Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:06 AM - Re: How high have you flown an RV6?How high have you flown an RV6? (Charles Heathco)
2. 05:11 AM - Response to how high can you fly (Charles Heathco)
3. 06:28 AM - JPI's at it again -they don't learn (SCOTT SPENCER)
4. 06:49 AM - Re: silicone rubber tape (Dale Ensing)
5. 07:03 AM - Re: Response to how high can you fly (Aircraft Technical Book Company)
6. 07:08 AM - Re: Response to how high can you fly (Paul Folbrecht)
7. 07:27 AM - Re: Response to how high can you fly (Konrad L. Werner)
8. 07:52 AM - compression (Wheeler North)
9. 07:55 AM - Confusing Engine Claims (Valovich, Paul)
10. 07:58 AM - Re: How high have you flown an RV6? (Richard Sipp)
11. 08:04 AM - altitude (Wheeler North)
12. 08:05 AM - Re: Response to how high can you fly (Marty)
13. 09:00 AM - Re: silicone rubber tape (Dan Checkoway)
14. 09:45 AM - Re: Starters ()
15. 10:01 AM - Re: Response to how high can you fly (Paul Folbrecht)
16. 11:24 AM - Re: Wing Wiring (Chuck Weyant)
17. 01:03 PM - Re: altitude (DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com)
18. 01:17 PM - To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Dan Checkoway)
19. 02:10 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (Ron Lee)
20. 02:43 PM - Re: altitude (Larry Pardue)
21. 03:14 PM - Re: Wing Wiring (Jim Oke)
22. 03:20 PM - Re: Re: Starters (Darrell Reiley)
23. 03:30 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Vic Jacko)
24. 03:35 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (John Huft)
25. 03:53 PM - Duct Tape (Stephanie Marshall)
26. 04:08 PM - Re: Duct Tape (dsvs@comcast.net)
27. 04:13 PM - Re: Duct Tape (Scott Farner)
28. 04:40 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Dan Checkoway)
29. 05:52 PM - Re: Duct Tape (PSILeD@aol.com)
30. 05:53 PM - Re: Duct Tape (Evan and Megan Johnson)
31. 05:57 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (Darrell Reiley)
32. 06:25 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Kevin Williams)
33. 06:32 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (LarryRobertHelming)
34. 06:41 PM - New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Dave Hertner)
35. 06:43 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (Ron Lee)
36. 06:51 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Dan Checkoway)
37. 06:51 PM - Re: Duct Tape (cgalley)
38. 07:02 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
39. 07:08 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Kevin Williams)
40. 07:11 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Ron Lee)
41. 07:20 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (Darrell Reiley)
42. 07:24 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (Kevin Horton)
43. 07:34 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Dan Checkoway)
44. 07:51 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Kevin Williams)
45. 07:55 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (RV6 Flyer)
46. 08:12 PM - Re: Confusing Engine Claims (Paul Rice)
47. 08:15 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (JOHN STARN)
48. 08:27 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Kevin Williams)
49. 08:36 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (bill shook)
50. 09:06 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (JOHN STARN)
51. 09:56 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question (Tom Gummo)
52. 11:09 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Todd Bartrim)
53. 11:51 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Mickey Coggins)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6?How high have you flown an |
RV6?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Mike, if the angle of attack freeked you out, it must have been standing on its
tail :-) Charlie. Do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Response to how high can you fly |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep flying.
I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down (sans oxy),
I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling, but it wouldnt
do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
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: | JPI's at it again -they don't learn |
--> RV-List message posted by: SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic@sbcglobal.net>
From AVWeb... I'm sure a few of you have seen this, or may know more about it.
Reminds me of the battle that our fearless list keeper Matt had to fight a few
years with the questionable folks at JPI...
do not archive
In the days of Internet forums, companies have to be careful about riling their
customers -- those customers are likely to start chatting online, find other
disgruntleds and build a crescendo of bad feeling. That seems to be what's happening
with some users of JP Instruments' (JPI's) engine-monitor units. JPI has
encoded the data output of its monitors so it can't be read by third-party
software that owners would use to collect parameters and monitor the condition
of their engines. Whether this is to protect itself liability-wise or to discourage
competitors is unclear, but it has certainly made some customers unhappy.
It seems the company is working on a fix, which may require a fee from users
to translate the file format and perhaps leave those customers less than satisfied.
Due to the changes, an upcoming article in Aviation Consumer finds that
although the JPI units are still a good product, at least one rival company
may prove a better choice for users who prefer non-en
coded
data output. For more details, check out Aviation Consumer's June issue.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:silicone rubber tape |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
Dan,
Silicone rubber is usually not very abrasion resistent. How much time do you
have on the anti-chafe appications?
Dale Ensing
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: Response to how high can you fly |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
I often fly up around 15-16,000 with no problems. An RV-6 owner in the
hangar next to me says his standard mags starting cutting out in the
18-19,000 range, but when he switched to an electronic system the problem
went away and he made it once to around 24,000.
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Response to how high can you fly
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep
> flying. I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down
> (sans oxy), I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling,
> but it wouldnt do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
>
>
>
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: Response to how high can you fly |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
It would likely do it with a brand new engine in standard atmospheric
conditions.
RVs tend to be quite overpowered which is the difference.
--- Charles Heathco <cheathco@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep
> flying. I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down
> (sans oxy), I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling, but
> it wouldnt do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Response to how high can you fly |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Paul,
What do you mean by saying that RV's are "overpowered"? We all know that way to
much power is barely enough ;-) One can always throttle back a little should
the need arise.
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Folbrecht
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Response to how high can you fly
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
It would likely do it with a brand new engine in standard atmospheric
conditions.
RVs tend to be quite overpowered which is the difference.
--- Charles Heathco <cheathco@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep
> flying. I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down
> (sans oxy), I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling, but
> it wouldnt do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
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: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
Hal
Your numbers are a bit off. The stroke of an O-320 is 3.875". The 360 has a
stroke
of 4.375" (not 6")
Charlie Kuss
Well,
at the risk of sounding anal, although I agree with these numbers, as they
relate to the original problem, stroke is not the number needed.
Stroke is the length of travel of the piston, but the problem calls for
lever arm of crankshaft vs lever arm of prop. So the numbers to use would
be 1/2 stroke to 1/2 prop diameter.
Pi r squared = area of piston top, for which diameter is 5.125" for most
lycs times force(pressure) 80psi =
5.125/2 sq = 6.56 X pi = 20.62 X 80 psi = 1650.31 lbs of force pushing down
on piston.
with a ratio of 2.1875 to 36.0 that makes the force at prop tip equal to
102.28 lbs with crank at 90 deg atdc. If you have your arm wrapped around it
closer to the root then it can get very powerful.
The key is to add the pressure slowly using the regulator every time and
keep the rod straight over center on the crankshaft.
That all said, if you put fuel in there and light it that force goes up to
about 11 tons at about 17 deg atdc, assuming it doesn't detonate.
W
do not archive
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: | Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an engine.
I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the performance
requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
bucks over the years).
Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
there.
So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
participants - in this case, about motors.
Are the Superior and Aero Sport products commonly used in RV's?
Are the Superior technology claims a worthwhile improvement over
Lycoming?
I planned on using Vans Firewall Forward kit. Any real-world
compatibility experience with the Superior and Aero Sport products?
Even if the manufacturer says it's ok, do folks really use auto gas?
What are opinions about ignition choices?
What other questions would I be asking if I was "more smarter" about
this stuff?
OBTW - new subject - my QB wings and fuselage were delivered last week
by Tony Partain's company - the driver was Paul. What a professional,
no-hassle way of kit delivery! No crating; no damage; three of us
unloaded the truck in single-digit minutes. I highly recommend it. $1120
to my workshop front door - Vans to Ridgecrest (in the boonies - 60 mi
north of Mojave). No crating / no forklift rental charges.
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Ridgecrest, CA
-8A QB
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: How high have you flown an RV6? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
That was a great report Dan. Thanks for taking the time to add it to your
web site.
Dick Sipp
do not archieve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Had my 200hp RV-7 cruising around IFR (in VMC) up at FL200 a month ago.
> Details here: http://www.rvproject.com/20050403.html
>
> 20,000' MSL was nothing. It had plenty more oomph to go. I plan on doing
> a
> service ceiling test or two once my new O2 system arrives (been on special
> order for a month).
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>>
>> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
> (sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
> quit flying a long time ago.
>> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
> by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would
> like
> to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie
> heathco
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
been to 18000 took 23 minutes to get there from 421 msl, was till climbing
at 400fpm, nose way up.
RV6 0-360 FP sensenich exp
W
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Response to how high can you fly |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty" <martorious@earthlink.net>
>Original message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
>
Snip
>
> One can always throttle back a little should the need arise.
>
>
Snip
What? You mean some people actually do this? I mean other than
landing? I was under the impression that RV's had two throttle
settings:
1. Fly (with grin) and
2. Land (still grinning)!
LOL
Marty RV8A Preview Plan
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:silicone rubber tape |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Dan,
> Silicone rubber is usually not very abrasion resistent. How much time do
you
> have on the anti-chafe appications?
> Dale Ensing
Just shy of 500 hours and ticking. You're correct, it does wear, but not
much. We're not talking about things flailing around here, just very slight
amplitude vibration-induced cycles. So if I have to replace 20 cents worth
of tape every 1000 hours, so be it. ;-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: <tomvelvick@cox.net>
Hi Darrell,
I have two of these black airboat starters from Ebay in both of my rv-4s to replace
the heavy starters they had. The starters have worked great so far. They
are a lot lighter and spin my props faster. Way cheaper than the Skytec or
B&C starters and cant see any difference in performance or weight. When I bought
mine from Ebay, he was selling them a lot cheaper but they still are a good
price. Am thinking about buying another one to just have as a spare.
Regards,
Thomas Velvick
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: Response to how high can you fly |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Yeah, you're right, they've got just the right amount of power - it's the spam
cans that are underpowered! (Seriously.)
--- "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
> Paul,
>
> What do you mean by saying that RV's are "overpowered"? We all know that way
> to much power is barely enough ;-) One can always throttle back a little
> should the need arise.
>
> Do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Folbrecht
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Response to how high can you fly
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> It would likely do it with a brand new engine in standard atmospheric
> conditions.
>
> RVs tend to be quite overpowered which is the difference.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Weyant" <cweyant@chuckdirect.com>
I ran the wires an extra twelve inches or so, so after wing installation the
wires reached into the area under the seat inside the fuselage. Easy to get
too and out of the weather.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com
WHAT TAS ARE YA'LL GETTING AT HIGH ALTITUDE?
THANKS,
DOUG PRESTON
RV7
N731RV
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: | To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results were
interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and confirmations
about the system's performance:
http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
Ron
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 message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
At 17,500 in well above standard temperature I can get 160 to 165 knots.
RV-6, O-360, fixed pitch Sensenich.
http://n5lp.net/day5.htm
Have to go to a best power mixture setting to do that though, so not as much
fuel saving as would be the case with normal leaning.
On 5/5/05 2:01 PM, "DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com" <DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com
>
> WHAT TAS ARE YA'LL GETTING AT HIGH ALTITUDE?
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
I used a thin wall plastic tube to carry the wiring through the wing ribs
and added an extra 2 ft. of this tubing extending inside the inboard root
rib. Then (after suitable measurements) I cut matching holes in the fuselage
side and fuselage seat ribs to extend the tubing in to the fuselage
centerline. There is a junction block there that picks up the wiring from
the L&R wings and the fuselage although a simple solder connection would
work just as well.
This has the best of several worlds: minimizes the wire connections,
protects the wiring all the way from fuselage to wing tip, allows the wings
to be removed as needed (undo the connections, slide tubing out from
fuselage), or conversely will allow the wiring to be replaced with the wings
left on.
This was all on an RV-6A, BTW.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A C-GKGZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Trotter" <ptrotter@acm.org>
Subject: RV-List: Wing Wiring
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
>
> When wiring wings, do builders tend to put some kind of disconnect for the
> wiring in the wing root, or do most people feel they will not have to
> remove
> the wings after final assemble and just wire directly to wherever the wire
> go in the fuselage?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Trotter
> RV-8 82080
>
>
>
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: RE: Starters |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Thanks, I am going to order one up...
Darrell
tomvelvick@cox.net wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by:
Hi Darrell,
I have two of these black airboat starters from Ebay in both of my rv-4s to replace
the heavy starters they had. The starters have worked great so far. They
are a lot lighter and spin my props faster. Way cheaper than the Skytec or B&C
starters and cant see any difference in performance or weight. When I bought
mine from Ebay, he was selling them a lot cheaper but they still are a good price.
Am thinking about buying another one to just have as a spare.
Regards,
Thomas Velvick
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: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Dan, I am curious about your tests but first I appreciate your "hard work"
to get the info.
What impact does RPM have on the manifold pressures each of your buddies
were getting?
Example: Number one engine is turning 2700 RPM at WOT, number two engine
turning 2600 RPM at WOT, number 3 engine turning 2500 at WOT and finally
number 4 engine turning 2400 at WOT. This was probably not the case but
illustrated for discussion.
Will there be a difference in manifold pressures? This info was
not in your web site discussion and may be important info.
What difference between CSP and fixed pitch?
Thanks again for your work on this project.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
> were
> interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
> how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
> confirmations
> about the system's performance:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
Dan, nice write up. I thought I would offer another way to accomplish
the same thing...
http://www.lazy8.net/intakesystem.htm
And, another way to test it, that may only work in mountainous areas...
I start on the ground, at my home airport (2V1), at 7650 ft. msl. I note
the manifold pressure reading before starting the engine (normally
around 22.5"). Then I fly 15 miles south, where the ground level is
about 6000 ft msl, and I can fly at 7650, wide open throttle, and read
manifold pressure again. The difference is what I call the ram air gain.
I also close the valve, and see what the difference is with it closed. I
found it interesting that the air pressure in the bottom of the cowl is
still higher than ambient.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
I am working with a fellow in California to go into production on these
valves, so we can supply them to builders.
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results were
>interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
>how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and confirmations
>about the system's performance:
>
>http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
Hi,
We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's kit arrived
with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for inventory.
Thanks,
Steph
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
This is the normal Van's packaging. Don't worry about the plastic. Don
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's kit
> arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
> inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Farner <sfarner@gmail.com>
Yep that's the norm. Whenever possible start peeling the tape from
inboard to out to avoid taking off the plastic
--
Scott
www.scottfarner.com
RV-7A Wings
On 5/5/05, Stephanie Marshall <smarshall@enid.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's kit arrived
with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Good questions.
First of all, when we did the head-to-head test, we were all turning 2700
RPM (or as close to it as possible...I was turning 2670).
Regarding tests at lower RPMs, I don't have any hard data on that. I
presume you're implying there's a possibility of the ram effect being
*greater* when the prop blade angle is greater. i.e. the propeller is
providing more compression effect? At some point I'll do some more testing
in that regard. My assumption is that the difference won't be measurable in
10ths of inches...maybe even 100ths of inches.
I only have a constant speed prop, so I can't speak to the question about
fixed pitch stuff. I'm actually trying to think of a single person I know
with fixed pitch and fuel injection (horiz. induction)...I can't think of
anybody!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
> Dan, I am curious about your tests but first I appreciate your "hard
work"
> to get the info.
>
> What impact does RPM have on the manifold pressures each of your buddies
> were getting?
>
> Example: Number one engine is turning 2700 RPM at WOT, number two engine
> turning 2600 RPM at WOT, number 3 engine turning 2500 at WOT and finally
> number 4 engine turning 2400 at WOT. This was probably not the case but
> illustrated for discussion.
>
> Will there be a difference in manifold pressures? This info was
> not in your web site discussion and may be important info.
>
> What difference between CSP and fixed pitch?
>
> Thanks again for your work on this project.
>
> Vic
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>; <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> >
> > I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
> > were
> > interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram
air,
> > how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
> > confirmations
> > about the system's performance:
> >
> > http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
> >
> > )_( Dan
> > RV-7 N714D
> > http://www.rvproject.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: PSILeD@aol.com
Steph,
When I received my RV-8 Empennage kit, S/N 81735 it had the masking tape
also.
Paul
N9NM reserved
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Yeah...all the boxes come that way. No big deal..you really should not leave
the plastic coating on too long anyway. I have seen quite a lot of tank
skins that have started to oxidize badly where the aluminum supplier prints
their name. The ink seems to have some caustic properties when it is all
covered up with plastic. You will have to weigh this risk with the potential
of hanger rash after the plastic is pulled. I believe Vans also recommends
you pull the plastic off.
Cheers...Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
Subject: RV-List: Duct Tape
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's
kit arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
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: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
What is your reference? O-360's? They do not even at a stock configuration put
out 180 HP?
Darrell
Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee
At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
Ron
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: | To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Dan,
Excellent article. I'm curious if it is somehow possible to use only the
ram air inlet and somehow place a filter in that inlet? Wouldn't this give
you a continuous flow of filterd air with no bends, no Y's and still
maintain the ram air effect? My appologies if this totally impossible I'm
no where close to building my system?
Kevin
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results were
interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and confirmations
about the system's performance:
http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
>
> The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an engine.
> I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the performance
> requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
> can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
> the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
> advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
> bucks over the years).
>
>
> Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
> the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
> Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
> called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
> being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
> there.
>
>
> So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
> participants - in this case, about motors.
>
I think you are a smart person to solict opinions. You will get many to
consider I predict.
>
> Are the Superior and Aero Sport products commonly used in RV's?
>
I think they are from what is being shared on this list. I am surprised
Vans has never seen one come through there.
>
> Are the Superior technology claims a worthwhile improvement over
> Lycoming?
>
I think they are. Basically they start with a certified bunch of parts that
normally go into a Lycoming engine and add a few more and change a few to
make a better engine that is not certified, but Superior is working to have
theirs certified and that will put Lycoming on defense. I expect Lyc. to
come out of their certified shell of uncompetitiveness and offer an
experimental engine soon.
>
> I planned on using Vans Firewall Forward kit. Any real-world
> compatibility experience with the Superior and Aero Sport products?
>
I can say that my new Mattituck TMX-O360 engine fit with everything I got
from Vans. I suspect the others will be the same.
>
> Even if the manufacturer says it's ok, do folks really use auto gas?
Check the archives on this. Many do. You can more safely use auto gas if
you get lower compression pistons put in your new engine. You probably
could use autogas with standard pistons just so you don't go with higher
compression pistons.
>
>
> What are opinions about ignition choices?
>
I like the standard mag on one side for safety and an electronic with
variable timing on the other side for performance.
>
> What other questions would I be asking if I was "more smarter" about
> this stuff?
>
Whether you want fuel injection and/or constant speed prop. These add
complexity and cost but have advantages. Consider the risk and benefit of
each choice from the Lycoming norm.
>
> OBTW - new subject - my QB wings and fuselage were delivered last week
> by Tony Partain's company - the driver was Paul. What a professional,
> no-hassle way of kit delivery! No crating; no damage; three of us
> unloaded the truck in single-digit minutes. I highly recommend it. $1120
> to my workshop front door - Vans to Ridgecrest (in the boonies - 60 mi
> north of Mojave). No crating / no forklift rental charges.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Ridgecrest, CA
>
> -8A QB
((((((((((()))))))))))))))
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tipup, Phase 1 Test flying, TMX-O360 180 HP
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Hertner" <effectus@rogers.com>
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was developed
by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's also say
that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is double
what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used this
combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to
.20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from (not at) 0 rpm and the torque
curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you may not need a constant
speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain much heat so
a small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in the cabin. It is
NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine, a Sterling engine or
an axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower
you require for your airframe. The engine would only be available as
a part of a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you in regard
to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you have
to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of comfort
would you have to have with the company before you would place your order?
Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
This is quibbling. O-360 is essentially 180 HP versus much bless for an O-320.
The point is that starting with a less than large engine on an RV is asking
for a
later upgrade. Name one person who complained about too much power on an RV
and changed the engine to one of less horsepower. Might be such a case but it
would be overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who changed to a larger engine.
Ron Lee
>What is your reference? O-360's? They do not even at a stock configuration
>put out 180 HP?
>
>Darrell
>
>Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net> wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee
>
>At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
>
>Ron
>
>
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: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Adding anything in-line with the ram air inlet would theoretically reduce
manifold pressure. It's arguable whether or not the pressure at the filter
in front of the baffle is lower or identical to the pressure available at
the ram air inlet.
One of these days, maybe I'll remove the filter but keep the ram air inlet
closed -- which ought to tell me exactly what the pressure drop across the
filter is. For example if it's 25.2" with the filter and 25.4" without the
filter (these are out-of-butt numbers), then we can pretty much assume that
adding a filter to the ram air inlet would drop manifold pressure roughly
0.2". Big assumptions here...I don't have the answers. Over time I will
add data points.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
>
> Dan,
>
> Excellent article. I'm curious if it is somehow possible to use only the
> ram air inlet and somehow place a filter in that inlet? Wouldn't this
give
> you a continuous flow of filterd air with no bends, no Y's and still
> maintain the ram air effect? My appologies if this totally impossible I'm
> no where close to building my system?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>, <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:16:20 -0700
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
were
> interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
> how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
confirmations
> about the system's performance:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
No loss. You have to remove it sometime before you rivet it together or
paint it. It is to prevent scratches in shipping. Some builders just remove
in strips where the parts go together and then remove all before painting.
I have heard some have found corrosion under the plastic from moisture
getting trapped under the plastic.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
Subject: RV-List: Duct Tape
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall@enid.org>
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's
> kit arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
> inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 05/05/2005 7:42:21 PM Central Standard Time,
effectus@rogers.com writes:
What would you have to see in place.
>>>
How about cards face-up, just for starters...
Mark - do not archive
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Dan,
I understand what your say regarding the filter dropping MP. However, I'm
thinking there might be some marginal MP to be gained over the current
filtered system by getting rid of all the extra ducting and Y connection and
going total clean and straight into the intake via the ram air intake. I'm
thinking the gain would be marginal but in your article you're really keen
on scavanging every little bit that you can.
Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline with
the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
Kevin
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Adding anything in-line with the ram air inlet would theoretically reduce
manifold pressure. It's arguable whether or not the pressure at the filter
in front of the baffle is lower or identical to the pressure available at
the ram air inlet.
One of these days, maybe I'll remove the filter but keep the ram air inlet
closed -- which ought to tell me exactly what the pressure drop across the
filter is. For example if it's 25.2" with the filter and 25.4" without the
filter (these are out-of-butt numbers), then we can pretty much assume that
adding a filter to the ram air inlet would drop manifold pressure roughly
0.2". Big assumptions here...I don't have the answers. Over time I will
add data points.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
>
> Dan,
>
> Excellent article. I'm curious if it is somehow possible to use only the
> ram air inlet and somehow place a filter in that inlet? Wouldn't this
give
> you a continuous flow of filterd air with no bends, no Y's and still
> maintain the ram air effect? My appologies if this totally impossible
I'm
> no where close to building my system?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>, <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:16:20 -0700
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
were
> interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram
air,
> how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
confirmations
> about the system's performance:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
>in regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
It would have to be in use operationally and show an adequate history of
reliability.
Putting one unit in a Cessna 172 for 40 hours would not do it for me.
Ron Lee
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: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
No "quibbling" here... I guess the same could be said for FP vs CS props?
Look at he last aircraft data #'s in the second issue 2005 RVator... just for instance...
180 HP vs 200 HP... This would lead me to believe I wouldn't want a
200 HP period...
Darrell
Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee
This is quibbling. O-360 is essentially 180 HP versus much bless for an O-320.
The point is that starting with a less than large engine on an RV is asking
for a
later upgrade. Name one person who complained about too much power on an RV
and changed the engine to one of less horsepower. Might be such a case but it
would be overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who changed to a larger engine.
Ron Lee
>What is your reference? O-360's? They do not even at a stock configuration
>put out 180 HP?
>
>Darrell
>
>Ron Lee wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee
>
>At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
>
>Ron
>
>
---------------------------------
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: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
>
> The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an
> engine.
> I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the
> performance
> requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
> can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
> the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
> advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
> bucks over the years).
>
>
> Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
> the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
> Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
> called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
> being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
> there.
>
>
> So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
> participants - in this case, about motors.
>
>
I've got nothing bad to say about any of the engine builders that you
mentioned. But I'd offer two comments about Aero Sport Power.
1. When Jon Johanson was getting ready to fly his RV-4 over the North
Pole, he wanted to get his engine rebuilt first. He sent it from
Australia to Aerosport Power for the rebuild. That says quite a bit
about the reputation that Bart Lalonde has for quality work.
2. A local RV builder bought an engine from Aerosport Power. Part way
through his flight test program a sudden very large vibration started.
He looked at everything he could find on the engine, airframe, prop,
spinner, etc, but he couldn't find the problem. The vibration appeared
to vary with rpm, so he believed that it was engine related, and that
it may be a precursor of an engine failure. Bart Lalonde offered to
tear the engine apart to see what was going on. Bart found nothing
wrong with the engine, but the builder said he was nervous to put that
engine back on his aircraft. Bart built him up a different engine, no
charge. It's hard to beat service like that.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
RV-8 - Finishing Kit
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline
with
> the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
Yes, absolutely possible.
)_( Dan
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Ram air intakes are a big part of the muscle car scene. I wonder if they've
come to the same conclussion that ram air doesn't give them any more power
than a normal air intake. If they have come to the same conclusion then it
would certainly go a long way to providing further support to debunking the
myth of ram air. If however, they are getting better preformance with ram
air it would be interesting to study what it is that they are doing to make
their ram air systems more efficient.
This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for bring it to light Dan.
kev
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline
with
> the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
Yes, absolutely possible.
)_( Dan
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Part 33 compliance, certification, AND a recommendation from Van's Aircraft.
Other wise, NOT INTERESTED even if you PAY me.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Dave Hertner" <effectus@rogers.com>
Subject: RV-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Hertner" <effectus@rogers.com>
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name.
Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber
technology is double what is currently available. This is to say that an
engine that used this combustion chamber technology would operate with a
BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from (not at) 0 rpm and the
torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you may not need a
constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from
~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain
much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in
the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine, a
Sterling engine or an axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be
available in the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine
would only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you in
regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you
have to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of
comfort would you have to have with the company before you would place your
order? Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
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: Confusing Engine Claims |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hey Paul,
I was at Sun and Fun and ordered an engine from Matituk. They will build you an
engine with superior parts and ECI cylinders. Plus the will put oil injectors
in to lube the cam and lifter bodies. You get the best of both the XP from
Superior and the TMX engine from Matituk. You can get it with the light weight
plastic (I forget the material name) forward facing cool air induction sump
from Superior. Matituk has been around forever and has a great rep. If you
want more info, give them a call or email me at rice737@msn.com. My friend who
is an A&P and building a slow build RV-6 also ordered one at the same time.
Take care,
Paul
RV8QB
----- Original Message -----
From: Valovich, Paul
Subject: RV-List: Confusing Engine Claims
--> RV-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an engine.
I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the performance
requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
bucks over the years).
Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
there.
So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
participants - in this case, about motors.
Are the Superior and Aero Sport products commonly used in RV's?
Are the Superior technology claims a worthwhile improvement over
Lycoming?
I planned on using Vans Firewall Forward kit. Any real-world
compatibility experience with the Superior and Aero Sport products?
Even if the manufacturer says it's ok, do folks really use auto gas?
What are opinions about ignition choices?
What other questions would I be asking if I was "more smarter" about
this stuff?
OBTW - new subject - my QB wings and fuselage were delivered last week
by Tony Partain's company - the driver was Paul. What a professional,
no-hassle way of kit delivery! No crating; no damage; three of us
unloaded the truck in single-digit minutes. I highly recommend it. $1120
to my workshop front door - Vans to Ridgecrest (in the boonies - 60 mi
north of Mojave). No crating / no forklift rental charges.
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Ridgecrest, CA
-8A QB
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
In-line ram air filter (no alternate air option) plus rain (bee swarm, bird,
etc.) = wet filter. Do you have a wet/dry shop vac. ? Suck up a bunch of
water & then slosh & get the filter media wet. At least 10 times the filter
area & LOTS more suction BUT greatly reduced or no air flow. IMNSHO it's
always better to have a plan "B". KABONG Do Not Archive (GBA& GWB)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline
> with
>> the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
>
> Yes, absolutely possible.
>
> )_( Dan
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
aaaahhh very good point. But isn't this the same problem that builders have
if they don't have ram air? My assumption is that no matter what system you
build you will have some sort of fresh air by pass.
Kevin
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
In-line ram air filter (no alternate air option) plus rain (bee swarm, bird,
etc.) = wet filter. Do you have a wet/dry shop vac. ? Suck up a bunch of
water & then slosh & get the filter media wet. At least 10 times the filter
area & LOTS more suction BUT greatly reduced or no air flow. IMNSHO it's
always better to have a plan "B". KABONG Do Not Archive (GBA& GWB)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline
> with
>> the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
>
> Yes, absolutely possible.
>
> )_( Dan
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
> >In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
> >in regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
Put it in an RV-4 and fly it around the world a time or two. Show your complete
confidence in it's ability to span an ocean and I would look in your direction.
Bill
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
YEP, a plan "B" and/or an intake with a "Y" in it. N561FS has ram air AND a
"Y" that can be opened to draw air from inside the cowl. KABONG Do Not
Archive 8*)
My assumption is that no matter what system you
> build you will have some sort of fresh air by pass.
>
>
> Kevin
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
One more thought to this Ram Air discussion. If you have a direct path to
the inside of your engine "A Ram Air Intake", you have several things to
think about. The Rocket has a 90 degree adapter to allow ram air to be
picked up from a air scoop under the prop. During construction, John Harmon
came to visit and I proudly showed him the "Tight" fit between the cowl and
the adapter. He then pointed out that what if a kid walked by and dropped a
small rock into the air scoop. It would clearly roll down inside the
adapter and unseen be ingested on start up. My scoop now has a gap to allow
small items to fall through the gap and not go into the engine. Of course,
this defeats some of the Ram Air Effect.
Of course, that is one of the reasons why, I have the slowest Harmon Rocket
flying.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
> YEP, a plan "B" and/or an intake with a "Y" in it. N561FS has ram air AND
> a
> "Y" that can be opened to draw air from inside the cowl. KABONG Do Not
> Archive 8*)
>
> My assumption is that no matter what system you
>> build you will have some sort of fresh air by pass.
>>
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Todd Bartrim <haywire@telus.net>
Affordable and available. Not just empty promises of delivery "real soon",
while accepting deposits.
Todd Bartrim
C-FSTB RV-9endurance
13B Turbo
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
> combustion chamber technology is double what is currently available.
> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
If I had an engine this efficient I would not waste time on
the aviation market - I'd go right to industrial applications,
generators, or auto engines.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
do not archive
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! --
|