Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:57 AM - Blowj...er, a job you do by blowing... (Gannon, Terence)
2. 07:22 AM - Re: F 16 ride (Doug Rozendaal)
3. 07:58 AM - Re: Alternate engines (Rob Prior)
4. 08:20 AM - Re: A mind blower (Michael Stephan)
5. 08:20 AM - Re:fittings for fuel or whatever (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
6. 08:44 AM - Re: A mind blower (Chris)
7. 08:46 AM - Alternate engine (Bill Irvine)
8. 10:22 AM - Fw: F 16 ride (C. Rabaut)
9. 10:27 AM - Re: Protection diodes on starter solenoid (Scott.Fink@microchip.com)
10. 10:32 AM - Re: Alternate engine (mstewart@qa.butler.com)
11. 10:45 AM - Re: Alternate engine (Scott Reichel)
12. 10:53 AM - Re: paint (Lenleg@aol.com)
13. 10:56 AM - Re: Aileron spades (KostaLewis)
14. 11:04 AM - Seat Belt Data (Norman)
15. 11:17 AM - Re: Blowj...er, a job you do by blowing... (Elsa & Henry)
16. 11:36 AM - A new addition to the "list" (C. Rabaut)
17. 11:58 AM - Re: Alternate engine (Tedd McHenry)
18. 12:41 PM - Re: Happy RV Holidays! (Michael McGee)
19. 12:46 PM - Re: Fw: F 16 ride (Mark Phillips)
20. 12:54 PM - parallel valves (Chris)
21. 01:08 PM - Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...) (Mark Phillips)
22. 01:58 PM - Re: parallel valves (Konrad Werner)
23. 02:23 PM - Re: Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...) (Terry Watson)
24. 02:26 PM - Re: parallel valves (Michael McGee)
25. 02:50 PM - Re: parallel valves (John Starn)
26. 03:04 PM - Re: Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...) (Jeff Orear)
27. 03:06 PM - Re: Spacing Fuel Tank and Tip Ribs (Jim Jewell)
28. 03:21 PM - Re: A new addition to the "list" (Van Artsdalen, Scott)
29. 03:23 PM - Re: parallel valves (Stein Bruch)
30. 03:32 PM - Re: parallel valves (Doug Rozendaal)
31. 04:35 PM - Re: parallel valves (Gordon or Marge Comfort)
32. 05:11 PM - Re: Alternate engine (Charlie and Tupper England)
33. 05:11 PM - Re: Alternate engine (Charlie and Tupper England)
34. 05:13 PM - Re: parallel valves (Charlie and Tupper England)
35. 05:37 PM - Spacing Fuel Tank and Tip Ribs (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
36. 06:13 PM - Re: Wheel pant access holes for air (Keith and Jean Williams)
37. 06:24 PM - Plexi Drill Bits (Norman)
38. 06:28 PM - Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
39. 07:03 PM - Fusealge about to ship! (Bobby Hester)
40. 07:30 PM - Re: Aileron spades (Randy Compton)
41. 07:30 PM - Re: Aileron spades (Randy Compton)
42. 08:11 PM - Re: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed (Randy Lervold)
43. 08:54 PM - Re: [SPAM] Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed (Tedd McHenry)
44. 09:32 PM - Re: [SPAM] Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
45. 09:44 PM - Re: Plexi drill bits (Dick DeCramer)
46. 09:53 PM - Re: Wheel pant access holes for air (H.Ivan Haecker)
47. 10:22 PM - Re: Wheel pant access holes for air (John Starn)
48. 11:03 PM - Re: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed (Norman)
49. 11:31 PM - Re: Wheel pant access holes for air (Rob Prior)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Blowj...er, a job you do by blowing... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gannon, Terence" <Terence.Gannon@trican.ca>
Listers -- I thought I would pass along a little tip that I 'discovered'
last night. I don't know if the newer kits still require this, but when
you're setting up the leading edge ribs so that you can drill the
leading edge skin to them, you can use a threaded rod through the
forward-most tooling hole, and then put wing nut on either side to
secure the rib. Problem is that it seems to take forever to get that
rod and all the wing nuts into place. Finally figured out a quick an
easy way to do this. Hooked up my air compressor, set it for about 25
lbs., and then use a nozzle to blow on one side to the wing nut -- spins
them on and off pronto. Turned a one hour, really boring job into a
five minute, really fun one. I'd make up some clever quip about blowing
wingnuts, but I'm sure you're all making up your own jokes by now,
anyway.
It's the little things, isn't it?
Terry in Calgary
RV-6 S/N 24414
"Right Wing"
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
I have to write a story about it and I will let you know when it is done, in
the mean time, check this out, this guy has a pretty good handle on it.
http://www.avweb.com/articles/f16flight/
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
Subject: RV-List: F 16 ride
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
>
> "While you guys spent your time today complaining about Insurance
> companies....
> I went for a ride in an F16!!!! Wow, What a machine!!!!!!!"
>
> You lucky bugger. How do I get me one of these?
> This sort of posting is SO muchbetter than two guys yelling at each other
about insurance with neither wanting to hear what the other says;-]
>
> Do NOT archive
>
> Rob
> Rob W M Shipley
> RV9A N919RV Fuselage.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternate engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Bill Irvine wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Irvine <wgirvine@yahoo.com>
> A horizontally-opposed, direct-drive, water-cooled, 6
> cylinder engine. 375 CID, 200 HP (maybe a bit more),
> fuel-injected, with governor pad and hollow crankshaft
> for use with a Hartzell CS prop, 2 standard aircraft
> magneto drive pads, 2 vacuum pump pads, 2 spark plugs
> per cylinder, belt-driven 60amp alternator. This
> engine uses a Continental-type "bed" mount, so would
> require a new engine mount, but would fit inside the
> existing RV engine cowl.
Sounds excellent! What's it weigh? What would a firewall-forward
package cost?
> And of course, it would require a radiator mounted
> somewhere. I think on an RV, this would best be done
> with either a P-51 style belly scoop, or two
> under-wing scoops like a Spitfire.
So much for a simple firewall-forward installation. I'm all for
experimenting with engines, but to make major structural changes to
incorportate wing- or fuselage-mounted radiator ducts may be asking for
trouble. Just a thought.
-RB4
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: A mind blower |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael Stephan <mstephan@shr.net>
I couldn't get the link to work until I modified it a little. Here is my
version.
http://mbz.portage.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=share;action=display;num1039208683
--
Michael Stephan
RV-8 builder
> From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
> Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:30:39 -0800
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: A mind blower
>
> YaBB.cgi?boardshare;actiondisplay;num1039208683
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:fittings for fuel or whatever |
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
Sorru Chris ; I don't like the look of the " Bite into the tubing " part. Too
much chance of weanening the tubing at a critical point .
NOT secure enough for MY airplane !
Bob Olds
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A mind blower |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
I wonder if they make a constant speed version ;)
do not archive
Michael Stephan wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Michael Stephan <mstephan@shr.net>
>
> I couldn't get the link to work until I modified it a little. Here is my
> version.
>
> http://mbz.portage.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=share;action=display;num1039208683
>
> --
> Michael Stephan
> RV-8 builder
>
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw@programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
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: | Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Irvine <wgirvine@yahoo.com>
> A horizontally-opposed, direct-drive, water-cooled,
6
> cylinder engine. 375 CID, 200 HP (maybe a bit
more),
> fuel-injected, with governor pad and hollow
> crankshaft for use with a Hartzell CS prop, 2
> standard aircraft magneto drive pads, 2 vacuum pump
> pads, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, belt-driven 60amp
> alternator. This engine uses a Continental-
> type "bed" mount, so would require a new engine
> mount, but would fit inside the existing RV engine
> cowl...
Since some of you are interested, I'll explain a bit
more.... No, it's not a Porsche. (Good grief,
Lycoming parts are expensive, but Porsche prices are
positively breathtaking.) Unfortunately, this engine
exists only in my head and on my drafting table. If I
think there is a market for it, I'll produce it. I
know it sounds like a daunting task, but without going
into a long boring story of my experience, let me say
that yes, I can do it.
My idea is to make a simple, reliable, totally
conventional engine designed specifically for
aircraft. Nothing radical, nothing new... crankshaft
going 'round and 'round, pistons going up and down,
etc. The general layout would be very similar to a
Continental IO-470, except water-cooled. I am
absolutely convinced the key to reliability and
durability of any aircraft engine is water-cooling.
It's all a matter of temperature control. An
air-cooled engine must be designed to operate at temps
that range from ambient to about 400F. With a
properly designed cooling system, a water-cooled
engine operates from ambient to about 200F. This
means that the clearances can be smaller, which, for a
lot of reasons, is better.
Notice that I said "a properly designed cooling
system." This will take a little work. It's not hard
to do; the principles are well know, it just has to be
done right. You can't just stick a radiator out where
some air will hit it and expect it to work. That's
why I think the belly scoop or under-wing scoops would
work the best. I'm opposed to radiators inside the
engine cowling because of maintenance issues, but as
the boys at Belted Power have shown, it can indeed
work.
How much will it weigh? Probably more than a Lycoming
IO-360, but not by much. Maybe another 10-20 pounds.
Will the airplane be heavier with water-cooling? Yes,
absolutely. You lose the cooling fins (2 lbs?) but
gain a water jacket, water, a pump, a radiator
w/ducting and plumbing. I would guess a minimum
weight gain of 50 lbs, but a maximum of 100 lbs. So
you must be willing to add weight to have a better
engine. But it will also be smoother (6 cylinders),
more durable, and more reliable. And just think how
easy it will be to pre-heat... with an electric
in-block heater, you just plug the airplane into the
wall overnight. And with all that hot water, the
cockpit heat would be enough to melt your shoes!
Let me emphasize that this is a direct-drive engine;
no PSRU. Yes, you can get considerably more power by
running higher revs with a PSRU, but for right now, I
like the simplicity of direct drive.
How much will it cost? A lot. I don't see how I
could sell it for less than $25,000. And yes, parts
will be readily available at a reasonable price.
So, is anybody interested? Or should I start with the
8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
Bill
wgirvine@yahoo.com
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: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Thanks Doug, Very Cool post/reading.
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Rozendaal <dougr@petroblend.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: F 16 ride
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
>
> I have to write a story about it and I will let you know when it is done,
in
> the mean time, check this out, this guy has a pretty good handle on it.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/articles/f16flight/
>
> Tailwinds,
> Doug Rozendaal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
> To: "RV-List Digest Server" <rv-list-digest@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: F 16 ride
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
> >
> > "While you guys spent your time today complaining about Insurance
> > companies....
> > I went for a ride in an F16!!!! Wow, What a machine!!!!!!!"
> >
> > You lucky bugger. How do I get me one of these?
> > This sort of posting is SO muchbetter than two guys yelling at each
other
> about insurance with neither wanting to hear what the other says;-]
> >
> > Do NOT archive
> >
> > Rob
> > Rob W M Shipley
> > RV9A N919RV Fuselage.
> >
> >
>
>
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: Protection diodes on starter solenoid |
12/17/2002 11:25:37 AM,
Serialize complete at 12/17/2002 11:25:37 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com
Your thumb end would go to the positive pole on a solenoid (control is a
different thing).
Scott
"Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
12/16/2002 11:47 PM
Please respond to rv-list
To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Protection diodes on starter solenoid
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hey!!
I can handle the to's and fros of the various mechanical threads that come
and go on the list. I generaly find the P***ing contests at the very least
entertaining. I even find some of the politics bearable if it dosen't go
on
too long.
I'm not very familiar with protons, electrons, neutrons, transistors,
resisters, flows of current and all the rest of this electronic black
magic
mumbo jumbo.
I still want a straight and SIMPLE ! damn it! answer to the still burning
question:
If I where to hold an imaginary diode in my closed fist with my thumb out
and with the
arrow symbol pointing up in the direction my thumb is pointing. Which
end would I attach to the indicated positive pole on whatever devise or
application I
wish to protect or control?
I'm not looking to got school on this. Thumb up fist closed which end? the
thumb end or the little bitty finger end!?
One you teknically edjumuckated speshialists Has got to know street on
this.
Thumb, Little finger, ONE or the other. Cummon, help us out here!!!
Dudes!
Anodes, negative, atomic blablchinshmarten . .mumble ...snort ..
graach-phetoowey Bah Humbug !
Oh! Yeh!!, by the way, the best of the season to one and all!
Jim in Kelowna
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Protection diodes on starter solenoid
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry"
<elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
>
> Au contraire to you, GV (your posting is not identified by your name)
The
> "current" flow that you state going from negative to positive, is
ELECTRON
> flow and the conventional way of stating current flow is from positive
to
> negative! If you connect a diode anode to the positive terminal of a
battery
> and the cathode of it to the negative terminal, you will blow it.
(assuming
> the battery has sufficient capacity to do just that, which an aircraft
> battery sure has) That is why the schematic of a diode shows a triangle
> (anode) pointing to a straight line across the triangle point (the
cathode)
> and indicates the direction of current flow. (Anode to cathode, or + to
-)
>
> That is why diodes connected across solenoid or relay coils have the
Anodes
> connected to ground and the Cathodes connected to the positive supply
that
> energizes the coil. There will not be any current through the diode
normally
> when the coil is energized, BUT when the current is interrupted
(switched
> off), the collapsing field in the coil will generate (induce) a reverse
> polarity voltage which will cause the diode to conduct and quench it. If
> there was no diode there to do this, the resulting negative spike
traveling
> to the switch contacts will cause arcing as the switch contacts open.
> Depending on the inductance of the coil, that spike could reach several
> hundred volts!
>
> Try this: If you have a starter or master solenoid sitting around not
> installed, connect the coil, without a diode, to a battery with clip
leads
> and verify that it operates OK. Now disconnect one lead and observe the
> spark as the contact is broken. Repeat the exercise, but this time, hold
a
> finger in contact with the cliplead and the battery terminal as you
break
> the contact.- You will not like the jolt you feel!
> Cheers!!----------Henry Hore
>
>
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: Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: mstewart@qa.butler.com
Bill,
I would be hard pressed(ok would'nt) to may more, and add significant weight
for an unproven design.
I know zippo, zero about the complexities of engines. But I am a risk taker.
It is clear many folks will roll the dice if there is an upside, and for
most it must be significant. I applaud those rolling the dice. What would
compel someone to roll this dice?
What is the significant upside of this design? Cost? No, Weight? no, power?
no, reliability? No(not air proven)
Mike Stewart
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Irvine <wgirvine@yahoo.com
<mailto:wgirvine@yahoo.com?subject=Re:%20Alternate%20engine&replyto=20021217
1644.gBHGi2O00620@matronics.com> >
> A horizontally-opposed, direct-drive, water-cooled,
6
> cylinder engine. 375 CID, 200 HP (maybe a bit
more),
> fuel-injected, with governor pad and hollow
> crankshaft for use with a Hartzell CS prop, 2
> standard aircraft magneto drive pads, 2 vacuum pump
> pads, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, belt-driven 60amp
> alternator. This engine uses a Continental-
> type "bed" mount, so would require a new engine
> mount, but would fit inside the existing RV engine
> cowl...
Since some of you are interested, I'll explain a bit
more.... No, it's not a Porsche. (Good grief,
Lycoming parts are expensive, but Porsche prices are
positively breathtaking.) Unfortunately, this engine
exists only in my head and on my drafting table. If I
think there is a market for it, I'll produce it. I
know it sounds like a daunting task, but without going
into a long boring story of my experience, let me say
that yes, I can do it.
My idea is to make a simple, reliable, totally
conventional engine designed specifically for
aircraft. Nothing radical, nothing new... crankshaft
going 'round and 'round, pistons going up and down,
etc. The general layout would be very similar to a
Continental IO-470, except water-cooled. I am
absolutely convinced the key to reliability and
durability of any aircraft engine is water-cooling.
It's all a matter of temperature control. An
air-cooled engine must be designed to operate at temps
that range from ambient to about 400F. With a
properly designed cooling system, a water-cooled
engine operates from ambient to about 200F. This
means that the clearances can be smaller, which, for a
lot of reasons, is better.
Notice that I said "a properly designed cooling
system." This will take a little work. It's not hard
to do; the principles are well know, it just has to be
done right. You can't just stick a radiator out where
some air will hit it and expect it to work. That's
why I think the belly scoop or under-wing scoops would
work the best. I'm opposed to radiators inside the
engine cowling because of maintenance issues, but as
the boys at Belted Power have shown, it can indeed
work.
How much will it weigh? Probably more than a Lycoming
IO-360, but not by much. Maybe another 10-20 pounds.
Will the airplane be heavier with water-cooling? Yes,
absolutely. You lose the cooling fins (2 lbs?) but
gain a water jacket, water, a pump, a radiator
w/ducting and plumbing. I would guess a minimum
weight gain of 50 lbs, but a maximum of 100 lbs. So
you must be willing to add weight to have a better
engine. But it will also be smoother (6 cylinders),
more durable, and more reliable. And just think how
easy it will be to pre-heat... with an electric
in-block heater, you just plug the airplane into the
wall overnight. And with all that hot water, the
cockpit heat would be enough to melt your shoes!
Let me emphasize that this is a direct-drive engine;
no PSRU. Yes, you can get considerably more power by
running higher revs with a PSRU, but for right now, I
like the simplicity of direct drive.
How much will it cost? A lot. I don't see how I
could sell it for less than $25,000. And yes, parts
will be readily available at a reasonable price.
So, is anybody interested? Or should I start with the
8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
Bill
Mike Stewart
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<span
style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Bill,
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>I would be hard pressed(ok would'nt) to may more, and add significant weight
for an unproven design.
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>I know zippo, zero about the complexities of engines. But I am a risk taker.
It is clear many folks will roll the dice if there is an upside, and for most
it must be significant. I applaud those rolling the dice. What would compel
someone to roll this dice?
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>What is the significant
upside of this design? Cost? No, Weight? no, power? no, reliability?
No(not air proven)
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Mike Stewart
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>-- RV-List message posted by: Bill Irvine <a
href"mailto:wgirvine@yahoo.com?subjectRe:%20Alternate%20enginereplyto200212171644.gBHGi2O00620@matronics.com">wgirvine@yahoo.com
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'> A horizontally-opposed,
direct-drive, water-cooled,
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>6
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'> cylinder engine.
375 CID, 200 HP (maybe a bit
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>more),
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'> fuel-injected,
with governor pad and hollow
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> crankshaft for use with a Hartzell CS prop, 2
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> standard aircraft magneto drive pads, 2 vacuum pump
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> pads, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, belt-driven 60amp
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> alternator. This engine uses a Continental-
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> type bed mount, so would require a new engine
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> mount, but would fit inside the existing RV engine
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'> cowl...
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>Since some of you are interested, I'll explain a bit
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>more.... No, it's not a Porsche. (Good grief,
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>Lycoming parts are expensive, but Porsche prices are
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>positively breathtaking.) Unfortunately, this engine
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>exists only in my head and on my drafting table. If I
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>think there is a market for it, I'll produce it. I
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>know it sounds like a daunting task, but without going
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>into a long boring story of my experience, let me say
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>that yes, I can do it.
<font size2
colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>My idea is to make a simple, reliable, totally
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>conventional engine designed specifically for
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>aircraft. Nothing radical, nothing new... crankshaft
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>going 'round and 'round, pistons going up and down,
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>etc. The general layout would be very similar to a
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>Continental IO-470, except water-cooled. I am
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>absolutely convinced the key to reliability and
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>durability of any aircraft engine is water-cooling.
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>It's all a matter of temperature control. An
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>air-cooled engine must be designed to operate at temps
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>that range from ambient to about 400F. With a
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>properly designed cooling system, a water-cooled
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>engine operates from ambient to about 200F. This
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>means that the clearances can be smaller, which, for a
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>lot of reasons, is better.
<font size2
colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>Notice that I said a properly designed cooling
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>system. This will take a little work. It's not hard
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>to do; the principles are well know, it just has to be
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>done right. You can't just stick a radiator out where
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>some air will hit it and expect it to work. That's
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>why I think the belly scoop or under-wing scoops would
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>work the best. I'm opposed to radiators inside the
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>engine cowling because of maintenance issues, but as
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>the boys at Belted Power have shown, it can indeed
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>work.
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>How much will it weigh? Probably more than a Lycoming
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>IO-360, but not by much. Maybe another 10-20 pounds.
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>Will the airplane be heavier with water-cooling? Yes,
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>absolutely. You lose the cooling fins (2 lbs?) but
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>gain a water jacket, water, a pump, a radiator
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>w/ducting and plumbing. I would guess a minimum
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>weight gain of 50 lbs, but a maximum of 100 lbs. So
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>you must be willing to add weight to have a better
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>engine. But it will also be smoother (6 cylinders),
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>more durable, and more reliable. And just think how
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>easy it will be to pre-heat... with an electric
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>in-block heater, you just plug the airplane into the
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>wall overnight. And with all that hot water, the
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>cockpit heat would be enough to melt your shoes!
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Let me emphasize
that this is a direct-drive engine;
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>no PSRU. Yes, you can get considerably more power by
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>running higher revs with a PSRU, but for right now, I
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>like the simplicity of direct drive.
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>How much will
it cost? A lot. I don't see how I
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>could sell it for less than $25,000. And yes, parts
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>will be readily available at a reasonable price.
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>So, is anybody
interested? Or should I start with the
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
<font
size2 colorblack face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'>
<font size2 colorblack
face"Courier New"><span style'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Bill
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Mike Stewart
<span style'font-size:
12.0pt'>
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: Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Reichel <scott.reichel@cctechnol.com>
Go for it, Bill! Sounds like a great idea...
Just out of curiosity, though, how does your idea compare to
CoolJugs? Aside from the obvious Cont. v.s. Lyc. differances, I mean.
Check it out at http://www.cooljugs.com/
-Scott R
suffering from RV-7 dreams
of course, the obligatory Do Not Archive
At 08:43 AM 12/17/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Irvine <wgirvine@yahoo.com>
>
> > A horizontally-opposed, direct-drive, water-cooled,
>6
> > cylinder engine. 375 CID, 200 HP (maybe a bit
>more),
> > fuel-injected, with governor pad and hollow
> > crankshaft for use with a Hartzell CS prop, 2
> > standard aircraft magneto drive pads, 2 vacuum pump
> > pads, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, belt-driven 60amp
> > alternator. This engine uses a Continental-
> > type "bed" mount, so would require a new engine
> > mount, but would fit inside the existing RV engine
> > cowl...
<snip>
>How much will it cost? A lot. I don't see how I
>could sell it for less than $25,000. And yes, parts
>will be readily available at a reasonable price.
>
>So, is anybody interested? Or should I start with the
>8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
>
>Bill
>wgirvine@yahoo.com
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
I just used some stripper on the oil pan for installing heat strips and it
said not for use on fiberglass!!
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL
Greensboro, N.C.
24 hours !!
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>> Exactly. You will be hard pressed to find controls as harmonized and
>> perfectly balanced as those on the RV series. Why add weight and
>> complexity for something you may not need?
>
>> Unless you want to, of course.
>
>> Michael
>Hogwash.
>That's why I posted this question...probably should have stuck it
>on the aerobatic list. I'll know better next time.
>Well I'll be darn! I never knew an Extra was of "inferior control
>harmony."
>Now I can scratch one of those inferior things off of my Christmas wish
>list and not worry about having to win the lottery to pay for it.
>Never flown a plane with spades, have you?
> and other inflammatory remarks..............
Randy, Randy, Randy: Yeah, you're right. Suzie Q is one of the hardest,
aggravating, frustrating airplanes I have ever been in. EVERY time I go
flying, especially when I am doing aerobatics, I am thinking, 'Damn, I
wish I had SPADES on this piece of junk' or 'Damn, I wish I had an Extra
XXXX'. And flying at cruise speeds REALLY pisses me off. Control
harmony? Hogwash. I can't sneeze without gaining 1000 feet.
Oh, wait. I thought I was on the RANDY list. This is the RV list? OOPS.
Sorry. I hit the wrong key. I'll go on back to the RANDY list where
everyone is supposed to think like him. I have a hard time with lists
like the RV list where there is usually friendly discussion, albeit
heated at times, instead of trying to aggravate as many people on the
list as possible, like on the RANDY list.
Hogwash? Yeah, sorry I don't think like you, pal. Again, these types of
insulting remarks from someone that thinks everyone's opinion is hogwash
is why some of the greybeards on this list are gone. Keep up the good
work. You wanted opinions regarding spades and flammed every answer you
got. Attaboy. Thin this list OUT. This kind of 'discussion' is like
being at work, for crying out loud.
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
ONE OF THE SWEETEST FLYING AIRPLANES I HAVE EVER FLOWN, and I've flown a
few. But, what the hell do I know?
Do not archive, unless this is the RANDY list
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
Here are some seat belt details. All prices USD. Canadians see the bottom for the
best domestic deal.
This post could use more details. Help!
HOOKER - Sport Set 1.75" wide
http://www.hookerharness.com/
3.9 lbs per seat $312.50 per seat with military latches and $499 with the rotary
buckles.
Available from Team Rocket at
http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/TeamRocketAircraftcgi/hazel.exe?CLIENT45712279&SEARCH_LOGIC%2B&SEARCH_KEY_CAT&SEARCH_LOGIC%2B&SEARCH_KEY_PRICE&SEARCH_LOGIC%2B&SEARCH_COMP%3A&SEARCH_KEY_KEYWORDShooker&SEARCH_LOGIC%2B&PIXON&DETON&SEARCH_MAXHITS10&SUBMIT_ACTION_SEARCHBegin+Search&client45712279
Huge link Batman! If it doesn't work goto
http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/
and do a catalog search for "Hooker".
Note that these belts are available in three widths, 1.75", 2", and 3". The 3"
are likely to be considerably heavier.
They come in two colors of your choice and are undiputably the best looking belts
out there. Mega colors available. Best looking is to take your aircraft color
as the main color and detail with grey.
Has anyone with the Simpson belts tried taking the name advertising off them? Because
they would look alright otherwise. I just don't like the huge brand name
on each strap.
SCROTCH
http://www.schroth.com/index.html
$415 per seat from http://www.wingsandwheels.com/index.html
They quoted 3 lbs per seat for the 4 belt sytem, no word on which latches were
used.
PACIFIC AERO HARNESS
These are the ones that Van used to sell but he has gone out of buisness recently
due to supplier cost increases. His 5 point belts weighed 4.5 lbs. Webpage
not available anymore.
SIMPSON - available in 2" or 3" - an old post on the RV List said the 3" were too
wide for RV's and that 2" would be better, more comphy and lighter. Vince,
how do yours feel?
http://www.simpsonracing.com/Shop/ShowProduct.asp?category83&Product89
$99 per seat
These have the military style buckle. Note we need the floor mount Y Harness.
RACEQUIP
http://racequip.com/ushop/index.cgi?IDD5EIVA&taskshow&catHARNESSES
$85 per seat
Best deal for Canadians:
http://www.leafracewear.com/pricing.htm#26
Caltalog available on request.
Military buckles 5 strap part #70049 $79 USD or $125 Canadian per seat
Camlocks part #75049 $179 USD or $270 Canadian per seat. "V" type
These belts are available in 7 colors and the slip on shoulder pads are an option.
These belts are apparently 3" wide but I'm not completely sure. Most race
cars these days use nothing but 3". I would try asking if 2" are available, might
save some more dough.
Home page at http://www.leafracewear.com/
Great pricing on lots of stuff.
Another great reasonably priced Canadian supply house is
http://www.guyons.com/
They stock every single item to build a complete race car and are located in Edmonton
Alberta. Huge catalog available but I think you have to own a race car
to get one. No price list, they want the phone calls.
I would like to see some discussion on what style of belt RVers should buy when
ordering from race car supply houses. I am looking at "V" types but I could be
wrong. There are also "H" types. Perhaps different RV models are better suited
to a particular style.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
CASCAR Sportsman #96 team owner/driver (working twards 2004 Super Series, just
need another quarter mil or so)
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: Blowj...er, a job you do by blowing... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Hi Terry (and listers), I used 1/4" threaded rod also, but I used several
pieces cut to the distance between each rib, put a nut and washer about 1/2"
down one end of the piece and installed a threaded hex-nipple on the other
end. The standard H/Ware store nipple is 1 3/4" long and threaded
right-through. It's a snap to install the nut and washer end through the
tooling hole on one side of the rib and then insert a washer and a nipple on
the other, followed by the next section of threaded rod, etc, etc. (All in
series that way).
It's easy to take apart also, as I had to do after trial-fitting and
strapping down the leading edge! Those pesky ribs will twist off-line with
the pre-punched holes in the skin, and to hold them perpendicular to the
skin, I cut some pieces of 1/8" thk x 3/4" wide steel strapping long enough
to span the rib, and drilled the 1/4" hole accordingly. I used one of those
straps each side of each rib. When the nuts or nipples were tightened, those
ribs didn't move!
Cheers!!-------------Henry Hore.
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: | A new addition to the "list" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Well I guess we can officially add "Spades" to the "Insurance, Primer verse
Not, tail verses nose wheel, Daisy, Dimple verses Counter sink, etc..." List
of off-topic subjects/flames.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: KostaLewis <mikel@dimensional.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Aileron spades
> --> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>
> >> Exactly. You will be hard pressed to find controls as harmonized and
> >> perfectly balanced as those on the RV series. Why add weight and
> >> complexity for something you may not need?
> >
> >> Unless you want to, of course.
> >
> >> Michael
>
>
> >Hogwash.
>
> >That's why I posted this question...probably should have stuck it
> >on the aerobatic list. I'll know better next time.
>
> >Well I'll be darn! I never knew an Extra was of "inferior control
> >harmony."
> >Now I can scratch one of those inferior things off of my Christmas wish
> >list and not worry about having to win the lottery to pay for it.
>
> >Never flown a plane with spades, have you?
>
> > and other inflammatory remarks..............
>
> Randy, Randy, Randy: Yeah, you're right. Suzie Q is one of the hardest,
> aggravating, frustrating airplanes I have ever been in. EVERY time I go
> flying, especially when I am doing aerobatics, I am thinking, 'Damn, I
> wish I had SPADES on this piece of junk' or 'Damn, I wish I had an Extra
> XXXX'. And flying at cruise speeds REALLY pisses me off. Control
> harmony? Hogwash. I can't sneeze without gaining 1000 feet.
>
> Oh, wait. I thought I was on the RANDY list. This is the RV list? OOPS.
> Sorry. I hit the wrong key. I'll go on back to the RANDY list where
> everyone is supposed to think like him. I have a hard time with lists
> like the RV list where there is usually friendly discussion, albeit
> heated at times, instead of trying to aggravate as many people on the
> list as possible, like on the RANDY list.
>
> Hogwash? Yeah, sorry I don't think like you, pal. Again, these types of
> insulting remarks from someone that thinks everyone's opinion is hogwash
> is why some of the greybeards on this list are gone. Keep up the good
> work. You wanted opinions regarding spades and flammed every answer you
> got. Attaboy. Thin this list OUT. This kind of 'discussion' is like
> being at work, for crying out loud.
>
> Michael
> RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
> ONE OF THE SWEETEST FLYING AIRPLANES I HAVE EVER FLOWN, and I've flown a
> few. But, what the hell do I know?
>
> Do not archive, unless this is the RANDY list
>
>
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: Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Bill Irvine wrote:
> So, is anybody interested? Or should I start with the
> 8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
Bill:
This really belongs on the engines list (it's just flame bait over here), but
here's my two cents.
Your concept is likely to work better in a larger-displacement,
higher-horsepower application. To be successfull in the market it will have to
be designed to fit existing airframes and use existing props, which means you
will be limited to Lycoming-style RPMs, even though the water cooling would
allow you to rev higher with equal or better reliability. If you make a
larger-displacement engine you'll pay less relative weight penalty for water
cooling, relative to a Lycoming (you might even come out ahead).
While we're spit-balling, how about this? Make a Chevy-style aluminum block
with a Lycoming-style output main bearing, and build a custom crankshaft to
match, with a build-in prop flange. Bore and stroke are standard GM, 4.125"
and 3.75", for a displacement of 401 cubic inches. Everthing except the block
and crank is stock GM HO parts (or aftermarket, if you prefer). Invert the
whole works and run it direct drive, as Steve Wittman did with the Buick 215
(yes, I know he had some teething problems). You'd get about 200 HP at 2700
RPM.
You could hang any prop made for a Lycoming off it.
BMEP (cylinder pressure) would be the same as a Lycoming. Piston speed and
conn rod forces would be lower than a Lycoming. Bearing wear index would be
WAY lower. TBO would easily match a Lycoming.
On the auxiliary end you'd run a KSE housing with direct drive to the water
pump, and the oil pump driven directly from the camshaft. Ignition would be
dual-redundant electronic, as used on the Falconer V12 in the Thunder Mustang.
If you wanted to get really carried away you could make custom, dual-plug heads
strictly for the feel-good value, but there's no need for it.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
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: Happy RV Holidays! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
At 23:06 12/16/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
>Here is a link I hope you enjoy (~12 meg download):
>
>http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/greetings.mpg
>
>You can either watch it stream or download it for viewing; should be
>playable with Windows Media Player, Real Player, or Quicktime.
>
>Happy Holidays,
>
>Sam Buchanan
Nice bit o' work Sam.
Happy Holidays to you as well.
MGM
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
And while y'all are at it, check this one out- not bad for a sports writer!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/1999/09/14/life_of_reilly/
From the PossumWorks in TN
Mark do not archive
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
> >
> > I have to write a story about it and I will let you know when it is done,
> in
> > the mean time, check this out, this guy has a pretty good handle on it.
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/articles/f16flight/
> >
> > Tailwinds,
> > Doug Rozendaal
> >
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 |
|
RV-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
difference?
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw@programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
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 |
|
| Subject: | Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
So many ways to slay the dragon....
...and here's another: Chuck one long 1/4" threaded rod in your cordless
drill- start it into the first rib, put on a washer, then nut. Clamp a cleco
clamp around the nut to act as a weight and keep the nut from turning as you run
the drill. Spin it up to the next rib (go slow and make sure the nut don't
spin), add another nut with cleco clamp and washer, go through the rib & repeat
as neccessary. When all the nuts & washers are installed, just adjust to match
rivet lines & tighten the nuts. Taking it out is even cooler- reverse the drill
and it all comes apart in about 30 seconds! (uh, loosen the nuts about an inch
away from the ribs first!) It's not a bad idea to run one nut all the way down
the rod to make sure the threads are clean first.
Kinda fun too! If ya want a picture, I can send ya one...
From the PossumWorks in TN
Mark
Elsa & Henry wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
>
> Hi Terry (and listers), I used 1/4" threaded rod also, but I used several
> pieces cut to the distance between each rib, put a nut and washer about 1/2"
> down one end of the piece and installed a threaded hex-nipple on the other
> end. The standard H/Ware store nipple is 1 3/4" long and threaded
> right-through. It's a snap to install the nut and washer end through the
> tooling hole on one side of the rib and then insert a washer and a nipple on
> the other, followed by the next section of threaded rod, etc, etc. (All in
> series that way).
> It's easy to take apart also, as I had to do after trial-fitting and
> strapping down the leading edge! Those pesky ribs will twist off-line with
> the pre-punched holes in the skin, and to hold them perpendicular to the
> skin, I cut some pieces of 1/8" thk x 3/4" wide steel strapping long enough
> to span the rib, and drilled the 1/4" hole accordingly. I used one of those
> straps each side of each rib. When the nuts or nipples were tightened, those
> ribs didn't move!
> Cheers!!-------------Henry Hore.
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: parallel valves |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
Dear Chris,
Std. Parallel Valve O-360's run ~180 hp (like the carbureted -A1A that Vans
sells).
Std. Angle Valve IO-360's are able to develop more power (~200hp) thru
better breathing, but are also much heavier by design.
However, Powersport (etc.) could tune you a parallel valve engine to come
close to the angle valve's power, but without the weight penalty.
Please check the archives, as I am sure there is a ton load of info there!
Sincerely,
Konrad
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Subject: RV-List: parallel valves
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
>
> Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
> difference?
>
> --
> Chris Woodhouse
> 3147 SW 127th St.
> Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> 405-691-5206 (home)
> chrisw@programmer.net
> N35 20.492'
> W97 34.342'
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Here's another variation on the theme. I don't remember if it was my idea
or someone else's, so apologies to the inventor if there was one. Instead
of nuts on the threaded rod, use plastic tie wraps. That way you can put
the threaded rod through all the tooling holes and then cinch the tie wraps
around the rod. They will work like a nut, so you can screw them along the
rod to cinch the rib in place. For me, it wasn't quite as slick as it
sounds, but it did the job. You might figure out something to cinch between
the tie wrap and the rod that would grip the threads a little better. Also,
a washer between the tie wrap and the rib might be an improvement. You can
just snip the tie wraps off and pull the rod out when you are done.
Wing nuts and the air hose might be more fun.
Terry
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallel valves |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
At 14:51 12/17/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
>
>Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
>difference?
>
>--
>Chris Woodhouse
..about 40 pounds, 20 hp, 10(+/-5) mph, and $10,000?
MGM
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode
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: | Re: parallel valves |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Parallel valves = The cowl fits.
Non-Parallel valves (aka Angle Valves)= YOU make
(cut-adjust-modify-redo-reglass-add blisters etc.) the cowl fit.
Do Not Archive. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael McGee" <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: parallel valves
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Here's another variation for those of you that are ex-rc builders:
I used 3/16" music wire and wheel collars on each side of the tip ribs.
Makes for very accurate adjustments, and is extremely quick an easy to set
up.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A
fuselage
Peshtigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Here's another variation on the theme. I don't remember if it was my idea
> or someone else's, so apologies to the inventor if there was one. Instead
> of nuts on the threaded rod, use plastic tie wraps. That way you can put
> the threaded rod through all the tooling holes and then cinch the tie
wraps
> around the rod. They will work like a nut, so you can screw them along
the
> rod to cinch the rib in place. For me, it wasn't quite as slick as it
> sounds, but it did the job. You might figure out something to cinch
between
> the tie wrap and the rod that would grip the threads a little better.
Also,
> a washer between the tie wrap and the rib might be an improvement. You can
> just snip the tie wraps off and pull the rod out when you are done.
> Wing nuts and the air hose might be more fun.
>
> Terry
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spacing Fuel Tank and Tip Ribs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Try this:
Just use a non threaded rod or straighten out enough of one of the supplied
fuel or brake line coils. Cut short lengths of rubber hose (fuel line etc.)
split the short lengths length wise so they can be installed or removed with
ease. Use screw type fuel line clamps to adjust and hold.
Of all the ways to do this task that I have seen posted incuding the way I
did mine (with pvc tubing and stainless tie wire) this shows promise as the
overall best! the cost of the clamps is minimal and you might use a few
elsewhere anyhow.
There are times when this list really shines this to me is one of them!
Thanks all,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Spacing Tip Ribs (wuz sumthin' about a blowj...)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Here's another variation on the theme. I don't remember if it was my idea
> or someone else's, so apologies to the inventor if there was one. Instead
> of nuts on the threaded rod, use plastic tie wraps. That way you can put
> the threaded rod through all the tooling holes and then cinch the tie
wraps
> around the rod. They will work like a nut, so you can screw them along
the
> rod to cinch the rib in place. For me, it wasn't quite as slick as it
> sounds, but it did the job. You might figure out something to cinch
between
> the tie wrap and the rod that would grip the threads a little better.
Also,
> a washer between the tie wrap and the rib might be an improvement. You can
> just snip the tie wraps off and pull the rod out when you are done.
> Wing nuts and the air hose might be more fun.
>
> Terry
>
>
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: | A new addition to the "list" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts@unionsafe.com>
So... Is this a good time to bring up religion and politics?
--
Scott VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Manager
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
-----Original Message-----
From: C. Rabaut [mailto:crabaut@coalinga.com]
Subject: RV-List: A new addition to the "list"
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Well I guess we can officially add "Spades" to the "Insurance, Primer verse
Not, tail verses nose wheel, Daisy, Dimple verses Counter sink, etc..." List
of off-topic subjects/flames.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: KostaLewis <mikel@dimensional.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Aileron spades
> --> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>
> >> Exactly. You will be hard pressed to find controls as harmonized and
> >> perfectly balanced as those on the RV series. Why add weight and
> >> complexity for something you may not need?
> >
> >> Unless you want to, of course.
> >
> >> Michael
>
>
> >Hogwash.
>
> >That's why I posted this question...probably should have stuck it
> >on the aerobatic list. I'll know better next time.
>
> >Well I'll be darn! I never knew an Extra was of "inferior control
> >harmony."
> >Now I can scratch one of those inferior things off of my Christmas wish
> >list and not worry about having to win the lottery to pay for it.
>
> >Never flown a plane with spades, have you?
>
> > and other inflammatory remarks..............
>
> Randy, Randy, Randy: Yeah, you're right. Suzie Q is one of the hardest,
> aggravating, frustrating airplanes I have ever been in. EVERY time I go
> flying, especially when I am doing aerobatics, I am thinking, 'Damn, I
> wish I had SPADES on this piece of junk' or 'Damn, I wish I had an Extra
> XXXX'. And flying at cruise speeds REALLY pisses me off. Control
> harmony? Hogwash. I can't sneeze without gaining 1000 feet.
>
> Oh, wait. I thought I was on the RANDY list. This is the RV list? OOPS.
> Sorry. I hit the wrong key. I'll go on back to the RANDY list where
> everyone is supposed to think like him. I have a hard time with lists
> like the RV list where there is usually friendly discussion, albeit
> heated at times, instead of trying to aggravate as many people on the
> list as possible, like on the RANDY list.
>
> Hogwash? Yeah, sorry I don't think like you, pal. Again, these types of
> insulting remarks from someone that thinks everyone's opinion is hogwash
> is why some of the greybeards on this list are gone. Keep up the good
> work. You wanted opinions regarding spades and flammed every answer you
> got. Attaboy. Thin this list OUT. This kind of 'discussion' is like
> being at work, for crying out loud.
>
> Michael
> RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
> ONE OF THE SWEETEST FLYING AIRPLANES I HAVE EVER FLOWN, and I've flown a
> few. But, what the hell do I know?
>
> Do not archive, unless this is the RANDY list
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Chris,
You only have a choice depending on what engine you buy/use. The 180hp
0-360 Lycs predominantly are parallel valve engines, while the 200+hp
0-360's/0-540's are have agle valve heads. Different cylinder heads for
different applications.
Check the archives for lots of data on these engines, or scour the "net".
You'll find loads of information on them.
On another note, how's your project going???
Cheers,
Stein Bruch, Minneapolis
RV6-N664SB 70hrs
RV7-N2YU Empennage.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
Subject: RV-List: parallel valves
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
difference?
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw@programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
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: parallel valves |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
20 horsepower
Sorry could not resist. (smartass answers must be contagious) The angle
valve engines have hemispherical combustion chambers.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
>
> Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
> difference?
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: parallel valves |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chrisw3@cox.net>
Subject: RV-List: parallel valves
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
> Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
> difference?
--
> Chris Woodhouse
Chris: As has been said by others, a big difference is horsepower. In the
360 series engines, the angle valve (hemispherical combustion chamber) units
are rated about 20hp higher. I believe all angle valve 360's are fuel
injected but the parallel valve 360's come both ways (F.I. vs carbureted).
In the 540 engines the angle valve cylinders are found on the 300hp and up
engines. There is another major difference in the engines. The crankshafts
on the angle valves mostly have counterweights and thus can use props that
the parallels cannot, or at least with fewer restrictions. Angle valve
engines are significantly heavier.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
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: Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Bill Irvine wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Irvine <wgirvine@yahoo.com>
>
>>A horizontally-opposed, direct-drive, water-cooled,
>
> 6
>
>>cylinder engine. 375 CID, 200 HP (maybe a bit
>
> more),
>
>>fuel-injected, with governor pad and hollow
>>crankshaft for use with a Hartzell CS prop, 2
>>standard aircraft magneto drive pads, 2 vacuum pump
>>pads, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, belt-driven 60amp
>>alternator. This engine uses a Continental-
>>type "bed" mount, so would require a new engine
>>mount, but would fit inside the existing RV engine
>>cowl...
>
>
> Since some of you are interested, I'll explain a bit
> more.... No, it's not a Porsche. (Good grief,
> Lycoming parts are expensive, but Porsche prices are
> positively breathtaking.) Unfortunately, this engine
> exists only in my head and on my drafting table. If I
> think there is a market for it, I'll produce it. I
> know it sounds like a daunting task, but without going
> into a long boring story of my experience, let me say
> that yes, I can do it.
>
> My idea is to make a simple, reliable, totally
> conventional engine designed specifically for
> aircraft. Nothing radical, nothing new... crankshaft
> going 'round and 'round, pistons going up and down,
> etc. The general layout would be very similar to a
> Continental IO-470, except water-cooled. I am
> absolutely convinced the key to reliability and
> durability of any aircraft engine is water-cooling.
> It's all a matter of temperature control. An
> air-cooled engine must be designed to operate at temps
> that range from ambient to about 400F. With a
> properly designed cooling system, a water-cooled
> engine operates from ambient to about 200F. This
> means that the clearances can be smaller, which, for a
> lot of reasons, is better.
>
> Notice that I said "a properly designed cooling
> system." This will take a little work. It's not hard
> to do; the principles are well know, it just has to be
> done right. You can't just stick a radiator out where
> some air will hit it and expect it to work. That's
> why I think the belly scoop or under-wing scoops would
> work the best. I'm opposed to radiators inside the
> engine cowling because of maintenance issues, but as
> the boys at Belted Power have shown, it can indeed
> work.
>
> How much will it weigh? Probably more than a Lycoming
> IO-360, but not by much. Maybe another 10-20 pounds.
> Will the airplane be heavier with water-cooling? Yes,
> absolutely. You lose the cooling fins (2 lbs?) but
> gain a water jacket, water, a pump, a radiator
> w/ducting and plumbing. I would guess a minimum
> weight gain of 50 lbs, but a maximum of 100 lbs. So
> you must be willing to add weight to have a better
> engine. But it will also be smoother (6 cylinders),
> more durable, and more reliable. And just think how
> easy it will be to pre-heat... with an electric
> in-block heater, you just plug the airplane into the
> wall overnight. And with all that hot water, the
> cockpit heat would be enough to melt your shoes!
>
> Let me emphasize that this is a direct-drive engine;
> no PSRU. Yes, you can get considerably more power by
> running higher revs with a PSRU, but for right now, I
> like the simplicity of direct drive.
>
> How much will it cost? A lot. I don't see how I
> could sell it for less than $25,000. And yes, parts
> will be readily available at a reasonable price.
>
> So, is anybody interested? Or should I start with the
> 8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
>
> Bill
> wgirvine@yahoo.com
Sorry Bill, but it fails both the money test & (even more important) the weight
test. Either will stop sales. The Powersport rotary makes 215 hp, is almost
turbine-smooth, & weighs less than an IO360 installed. BUT it costs as much as
Lyc so even adventurous homebuilders say, "Why gamble for the same money?"
Can you bring in the 500CID at less than O520 weight & at overhauled O470 prices?
Charlie
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: Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Bill Irvine wrote:
>
>
>>So, is anybody interested? Or should I start with the
>>8-cylinder, 500 CID, 300 HP version? :-)
>
>
> Bill:
>
> This really belongs on the engines list (it's just flame bait over here), but
> here's my two cents.
>
> Your concept is likely to work better in a larger-displacement,
> higher-horsepower application. To be successfull in the market it will have
to
> be designed to fit existing airframes and use existing props, which means you
> will be limited to Lycoming-style RPMs, even though the water cooling would
> allow you to rev higher with equal or better reliability. If you make a
> larger-displacement engine you'll pay less relative weight penalty for water
> cooling, relative to a Lycoming (you might even come out ahead).
>
> While we're spit-balling, how about this? Make a Chevy-style aluminum block
> with a Lycoming-style output main bearing, and build a custom crankshaft to
> match, with a build-in prop flange. Bore and stroke are standard GM, 4.125"
> and 3.75", for a displacement of 401 cubic inches. Everthing except the block
> and crank is stock GM HO parts (or aftermarket, if you prefer). Invert the
> whole works and run it direct drive, as Steve Wittman did with the Buick 215
> (yes, I know he had some teething problems). You'd get about 200 HP at 2700
> RPM.
>
> You could hang any prop made for a Lycoming off it.
>
> BMEP (cylinder pressure) would be the same as a Lycoming. Piston speed and
> conn rod forces would be lower than a Lycoming. Bearing wear index would be
> WAY lower. TBO would easily match a Lycoming.
>
> On the auxiliary end you'd run a KSE housing with direct drive to the water
> pump, and the oil pump driven directly from the camshaft. Ignition would be
> dual-redundant electronic, as used on the Falconer V12 in the Thunder Mustang.
> If you wanted to get really carried away you could make custom, dual-plug heads
> strictly for the feel-good value, but there's no need for it.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
It's already been done. There's been a vendor at OSH & SNF for years displaying
Chevy-derived engines in this configuration. There's a TravelAir biplane replica
flying with one, but I believe that one is run upright. The nose looks a lot
like the original plane looks with the original V-8.
The weight is the show stopper on the current RV's. If you can concede the extra
100 pounds projected for the hypothetical new engine, you can fly with an iron
block marine version V-6 for about 1/3 the money, & have a proven core engine.
Charlie
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallel valves |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Michael McGee wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
>
> At 14:51 12/17/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
>>
>>Why would I want parallel valves or non parallel valves? What is the
>>difference?
>>
>>--
>>Chris Woodhouse
>
>
> ..about 40 pounds, 20 hp, 10(+/-5) mph, and $10,000?
> MGM
>
> Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
> 13B in gestation mode
>
And a small but noticable improvement in fuel efficiency.
(According to Van's, the cowl for the -7 will fit the angle valve engine. -4 &
-6 cowls won't. -9: N/A (hopefully)
Are you sure about the 40 lbs? I would have guessed it was more like 15 or 20 lbs.
Charlie
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: | Spacing Fuel Tank and Tip Ribs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
I didn't use the time consuming ways to space the nose ribs . I drew the
rivet lines on the outside of the skin and drew a red line down the center of
the rib flange . Then drill just through the skin and use a 36" welding rod
to move the rib to where the red line is visible . Drill a hole and cleco it.
After a couple of holes are clecoed , you can just drill the others.
This has worked on two of our RV-4's and a few others too.
An old time friend ( Loyde Foster ) taught me this , and other time saving
tricks.
Less time building -- more time flying !
Bob Olds
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
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: | Wheel pant access holes for air |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Keith and Jean Williams" <kandjwilliams@earthlink.net>
Mark,
Been flying since 1999 using approx. 1" holes in side of wheel pants with
stainless snap-in hole fillers and the air fitting extension from Cleaveland
Tool in Ankeny. It is somewhat of a pain to align the holes with the valve
stem when I do it alone (trying to see in there with flashlight, etc.). No
problem with helper. Either way, easier than pulling the pant, in my
opinion.
When I replaced tires and tubes a year ago I used the Michelin "Air Stop" (I
think that's what they are called) tubes. They are much better at holding
air than the normal ones. Makes this question much less of a problem.
Keith Williams
RV6, Moline IL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
czechsix@juno.com
Subject: RV-List: Wheel pant access holes for air
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Guys,
I mounted my nosewheel fairing on my -8A per plans (riveted the brackets
on) so I drilled a 1" hole in the side for access to fill it with air
without having to take the whole wheel off. On the main wheels I've been
debating....the front half of the wheel pant can be removed for access
but that still involves something like 8 screws, which could be a pain if
you had to do it very often. What experience have you flying RV jocks
had with this? Do you wish you'd put in an access hole? Did you put one
in and wish you hadn't? Has anyone tried the little 1" dia. hinged hole
cover door thingy that Aircraft Spruce sells that opens inward (and if
so, how does it work....once you push it inward to open it, how do you
pull it closed again)??
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D trying to get fiberglass finished up on the wheel pants....
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 |
|
| Subject: | Plexi Drill Bits |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
I've got two more holes I've decided to add to my canopy but I can't find my 1/8"
plexi drill bit. Can I go ahead and try real slow and carefull with a reg drill
bit? What is the risk? Huge?
They're the front two holes in the RV6A side skin strips that so many listers have
recommended to leave out. I have decided to do them because my bubble only
bulges out about 3/16 here yet the metal skin strip wants to bulge out a bunch.
I don't know how to otherwise get a good finish here so I am going to risk
putting the the last holes as per Vans plans.
For the newbies: lots on this in the archives. If your bubble is bulging at the
front sides a whole bunch, it has been proven by many that this is the highest
risk point to crack your canopy in the building process.
Also, plexi drill bits are special. They are more pointy where normal drill bits
have a flatter rake to the cutting surfaces. Get yours at Avery, you only need
one of each size unless you are prone to losing things (give me a break, I
had to move my project)
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
Do not archive
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: | Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
Hi All,
Given a choice between maximum speed and optimum cruise performance, which
would you choose?
I ask this question, because it seems that some of the people on this list
are mainly interested in going faster (fastest). :-)
Background - open to discussion, of course.
Even a constant speed prop is designed to be optimum at a specific RPM and
airspeed.
For example;
A constant speed "cruise" prop for an RV might have its peak efficiency from
2400 to 2500 RPM for a 200 mph true air speed.
A constant speed "maximum speed" prop for an RV might have its peak
efficiency at 2700 RPM for a 230 mph true airspeed.
An RV with the constant speed "maximum speed" prop could be expected to have
a slightly higher fuel consumption at a given cruise speed, and a slightly
lower climb rate than an RV with a constant speed "cruise" prop.
An RV with a constant speed "cruise" prop would have a lower maximum speed
than an RV with a constant speed "maximum speed" prop.
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV sn 50
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: | Fusealge about to ship! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@apex.net>
My QB fusealge is going to ship in a couple weeks, it was due to ship in
Feb.. What kind of things do I need to know?
I am having it delivered to the factory were I work and I'll use a
couple fork lifts to sit it on a trailer to take it to the hanger. Vans
site says the crate is 16 feet long, so I'll have to make some more
room. I guess to get inside one just starts taking the ends, sides and
top off. Can the gear be mounted to the fusealge or is there alot to do
first? I plan on painting the inside most likly the same gray as Vans,
is that something that will be one of the first things to do? No big
rush really, I'm still finishing up the second tank.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Working on the wings :-)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron spades |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Compton" <rdcompton@earthlink.net>
I never meant to imply that RV's weren't "sweet flying" and totally agree
that they are. Just wondering if it could be made sweeter without harm, or
save myself considerable trouble if it couldn't.
I consider myself duly chastised and will never again dare to question
perfection.
Randy Compton
RV-3 N84VF (looking for a cool nickname)
Gulf Breeze, FL
Do Not Archive (even on MY list)
----- Original Message -----
From: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Aileron spades
> --> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>
> Randy, Randy, Randy: Yeah, you're right. Suzie Q is one of the hardest,
> aggravating, frustrating airplanes I have ever been in. EVERY time I go
> flying, especially when I am doing aerobatics, I am thinking, 'Damn, I
> wish I had SPADES on this piece of junk' or 'Damn, I wish I had an Extra
> XXXX'. And flying at cruise speeds REALLY pisses me off. Control
> harmony? Hogwash. I can't sneeze without gaining 1000 feet.
>
> Oh, wait. I thought I was on the RANDY list. This is the RV list? OOPS.
> Sorry. I hit the wrong key. I'll go on back to the RANDY list where
> everyone is supposed to think like him. I have a hard time with lists
> like the RV list where there is usually friendly discussion, albeit
> heated at times, instead of trying to aggravate as many people on the
> list as possible, like on the RANDY list.
>
> Hogwash? Yeah, sorry I don't think like you, pal. Again, these types of
> insulting remarks from someone that thinks everyone's opinion is hogwash
> is why some of the greybeards on this list are gone. Keep up the good
> work. You wanted opinions regarding spades and flammed every answer you
> got. Attaboy. Thin this list OUT. This kind of 'discussion' is like
> being at work, for crying out loud.
>
> Michael
> RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
> ONE OF THE SWEETEST FLYING AIRPLANES I HAVE EVER FLOWN, and I've flown a
> few. But, what the hell do I know?
>
> Do not archive, unless this is the RANDY list
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: Aileron spades |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Compton" <rdcompton@earthlink.net>
Thanks for the info. All I was looking for when I dared to pose the aileron
spade question was to see if anyone had done it and was it worth it. I
already had a good idea that it would cost some knots, that the
already-reasonable stick forces might not be much improved, that the
increasing stick force is the plane "talking to me", and that the RV is not
a hard aerobatic mount so there might well be excessive stress imposed upon
the airframe.
I've read the flaming responses of the RV-List Nattering Nabobs to anyone
who, trying to use the list as a source of information and education, even
remotely poses a question that could even slighly infer that one of Van's
designs could be ever so slighly improved upon.
Shoulda known better...I'm just now healing from the burns received a couple
of years ago when I had the gall to question a design that would need all of
the band-aid work to fix the gear leg shimmy on RV-3's. Ouch!!
Randy Compton
RV-3 N84VF
Gulf Breeze, FL
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Aileron spades
> Hi Randy,
>
> I just wanted to take a quick moment to let you know that I wasn't trying
to
> be fecicious, but unlike most people on this list, I was truly interested
in
> your quest. If I had intended to make it a "flame" I would have added
some
> comment like several other people did.
>
> Anyway, I'm quite familiar with Aileron Spades. I've flown in lots of
> aerobatic aircraft both with and without spades. In fact I personally
have
> installed at least 20 sets of spades on Super Decathlons. On that plane
the
> difference is phenomenal, like adding power steering to a car!
>
> On the other hand, I have a friend with a Lazer and a Christen Eagle.
When
> he put spades on the Eagle there was little difference (he has 4
ailerons).
>
> Anyway, I was just curious if you were planning acro, etc... I too
> frequently end up in some unusual attitude during many of my flights!
>
> Happy flying and my apologies if it was taken that way.
>
> Stein Bruch
> RV6, Minneapolis
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: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
Your points are well made. Maximum cruise performance (the most speed on the
least power at cruise power settings) would be my personal preference.
Randy Lervold, RV-8
no not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <LeastDrag93066@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed
> --> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
>
> Hi All,
>
> Given a choice between maximum speed and optimum cruise performance, which
> would you choose?
> I ask this question, because it seems that some of the people on this list
> are mainly interested in going faster (fastest). :-)
>
> Background - open to discussion, of course.
> Even a constant speed prop is designed to be optimum at a specific RPM and
> airspeed.
>
> For example;
> A constant speed "cruise" prop for an RV might have its peak efficiency
from
> 2400 to 2500 RPM for a 200 mph true air speed.
> A constant speed "maximum speed" prop for an RV might have its peak
> efficiency at 2700 RPM for a 230 mph true airspeed.
>
> An RV with the constant speed "maximum speed" prop could be expected to
have
> a slightly higher fuel consumption at a given cruise speed, and a slightly
> lower climb rate than an RV with a constant speed "cruise" prop.
> An RV with a constant speed "cruise" prop would have a lower maximum speed
> than an RV with a constant speed "maximum speed" prop.
>
> Jim Ayers
> RV-3 N47RV sn 50
>
>
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: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> --> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
>
> Given a choice between maximum speed and optimum cruise performance, which
> would you choose?
Optimum cruise performance, for me. I expect to spend a lot more time there.
But which would give better vertical penetration for aeros? That might be a
swing factor for me.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
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: | Re: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
In a message dated 12/17/2002 8:56:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tedd@vansairforce.org writes:
> Optimum cruise performance, for me. I expect to spend a lot more time
> there.
>
> But which would give better vertical penetration for aeros? That might be
> a
> swing factor for me.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
A "cruise" prop would be better for this than the "maximum speed" prop.
Although an "aerobatic", or a "climb", constant speed prop would be the best.
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV sn 50 Maroon Marauder
so far - 2 for "cruise" prop, 0 for "maximum speed" prop
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: Plexi drill bits |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel@rconnect.com>
Norman...
Lost your plexi drill bit? You can drill plexiglass with a normal twist bit but
you should grind the tip flutes so they have a flat rake to them with no sharp
corner. Another way is put the bit in your drill and drill into a small hole
or chip in the cement floor which will dull the bit nicely. That will take
off all the sharp edges so it will not catch on the plexiglass and cause a crack
as the bit will tend to melt its way through the plastic.
Dick DeCramer
RV6 N500DD
Northfield, MN
finishing Baffles
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: Wheel pant access holes for air |
--> RV-List message posted by: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl@gvtc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith and Jean Williams" <kandjwilliams@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Wheel pant access holes for air
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Keith and Jean Williams"
<kandjwilliams@earthlink.net>
>
> Mark,
>
> Been flying since 1999 using approx. 1" holes in side of wheel pants with
> stainless snap-in hole fillers and the air fitting extension from
Cleaveland
> Tool in Ankeny. It is somewhat of a pain to align the holes with the
valve
> stem when I do it alone (trying to see in there with flashlight, etc.).
No
> problem with helper. Either way, easier than pulling the pant, in my
> opinion.
>
>If you make the hole in the side of the wheel pant directly below the axle,
then you can paint a small indiscrete white line on the inside of the tire
that is alligned with the valve stem. Place this line on the tire where it
will show below the wheel pant. When you wish to add air, simply move the
plane by the prop while watching the tire and when the line on the tire
shows up and is vertical, the valve stem will be lined up with the hole.
Ivan Haecker -4 868hrs.
ps I know, some will say don't move the plane by the prop, especially if
its a constant speed one, but this is only how I do it and I wouldn't dream
of trying to force anyone to do it this way and if you do and your prop
falls off on the next flight.I apologize in advance.This is said in jest.
Don't shoot!
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: Wheel pant access holes for air |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Tom and I used the standard size 1 1/2" stainless cover availble anythere
they sell plumbing stuff (Wal-Mart) and the "truck" tire/tube extention from
our local NAPA store. We made a ring cut out of alum scrap that matched the
plug, riveted it to the inside of the pant. The thickness of the ring and
the pant materials made for a tight fit for the cover. We used chrome valve
stem covers (5/16" six point type) that makes it easier to see, remove and
check the pressure as a one man operation. Lots of landings and HRII speed,
everythings still intact. A small paint mark on the side of tire would solve
the location of the stem problem. Line up the stem and the hole, mark the
tire at the lowest part of the rim. (We used a yellow "paint stick", NAPA
also, to make the dot.) Archive, this might save a re-invent of the
wheel. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith and Jean Williams" <kandjwilliams@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Wheel pant access holes for air
>
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: Constant Speed Prop - Cruise vs maximum speed |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
> Given a choice between maximum speed and optimum cruise performance,
which
> would you choose?
Whats the max RPM it is recommended to run a O-360 for the run of it's life
bearing in mind a cruise altitude of say 6000 to 8000 feet? Translate that
into the max speed and that's what I want. Of course if it were possible to
go just a little bit slower but have a much lower fuel burn then that would
make more sense. Otherwise max speed please.
I don't have any RV time but I've read a thousand times how they climb close
to 2000 feet a minute with a O-360 CS. It would seem to my inexperienced
brain that one would still have good climbing ability even if one traded
some climb for cruise speed.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
Do not archive uneducated opinions
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: Wheel pant access holes for air |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
H.Ivan Haecker wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl@gvtc.com>
> ps I know, some will say don't move the plane by the prop, especially if
> its a constant speed one, but this is only how I do it and I wouldn't dream
> of trying to force anyone to do it this way and if you do and your prop
> falls off on the next flight.I apologize in advance.This is said in jest.
I suspect this might start another flamewar, but why wouldn't you move
your airplane by it's prop? Isn't that how the airplane is used to
being moved?
Of course you should never move a prop without checking the switches,
that your limbs are clear of it, etc., but there's no reason you
shouldn't move the airplane by grabbing the root of the blades on either
side of the hub and giving it a pull... Or am I missing something?
-RB4
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! --
|