the electric fuel pump. You run that
for a few seconds and it cycles
colder fuel foward of the firewall. That should solve the hot start issue.
That adds complexity and
on the fuel injected airplane I owned at one time, I would just open the oil
filler door after landing and
that seemed to work well to cool things down.
During one quick fuel stop we landed, pulled up to the pumps, the FBO filled
her up, we paid, and got right out of there. It started right up and it had
been shut down for no more
than 15 minutes. And that was in the middle of summer. OAT around 85 F.
Sincerely,
John Brunke
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Initial biuld decisions
Date: May 14, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
You could easily add an Airflow Performance "dump valve" to just about
any FI system. This simply needs a return to either tank.
It is only used to purge the hot fuel from firewall forward doing a hot
start. It works, adds very little complexity and does not require any
change to the standard selector valve.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of J. Brunke
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: Initial biuld decisions
Dear Carl,
In your well written response you wrote:
> there is some complexity, higher fuel line pressures, need for a
> return fuel line to a tank and more expensive fuel selector, more
> difficult hot starts.
In my search for engines that started at Sun and Fun, I specifically
asked the fuel
return question to most of the engine sales people. Aerosport and
Mattituck both
said a return line is not needed in their fuel injection systems. I
can't
remember
the response of the other engine groups, but reducing complexity is
probably better for sales.
I always assumed one would be required also. That eliminates some of
the
complexity issue and relief for
me since I had already sealed up my tanks.
That also means a less expensive fuel selector, so that might bring the
injection system somewhat closer in price to the carb system.
As for the hot start issue that could be a problem. Lycoming is now
selling non certified engines and
Jon ( the project manager, sorry I can't remember his last name),
showed me a return loop that ties into
the fuel line between the tank and the electric fuel pump. You run
that
for a few seconds and it cycles
colder fuel foward of the firewall. That should solve the hot start
issue.
That adds complexity and
on the fuel injected airplane I owned at one time, I would just open the
oil filler door after landing and that seemed to work well to cool
things down.
During one quick fuel stop we landed, pulled up to the pumps, the FBO
filled her up, we paid, and got right out of there. It started right up
and it had been shut down for no more
than 15 minutes. And that was in the middle of summer. OAT around 85
F.
Sincerely,
John Brunke
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2007
From: Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Initial biuld decisions
Good to know on the fuel return issue not being mandatory with some
makers - thanks for the correction. And no expensive Andair valve. There
was a thread in VAF about FI hot starts and all the tips from flyers did
point to being not too great an issue even without a dump or return
line. To blur things further, there are those with carb engines that do
run LOP - Pete Howell just posted on the RV-9-list about doing this with
an engine monitor.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Initial biuld decisions
Michael D. Cencula wrote:
>
> I've been wondering some of the same things as Rafael, but would like to add
> one more question:
>
> When selecting an engine, does the choice of fixed pitch vs CS have any
> bearing on choosing Dynafocal I vs. Dynafocal II?
>
> I read a posting on this list that indicated Dynafocal II was intended for CS
> props. The argument was that the center of mass is further forward on a CS
> installation, so the focus of the mounts is further forward to match that and
> reduce vibration.
>
> Is this actually true? I've been able to find no other info to back this up,
> although I have found quite a few people flying Dynafocal I motors with CS
> props (which would seem to contradict the posting).
>
> The posting is here in case anyone wants to read it:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5148244?KEYS=dynafocal_&_engine_&_code?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=8?SERIAL=07422721769?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Cencula
>
snipped
Dyna II was created for certain twins using extended hub props. I called
Van's tech help a couple of months ago, trying to determine if I could
order my finish kit without a specific engine selected. One thing they
told me was that the type II mount is no longer available due to
non-existent demand. You might want to verify that directly with Van's.
Charlie
(anybody with a mid-time x-360x they want to part with?)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jkrowe.1(at)netzero.net" <jkrowe.1(at)netzero.net>
Date: May 20, 2007
Subject: Interior upholstery
I was looking at the finished planes on the "Hobbs Meter" on Van's websi
te. I noticed two really sweet looking interiors. One plane was owned
by Michael Brewton and the other by Daniel Snow. Michael or Daniel, if
you get this, I would love to know who did your interior, you've got rea
lly nice looking planes. If anyone knows either of these two guys and w
ouldn't mind forwarding me their email so that I could find out, I would
appreciate it. Thanks,
Jason Rowe
RV-7A
N338JR (Res.)
I was looking at the finished planes on the "Hobbs Meter" on Va
n's website. I noticed two really sweet looking interiors. O
ne plane was owned by Michael Brewton and the other by Daniel Snow.
; Michael or Daniel, if you get this, I would love to know who did your
interior, you've got really nice looking planes. If anyone knows e
ither of these two guys and wouldn't mind forwarding me their email so t
hat I could find out, I would appreciate it. Thanks,
Jason Rowe
RV-7A
N338JR (Res.)