Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:49 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Charlie Kuss)
2. 02:48 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Jim Sears)
3. 03:13 AM - Alternative Engine Questions (Jim Sears)
4. 06:51 AM - Re: more engines (barry pote)
5. 06:59 AM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Ollie Washburn)
6. 06:59 AM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Ollie Washburn)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Ollie Washburn)
8. 07:23 AM - Re: battery (Sam Buchanan)
9. 07:41 AM - Re: Brake resevoir/feeder line routing (Dave Bristol)
10. 07:44 AM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Brian Denk)
11. 07:44 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Tedd McHenry)
12. 07:47 AM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Tedd McHenry)
13. 07:52 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Tedd McHenry)
14. 07:55 AM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Steven Eberhart)
15. 07:57 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Jim Oke)
16. 08:03 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Jim Oke)
17. 08:05 AM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Sam Buchanan)
18. 08:10 AM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (David Lundquist)
19. 08:14 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 88 Msgs - 12/02/02 (Frazier, Vincent A)
20. 08:37 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (kempthornes)
21. 08:43 AM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Denis Walsh)
22. 09:09 AM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Dave)
23. 09:14 AM - Re: Prop (Dave)
24. 09:29 AM - engines (Wheeler North)
25. 10:23 AM - RV prices - WAS: Tailwheel blah, blah (kempthornes)
26. 10:37 AM - Re: engines (Tedd McHenry)
27. 10:53 AM - Re: Re: battery (Dave Biddle)
28. 10:53 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Rob Prior)
29. 11:31 AM - Gretz, Rocky Mountain Instruments - Good Service (Dave Biddle)
30. 11:40 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Tedd McHenry)
31. 11:44 AM - Re: Re:baggage area floors, strobes (Charles Brame)
32. 11:54 AM - Re: Gretz, Rocky Mountain Instruments - Good Service (barry pote)
33. 11:54 AM - Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff (Jim Bean)
34. 11:55 AM - aerosance FADEC (Wheeler North)
35. 12:23 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Wayne R. Couture)
36. 12:45 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Bartrim, Todd)
37. 01:06 PM - Re: Prop (Randy Lervold)
38. 01:43 PM - Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff (Stephen Johnson)
39. 01:51 PM - Re: Re:baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 (Laird Owens)
40. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: battery (Sam Buchanan)
41. 02:44 PM - Re: AD search - how (WPAerial@aol.com)
42. 02:48 PM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Kevin Horton)
43. 02:56 PM - Re: RV7, fuse, odds and ends. (Dan Checkoway)
44. 03:36 PM - alternative engines (Bartrim, Todd)
45. 04:08 PM - Re: AD search - how (Stein Bruch)
46. 04:08 PM - Re: AD search - how (Sam Buchanan)
47. 04:13 PM - Re: AD search - how (Jerry Calvert)
48. 04:39 PM - Re: alternative engines (John Helms)
49. 05:18 PM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Gordon or Marge Comfort)
50. 06:01 PM - Re: AD search - how (Sam Buchanan)
51. 06:09 PM - Re: Re:baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 (Elsa & Henry)
52. 06:48 PM - Re: Prop/Randall (RGray67968@aol.com)
53. 07:19 PM - Taildragger Vs.Ti Gear (Eustace Bowhay)
54. 07:20 PM - RV-7 Tail Question (Jim Combs)
55. 08:17 PM - A New Beginning (Stein Bruch)
56. 08:32 PM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Vanremog@aol.com)
57. 08:35 PM - List of Contributors #1 - A Special Thank You... (Matt Dralle)
58. 08:45 PM - for sale O 320 E3D (TColeE@aol.com)
59. 08:48 PM - Uninformed expertise. (Rob W M Shipley)
60. 09:02 PM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Tom Gummo)
61. 09:11 PM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Charlie Kuss)
62. 09:43 PM - Re: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). (Curt Reimer)
63. 10:21 PM - Re: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). (Stein Bruch)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Thanks Doug,
My concern is that folks who are "handy or shade tree mechanics" get it in their
head that they have the skills to take on a project of this scope. Purchasing
a FWF package is one thing. Going Tracy Crooks and Ed Anderson's route without
the proper skill and knowledge is another. I'm not saying you can't do it.
Just don't try if you aren't willing to spend the time and effort to educate
yourself for the task at hand.
I'm a professional mechanic. I've worked as an aerospace machine assembler. I
started out wanting to build an auto engine conversion. Yet the more I studied
it, the less appealing it became. I know I'm capable of doing it. I simply think
that the additional investment of time isn't worth it FOR ME!
There are several very "hard headed" members of my local EAA chapter doing auto
engine conversions. They are downright scary! They aren't mechanics. They certainly
are not engineers. They aren't particularly mechanically inclined. They
sure don't take constructive critisizm very well. Trying to suggest that some
of their workmanship is less than airworthy is viewed as a personal attack.
Their whole reason for avoiding an aircraft engine is to "save money". I really
fear for the lives of these folks if they finish their aircraft. I have seen
more than one experimental ship where my first thought was, " What DAR signed
THIS off?"
We should all strive to do the best work we are capable of. If you feel you are
qualified, go for it. If you aren't sure, STUDY! LEARN! Remember, ignorance
is temporary, (cured by education) stupidity is permanent!
Charlie
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Tedd,
>> Is there somewhere on-line where I can find this info. As an auto
>mechanic, I
>> was very excited about the prospects of using an auto engine
>
>Snip
>
>I am gonna throw gas on the fire then take off to Vegas for the airshow
>convention.
>
>Charlie makes some great points in his post and I agree heartedly. Still we
>don't want to do is discourage those who wish to be "experimenters" and
>"test pilots" They play an important role in "experimental" aviation. But
>those people need to go into this with their eyes wide open, Accepting that
>they are test pilots and they are experimenting.
>
>Choosing an auto engine to save a buck and then trying to fly it as an X/C
>cruiser is false economy. I don't care which conversion you use, they are
>not as reliable as a Lycoming and prudent pilots fly them accordingly. I
>have hauled my buddies soneri w/VW too many times.
>
>If you want a X/C transportation airplane that can fly IFR or VFR, the
>Lycoming is the answer. If you look at the cost over 2000 hours, assuming
>even minimum wage for labor, I defy anyone to prove the total expenses of
>an auto engine is cheaper per horsepower.
>
>Can automotive ( or WWII) technology make the Lycoming better? You bet,
>electronic ignition, EFI, tuned intake, tuned exhaust, all can and should be
>proven by "experimenters" and "test pilots" to push that technology into the
>certified market.
>
>Decide which you want to be, THEN decide which engine you want.
>
> Cya all Friday. Standing by with the Asbestos Underwear!
>
>Tailwinds,
>Doug Rozendaal
>"It is great to be back!" Can we pleeeasssse start a T/W vs Trike thread
>;-)
>
>
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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <sears@searnet.com>
I've been reading this thread and just remembered an alternative that some
of you may want to look at. Jabiru has designed an eight cylinder engine
that is rated at 180hp. It was designed to replace the Lycoming engine in
such airplanes as the RV series. In fact, the folks have even designed a
firewall forward package for our RVs. The last time I read their website,
they were testing the engine on a RV. That's been over a year ago. I don't
know what the status is on the new engine; but, I do know that those who
have the smaller Jabiru engines are happy with them. Since these aircraft
engines sell for a far smaller price than a Lyc, it may be interesting to
look at one of them. Can you imagine how smooth an eight cylinder will be,
when compared to a Lyc? I once had a O300 six cylinder Continental in a
Skyhawk. It was much smoother than my O320.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
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: | Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <sears@searnet.com>
> I've been reading this thread and just remembered an alternative that some
> of you may want to look at. Jabiru has designed an eight cylinder engine
> that is rated at 180hp. It was designed to replace the Lycoming engine in
> such airplanes as the RV series. In fact, the folks have even designed a
> firewall forward package for our RVs. The last time I read their website,
> they were testing the engine on a RV. That's been over a year ago. I
don't
> know what the status is on the new engine; but, I do know that those who
> have the smaller Jabiru engines are happy with them. Since these aircraft
> engines sell for a far smaller price than a Lyc, it may be interesting to
> look at one of them. Can you imagine how smooth an eight cylinder will
be,
> when compared to a Lyc? I once had a O300 six cylinder Continental in a
> Skyhawk. It was much smoother than my O320.
>
Just to be sure, I went to the web site to take another look. It seems
they've changed their strategy a little. They're sizing the engine up for
the Supermarine Spitfire kit, for now. They've installed one on the
Spitfire and are testing it. When they're satisfied that it will run well
on the Spit, they're going to install one on a RV-6. One should contact
them to more details. They plan to have the engine available by the end of
this year. Since it was supposed to have been available some time ago, I
guess the folks have had a few teething problems with it. I'm glad to see
they aren't putting it on the market until it's ready. This is really a
pretty little engine that deserves your taking a look at it. Here's the
address to make it easy for you. :-)
http://www.jabiru.net.au/
BTW, it's rated at 200 hp at 3000rpm and 180hp at 2700rpm, now. Not bad.
Since it has a 7.83:1 compression ratio, it should run on autogas! Now,
that makes it a good candidate for my next RV. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
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: more engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: barry pote <barrypote@comcast.net>
Charlie,
Chevy Bowtie aluminum block for the 4.3, part# 14011069, is 75 pounds.
The stock cast iron is 160, I believe. And the aluminum heads save
another 25 to 30. There's your hundred pounds.
Jess Meyers at Belted Air Power has a tried and true belt drive unit. He
is good people, too.
http://www.beltedair.com/
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: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
If you want to look macho get a taildragger,but if you like to fly get a trigear.You
can't tell the difference in the air.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Mark Fowler
mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler
Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
OK Doug,
I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to go.
I don't
have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are lots
of pros and con
either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
Sincerely,
Mark Fowler
mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
Living in Fl. now i don't need a pre-heater,but i lived in Pittsburgh before and
we had a Cardinal which i pre-heated with a ceramic type space heater set to
direct air up cowling outlet.Works great and can be put on a timer. Ollie
RV6A Central Fl.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lenleg@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
Anyone tried the "Hot Strip"????
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
16 hours !!
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:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Denk
Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
And why do you think a RV-8 should fetch that much more than a RV-6?The kits cost
about the same.>
So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos as
other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and save
what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
interest.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
3 yrs. of RV grins
do not archive this diatribe
Message 8
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Here are details of the little battery I retrofitted to my RV-6:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/battery.htm
The battery spins the O-320 just as well a "big" battery. One of our
local flyers cranks the IO-360 in his RV-8 with a little battery as
well.
And...I can get the little battery locally for $18.00!! No reason not to
keep a fresh battery installed since it doesn't cost much more than an
oil filter; might even change it out at each condition inspection.
Sam
=========================
Cary Rhodes wrote:
>
> At the risk of starting a battery war.
>
> But here goes
>
> Does anybody have a good or bad experience with the Odessey model 680
> turning a Lycoming 360??
>
> It looks like the real application for the battery is a big Harley
> motorcycle.
>
> It just looks to me to be too small for a 4 cyl, paint bucket sized
> piston Lycoming.
>
> cary
>
Message 9
| 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: Brake resevoir/feeder line routing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Doug,
I'd be sure that the brake lines are well below the reservoir. It's a
gravity feed system and if the lines are above the level in the reservoir it
may not work very well. Actually, the cylinder will suck but you're still
setting yourself up for potential problems.
Dave -6 So Cal
dmedema@att.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: dmedema@att.net
>
> How important is it to have the lines coming from the brake
> resevoir routed such that they are always below the resevoir?
> Do they have to be below the whole resevoir or can they just
> be below say halfway up the resevoir?
>
> I am almost ready to rivet my top forward skin on but want
> to make sure I don't need to reroute my brake resevoir lines.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug Medema
> RV-6A N276DM (reserved)
>
Message 10
| 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:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>And why do you think a RV-8 should fetch that much more than a RV-6?The
>kits cost about the same.>
>
I don't. It's just that the market, up to now, has shown the -8 to fetch a
higher amount. To a pilot who has no interest in a tandem airplane, the -8
isn't "worth" anything to him. To a pilot who loves tandem seating, the -8
may be worth paying a premium. All RV's are simply outstanding, but the
newer models seem to have the "gee whiz" factor going for them as new kid on
the block. Over time, I'm sure there will be a bottoming out on each model,
and values will stabilize purely by sheer numbers in operation and how many
are on the market at any given time.
It's all black magic. Could make for a nifty term paper for an economics
student.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
Message 11
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> The implication that somehow the Chrysler engine is superior just because it's
peak power is produced far beyond it's peak torque means nothing as far as
the engine design being "superior".
Sorry for the confusion, that wasn't the point at all. The point was that
there's no need to run the engine that far above peak torque, yet it can
survive for many hundreds of hours under those conditions. Therefore it's
reasonable to assume that it will last even longer when cruising near peak
torque, which is how a sensible person would run it in an airplane.
I'm only trying to make one simple point here: durability of the long block is
not the problem with auto conversions. That's it. I'm fully aware of all the
other valid concerns (weight, PSRUs, peripherals, etc.). Work out the numbers
for yourself and you'll see my point.
Tedd
Message 12
| 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: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> If you want to look macho get a taildragger,but if you like to fly get a trigear.You
can't tell the difference in the air.
So if I want to fly AND have the benefit of looking macho I should build a
tailwheel? Thanks for sorting out the logic for me, I was struggling with
that.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 13
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> Since it has a 7.83:1 compression ratio, it should run on autogas!
I asked them specifically about auto gas a year or two ago. They said they
were not developing it for auto gas. That doesn't mean you can't use it, of
course, but I would have felt better about it if they'd said, "Absolutely!"
They're also not planning inverted oil or any convenient way to have inverted
fuel.
Nevertheless, I think it's going to be a good alternative to a Lycoming. I've
spoken to quite a few builders who've used the smaller Jabirus, and they all
rave about them.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 14
| 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: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Steven Eberhart <newtech@newtech.com>
I don't know, a tri gear with slider canopy back looks pretty cool
taxing down in front of all the people at Oshkosh with your arm resting
on the slider rail and silk scarf blowing in the wind. Pretty cool IMHO.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A slider - working on fuel tanks, silk scarf on order :-)
Ollie Washburn wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
>
> If you want to look macho get a taildragger,but if you like to fly get a trigear.You
can't tell the difference in the air.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to
go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are lots
of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Tedd;
As I recall, the Porsche engine was not "just" a conversion of an existing
engine, but a purpose built aviation engine - but based on a lot of Porsche
auto engineering experience and details. Flying magazine flew the airplane
and I think gave it a positive write-up. Air-cooled or liquid cooled - I
have forgotten.
So reasonable technical success; but, yes, when it came time to go into a
very traditional market with a new product with no overwhelming technical
advantage, no cost advantage, and a huge support problem (most N. American
AMEs haven't seen anything besides a Lyc. or Cont. product in under 300 HP
airplanes for a generation now) it was indeed curtains.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> Jim:
>
> > Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of
their
> > engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was
quite
> > successful and the company did a N American demo tour with the engine in
a
> > Mooney 23 or similar class aircraft including a stop at Oshkosh.
> >
> > That would be "successful" from an engineering standpoint, of course, it
> > faded from the scene soon afterwards doubtless due to the lack of a
business
> > case to produce it.
>
> There was a Porsche-powered Mooney some years ago. I don't know a lot
about
> it, but it certainly wasn't a business success. As I understand it, the
> Porsche engine didn't offer as much performance for the dollar as a
Lycoming.
>
> It seems odd to me that anyone thought the idea would work. The Porsche
engine
> was quite small, not much bigger than the Subaru engines that are becoming
> popular with some RV builders. The European auto industry always seems to
> underestimate the value of more displacement, probably the legacy of their
> absurd laws that regulate and tax cars on the basis of engine size. It
seems
> pretty obvious to me that an engine half the size is going to have a hard
time
> competing unless it has some other, very significant advantage.
Evidently, the
> Porsche didn't.
>
> If I were to do an auto conversion (I'm not, I have a Lycoming), I'd be
> inclined to build the largest displacement V6 Chevy that I reasonably
could,
> and limit the RPM to about 3500 or so. Such an engine would have about
the
> same cylinder pressures and piston speeds as a Lycoming, and lower
valvetrain
> loads, so it would probably run quite a long time. The trade-off would be
more
> weight for less money.
>
> Tedd
>
>
Message 16
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
I was interested in the so-called Blanton Ford V-6 engine a few years ago
and bought his package. One of the key work items was to have the cam
re-ground to alter the torque-horsepower curves to something more useful for
aviation use. So the situation can be addressed. Of course, regrinding cams
is a bigger engineering task than most people can tackle and could be said
to invalidate the automotive durability testing that was done no matter how
rigorous it was.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-6A - at the hangar now
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
>
> Tedd,
> That's a very good test on the V-100 engine. Thanks for the web link. I
would agree that this test is probably typical of most automotive companies
today.
> Regarding rated power being above rated torque. This statement means
nothing. The Lycoming's rated power is just above it's peak torque. This is
a GOOD thing. When the cruise RPM of an engine is in it's peak torque area,
it obtains it's best fuel economy.
> The implication that somehow the Chrysler engine is superior just because
it's peak power is produced far beyond it's peak torque means nothing as far
as the engine design being "superior". With any engine (assuming cylinder
breathing is adequate), more RPM, means more power and more stress. Since
the V-10 is designed to turn higher RPMs, it needs to be tested in that RPM
band to prove the strength of it's components.
> I am unaware of the max HP and max torque RPM of the V-10. For argument's
sake, I'll assume 5800 RPM for max HP and 3000 RPM for max torque. Do you
notice that there is an almost 3000 RPM spread between max power and max
torque (best fuel economy)? This tells me that if you intend to use an
engine like this in an airplane, you must choose between great horsepower
(high RPM and poor fuel economy) or better fuel economy (lower RPM) and less
than rated power.
> The Chevy and Ford V-6 aircraft conversions only run at 4200 RPM, while
the automotive versions reach peak power at 4800 - 5400 RPM. The Mazda 13B
conversion engines run at 6000 RPM rather than the 7000 - 9000 RPM used in
stock and automotive racing applications. Why is this? Several reasons:
> 1) Reduce the maximum RPM to increase the life of the engine operating at
a high continuous power setting
> 2) Get the "cruise" RPM closer to the max torque range (2500 - 3000 RPM)
for better fuel economy.
> 3) To keep the propeller tip speeds sub sonic. Propeller efficiency drops
off & noise increases as the speed of sound is approached.
> The fact that the Lycoming's rated power is only slightly above it's max
torque RPM range means that it will give good fuel mileage at high power
(75%) ratings. This is what you want in an aircraft engine. Auto engines
have their max torque at the RPMs they normally turn in high gear at highway
speeds. (2000 - 3000 RPM)
> They are designed that way because they are intended to be run in
automobiles. It does not mean that this can't be changed. Changing the
camshaft profile, valve and port (intake and exhaust) sizes will accomplish
this. Auto engine output (rear) main bearing are sized to meet the loads
imposed by a clutch/torque converter and transmission. An aircraft engine
must have a much larger output (front) main bearing size to support the
loads of the propeller. Most V-8 output main bearings are about 1.5 - 1.75"
wide and 2.25- 2.50" diameter. A Lycoming flat 4 or 6 cylinder has an output
main bearing which is about 5" long (going from memory here) and 2.375" in
diameter.
> Since the auto engine conversion will be transmitting power through a
PSRU, I am unsure as to what size output main bearing it will need. to
understand better the loads a propeller puts on the crankshaft and case
halves (or engine block in the auto engine's case) Go to:
>
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html
>
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/sport_av92/sport_av92.html
>
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact2/contact2.html
>
> After reading these articles, you may have some doubts as to the ability
of the stock automotive crankshaft to function long and well in the aviation
environment. Again, nothing that can't be overcome. Replace the crankshaft
or modify it as needed. The Lexus V-8 is an all aluminium engine. Most
American V-6 engines used for aviation purposes are not. The fix? Replace
the stock block and heads with aluminium parts.
> Do you see where we are headed? Slowly but surely, we are replacing
(upgrading) major portions of the engine. This will NOT be cheap! This is
exactly what Toyota & Orenda found out (the hard way).
> Toyota did in deed make a "business" decision as you phrase it. The
decision was one of economics. It was cheaper (and safer to their
reputation) to buy a proven engine from Lycoming than to produce their own
"certified" Lexus V-8 engine. Toyota continued the certification process
long after their engineers knew that the project would not be economically
viable. Why? Because to quit without finishing (ie obtaining the
certification) would be tantamount to admitting that one of the greatest
Japanese auto makers could not achieve what a small, old fashioned American
company (Lycoming) has been doing for decades.
> Regarding Formula 1 versus Indy car racing, Honda put it's money where it
would get the best "world wide" exposure for each Yen spent. As much as we
Americans hate to admit it, no one outside the US gives a hoot about Indy
racing (or NASCAR). Honda wanted to let the WORLD (not the USA) know it was
the greatest automotive engineering company in the world. They did it quite
well.
> The only things "ancient" about Lycomings and Continentials, are their
fuel and ignition systems. Electronic ignition systems and FADAC will
finally bring these engines into the new millennium.
> Earlier, I mentioned PSRUs. Even if you develop a great engine, you need
an equally durable PSRU. There are several promising units being sold now.
However, NONE of them have say 1000 units which have demonstrated their
ability to go 1000 hours before overhaul. This is not to say it won't
happen, just to say it hasn't yet. Those brave souls investing their money
in these units, are true pioneers. (and braver men than I)
> Charlie Kuss
> PS When I started my project, I intended to use an auto engine. As I
learned more and more, I've become much more conservative. Of all the
conversions out there, I think that the Mazda 13B has the brightest future.
I want to fly in the next few years, so I'm not willing to wait to much
longer.
>
>
> >A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The
Chrysler
> >V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost
exclusively
> >wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear
in mind
> >that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated
such
> >that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire
Chyrsler
> >test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the
aircraft
> >industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so
the
> >Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto
industry
> >test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's
atypical.
> >You can read more about it at
> >
> > http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
> >
> >> You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
> >
> >Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
> >
> >> Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined
that aircraft
> >> engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I
will
> >> learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
> >
> >You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the
same
> >time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed
to
> >achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that
it's
> >tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda
just
> >didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources.
Ditto
> >Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
> >
> >I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
> >business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
> >addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft
use?"
> >Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to
ask
> >about the first question.)
> >
> >> Each of us can choose
> >> his own path.
> >
> >Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful
knowledge on
> >the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
> >
> >Tedd McHenry
> >Surrey, BC
> >-6 wings
>
>
Message 17
| 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:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
It has been my biased opinion for quite a while that used RV prices have
been inflated to a level that is unsustainable. It is a general rule of
thumb in the kit-built community that if you can recover the cost of the
plane when it is sold, you have done *very* well! The RV aircraft have
exceeded that rule due to several reasons:
1) Vans makes a very good aircraft that is conventional in construction
and appearance and is much more likely to be repaired by your local A&P
than many less conventional kit aircraft.
2) Law of Supply and Demand. When you have great demand and small
supply, prices will inflate. Reduce demand or increase supply, and
prices will deflate.
3) A booming economy. The late 1990's encouraged a bunch of folks to buy
toys they would not have considered if their mutual funds weren't going
through the roof.
Now....things, they are a-changin'. The economy is softer (well, more
normal), and there is a greater supply of used RVs due to owners feeling
the effect of the economy or wanting to sell so they can build the newer
kits.
I suspect we will now see RV prices returning to the ol' "cost of the
project" rule. Of course there will be exceptions on both sides of the
rule, but the days of getting ridiculous prices for our planes may be
over.
The up side is that we can now insure our planes for smaller hull
values! ;-)
Sam Buchanan (RV-6....not for sale)
=======================
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
> And why do you think a RV-8 should fetch that much more than a RV-6?The kits
cost about the same.>
>
> So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos as
> other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and save
> what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
> airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
>
> Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
> interest.
>
> Brian Denk
> RV8 N94BD
> 3 yrs. of RV grins
>
Message 18
| 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: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Lundquist" <lundquist@ieee.org>
Sorry to keep this going, but I did see the insurance question earlier go
unanswered. Does anybody have any info on a what the difference in
insurance cost would be for a 6 vs a 6A, all other things being equal?
Dave Lundquist
RV-6(A?) wings
Message 19
| 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-List Digest: 88 Msgs - 12/02/02 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
SNIP From: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Sorry to beat a dead horse, and yes I have read the archives. I just thought
someone may have
some new insight before I sign on the dotted line. SNIP
I don't recall seeing the following comments before so I'll share my thoughts on
the subject.
The RV nosedraggers that I've handled are a bitch to back up. Try pushing one
into a gravel floored T-hangar by yourself and you'll see what I mean. The towbar
(pushbar?) on the nose wheel is great for pulling the plane out but when
pushing it back into the hangar it is very easy to get a WILD swing of the tail.
No problem unless the tail hits something. This is a big enough problem that
my bubba sized buddy will be putting a concrete floor in his hangar just so
he can put the plane away more easily. I suppose the cure for this is to put
a tow hook on the tail and pull the thing in.
The nosedragger really gets with the program on anything but the flattest surfaces.
It's like a @#$ing bucking bronco on our rolling grass strip. Not for the
faint hearted. Really makes me worry for that prop as I don't want to use an
$80K airplane as a weedeater.
It is also easy to overheat the brakes on the nosedragger when taxiing with a crosswind.
I know.
If your decision is up in the air regarding nosewheel or tailwheel, my .02$ worth
is anyone not flying off pavement or with a gravel floor hangar or a runway
perpendicular to the prevailing winds might enjoy the tailwheel more.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Vince
F-1H Rocket
Message 20
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 12:16 AM 12/3/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>
>Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of their
>engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was quite
>successful ......
But, as you later pointed out, a business flop. This was the case with the
Toyota engine also. The Toyota marketing dept figured out that it would be
hard to sell pilots an airplane with an engine other than Lycoming or
possibly Continental. The Porsche engine was dropped because of the same
basic idea. The auto Porsche is already a low volume very high priced
engine . I can't see how any low production volume engine can ever compete
with LycoNentals. Remember that most pilots think we experimental aircraft
types are risking our lives in unproven airplanes so they are more likely
to resist than we are!
What will it take to overcome pilot buying resistance? I believe that for
any alternative to succeed it has to:
1 - be cheap. At least half the cost of a Lycoming.
2 - be proven in a dramatic way such as by winning at Reno or doing a
round the world flight.
3 - be lighter, smoother, more durable, more reliable and more powerful --
that is, be a better product.
If you could buy an engine for $9,999 that ran as smoothly as a Chevy,
weighed a bit less than a 180hp Lycoming but put out 200 hp and had done an
around the world flight, would you?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 21
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <deniswalsh@earthlink.net>
I have a Reiff 'hotpadd" installed six years ago, and used each winter in
Denver. I plug it in whenever the ambient temp is below 40F.
It works great, lasts a long time, easy to install, and very reasonable.
Besides it is sold by a RV guy.
Denis
> From: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
> Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:52:35 -0500
> To: "RV-List Matronics" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
>
> Living in Fl. now i don't need a pre-heater,but i lived in Pittsburgh before
> and we had a Cardinal which i pre-heated with a ceramic type space heater set
> to direct air up cowling outlet.Works great and can be put on a timer.
> Ollie RV6A Central Fl.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lenleg@aol.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
>
> I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
> the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
>
> Anyone tried the "Hot Strip"????
>
> Len Leggette RV-8A
> N901LL (res)
> Greensboro, N.C.
> 16 hours !!
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| 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:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave" <davevon@tir.com>
Supply and demand. As the supply of RV-8's has increased, the demand for
turn key airplanes and price has diminished. Compare a 8 with a Rocket, the
engine and prop are not that much more on the Rocket. Wait and see what
happens when the first 7's come on the market! Besides, compared to the 6,
the 7 has more fuel, more payload, more room and more speed. It will be
perceived as a better value and always sell for more.
The same thing applies to the tailwheel vs. trigear. Keep in mind that
ratio between the two is something like 4:1 in favor of the trigear. Which
could mean a bigger market or a market easier to flood.
Dave
RV-6
do not archive
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator@msn.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian Denk
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value?
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>
> And why do you think a RV-8 should fetch that much more than a RV-6?The
kits cost about the same.>
>
>
> So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos
as
> other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and
save
> what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
> airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
>
> Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
> interest.
>
> Brian Denk
> RV8 N94BD
> 3 yrs. of RV grins
>
> do not archive this diatribe
Message 23
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave" <davevon@tir.com>
I like polished props. I'm sure one would have looked better than my
polished spinner. I wanted to polish the prop on my cert. Pitts, Hartzell
said NO.
My big concern with Hartzell is how their props respond to engine mods like
electronic ignition, higher compression ratios and in the future, unleaded
fuel with lower octane ratings. The harmonic vibrations the engine sets up
in the aluminum blades can be very self destructive. Composite blades seem
to be more tolerant.
Dave
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
>
> You guys talking about props are totally missing the point. Blade profile,
> optimal thickness, performance envelope, WHAT-EVER! None of them LOOK as
> sweet as a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-4 with the paint sanded off and
> polished to a mirror finish. Try THAT with your composite/wood propeller!
>
> :-) :-) :-) (donning flameproof suit and running for cover...)
>
> Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
> Portland, OR
> www.vanshomewing.org
>
> PS. The best thing about this thread is that it makes me feel a whole lot
> better about having "only" paid $4400 for my C/S prop!
>
> do not archive
Message 24
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Well,
as I said earlier, to list all the differences would fill the list, and it
did. ;{)
I'm not knocking the use of an auto conversion for those of you who have the
design background to do this and not kill anybody.
I think it more important to focus on the use of automotive technology in
aeromotive. There is a long history of this, from flange and hardware
standards, hose and plumbing standards, ignition system standards, etc all
came out of the SAE standards.
To me, I could care less what makes the airplane go forward. I only care
that it keeps doing it, and it is reasonable in cost. The best advance in
technology would be a 10000 hour power reduction unit with three small
$2000/1000 hr centrifugal turbine engines attached that operate at 3500 degs
so they compare to a recip on fuel economy.
Shut one off for cruise, and two off for descent. Throw them away every 1000
hours TTIS.
This would allow someone to gear up for mass producing these units as they
would be excellent for GPUs and for hybrid autos. But we still need to
invent some materials that can handle the heat and vibration and be light.
Message 25
| 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: | RV prices - WAS: Tailwheel blah, blah |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 10:05 AM 12/3/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
>I suspect we will now see RV prices returning to the ol' "cost of the
>project" rule.
I've often wondered about that rule. I can imagine that a plans built
plane that is the third built might follow such a pattern but how about a
Cub clone? Do all kit builts follow the 'the cost is the value' rule?
I wonder if the RV series, especially the RV-6 and later, aren't beginning
to be recognized as better than certified aircraft. I suspect they are
one reason why I haven't gotten my Debonair sold.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 26
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> as I said earlier, to list all the differences would fill the list, and it
> did. ;{)
Though, unfortunately, with no explanation of why any of them matter.
Tedd
Message 27
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Biddle" <d_biddle@msn.com>
I have used the Odyssey680 on my Lycoming O-360 and it works fine. It is 2
years old now (1 year flying) and doesn't have as much reserve as it used
to. I put the Solargizer on it last week to see if I could rejuvinate it
like I have with a few Concorde batterys in the past.
Sam,
what "discount battery outlet" are you referring to? I will try the
Panasonic/ Powersonic if I can get it for anywhere near $20.
Dave Biddle
RV-6A 102hrs
Phoenix, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Subject: RV-List: re: battery
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Here are details of the little battery I retrofitted to my RV-6:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/battery.htm
The battery spins the O-320 just as well a "big" battery. One of our
local flyers cranks the IO-360 in his RV-8 with a little battery as
well.
And...I can get the little battery locally for $18.00!! No reason not to
keep a fresh battery installed since it doesn't cost much more than an
oil filter; might even change it out at each condition inspection.
Sam
=========================
Cary Rhodes wrote:
>
> At the risk of starting a battery war.
>
> But here goes
>
> Does anybody have a good or bad experience with the Odessey model 680
> turning a Lycoming 360??
>
> It looks like the real application for the battery is a big Harley
> motorcycle.
>
> It just looks to me to be too small for a 4 cyl, paint bucket sized
> piston Lycoming.
>
> cary
>
Message 28
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
kempthornes wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
> But, as you later pointed out, a business flop. This was the case with the
> Toyota engine also. The Toyota marketing dept figured out that it would be
> hard to sell pilots an airplane with an engine other than Lycoming or
> possibly Continental. The Porsche engine was dropped because of the same
> basic idea. The auto Porsche is already a low volume very high priced
> engine . I can't see how any low production volume engine can ever compete
> with LycoNentals. Remember that most pilots think we experimental aircraft
> types are risking our lives in unproven airplanes so they are more likely
> to resist than we are!
This brings up a related thought that the latest issue of Aviation
Consumer pointed out in their article on Toyota's airplane.
The same "barrier to entry" existed back when Toyota and Honda tried
entering the North American automotive market. After all, who would buy
a little tin sh*tbox from some Asian manufacturer, when there were
US-designed and built cars that were bigger and conceivably better?(*)
But they somehow broke into the market, and are now equal to, if not
superior to, most North American makes. Even many of the North American
manufacturers are now making domestically-branded-Asian-designed-
domestically-assembled cars (cf. Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, Ford
Probe/Mitsubishi (something), Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000.).
The speculation in the Aviation Consumer article is that the Asian
manufacturers were willing to take significant losses up front in order
to gain a foothold in the market, and in fact they suggest that that's
exactly what Toyota/Honda/etc. did, hemmorage money for the first few
years until people realized that yes, these little tin cars could indeed
keep up with traffic and burn way less gas.
So could this not happen in the aviation world? Sure it could. In
fact, the Aviation Consumer article suggests we're just about to see it
all start, and that Toyota is waiting for the Centennial of flight to
make an announcement. The Japanese manufacturers like to make grandiose
introductions like this, and what better time to break into the North
American light aircraft market than on the 100th anniversary of flight
in North America? Would seem to be a great way to take the wind out of
old Orville & Wilbur's sails...
-RB4
(* Disclaimer: I drive a Honda.)
Message 29
| 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: | Gretz, Rocky Mountain Instruments - Good Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Biddle" <d_biddle@msn.com>
I want to let everyone know that both Warren Gretz and Rocky Mountain
Instruments (Ron Mowrer) stand behind what they sell for RV builders.
My RV-6A first flight was august 2001.
I used the Gretz pitot tube and mount and also the uncertified GPS antenna
and cable. The glareshield mounted GPS antenna works great with my Garmin
430 but quit picking up satellites on the way back from Las Cruces. It was
replaced at no cost by Warren.
Removing and replacing the GPS antenna involved pulling the RMI micromonitor
tray. I did not get the tray and connector pins properly aligned or fully
reseated and that caused problems. Ron helped me troubleshoot the problem
and sent me the replacement parts at no cost.
Everything is working trouble free again, like it had for the first 100
hours.
Make sure you follow the RMI instructions on getting the monitor fully
aligned and seated to the connector in the tray. I did with the original
installation but got careless when redoing it. I put instructions with
sharpie inside the tray to remind me next time to do it right.
Dave Biddle
RV-6A 102 hours
Phoenix, AZ
Message 30
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> (* Disclaimer: I drive a Honda.)
But you don't fly a CAM-100. ;)
Seriously, it's an interesting hypothesis. I have a hard time believing that
the light airplane market is big enough to interest a company the size of Honda
or Toyota, but I'm no marketing expert.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 31
| 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:baggage area floors, strobes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charles Brame <charleyb@earthlink.net>
I put my ELT and my strobe power pack under the baggage compartment
floors. Concerned about access to either box, I decided to add access
doors through the baggage compartment floors. I got the idea from photos
of Laird Owens' RV. Some photos can be seen at:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/socal230330/429050/guest_icons.phtml I
used a slightly different approach to building the access doors, but the
result is the same.
The ELT is on the left side and is mounted to stiffeners riveted
directly to the external belly skin. It can be unsnapped from its
bracket and easily removed through the access door. The strobe power
pack is on the right side. Removing the power pack is a bit more
complicated as it must be unscrewed from its mounting rails which are
riveted to the belly skin. Each compartment leaves some storage room
for other items like rags, oil cans, etc.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB (res.)
San Antonio
Message 32
| 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: Gretz, Rocky Mountain Instruments - Good Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: barry pote <barrypote@comcast.net>
I too, have had great experiences with Rocky Mountain Instruments.
I got both kits from RMI (uEncoder and Monitor). I got the kits because
my son wanted to put them together.
The Monitor, my son got together just fine. The encoder, he had a few
problems with at the end. I sent the unit to RMI. They looked at it and
fixed a few minor details and returned it 3 day UPS orange, for no
charge. No charge!
Not a lot of good people around like them anymore.
Thanks for the exceptional service ,Ron.
Barry Pote RV9a
Message 33
| 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: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
The drawing in question is Van's OP-27A. It comes as part of the engine
baffle kit but I think it can be obtained separately.
Jim Bean
Stephen Johnson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn@ix.netcom.com>
>
> Jim,
>
> Which drawing are you referring to? I'm going to be running a IO-360 as
> well, so I'm trying to pick up all of the information I can. The oil cooler
> requires a pressure differential between the front and back so the cooling
> air will flow through it. I think the idea of using the oil cooler air
> might be useful, as long as the air is diverted from the cabin to the under
> cowl area when cabin heat isn't required. There is probably no harm in
> trying this as long as you have an engine monitor that checks cylinder head
> temps on all of the cylinders. Let us know how it works for you.
>
> Steve Johnson
> RV-8 #80121 gear boxes (ugh!)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean@att.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
>>
>>I have my oil cooler mounted on the baffle behind #3 cylinder, pretty
>>much as Van's drawing shows. My heat muff is below on a cross tube. It
>>would be rather convenient to run the heat muff scat tube off of the
>>back of the oil cooler. I am picturing a 2" flange placed over the
>>bottom of the back of the cooler.
>>
>>I am not looking to improve the heating effiency, it's just a
>>mechanically convenient way to get the scat tube to the heat muff.
>>
>>The engine is an IO360 which seems to need all the cooling it can get.
>>On the other hand there is constant air flow through the muff because
>>the heat valve dumps it overboard when heat is not is use
>>So what does the group think about the effect this might have on the oil
>>cooler, IE might it raise the oil temp? Anybody tried this?
>>Jim Bean
>>RV-8
>>Cooling Baffles (3 months)
>>Starting third year building
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| 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 |
|
"'rv-list@matronics.com'"@matronics.com
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Charlie, and all
try this, I zipped it, is not much smaller (12Mg) but it may allow you to
download as a file.
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/images/FADEC.zip
W
Message 35
| 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: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne R. Couture" <commando@cox-internet.com>
Hi Mark,
IMHO, the only difference is in the appearance. Tail draggers are better
looking on the ground, but do require better piloting skills. I opted for a
tri-gear because I have NO tailwheel time and don't believe that it's worth
the trouble to learn just for appearance sake. Also, depending on the kit
you select, it is considerably easier to build a tri gear than a tail
dragger. Unless of course you purchase a quick build.
Wayne
RV-8A qb
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
are lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
Message 36
| 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: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim@mail.canfor.ca>
Hey List:
I'm one of those few who have built a TD/TG convertible. It was a
little extra work, but I feel the biggest cost is the weight penalty, but
the advantages for me far outweigh this. My engine mount does have the gear
sockets for both the TD mains & the TG nose gear. I have the TG main sockets
in the cabin and the TD tailspring socket in the tailcone. The extra holes
are very minor and easily plugged. Calculating 2 W&B is also a minor detail.
My reasons for this have nothing to do with any ego issues ;-). (I'm
secure enough in my masculinity to put the little wheel any damn place I
want it). The reason I did this was my desire/need to put this plane on skis
& floats. For wheel operations I would rather have it as a TG, since I feel
that any hole or obstacle will be equally bad for either a TD or TG, but the
better visibility of the TG will help to avoid these hazards. I have limited
TD experience, but my experience so far shows that a TG will allow for a
slightly shorter TO.
While on floats, I will be using the TD main gear sockets for my
main float attach points while the rear attach points are through the rear
spar attach point. Eustace Bowhay, who is usually on this list (are you out
there Eustace?), pioneered this as he flew his "6" like this for a few
years, but has since sold his floats as he feels his float flying years are
behind him now.
When flying on skis I will be in TD mode as skis don't allow for
differential braking which is how the TG is steered. There is also not
enough prop clearance to allow for a nose ski. The TD configuration will
allow for a small steerable tail ski. Skis are also a high drag item, so I
will also benefit from having one less large ski. While I currently have no
experience flying a TD on skis, I have been told by a few northern bush
pilots that TD's are actually easier to handle on skis than on wheels.
I figure it will take me several hours to convert from TD to TG, but
for the versatility it provides for my particular mission this has been a
great mod... not to mention that I had great fun building it. If you are
considering this purely because who are confused about which way you want to
swing, then I wouldn't recommend it.
Van's sells a dynafocal mount that has both TD & TG sockets. It is
called a float mount ($1125 usd), as it was designed for use with floats. A
local builder just finished his "6" that has the float mount, but he flies
it as a TD and has not installed the TG mains in his cabin. He previously
had no TD experience and wanted an out in case he couldn't handle it, but is
currently very happy with it, but it is a show plane and likely will never
see any rough strips.
The local MD-RA inspector has done an inspection on my plane and he
was quite satisfied, even impressed with this.
As I'm using a rotary engine, I built my own mount, which can be
seen on my web page, on the engines page.
Hope this helps..
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Besing [SMTP:azpilot@extremezone.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 7:09 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
>
> How would you do this? The engine mounts are very different. Would you
> weld a custom mount that had sockets for the nose gear and the main gear
> for
> the tail dragger?
>
> You would have holes in your cowl when you converted to the nose gear.
> You
> would have a long hole in your scoop and 2 holes in the bottom of the fuse
> when you converted to tailwheel. Also, you would have to have 2 different
> weight and balances done, and carry the proper one with you. I would
> think
> your DAR wouldn't be too keen on giving you operating limitations on two
> different configurations! Seems like ALOT more work than it is worth.
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> http://www.kitlog.com
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
> >
> > I've seen mention in the past of people who have built their RV's with
> > attach points for *both* sets of gear, and can switch back and forth.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
Randall, Randall. You will understand the next time I pull up beside you and
then pull smartly away with a flick of my wrist. Heck, I already burn less
fuel (LASAR) than you do. Your prop is beautiful though, gotta concede that.
Fellow Home Winger
Randy Lervold
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
>
> You guys talking about props are totally missing the point. Blade profile,
> optimal thickness, performance envelope, WHAT-EVER! None of them LOOK as
> sweet as a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-4 with the paint sanded off and
> polished to a mirror finish. Try THAT with your composite/wood propeller!
>
> :-) :-) :-) (donning flameproof suit and running for cover...)
>
> Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
> Portland, OR
> www.vanshomewing.org
>
> PS. The best thing about this thread is that it makes me feel a whole lot
> better about having "only" paid $4400 for my C/S prop!
Message 38
| 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: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn@ix.netcom.com>
Thanks. I haven't bought the baffle kit yet. I guess maybe I wasn't clear
in what I was saying in my answer to your question, but my point was that as
long as the air pressure in the cockpit is about the same level as that
under the cowl, there should be air flow through the oil cooler. Do not
archive.
Steve Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean@att.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
>
> The drawing in question is Van's OP-27A. It comes as part of the engine
> baffle kit but I think it can be obtained separately.
> Jim Bean
>
> Stephen Johnson wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson"
<spjohnsn@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > Which drawing are you referring to? I'm going to be running a IO-360 as
> > well, so I'm trying to pick up all of the information I can. The oil
cooler
> > requires a pressure differential between the front and back so the
cooling
> > air will flow through it. I think the idea of using the oil cooler air
> > might be useful, as long as the air is diverted from the cabin to the
under
> > cowl area when cabin heat isn't required. There is probably no harm in
> > trying this as long as you have an engine monitor that checks cylinder
head
> > temps on all of the cylinders. Let us know how it works for you.
> >
> > Steve Johnson
> > RV-8 #80121 gear boxes (ugh!)
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean@att.net>
> > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
> >>
> >>I have my oil cooler mounted on the baffle behind #3 cylinder, pretty
> >>much as Van's drawing shows. My heat muff is below on a cross tube. It
> >>would be rather convenient to run the heat muff scat tube off of the
> >>back of the oil cooler. I am picturing a 2" flange placed over the
> >>bottom of the back of the cooler.
> >>
> >>I am not looking to improve the heating effiency, it's just a
> >>mechanically convenient way to get the scat tube to the heat muff.
> >>
> >>The engine is an IO360 which seems to need all the cooling it can get.
> >>On the other hand there is constant air flow through the muff because
> >>the heat valve dumps it overboard when heat is not is use
> >>So what does the group think about the effect this might have on the oil
> >>cooler, IE might it raise the oil temp? Anybody tried this?
> >>Jim Bean
> >>RV-8
> >>Cooling Baffles (3 months)
> >>Starting third year building
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 39
| 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: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Laird Owens <owens@aerovironment.com>
If you want to put the ELT under the floorboards, you might do a door
like I did on my RV-6. There are a couple of pictures and plans at:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/socal230330/429050/guest.phtml
It would solve the problem of having to unscrew a cover to get to it
in case of a crash. I use Hartwell latches to secure it.
Laird RV-6 (650 hrs)
SoCal
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
>
>> The only thing,You are not going to put the elt, itself
>> under the bagage floors no?
>>
>> Just a thought, what one does, if need to reach
>> for it, in case of accident?
>
>I did that. Split the floorboard on the right side and screw/nut-plated that
>section of floorboard only, and put the ELT under there (see
>http://www.edt.com/homewing/rhproject/bungee.jpg) Gets it out of the way and
>bolted to a rib which is per the ELT manuf. specs. HOWEVER, as you suggest
>it would be difficult to access after an accident (I'm picturing crawling
>into an upside down fuselage, battered and bruised, trying to remove 12 or
>so phillips-head screws in self-locking nutplates -- not likely.) Of course
>theres the remote activator but still you might need access in some
>circumstances. Doing it over I'd probably either just stick it in the
>baggage compartment somewere and not worry so much about the clutter of it,
>or put it where I did but have an access hatch with camlocks or some other
>type of quick-release fasteners.
>
>One thing that I did, and recommend if its not in plain sight, is make a
>plackard that says "ELT BEHIND PANEL".
>
>Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
>Portland, OR
>www.vanshomewing.org
>
Message 40
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Dave, the local store is called "The Battery Store", don't know if they
are a national chain or not. I think if you run a Google search on "17ah
battery" you will probably find a source for the batteries. They are
commonly used for burglar alarms, etc.
Best regards,
Sam
====================
Dave Biddle wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Biddle" <d_biddle@msn.com>
>
> I have used the Odyssey680 on my Lycoming O-360 and it works fine. It is 2
> years old now (1 year flying) and doesn't have as much reserve as it used
> to. I put the Solargizer on it last week to see if I could rejuvinate it
> like I have with a few Concorde batterys in the past.
>
> Sam,
> what "discount battery outlet" are you referring to? I will try the
> Panasonic/ Powersonic if I can get it for anywhere near $20.
>
> Dave Biddle
> RV-6A 102hrs
> Phoenix, AZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
> To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com; rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: re: battery
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
> Here are details of the little battery I retrofitted to my RV-6:
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/battery.htm
>
> The battery spins the O-320 just as well a "big" battery. One of our
> local flyers cranks the IO-360 in his RV-8 with a little battery as
> well.
>
> And...I can get the little battery locally for $18.00!! No reason not to
> keep a fresh battery installed since it doesn't cost much more than an
> oil filter; might even change it out at each condition inspection.
>
> Sam
>
Message 41
| 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-List:AD search - how |
--> RV-List message posted by: WPAerial@aol.com
FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
Jerry Wilken
Albany Oregon
N699WP
Message 42
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
It was not even really successful from an engineering point of view,
as it was too heavy to be a success in the aviation market.
See:
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html
Kevin
At 12:16 AM -0600 3/12/02, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>
>Tedd;
>
>Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of their
>engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was quite
>successful and the company did a N American demo tour with the engine in a
>Mooney 23 or similar class aircraft including a stop at Oshkosh.
>
>That would be "successful" from an engineering standpoint, of course, it
>faded from the scene soon afterwards doubtless due to the lack of a business
>case to produce it.
>
>Jim Oke
>CYWG
>RV-6A
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>>
>> Charlie:
>>
>> > Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end?
>>
>> A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The
>Chrysler
>> V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost
>exclusively
>> wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in
>mind
>> that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated
>such
>> that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire
>Chyrsler
>> test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the
>aircraft
>> industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so
>the
>> Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto
>industry
>> test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's
>atypical.
>> You can read more about it at
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
>>
>> > You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
>>
>> Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
>>
>> > Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined
>that aircraft
>> > engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I
>will
>> > learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
>>
>> You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the
>same
>> time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
>> achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that
>it's
>> tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda
>just
>> didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources.
>Ditto
>> Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
>>
>> I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
>> business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
>> addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft
>use?"
>> Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to
>ask
>> about the first question.)
>>
>> > Each of us can choose
>> > his own path.
>>
>> Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful
>knowledge on
>> the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
>>
>> Tedd McHenry
>> Surrey, BC
>> -6 wings
>>
>>
>
>
Message 43
| 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: RV7, fuse, odds and ends. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Sorry I didn't respond to this 3 weeks ago when you sent it...but I wasn't
to that point in construction yet. Anyway, my comments are below:
> 1. Instead of four 1" diameter grommets (2 for the fuel line holes
through
> the side skin and 2 for the hole through the cover in front of the main
> spar), you got 2 of the right size and 2 smaller grommets ?
Yep, that's what I've got. My understanding is that the fuel lines are 3/8"
(don't quote me, I haven't plumbed anything yet!) and the vent lines are
1/4".
> 2. When putting the brake pedals together, the lower outboard and the
lower
> inboard bolts on each pedal are AN3-5, and looks like the outboard one
> should be AN3-4 ? (infact the R1 note says the bolt size changed, from -4
to
> -5).
I haven't done the final installation of my brake pedals yet (waiting to
paint/coat them first) but I assume you could use washers as applicable to
fill out any additional gap. Please let me/us know what you turn up if you
get there before I do...
> 3. On the forward half of the F-704 bulkhead, there are 4 holes that are
not
> rivetted. I am NOT referring to the 12 bolts that attach the landing gear
> mount in the case of the RV-7A, or attach the F-704 components to each
> other. I am referring to holes that are right next or one over from the
hole
> that is used for the spacer bolt.
I believe I only had *two* open 3/16" holes on top of the fwd half of F-704
once all was said and done, but I did fill them with AN3-12A / AN365. The
holes at the bottom opposite these 3/16" holes are 1/4"...not sure if that's
what you were referring to.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage)
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 44
| 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: | alternative engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim@mail.canfor.ca>
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative
engines in the last 2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I
found that the mention of anything other than a "certified" engine was cause
for flames, mostly based on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion &
protectionism. This most recent discussion has been well balanced with
intelligent discussion from both sides of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use
in aviation, I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently
(myself included). No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of
date, but does the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a
conversion of a successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The
future engine will be something so radical that it's acceptance into this
marketplace will be it's greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly
changing, so lets hope it gets a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets
not forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well
I'm almost finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or
less) than the cost of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work & thought,
but it has also been the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not
flying yet and I fully expect a few problems and frustrations before all is
finished, but I welcome them as challenges.
at some of the FWF packages available from NSI & Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't
know a great deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF
package available, far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the
Eggenfeller can be lifted straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI & Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller
is a very significant savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to
the Eggenfeller, so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative
engines have all been eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on
a discussion group for the engine they are considering, to get info from
those that are actually using a particular engine, rather than those that
are speculating. For myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been
invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of
failures as well as success so that we all learn from our collective
experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
alternative engines
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative engines in the last
2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I found that the mention
of anything other than a certified engine was cause for flames, mostly based
on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion protectionism. This most recent
discussion has been well balanced with intelligent discussion from both sides
of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use in aviation,
I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently (myself included).
No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of date, but does
the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a conversion of a
successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The future engine will
be something so radical that it's acceptance into this marketplace will be it's
greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly changing, so lets hope it gets
a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets not forget
that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well I'm almost
finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or less) than the cost
of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work thought, but it has also been
the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not flying yet and I fully
expect a few problems and frustrations before all is finished, but I welcome
them as challenges.
For those that claim it will take a year longer, I say take a look at some of
the FWF packages available from NSI Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't know a great
deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF package available,
far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the Eggenfeller can be lifted
straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller is a very significant
savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to the Eggenfeller,
so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative engines have all been
eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on a discussion
group for the engine they are considering, to get info from those that are
actually using a particular engine, rather than those that are speculating. For
myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of failures as well
as success so that we all learn from our collective experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
<A HREF"http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm" TARGET"_blank">http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Message 45
| 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-List:AD search - how |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Jerry,
Don't bother. With the sensenich prop, you are not eligible for the TCD
time period anyway. Since you'll end up with the 40hr test period with the
experimental prop, there is NO legal reason to do an AD search. While it is
a good idea, it is NOT required on your engine at this point. It's
technically no longer a "certified" engine/prop combination and does not
need current AD's. The FAA cannot legally mandate that all AD's be current
if you're not applying for the certified time period. If there is an AD
outstanding on the engine, the FAA cannot force you to comply with it unless
you're trying to keep it "certfied". Truth be told, you can
cast/carve/layup your own "homemade" prop, and assemble an engine from any
parts you wish, both certified and not...al-a Lightspeed ignition, Nippon
Alternator, etc.
Just an FYI!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch, Minneapolis.
RV6, Flying 60hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of WPAerial@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
--> RV-List message posted by: WPAerial@aol.com
FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
Jerry Wilken
Albany Oregon
N699WP
Message 46
| 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-List:AD search - how |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Uh, oh.....here we go again......
Jerry, your airframe and engine, being under the experimental
certificate, are not subject to ADs. You may wish to be aware of them
for your own piece of mind, but you can legally install and fly any ol'
kind of engine, in any condition, you wish in your experimental
aircraft.
What kind of ADs would the inspector require if you had a Subaru, Mazda,
or Chevy engine?????
Another case of a DAR not knowing the regs...........sad........
Sam Buchanan
======================================
WPAerial@aol.com wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: WPAerial@aol.com
>
> FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
> what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
> to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
> I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
>
> Jerry Wilken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
Message 47
| 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-List:AD search - how |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6@cox.net>
Jerry,
Try this site:
http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFram
e?OpenFrameSet
Select AD BY MAKE on left side of screen. Choose Textron Lycoming and then
find your engine and then Sensenich for prop info.
Sometimes this site doesn't cooperate but keep at it.
Jerry Calvert
Edmond Ok
RV6 N296JC(res)
----- Original Message -----
From: <WPAerial@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
> --> RV-List message posted by: WPAerial@aol.com
>
> FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and
prop.
> what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure
how
> to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he
wants.
> I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
>
> Jerry Wilken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
Message 48
| 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: alternative engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
Reposted from VansAirforce Yahoo group in response to a claim that several
insurance companies were writing coverage for Suburu's....
My initial response was "None of the companies (I work with all of them
except AVEMCO) will do Suburu engine powered RVs." It had been a while
since I had polled each and every company about this specific issue. So I
decided to do it again, and I must admit that I was wrong. Here were my
findings:
I just verified that with the underwriters of the new EAA "program"
(Global/AAU) and US Specialty Insurance company (which has always been into
writing homebuilt coverages) and neither will do Suburu engines. I know
AIG, USAIG, Phoenix won't do it (I've asked them again as recently as last
week). That leaves W. Brown (which doesn't really even do airplanes smaller
than a Baron, and their prices are too high anyway) and Aerospace Insurance
Managers (AIM).
I got a very interesting answer from AIM. Let me preface their answer by
saying that they write for 2 different companies (one A rated and one B+
rated.) You may get either one depending on the state you live in. Almost
all the other companies left in Aviation are A+ rated or better.
AIM said generally no, but if we had trouble placing coverage (which we
would since no one else will do it but AVEMCO the direct writer) they would
consider it. They added that they would consider it as long as nothing was
too "weird" about the risk. I would take that to mean a pilot over the age
of 65, in a state they don't like, based on a less than 2000' grass strip,
or something like that. This is a much more positive answer than I've ever
received about these engines. It is a step in a positive direction for
those of you dead set (sorry) about using them.
As I said before, I am glad AVEMCO will do them. Please remember, though,
the differences in AVEMCO's policy vs. any other. They limit the liability
payout to everyone not just passengers inside your plane (they do per person
sub-limits instead of the per passenger which all other companies do.) And
they further sublimit your family members (which no other companies do) to
25% of the sub-limit.
There may be isolated instances where these engines are being covered by the
other companies, but that does not mean they will or intend to write
coverage for these engines. Those are mistakes. I have my fair share of
mistakes that I have written and are currently on the books, as I mentioned
before.
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
Pleasure and Business Branch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim@mail.canfor.ca>
Subject: RV-List: alternative engines
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim@mail.canfor.ca>
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative
engines in the last 2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I
found that the mention of anything other than a "certified" engine was cause
for flames, mostly based on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion &
protectionism. This most recent discussion has been well balanced with
intelligent discussion from both sides of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use
in aviation, I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently
(myself included). No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of
date, but does the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a
conversion of a successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The
future engine will be something so radical that it's acceptance into this
marketplace will be it's greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly
changing, so lets hope it gets a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets
not forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well
I'm almost finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or
less) than the cost of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work & thought,
but it has also been the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not
flying yet and I fully expect a few problems and frustrations before all is
finished, but I welcome them as challenges.
at some of the FWF packages available from NSI & Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't
know a great deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF
package available, far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the
Eggenfeller can be lifted straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI & Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller
is a very significant savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to
the Eggenfeller, so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative
engines have all been eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on
a discussion group for the engine they are considering, to get info from
those that are actually using a particular engine, rather than those that
are speculating. For myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been
invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of
failures as well as success so that we all learn from our collective
experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
alternative engines
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative engines in
the last 2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I found that
the mention of anything other than a certified engine was cause for flames,
mostly based on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion protectionism.
This most recent discussion has been well balanced with intelligent
discussion from both sides of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use in
aviation, I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently
(myself included). No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of
date, but does the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a
conversion of a successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The
future engine will be something so radical that it's acceptance into this
marketplace will be it's greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly
changing, so lets hope it gets a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets not
forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well I'm
almost finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or less)
than the cost of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work thought, but it
has also been the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not flying
yet and I fully expect a few problems and frustrations before all is
finished, but I welcome them as challenges.
For those that claim it will take a year longer, I say take a look at some
of the FWF packages available from NSI Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't know a
great deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF package
available, far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the
Eggenfeller can be lifted straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller is a
very significant savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to the
Eggenfeller, so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative engines
have all been eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on a
discussion group for the engine they are considering, to get info from those
that are actually using a particular engine, rather than those that are
speculating. For myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been
invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of failures as
well as success so that we all learn from our collective experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
<A HREF"http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm"
TARGET"_blank">http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Message 49
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
> It was not even really successful from an engineering point of view,
> as it was too heavy to be a success in the aviation market.
> Kevin
Kevin et al:
I really enjoy these discussions on engines and propellers because they
indicate both the frustrations and aspirations of the writers. Sometimes I
can't resist shooting off my mouth a bit, so what follows is mostly opinion.
You have touched on a point that is not often made and when it is discussed,
is often misrepresented; weight, with a capital "W".
I suggest that there is only one reason to use an auto engine in an
airplane: "You Want To". It is a sufficient reason. All else is dross. The
"want to" can be abetted by such things as the challenge, the low initial
cost, the satisfaction of solving the problems associated with such a
project, the desire for something different, the aggravation of using
antique engines using tractor technology, etc, etc. but beyond that, there
is little reason to do such a thing.
Weight: With the exception of some of the rotary engines, every auto
conversion I know of is substantially heavier than its Lyc counterpart.
This is important. Not only does it compromise the design load factor for
the aircraft but it must reduce performance. It has been said that each 3
pounds added weight is about the equivalent of 1 horsepower. Since it is
seldom that an airplane is designed around a liquid cooled engine, the extra
weight is where you really don't want it, thus changing the stability and
control characteristics. A recent article about a Cassutt with a MR2 engine
suggests that at 760 pounds it is about 160 pounds over normal. Yet Bill
Cassutt's original weighed less that 500 pounds and more recent ones are not
uncommonly below 600. An RV-8 with a Chev LS-l and composite prop
apparently weighs 1275 pounds. A 4.3 liter Chev with Warp Drive prop was
about 50 pounds heavier than with a 200 hp Lyc and McCauley metal prop.
Performance with the 2 setups was "about the same". The all aluminum V10
Viper engine appears to weigh 620 pounds. All aluminum liquid cooled
engines are not very light. Especially as installed.
Complexity: The Lycoming and Continental engines as mechanisms are rather
simple. Some would say simpleminded. An auto engine is apt to be more
complex and when coupled with all the stuff needed to make them work in an
airplane becomes much more complex. It may have been Bill Stout who said
"Simplicate and add more lightness". With auto engines, not much chance.
With complexity comes opportunity for failure. Orenda still has reliability
problems even having spent many millions on development.
Compatibility: Matching a propeller to a car engine is perhaps not so
difficult in the lower power ranges but as power goes up, the constant speed
question becomes more prominent. Hydraulic CS props are not supported. I
know, I know, electrics are available but they are slow and only marginally
suitable for maneuvering flight. Still suitable for some.
Efficiency: Can be ok, but it doesn't come easy. A friend who has a
Mustang II with a Buick aluminum V8, in addition to weighing 200 pounds more
that a companion aircraft with 150 Lyc, burns half again as much fuel and
doesn't fly nearly as well. My 160hp RV-4 can literally fly circles around
it. Cooling drag is not as easy to defeat as one might think.
This little writing is not meant to be a condemnation of the subject idea.
If one wants to build this way, more power to you, to coin a phrase. Any
data you develop and are willing to share will be accepted and appreciated.
I hope to increase awareness of what is involved in such a project and Mick
Myal would really appreciate a writeup for his "Contact" magazine.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
Message 50
| 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-List:AD search - how |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Just a clarification:
The Sensenich 70 series fixed metal prop for the O-320 is indeed
certified with the FAA's blessing; the prop for the O-360 is not.
The AD thing is still bogus for an experimental aircraft, however. There
is no way you can have a "certified" engine on an RV because the RVs do
not possess a type certificate. It is indeed possible to comply with all
ADs and service bulletins on your Lycoming RV engine if that is your
desire, and while it may help with resale value and piece of mind, it
has absolutely no bearing on the certification status of the plane. The
plane still possesses an experimental certificate just the same as one
that is powered by a Rotax two-stroke.
It seems that the FAA exercises some inconsistency in allowing us to
have a 25 hour flyoff if we have a "certified engine and prop". However,
since there really is no such animal in experimental-dom, this is just a
quirk of the regulations. It seems not to matter whether or not you
installed helicopter pistons, a carb from a lawnmower, and plugs from a
Chevy, if it is a Lycoming O-320 with the 70 series Sensenich
prop.......you get 25 instead of 40 hours. Install a wood prop on a
box-stock, brand new out-of-the-crate Lycoming from Lycoming themselves,
and you are rewarded with a 40 hour flyoff.
Go figure.......
Sam Buchanan
=============================
Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Don't bother. With the sensenich prop, you are not eligible for the TCD
> time period anyway. Since you'll end up with the 40hr test period with the
> experimental prop, there is NO legal reason to do an AD search. While it is
> a good idea, it is NOT required on your engine at this point. It's
> technically no longer a "certified" engine/prop combination and does not
> need current AD's. The FAA cannot legally mandate that all AD's be current
> if you're not applying for the certified time period. If there is an AD
> outstanding on the engine, the FAA cannot force you to comply with it unless
> you're trying to keep it "certfied". Truth be told, you can
> cast/carve/layup your own "homemade" prop, and assemble an engine from any
> parts you wish, both certified and not...al-a Lightspeed ignition, Nippon
> Alternator, etc.
>
> Just an FYI!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein Bruch, Minneapolis.
> RV6, Flying 60hrs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of WPAerial@aol.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: WPAerial@aol.com
>
> FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
> what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
> to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
> I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
>
> Jerry Wilken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
Message 51
| 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: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Hi, ELT (where?) Listers! I am amused by all the under-the-floor-board
suggestions! I hope that everybody that mounts things below them remember to
put drainage holes so the equipment doesn't get wet socks in the event of a
bad rainstorm when you leave your pride-and-joy parked somewhere over night!
I don't know if the -7 has baggage side-panels like the -6, -6A have but
if it does, look up my posting of 11/14 re strobe P.S. and ELT in which I
described the location of my ACK ELT on the top of the rear starboard panel.
The ELT, control unit and the antenna are all installed inside in that area
and all accessible by the pilot reaching over the back of the passenger
seat. I have read plenty of SAR mission reports looking for overdue pilots
and not finding them due to absent ELT signals, only to find later that the
antenna had broken off in the crash. Hence my decision to mount it inside
the rear window!-No drag!
Cheers!!-------Henry Hore, 6-A, C-GELS
Message 52
| 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: Prop/Randall |
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
In a message dated 12/3/02 1:08:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, randy@rv-8.com
writes:
> You guys talking about props are totally missing the point. Blade profile,
> >optimal thickness, performance envelope, WHAT-EVER! None of them LOOK as
> >sweet as a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-4 with the paint sanded off and
> >polished to a mirror finish. Try THAT with your composite/wood propeller!
Randall,
I'm not sorry to disagree. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
After I returned from a little acro practice today I pulled my trusty steed
into the hanger (heated) and took a good look. Having read your post earlier
in the day, I tried REAL HARD to imagine my 6 (taildragger of course) with a
shiny metal Hartzell. No Thanks!!! I Love my Warnke wood prop.......all 52
laminates of gorgeous hard rock maple.
Rick Gray RV6 (Ohio) at the Buffalo Farm - do not archive
ps - you're still the man :
)
Message 53
| 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: | Taildragger Vs.Ti Gear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
For me the decision would be based on the kind of runways or landing areas being
used. If I were going into any rough strips are grass fields that may have soft
spots I would stick with a taildragger.
The problem with the small tri-gear aircraft is the size of the nose wheel. If
it drops into a hole or a soft spot the nose goes down shifting the c of g forward
putting more weight on the nose gear and further aggravating the situation.
The first to go is the prop and in a severe situation will collapse the nose
gear.
A taildragger landing in the same conditions would not be a problem. Over the years
I have seen several tri-geared aircraft severely damaged in this way. Not
long ago I witnessed an incident on our airport, one row of hangars had no paving
in front. It was after a heavy rain and this chap pulled his C182 out of
the hangar and started to taxi away, got about twenty feet the nose wheel went
through a soft spot and he curled the tips of his prop.
In another incident I watched a Twin Bonanza taxi into a sandy area, the nose wheel
started to sink and instead of stopping added more power and collapsed the
nose wheel resulting in a double engine change.
This on a strip in the arctic that we were landing DC 3's on every day.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay,B.C.
Message 54
| 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: | RV-7 Tail Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
John,
I am building a RV-8A. The plans show the same parts for both the
RV-7 and the RV-8. I too encountered the interferance problem
with the elevators and the horizontal stab. I ended up cutting
1 1/8" off the fibergalss tips and the HS to allow the elevators
to clear.
My understanding is that Van's made an engineering change to the
elevators (rotating the weight and moving it forward). The HS
was not changed to account for this.
The elevators seem to be very close to being balanced (I have not
painted them yet).
Jim Combs (Lexington Ky)
Emp done, waiting for the wings.
do not archive
Message 55
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi All,
I took the plunge today and ordered an RV7 Tail Kit. Since the weather here
in good old MN was too crappy to fly, I was bored and decided I need another
project....So, I ordered the beginnings of an RV7.
I'm not sure yet if I'll order the rest of the kit right away, but judging
by the lead times I think I'll have to order the stuff sooner than later!
No QB for me, since I now have one of these great machines to fly, NO HURRY!
Once again I'm a beginner!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis
60Hrs.
Do Not Archive
Message 56
| 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:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 12/3/2002 8:06:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sbuc@hiwaay.net writes:
> I suspect we will now see RV prices returning to the ol' "cost of the
> project" rule. Of course there will be exceptions on both sides of the
> rule, but the days of getting ridiculous prices for our planes may be
> over.
>
> The up side is that we can now insure our planes for smaller hull
> values!
And as long as the advertised price of RVs remains high in all the aviation
rags, those of us in extortionist states will continue to pay huge personal
property taxes as counties look to build their coffers. One way experimental
aircraft are valued for tax purposes is by the assessor looking at the asking
prices in Trade-a-Plane. This is what our county and many others do.
My suggestion is that one should never indicate a price (unless it is very
low) in any ad for an experimental aircraft.
Do not archive.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
Message 57
| 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: | List of Contributors #1 - A Special Thank You... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
First let me say Thank You to everyone that made a Contribution in support
of the Lists this year! I was particularly touched by all of the wonderful
comments people made regarding the Lists and how much they mean to
them. As I have said many times before, running these Lists and creating
the many new features is truly a labor of love. This is why your comments
of support and appreciation have particular meaning for me. Your
generosity during this time of List support only underscores the delightful
sentiments people have made regarding the Lists.
The money raised during this year's Fund Raiser will go directly into
supporting the continued operation of the Lists as well as some much needed
upgrades. For example, I have just ordered three new UPS systems to
replaced the currently failing and out-of-warranty older units. These new
units will provide well over 3 hours of backup protection during an outage
and assure that the computer systems will be shutdown in a safe and orderly
fashion. I have also ordered a new backup system that will provide 60 days
of on line, daily backups for all of systems supporting the List
services. This regular backup capability serves to rigorously protect
against the inevitable system disk failure or the (not-so) "unlikely"
errant event of the rogue "rm *" command...(!) Last year, using resources
generated by the Fund Raiser, I was able to upgrade the Web server
platform, greatly enhancing the performance of the many services such as
the Archive Search Engine, as well as increasing the system reliability
through newer equipment. During the upcoming year, using Contributions
from this year's Fund Raiser, I hope to upgrade the Email System in a
similar fashion, providing Listers with substantial increases in
performance and availability. Know that all of these enhancements are
remotely feasible ONLY because of your generosity during the List Fund
Raiser. For this, both I, and the rest of the List population thank you!
I would also once again like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore
( http://www.buildersbooks.com ) who so generously supported this year's
Fund Raiser with both free and substantially discounted merchandise!! Andy
is truly one of a kind, and a superb businessman, and I cannot thank him
enough for all that he's done! If you have any aircraft media needs in the
near future, I would ask that you please give his great web site a
look. Thanks again Andy, for all your support!
And finally, below you will find the 2002 List of Contributors current as
of 12/3/02! Have a look at the list of names there as these are the people
that make all of the services here possible! I can't thank you all enough
for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser! THANK YOU!
I will post a follow up List of Contributors at the end of the month to
catch any straggles or people who mailed in checks. There are still a few
of the various Free Gifts left, so please feel free to yet make your
Contribution and get a great Free Gift to-boot! Once again, the URL for
the Contributions web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I will be shipping out the CDROM-Only orders later this week. The
remaining Flight Bag-Only and all of the Flight Bag & CDROM orders will
ship out as soon as I receive the second shipment of flight bags. The A&P
Book orders will go out later this month. I will post again regarding the
actual shipment of the various items.
Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
------------------- 2002 List of Contributors #1 -----------------
Adams, Brian
Adams, Robert
Addington, James
Alber, John
Alexander, Don
Alexander, George
Allen, George
Altenhein, Gary
Amundsen, Blair
Amundson, John
Andrepont, Dirk
Andrews, Myles
Applefeld, Gerald
Armstrong, Christopher
Aronson, David
Ashton, Kent
Aspegren, Roger
Atkinson, Harold
Austin, David
Awad, Ihab
Babb, Tony
Bahrns, Stan
Baker, Jim
Baker, Owen
Ballenger, Jim
Barnes, Thomas
Bartrim, S.Todd
Basiliere, Rick
Bassette, Richard
Bataller, Gary
Batte, W.Granville
Bean, James
Bean, Robert
Beard, Harley
Bell, Bruce
Benham, Dallas
Benjamin, Hal
Benson, Lonnie
Bergeron, Daniel
Bergner, Lee
Bernard, William
Bernier, Jim
Bertelli, John
Bertrand, Carl
Beusch, Andre
Bidle, Jerry
Bieber, Michael
Bieberdorf, Roger
Billing, Ernie
Binzer, Robert
Bird, Carroll
Blahnick, Drew
Blake, J.I.
Blake, Peter
Blomgren, Jack
Boardman, Don
Bockelman, David
Boede, Jon
Bolduc, Richard
Bona, Skip
Bonesteel, Wayne
Bookout, Ralph
Booze, Greg
Borduas, Eric
Boucher, Michel
Bourne, Larry
Bowen, Larry
Bowman, John
Boyter, Wayne
Brame, Charles
Brandon, John
Branstrom, Dan
Brasch, Glenn
Brick, John
Bridges, Glenn
Bridgham, David
Briggs, Tracy
Brocious, Bob
Bromka, Alan
Bronson, Tim
Brooks, Chris
Brooks, John
Brooks, Kenyon
Brooks, William
Broomell, Glenn
Brown, Robert
Buchanan, Sam
Buchmann, Kenneth
Buess, Alfred
Bulot, Larry
Burg, H.R.
Burks, Terrell
Burton, Charlie
Burton, James
Bush, Jerome
Butcher, Ronald
Butler, Francis
Calhoun, Ron
Calloway, Terry
Calvert, Jerry
Cameron, Todd
Cann, Tony
Cantrell, Jimmy
Capen, Ralph
Capestany, Phillip
Carey, Christopher
Carillon, John
CarillonSr., Paul
Carlisle, O.
Carroll, Randy
Carter, Ron
Casey, Jeremy
Challgren, Stanley
Champaign, Philip
Chandler, Charles
Chapman, Tom
Chapple, Glen
Checkoway, Dan
Chesterman, Dave
Christie, Bill
Clark, James
Clark, John
Clinchy, David
Cochran, Stewart
Coffey, John
Cohen, Philip
Coldenhoff, Tim
Cole, Gary
Coley, Howard
Collins, Leland
Colucci, Tony
Comfort, Gordon
Compton, Scott
Condon, Philip
Connell, Joseph
Cook, Craig
Cooper, James
Corbalis, Leo
Corbett, Corky&Isabelle
Corder, Michael
Corriveau, Grant
Cotton, David
Coulter, Annette
Coulter, Carl
Counselman, William
Coursey, William
Cox, Ronald
Craig, John
Cretsinger, Will
Crisp, Steve
Croke, Jon
Crosby, Harry
Crosley, Richard
Cruikshank, Bruce
Cullen, Chuck
Cummings, Tom
Currie, Robert
Dalstrom, Douglas
Dalziel, Donald
Danclovic, Paul
Daniels, Jim
Dascomb, George
Daudt, Larry
Davidson, Jeff
Davis, Jared
Davis, John
Davis, Joseph
Davis, Mark
Davis, Terry
Dawson, Clif
Dawson, William
Day, Jack
Desimone, D.A., Dr
Desimone, David
Desmond, Richard
Devaney, Robert
Diehl, Donald
Dilatush, John
Dionne, Bruno
Dobson, Russell
Dodge, Larry
Donald, Woods
Dondlinger, Leo
Douglas, Lyle
Dresden, Robert
Driscoll, Patrick
Driver, Stuart
Dudley, Richard
Dupon, William
Dupuis, Real
Durr, Wendell
DuVe, Chris
Eagleston, Ron
Eaves, Donald
Eberhart, Steven
Ebsen, Kevin
Eckel, John
Eckenroth, Paul
Edwards, Bruce
Elder, William
Elia, Pete
Ellenberger, Mike
Ellis, Dale
Ervin, Thomas
Erwin, Chip
Escobar, Luis
Esterhuizen, Deon
Evans, Marion
Evans, Walt
Faatz, Mitch
Fackler, Ken
Fair, William
Faris, Kevin
Farley, David
Fasching, John
Fay, John
Feldmann, Stephen
Ferguson, Jay
Finley, John
Fishe, James
Fitzpatrick, Robert
Flamini, Dennis
Foerster, James
Fondevila, Gabriel
Fox, Byron
Fraser, Angus
Fray, Jerry
Frazier, Ford
Freeman, James
Fricke, Walt
Frisby, James
Fromm, John
Frost, George
Fry, John
Frye, Dwight
Frymire, Terry
Fulgham, Bill
Fulmer, Joseph
Fung, Sean
Gardner, Albert
Garner, John
Garrou, Douglas
Gassmann, Andrew
Gates, Leo
Genzlinger, Reade
George, William
German, Mark
Gherkins, Tim
Gibbons, Chip
Gilbert, Mark
Gillespie, R.L.
Gillies, Patty
Glasgow, Steve
Glass, Roy
Goble, Loren
Golden, Dennis
Gonzalez, Manuel
Good, Chris
Gordon, Keith
Gott, Shelby
Goudinoff, Peter
Grabb, Gary
Graham, W.Doyce
Grajek, Al
Graumlich, Thomas
Graumlich, Tom
Grebe, David
Green, Roger
Green, Steven
Greene, Tim
Grentzer, Edward
Griffin, Bill
Griffin, Robert
Guidroz, Thomas
Gummo, Thomas
Gustafson, Aaron
Guthrie, Mark
Haertlein, Frank
Hallsten, Keith
Hallsten, Kent
Hamer, Steve
Hancock, Barry
Hand, Chris
Hankins, Roger
Hanrahan, Jamie
Hansen, Richard
Hanson, Kevin
Hardaway, Mike
Harding, Scott
Hargis, Merle
Harman, Richard
Harmon, John
Harmon, Loren
Harrill, Ken
Harris, John
Harris, Richard
Hart, Daniel
Hart, Jack
Hartl, Paul
Hartselle, Richard
Hartson, Wesley
Hartwig, Richard
Harvey, Dale
Hasper, Jim
Hatch, Pat
Hatcher, Clive
Hatfield, Cecil
Hauck, John
Hawkins, Harry
Hawkins, Larry
Hebb, Loman
Hegler, Freddie
Heisey, Adriel
Henderson, Neil
Herminghaus, John
Herren, William
Herrick, David
Hibbing, William
Hickman, Robert
Hill, Jeff
Hill, Kenneth
Hill, Stanley
Himes, Joe
Himsl, Vincent
Hinrichsen, James
Hodge, Jack
Hodgson, Bob
Hoffman, Allan
Hoffman, Carl
Hoffman, Curtis
Hoffmann, Thomas
Holifield, Stephen
Hooper, Randy
Hoover, Ralph
Hornick, Paul
Horton, Dan
Horton, Kevin
Hubbard, Eugene
Huft, John
Hughes, Robert
Hulen, Fred
Humbert, Robert
Hunger, Norman
Hunsicker, Greg
Hunt, Jim
Hunt, Robin
Hurlbut, Steve
Hutchinson, Harold
Hutchison, Tom
Iii, Henry,
Inman, George
Isaacs, Robert
Isler, Jerry
Jackson, Scott
Jamieson, Richard
Jan, Dejong
Jannakos, Gregory
Jenkins, John
Jensen, Marinus
Jessen, John
Jewell, Jim
Johannsson, Johann
Johnson, Bob
Johnson, Brian
Johnson, Delbert
Johnson, Kerry
Johnson, Lance
Johnson, Murray
Johnson, Richard
Johnson, Steve
Jones, Alvin
Jones, Kevin
Joosten, Craig
Jordan, Don
Jordan, John
Jory, Rick
Jungjr, Johnr
Kahn, Steve
Kaluza, Charles
Karmy, Andrew
Karpinski, Arthur
Kayner, Dennis
Kelley, Jim
Kelley, Patrick
Kellum, Mark
Kempthorne, Hal
Kent, John
Kirby, David
Kleen, Chris & Indira
Knoepflein, Shannon
Knoll, Bruce
Kohn, Carl
Koonce, R.L.
Kovac, Harold
Kowalski, Bruce
Kramer, Ed
Kritzman, Alan
Krok, Peter
Kuntz, Paul
Kuss, Charles
Kwitek, Marty
Kyle, Fegus
Lackwitz, Ray
Laird, Dave
Laird, David
Lamb, Billie
Lamb, Billy
Landmann, Doug
Lannon, Walter
Larsen, Gene
Larson, Joe
Lasecki, Robert
Lassen, Finn
Latimer, Jerry
Laurie, Kip
Lawliss, James
Lawson, John
Ledbetter, Gene
Ledoux, Paul
Lee, Terry
Lefler, Fabian
Lekven, Carl
Lenarz, Michael(mike)
Lenton, Dennis
Lerohl, Gaylen Terminaltown
Lervold, Randy
Lewis, Rufus
Lewis, Terry
Lewis, Tim
Licking, Lawrence
Lifer, Craig
Liming, Gary
Linebaugh, Jeffrey
Linse, Michael
Lloyd, Brian
Loar, Carl
Long, Charles
Long, Eugene
Long, Jim
Longcrier, Thurman
Longino, Dana
Loubert, Gary
Lundborg, Craig
Lundin, Richard
Lundquist, David
Lutgring, Thomas
Lynch, Charles
Macchiaverna, Andrew
Macdonald, Dave
Macdonald, Larry
Mack, Don
Mackay, Alex
Madden, Peter
Mains, Ralph
Malczynski, Francis
Malich, Gunter
Markle, Jim
Markwell, Cleone
Marlow, Sam
Marshall, F.Robert
Marshall, Nigel
Martin, Bryan
Martin, Jay
Martin, Richard
Mason, Ron
Massari, Steve
Mattson, Doug
Maziarz, Dpnald
Mcbride, Duncan
Mccallister, Don
Mccallum, Robert
Mccracken, Ted
Mcfarland, Larry
Mcfarlane, Lloyd
Mcgehee, Tom
Mcgregor, Bruce
Mcintosh, Wayne
Mcintyre, Jay
Mckelvey, David
Mckenna, Mike
Mcleod, Neil
Medeiros, Joel
Medema, Doug
Meiste, Kelly
Mekeel, Donald
Mensink, Will
Merchant, Dean
Messinger, Paul
Metz, Lowell
Meyers, Jess
Meyers, John
Meyn, Wolfgang
Michel, Paul
Milgrom, Mark
Miller, David
Miller, Jim&dondi
Mills, Bill
Minewiser, Jim
Mitchell, Bill
Mitchell, Duane
Mitchell, Graham
Moak, Ken
Montagne, Raymond
Montoure, Ken
Morehead, Cj
Morelli, William
Morgan, Mark
Morin, Mauri
Morison, James
Morley, Harold
Morphis, George
Morrow, Dan
Mosier, Colby
Moulin, Roger
Moyle, John
Mrotzek, Dan
Mucker, Matthew
Mudge, Ronald
Muegge, James
Mueller, Mike
Mulherin, Harold
Murray, Glenn
Murray, Ronald
Murrill, Bob
Myers, John
Natho, Paul
Navratil, Richard
Neilsen, Richard
Neitzel, Richard
Nellis, Mike
Newkirk, Bill
Nicely, Vincent
Nicholas, Kim
Nickless, Jim
Nickson, Dennis
Norman, Jim
North, Wheeler
Noyer, Robert
Nuckolls, Robert
Nystrom, John
O'Brien, Bill
O'Brien, Dan
O'Brien, William
O'Donnell, David
Oberst, James
Ochsner, Doug
Oconnor, Edward
Ohlinger, Judith
Okeefe, Larry
Okeefe, Lawrence
Okrent, Mike
Oldford, David
Orear, Jeff
Orsborn, Thomas
Owens, Don
Owens, Phillip
Packard, Tom
Pardue, Larry
Parham, Bernard
Park, Gene
Parker, Ray
Patsey, Kevin
Patterson, Tim
Payne, Craig
Payne, Ron
Pedersen, Wayne
Pekin, J
Pelletier, Daniel
Perez, M.Domenic
Peterson, Alex
Peterson, David
Petri, David
Petty, Paul
Pflimlin, Paul
Pfundt, Jan
Phillips, Jack
Phillips, Mark
Pickrell, Jim
Pieper, William
Pike, Richard
Pilling, Kevin
Pinneo, George
Pinzon, Pedro
Plecenik, Michael
Point, Jeff
Polits, Dick
Pollard, Jim
Polstra, Philip
Pote, Barry
Powell, Ken
Prather, Matthew
Preston, Douglas
Pribble, Marv
Puckett, Greg
Rabaut, Chuck
Raby, Ronald
Radford, Joe
Ramotowski, Joe
Randolph, George
Ray, Rick
Ray, Rob
Reeck, Arthur
Reed, Gary
Reed, Joel
Reeves, Dan
Render, James
Reuterskiold, John
Rice, Mike
Richard, J.
Richards, Stephen
Risch, Bob
Robert, Larry
Robinson, James
Rodebush, James
Roebuck, Warren
Roehl, Tim
Rogers, Ken
Rohling, William
Romine, Chris
Ron, Dewees
Rosenberg, Ran
Rowe, Dennis
Rozendaal, Doug
Russell, Jack
Sa, Carlos
Safford, Brad
Salter, Phillip
Salzman, Mike
Sapp, Doug
Sargent, Thomas
Sax, Samuel
Schiff, Nathan
Schneider, Werner
Schnurr, Jack
Schoenberger, H.Robert
Schrimmer, Mark
Schroeder, John
Schultz, Davidh
Scott, Clive
Scroggs, Ross
Seal, Boyd
Sears, Jim
Seel, Norman
Selby, Jim
Shackelford, Orie
Shafer, James
Shank, Bill
Shannon, Kevin
Shearing, Garth
Sheets, Doug
Shelton, Kevin
Shepherd, Dallas
Shipley, Rob
Siegfried, Bob
Silva, Oswaldo
Simmons, Ken
Simpson, Randy
Singleton, Graham
Sink, Donald
Sipp, Richard
Slatt, Gary
Small, Jeff
Smith, David
Smith, Gene
Smith, Kirk
Smith, Ronald
Smith, Zed
Sobel, Martin
Sohn, Daniel
Solecki, John
Sower, Jim
Sparks, Timothy
Spence, Stephen
Spencer, Scott
Sprayberry, JR
Sprunger, Gary
Staal, Stephen
Stagg, Lynwood
Staley, Dick
Starn, Jack
Steuber, Edward
Stewart, Don
Stoffers, Larry
Stone, Chris
Strawn, David
Stroberg, David
Strong, Gary
Stuart, Clay
Sullivan, Stan
Sutterfield, Stan
Swaney, Mark
Swanson, Roger
Swanson, Ronald
Swartzendruber, David
Swenson, Guy
Swinford, George
Tasker, Richard
Tauchen, Bryan
Tellet, David
Textor, Jack
Therrien, Michel
Thistlethwaite, Geoff
Thomas, Lee
Thomas, Stephen
Thomason, Michael
Thompson, David
Thorne, Jim
Thwing, Randy
Todd, John
Tompkins, Jeff
Tower, John
Towner, Melvin
Trojan, David
Truitt, Jim
Trumpfheller, Robert
Tupper, Kirby
Turnbull, Tom
Tuton, Beauford
Uniform, Sirs!
Utterback, Tom
Van Laak, Jim
Vanbladeren, Ronald
Vandenbroek, Martin
VanDerSanden, Gert
Vangrunsven, Stanley
Vanwinkle, Alden
Vargas, Javier
Vaughan, Cye
Vervoort-woestenburg, Jef
Voelker, Leonard
Voss, Richard
Wagner, James
Wagoner, Richard
Waldal, ArtB.
Walker, Beau
Walker, Weston
Wall, Chris
Wallen, Arden
Wampler, Jim
Washburn, Oliver
Watson, Richard
Watson, Terry
Weaver, Erich
Weaver, Fred
Webb, Randol
Weiler, Doug
Weiss, Gary
Werner, Russ
Weyant, Chuck
Wheatley, Malcolm
Whelan, Thomas
White, Charles
Whiteside, Eric
Whitman, Timothy
Whittier, Bucky
Whittington, Dewitt
Wilcox, Gary
Williams, Eugene
Williams, Gene
Williams, Laurence
Williams, Terry
Willig, Louis
Willis, Raymond
Wilson, Billy
Wilson, Kelly
Winberry, Bryan
Winne, Edward
Winnings, James
Wittman, James
Woods, Harold
Wotring, Dale
Wright, Roy
Wymer, Gerald
Yamokoski, William
Young, Rollin
Zecherle, John
Zheng, Andrew
Zilik, Gary
Zirges, Malcolm
Zollinger, Duane
Zuniga, Oscar
------------------- 2002 List of Contributors #1 -----------------
DNA: do not archive
Message 58
| 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: | for sale O 320 E3D |
--> RV-List message posted by: TColeE@aol.com
Helping a friend sell his engine. Log book, 1600 TT, OSMO, all accessories
except Alt.$12,500 Also new Sensenich prop never installed,prop extension,
backing plate, spinner, prop bolts. $1,650. Better hurry.
Terry E. Cole
Message 59
| 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: | Uninformed expertise. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
Snip from Tedd McHenry. ........."Which is what is so annoying about people with
no useful knowledge on
the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do."
Hey Ted, guess you noticed that this seems to be SOP for some of the listers. I
suppose this is an eternal problem, I bet the Wright brothers had their share
of advice as well.
Do not archive.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
RV9A fuselage. N919RV resvd.
Message 60
| 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:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <t.gummo@verizon.net>
I know this has been stated before, but why register YOUR plane as a RV.
Mine is a Gummo Special. Look that up in trade-a-plane. :-)
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket II (only amoung friends!!)
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 12/3/2002 8:06:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> sbuc@hiwaay.net writes:
>
> > I suspect we will now see RV prices returning to the ol' "cost of the
> > project" rule. Of course there will be exceptions on both sides of the
> > rule, but the days of getting ridiculous prices for our planes may be
> > over.
> >
> > The up side is that we can now insure our planes for smaller hull
> > values!
>
> And as long as the advertised price of RVs remains high in all the
aviation
> rags, those of us in extortionist states will continue to pay huge
personal
> property taxes as counties look to build their coffers. One way
experimental
> aircraft are valued for tax purposes is by the assessor looking at the
asking
> prices in Trade-a-Plane. This is what our county and many others do.
>
> My suggestion is that one should never indicate a price (unless it is very
> low) in any ad for an experimental aircraft.
>
> Do not archive.
>
> -GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
>
>
Message 61
| 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: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Jim,
The Jabiru flat 8 fascinated me when it was first reported. I believe that the
factory placed the first one in a scale Spitfire replica. There has been little
or no info as to how the flight testing is going. One curious design feature
of this engine is that the crankshaft is made from billet steel on a CNC machine.
Traditionally, high powered engines use forged steel crankshafts.
Has anyone heard any "progress" reports on Jabiru's progress with this engine?
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <sears@searnet.com>
>
>I've been reading this thread and just remembered an alternative that some
>of you may want to look at. Jabiru has designed an eight cylinder engine
>that is rated at 180hp. It was designed to replace the Lycoming engine in
>such airplanes as the RV series. In fact, the folks have even designed a
>firewall forward package for our RVs. The last time I read their website,
>they were testing the engine on a RV. That's been over a year ago. I don't
>know what the status is on the new engine; but, I do know that those who
>have the smaller Jabiru engines are happy with them. Since these aircraft
>engines sell for a far smaller price than a Lyc, it may be interesting to
>look at one of them. Can you imagine how smooth an eight cylinder will be,
>when compared to a Lyc? I once had a O300 six cylinder Continental in a
>Skyhawk. It was much smoother than my O320.
>
>Jim Sears in KY
>RV-6A N198JS
>EAA Tech Counselor
Message 62
| 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's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
Wow, sounds like quite a trip! So inquiring minds want to know - did you do
three point or wheel landings in that crosswind?
Curt
Message 63
| 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: | RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Good Question - I wish I knew the answer. That was the first (&hopefully
last) time I've landed in a wind over 30KTS, and I don't have a clue what
the landing turned out to be. All I know is there was a very small "skip",
then I was stopped. I estimate my total ground roll to be less than 50'.
I used whatever worked!
Most likely it was a combination. I couldn't do a full "3 point" type of
flare, as the wind just wouldn't allow it, so It was more like a
quasi-3point-wheel landing with no flaps with the pilot (sweating like
crazy) madly yanking the stick from stop to stop and slamming the rudder
pedals back and forth.
All I know is after the plane quite moving, I just sat on the runway for a
few seconds to see if I actually made it. When I looked outside, I was
sitting still smack on the numbers at the far end of the runway with the
wind tring to push me back! I could easily lift the tail just sitting
there!
Anyway, sorry to dissapoint....I'm sure if anyone saw it they could tell you
what I did, but I don't have the slightest idea! In the end, lets just say
I wouldn't voluntarily venture into that kind of wind to test landing
techniques!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis
60+Hrs.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Curt Reimer
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long).
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
Wow, sounds like quite a trip! So inquiring minds want to know - did you do
three point or wheel landings in that crosswind?
Curt
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! --
|