Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:51 AM - Super RV-8 (Morocketman@aol.com)
2. 12:00 PM - Re: Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation (Ron C)
3. 01:49 PM - Re: Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation (Boyd C. Braem)
4. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation (Boyd C. Braem)
5. 02:54 PM - Re: Parachutes for Sale (Winnick645@cs.com)
6. 08:48 PM - Re: Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation (jamesbaldwin@attglobal.net)
7. 09:48 PM - Re: Parachutes for Sale (Morocketman@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Morocketman@aol.com
He fellas, stop and think a minute. If you have full fuel and NO PASSENGER
OR BAGGAGE, versus low fuel (6-8 gallons) you have made a much more
significant (+250 LB) change in the wing loading than the IO-540
engine/battery combination. I believe the wings can easily stand the load on
any RV design IF you fly the airplane sensibly. That means respecting
"design maneuvering speed". If you fly in turbulent air, doing aerobatics
over-the-top, with a passenger, and are not extremely aware, you'd best have
a prepaid burial plan, and a hefty umbrella policy to cover the liability.
Please don't do this, and ruin the program for the rest of us? I do solo
aerobatics in my RV-4 and have never seen 4 g's. It is not necessary.
On another note, unless you can fork
over the big bucks for a new Lycoming or Superior Kit engine, where are you
going to find an IO-360, or O-360? There is a used or overhaul-able -540
lying around in half the hangars in the country. And I believe that a -540
is cheaper to buy, and from what I hear, as economical to run if you can
manage the "money lever" with your left hand. Seems almost everything in
aviation "comes down to good judgment!"
I had a two hour conversation with Van in 1999,
asking why (with the above concerns) that he did not design the RV-8 for the
Lycoming 540 engines. He said, "My airplanes are designed for the "average
pilot". Let's don't criticize someone for making his airplane a bit more
that the average IF HE IS CAREFUL AND CAN HANDLE IT! Les Featherston
N206KT HRII w 262HP Very soon to fly!
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Ron C" <ronc@metropolisdesign.com>
Russ-
My field elevation is 4,230 so I don't get to sea level much. But at
4,230 I see 20.3 - 20.7 gph @ 2,730 rpm on take off. By the .1 gph p/hp
you suggest I am doing 215 mph w/ 116 hp since I burn 11.6 gph @2400 and
21 in. So I guess one can use the gph as a current hp output calculator?
Ron Carter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russ Werner
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport
Aviation
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Russ Werner" <russ@wernerworld.com>
Ron,
What's your takeoff fuel flow at sea level? That is a pretty good
indicator (and BS filter). I believe you can figure something like:
ff divided by .1 on most piston engines. I'm told it is impossible to
get more than 300 with an RSA5 due to fuel delivery limitations. The
bigger injection units can do it however.
Russ
> I have a balanced 540 with 10 to ones and have
> been wondering how much it actually puts out- it has not been
dynoed. At
> full blow im doing 250 at 5,500 msl
>
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Hey, Bob--
I understand what you're saying, but all RVs (all aircraft, for that
matter) that cruise well above Va (maneuvering speed)(around 135 mph
indicated for RVs) need to be cautious in this regard. I've spoken to
several RV pilots in the past who had no idea what their Va was or why
it was important. I guess that if you learn in a low speed trainer, the
subject does not come up much (and, I am NOT disparaging low-speed
trainers--I love flying J-3 Cubs/AirCams, etc.) And, the length of the
wing, if properly designed for the anticipated loading, should not
matter--I mean, the +10/-10g rating on the Extra 300 is not derived from
the wingspan (with the exception that the FAA (at least they used to)
will accept calculations of wing loading based on vertical gusts of
25/50 fps velocities as opposed to physically flying a full Vn flight
envelope to establish a figure for Vne--then Vd-max becomes Vne +
10%--unless there are some other structural concerns that would limit
max airspeed--like wheelpants ripping off in flight).
So, anyway, what I'm rambling about, here, is that if you want to fly a
fast airplane, you need to design/build a fast airplane--if you take a
"slow" airplane and fly it "fast", then prudence, is indeed, its own
reward--tho, maybe not the best solution to the problem.
Boyd.
Bob Japundza wrote:
>--> Rocket-List message posted by: Bob Japundza <bjapundza@yahoo.com>
>
>Boyd, the wings on the Super-8's aren't chopped down like the Rockets or your
airplane. Couple that with a significantly higher empty weight and higher cruise
speeds, a wing that's already longer than a RV-4 wing, it is possible to overstress
the wings when going thru turbulence since they are cruising right on
the RV-8's designed red-line, when operating at 75%. These guys usually loaf
around under 50% power at typical RV speeds/fuel burns so life is smooth and
quiet. Unlike the Rockets with the heavier skins up front and other structure
mods, these are stock airframes, so there is some merit to their thinking--just
being careful. I don't know off hand what their empty weights were. Three
of them are carbureted, and that was just out of personal preference, ease of
maintenance, starting, etc. The reason for using a 540 is there's more bang
for the buck there. Regards, Bob
>
>"Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net> wrote:--> Rocket-List message posted by:
"Boyd C. Braem"
>
>Bob--
>
>What's this "overloading the wings" stuff? They're still built to
>+6/-3g, aren't they? Are these guys "who did their homework" saying
>that because of a little extra engine and battery weight that their
>wings are more likely to depart the airframe in a "normal flight"
>envelope? Something is not right with this picture. What is the empty
>weight of these airplanes? And, (reaching under the desk for my
>soapbox) why go to all the trouble with a Super-8 mod and not go with an
>IO-540 (esp. up there in the Midwest where icing is much more prevalent
>than down here in SW Florida)? And, mmmnph, mmnnnppphhh....Oh, thanks,
>honey--I was starting to drool, there, wasn't I?
>
>Boyd
>RV-Super 6/325 LyCon hp
>design gross weight 1900#--flight tested to 2000#--guess what my design
>aerobatic weight is?
>wings chopped 7" ala Harmon Rocket--lotsa good advice out there in
>Bakersfield for anyone wanting to put a -540 in any RV.
>
>Bob Japundza wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Rocket-List message posted by: Bob Japundza
>>
>>The super-8 in SA is owned by a friend of mine. There are four super-8's flying
here in Indy, and those guys did their homework. They have to be very careful
flying them in normal flight out of fear of overloading the wings. They use
a larger 35ah battery mounted mid-way in the tailcone. They are about 10mph slower
than a Rocket at cruise. Regards, Bob
>>
>>P M Condon
>>
>>
>wrote:--> Rocket-List message posted by: P M Condon
>
>
>>There is a picture in the "what our members are building" section of the
>>latest EAA sport Aviation mag of a RV-8 with a O-540. A few folks over
>>the years have done this with 8's & sixes. Has anyone done the W&B and
>>other studies to see the extent of such a undertaking??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Ron--
Engines, like minds, are a terrible thing. The dyno report from LyCon
(temp-60F, 29.84"Hg) at 2750 rpm showed 323 hp (so I lied about the
325!) at??? 25.6 gal/hr??? (maybe they meant 35.6) and a MAP of 27.51".
However, down here in Venice, FL (which is 19' msl), on a good high
pressure day, I generally run about 2.5" below ambient air pressure at
the start of the take-off run and after I get some speed up my ram-air
port reduces this to about 1.5" below ambient (non-filtered air)--fuel
flow from my VM-1000, which has proved to be remarkably accurate, is
usually around 35-36 gal/hr at 2800 rpm at sea-level take-off. One of
the mechs at LyCon told me to divide the gal/hr flow at sea level, full
power, by 0.11 to get an estimate of hp. I'm not sure how to correct
that calculation for your msl altitude.
With a "wide-body" -6, I generally get about 240 mph indicated at 75%
(24/24) and around 260 at 2800 rpm, down where the deer and the buffalo
roam. Max rate of climb with solo pilot is 4,300 fpm. I really love
this airplane. Gross aerobatic weight is 1650 and max gross weight is
1900. Ready to fly empty weight is 1230.
Boyd.
Super-6
Ron C wrote:
>--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Ron C" <ronc@metropolisdesign.com>
>
>Whoa!!! Boyd!
>
>Chill out dude don't blow a base gasket. Remember " " "EXPERIMENTAL" "
>" , get it?
>
>Hey, by the way, I noticed you list your Ly-Con 540 at 325 hp. Would you
>mind listing whats been done to that bad boy and at what settings your
>getting that much power? I have a balanced 540 with 10 to ones and have
>been wondering how much it actually puts out- it has not been dynoed. At
>full blow im doing 250 at 5,500 msl
>
>Thanks
>
>Ron Carter
>HRII #49
>335 ttsn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Parachutes for Sale |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Winnick645@cs.com
In a message dated 5/5/2003 9:27:46 AM Mountain Standard Time, salned@msn.com
writes:
> salned@msn.com
Please send a phone # So that we can discuss parachute sale. Thanks
Rich Winnick 303-429-5213
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 with O-540 in this months EAA Sport Aviation |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: jamesbaldwin@attglobal.net
Rocketeers and others -
The questions and rules of thumb given here regarding horsepower and fuel
consumption indicate to me you guys might like to understand how this thing
really works.
ALL engines, turbine or reciprocating, are very simple converter devices.
They convert fuel -- in the recip case gasoline, at 6.0 pounds per gallon
(auto fuel varies but is about 6.5 lbs/gal average) -- into useful work with
some undesirable byproducts -- heat and noise. I'm sure a lot of you
understand most of the heat energy lost in a recip goes out the exhaust pipe
with a smaller amount lost to the air through the cooling fins which exits
the cowl. Mechanical friction takes some too. This waste costs a major
portion of the energy prevalent in a pound of gasoline but still yields us
enough to turn our props.
In almost all common aircraft engines currently used in light planes, the
term BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) falls within the range of 0.375
(rare) to 0.55 and the units are 'pounds per hour per horsepower'. In other
words, it takes about (average number) 0.45 pounds of fuel to produce one
horsepower for one hour. Remember this is pounds. If it is gallons it would
be about .075 gallons.
Multiply gallons per hour times the weight of fuel per gallon to get
consumption in pounds per hour. Then multiply by the number of horses you
are using -- i.e. 200 horsepower engine at 75% power is 150 HP. If the BSFC
is .45 (pretty average but good number these days) then the hourly
consumption of fuel is .45 times 150 which equals 67.5 pounds per hour. This
is equal to 11.25 gallons per hour if the fuel weighs 6.0 pounds per gallon.
If a guy leans his injected, flow optimized, blueprinted engine with great
fuel atomization (more complete burning of the fuel/air mixture) with
electronic ignition he might get down to either a lower burn per hour or
simply get more horsepower to the prop. An interesting note -- I always got
more range out of my Grumman Cheetah using auto gas because in some cases it
was as much as 8 or 9% heavier! More BTU's per pound, and engines don't burn
gallons, they burn pounds!
I guarantee you these numbers are readily available to anyone using a decent
dyno with modern digital data acquisition. The engine used in the Voyager
was hitting some pretty low BSFC numbers because they used all the tricks --
high operating temps, low RPM, fuel injection, tuned exhaust, etc, etc. Our
Rocket engines with open exhaust (no mufflers), fuel injection, high CRs, etc
should do pretty well except that we are all speed freaks and use a lot of
power playing around most of the time. When we get serious and do a X
country the numbers can be pretty good.
This was a simple, abbreviated version of horsepower estimation using fuel
flow. The bottom line is this: fuel consumption in gallons per hour times
the weight in pounds per gallon divided by the BSFC will give you how much
horsepower is being delivered to the prop. A dynamometer or torque
transducer is the only way to really know the actual HP number delivered to
the prop but the numbers from the factory for my Piper Twin Comanche with
fuel injected, open exhaust, 160 horsepower IO-320s ranges from .44 to .58
lbs/HP/hr. Get your calculators and have at it guys! JBB
p.s. I checked my calculations but if I made a mistake let me know.
"Boyd C. Braem" wrote:
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
>
> Ron--
>
> Engines, like minds, are a terrible thing. The dyno report from LyCon
> (temp-60F, 29.84"Hg) at 2750 rpm showed 323 hp (so I lied about the
> 325!) at??? 25.6 gal/hr??? (maybe they meant 35.6) and a MAP of 27.51".
> However, down here in Venice, FL (which is 19' msl), on a good high
> pressure day, I generally run about 2.5" below ambient air pressure at
> the start of the take-off run and after I get some speed up my ram-air
> port reduces this to about 1.5" below ambient (non-filtered air)--fuel
> flow from my VM-1000, which has proved to be remarkably accurate, is
> usually around 35-36 gal/hr at 2800 rpm at sea-level take-off. One of
> the mechs at LyCon told me to divide the gal/hr flow at sea level, full
> power, by 0.11 to get an estimate of hp. I'm not sure how to correct
> that calculation for your msl altitude.
>
> With a "wide-body" -6, I generally get about 240 mph indicated at 75%
> (24/24) and around 260 at 2800 rpm, down where the deer and the buffalo
> roam. Max rate of climb with solo pilot is 4,300 fpm. I really love
> this airplane. Gross aerobatic weight is 1650 and max gross weight is
> 1900. Ready to fly empty weight is 1230.
>
> Boyd.
> Super-6
>
> Ron C wrote:
>
> >--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Ron C" <ronc@metropolisdesign.com>
> >
> >Whoa!!! Boyd!
> >
> >Chill out dude don't blow a base gasket. Remember " " "EXPERIMENTAL" "
> >" , get it?
> >
> >Hey, by the way, I noticed you list your Ly-Con 540 at 325 hp. Would you
> >mind listing whats been done to that bad boy and at what settings your
> >getting that much power? I have a balanced 540 with 10 to ones and have
> >been wondering how much it actually puts out- it has not been dynoed. At
> >full blow im doing 250 at 5,500 msl
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Ron Carter
> >HRII #49
> >335 ttsn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Parachutes for Sale |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Morocketman@aol.com
Hi Please give me a call at 417-466-4663 or 417-425=3595 Thx Les Featheston
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|