---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 07/24/08: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:09 AM - Re: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 (Gordon or Marge) 2. 07:48 AM - Re: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 (Skylor Piper) 3. 08:25 AM - Re: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 (Patrick Kelley) 4. 08:44 PM - Rivet Spacing for Elevator Skin Stiffeners (Garey Wittich) 5. 09:27 PM - Re: Rivet Spacing for Elevator Skin Stiffeners (Jason Hills) 6. 09:58 PM - Re: Rivet Spacing for Elevator Skin Stiffeners (Ed Holyoke) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:09:54 AM PST US From: "Gordon or Marge" Subject: RE: RV-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:36 PM Subject: RV-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 Dear Listers, What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical Lycoming engine? In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400 engine designed around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks pretty nice. At $30,000 new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming IO-390 solutions and, if you believe the Superior mantra, a better designed engine in general. Matt: A 2.6% increase in displacement yields a 4.8% increase in power? Is Lycoming stupid? Maybe. Is Superior still in development? Probably. Will they actually deliver 220? Who knows? A cynic might suspect a bit of brochursmanship here. Gordon Comfort N363GC ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:38 AM PST US From: Skylor Piper Subject: RE: RV-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 I'm having trouble following this math: "A 2.6% increase in displacement yields a 4.8% increase in power?" An increase in displacement from 360 to 390 is an 8.3% increase, while an increase in power from 200 to 210 is a 5% increase...reasonable in the Lycoming case if it's true that the IO-360 angle valve doesn't produce a full 200 horsepower to begin with. An increase in displacement from 360 to 400 (Superior) is an 11.1% increase, and an increase in power from 200 to 220 is exactly a 10% increase. Skylor RV-8 Underconstruction IO-360, 200HP --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Gordon or Marge wrote: From: Gordon or Marge Subject: RE: RV-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 Matt: A 2.6% increase in displacement yields a 4.8% increase in power? Is Lycoming stupid? Maybe. Is Superior still in development? Probably. Will they actually deliver 220? Who knows? A cynic might suspect a bit of brochursmanship here. Gordon Comfort N363GC ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:25:20 AM PST US From: "Patrick Kelley" Subject: RE: RV-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 Gordon's cynicism is entirely understandable, but I'd bet on Superior to deliver at least 220. I agree that they're probably still in development; they don't stand still just because they've put a product on the table. I pondered an XP engine for a long time and watched the product evolve. What finally got me off the fence was my wife paying for the Build School. I thought I had read up a lot on the engine and various manufacturer but in three days I learned a ton. As it happened, the other student (they run two at a time) had to cancel, so they used the other station to build one of the Vantage engines. During the build, I got to compare: flat tappet vs. roller, carb vs. injection, and so on. And I also got shown some of those improvements over the stock Lycoming, like oiling the thrust bearing face or the sump improvements (in hot rods, you'd call that porting and polishing). I also got to see their specifications - the checklist of tolerances that they use when building. I'd guess that Lycoming uses similar but they are way tighter than the acceptable tolerances in the Lycoming manuals. And after my build (which was inspected by their QA staff as I watched) they ran the thing on a test stand before shipping it to me. So that's the product; obviously I have a good opinion of it. Now, let me tell you about the people. I was treated like a VIP there, which you'd expect. Everyone, from the CEO down knew who I was and took time to say hi or answer questions. Then I left and got my engine, so you might think that I'd be forgotten. Not at all. They've answered every question I could ask about my installation, quickly and helpfully. And I recently stupidly lost an intake manifold bolt, so I emailed them to order a replacement. Two days later, I had the replacement plus washer and star washer at no charge. Sure a minor thing, but I've known other businesses that would charge for the part and add a handling charge. I like this company. In fact, I asked if they might do an XPIO-540; I'm considering an RV-10 for a future project. They don't have one in the works, but they wouldn't rule it out. If I do and they do, I'll be buying one, you betcha. Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - Cowling and final engine hookups; flying in Sept? -----Original Message----- Matt: A 2.6% increase in displacement yields a 4.8% increase in power? Is Lycoming stupid? Maybe. Is Superior still in development? Probably. Will they actually deliver 220? Who knows? A cynic might suspect a bit of brochursmanship here. Gordon Comfort N363GC -----Original Message----- Dear Listers, What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical Lycoming engine? In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400 engine designed around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks pretty nice. At $30,000 new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming IO-390 solutions and, if you believe the Superior mantra, a better designed engine in general. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:44:43 PM PST US From: Garey Wittich Subject: RV-List: Rivet Spacing for Elevator Skin Stiffeners Greetings: I have "older" drawings for the RV-8 Elevators. They show NO required rivet spacing (the number of rivets to be used) for each Elevator Skin Stiffener. Understand the newer Stiffeners come with pilot holes already prepunched in them from Vans. Can someone give me the "number" of rivets used for EACH Stiffener: E-720G E-720A E-720F E-720H E-720B E-720J E-720C E-720K E-720D E-720L E-720E (Using a rivet spacing fan, I can then make the rivet spacing equal for each Stiffener.) Thanks for your help, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:27:43 PM PST US From: Jason Hills Subject: Re: RV-List: Rivet Spacing for Elevator Skin Stiffeners A: 10 B: 9 C: 9 D: 8 E: 8 F: 7 G: 7 H: 6 J: 8 K: 8 L: 7 Off my drawing DWG 4 & DWG 5 for RV-8 kit purchased Sept 2006. Hope that helps! ...Jason On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Garey Wittich wrote: Greetings: I have "older" drawings for the RV-8 Elevators. They show NO required rivet spacing (the number of rivets to be used) for each Elevator Skin Stiffener. Understand the newer Stiffeners come with pilot holes already prepunched in them from Vans. Can someone give me the "number" of rivets used for EACH Stiffener: E-720G E-720A E-720F E-720H E-720B E-720J E-720C E-720K E-720D E-720L E-720E (Using a rivet spacing fan, I can then make the rivet spacing equal for each Stiffener.) Thanks for your help, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:58:57 PM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: Re: RV-List: Rivet Spacing for Elevator Skin Stiffeners Garey, I'd guess that the drawing does show rivet spacing, i.e.: 1 1/4" or 1 1/2" typ. Layout the rivets on each end and use a rivet fan set near the "typ (ical)" space and when in doubt, err to the side of shorter spacing. If a spacing is not called on the drawing, measure the rivet X marks on the drawing and account for the scale. Again, err to the shorter spacing if it isn't clear. Pax, Ed Holyoke Garey Wittich wrote: > > Greetings: > > I have "older" drawings for the RV-8 Elevators. They show NO required rivet spacing (the number of rivets to be used) for each Elevator Skin Stiffener. Understand the newer Stiffeners come with pilot holes already prepunched in them from Vans. > > Can someone give me the "number" of rivets used for EACH Stiffener: > > E-720G E-720A E-720F > > E-720H E-720B > > E-720J E-720C > > E-720K E-720D > > E-720L E-720E > > (Using a rivet spacing fan, I can then make the rivet spacing equal for each Stiffener.) > > Thanks for your help, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.