Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:15 AM - Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (J Riffel)
2. 09:15 AM - Binding in Engine Cowl hinges (Ian)
3. 11:53 AM - Re: Binding in Engine Cowl hinges (Wade Roe)
4. 03:26 PM - Stewart System **Discount** (cbrxxdrv@aol.com)
5. 04:41 PM - Re: Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (Scott)
6. 05:10 PM - Re: Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (John Morgensen)
7. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (Bobby Hester)
8. 06:03 PM - Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (Denis Walsh)
9. 07:33 PM - Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (RV6 Flyer)
10. 07:52 PM - Windscreen Fairing First Look! (Matt Dralle)
11. 08:51 PM - Re: Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (Michael Kraus)
12. 09:09 PM - Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? (scott bilinski)
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: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which |
model?
Brett,
I initially planned to install an O-360 in my RV7A because I'd flown behind
them in my two previous airplanes and been happy with them.
After talking to a lot of folks, I changed my mind and went with an IO-360
w/ a constant speed prop. Yes it cost more - but this was the only plane I
was ever going to build. While the RV6/7 flys fine on a 320 (a friend has
one - and he wishes he'd gone w/ a 360), most have 360s. When you fly with
other RVs (and you will), you'll have difficulty keeping up w/ a 320. And
when you (or your family) sells, it'll be more difficult with a 320.
With an IO you'll get better fuel distribution and (maybe) more even CHTs.
With a reasonable EIS (a MUST HAVE - mine's a Grand Rapids 4000), you'll be
able to fly Lean Of Peak - which I understand is not recommended with just
carburation. My RV7A will cruise 160+kts at about 8.5-9 gph. I haven't ran
the numbers, but I'd guess being able to run LOP over a couple years will
pay back the IO up-cost in fuel savings.
I shopped for engines/props - a LOT. I chose AeroSport
http://www.aerosportpower.com/prices.htm#NewEngines after a friend mentioned
them - and I talked w/ Bart and Sue at OSH. Ask around - they KNOW their
stuff and their reputation is Very Good. Their prices are more than
competitive - but most of all, their warranty is better than
Vans/Matt./Lyc./etc. (it starts with 1st flight - not some period after the
engine ships). They did what they promised - and were more than helpful thru
the install (They no-charge shipped an extra throttle lever when I had cowl
clearance issues and worked thru some fuel injection servo re-plumbing as
well as my ECI cylinder recall).
I chose 2 PMags with the automotive plugs option after a lot of shopping -
and I'm delighted with the choice. (they've been flawless; checkout the cost
of plugs! - and timing takes 2 minutes!). AeroSport adjusted the price since
I wasn't using the included mags. I recommend that you Stay Away from vacuum
pumps!
As you know, making choices is the most difficult part of building (other
than coming up with the $$s). I've re-done some of the choices I made along
the way - everyone does. But it's REAL expensive to change your mind on the
engine/prop. Choose wisely.
Good Luck - and keep plugging.
"Jerry" Riffel
RV7A: 120+ hrs
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: | Binding in Engine Cowl hinges |
Binding in Engine Cowl hinges
Joe,
My RV-9A gave me exactly the same grief and still does, putting in the
cowl hinge pins. Four tips that I seem to have eased the situation a
lot for me without changing the diameter of the pins are:
1. If you make a hardwood stick, about 12" long with a hole in one end
to receive the bent over end of the hinge pin, you can get much better
purchase on a sticky hinge pin by holding the pin against the stick.
It also helps when removing it too. I'm assuming you bent over the last
1/2" per the plans.
2. Do a visual check of exactly where it's binding and try to gently
ease those hinge segments over in the right direction. Don't use
something that will crush the inner diameter of the hinge (my
experience), or maybe fill the hole with a piece of pin before you start
trying to move it. It's time consuming, checking, removing the cowl,
bending, blah blah.
3. Taper the starting end of the pin off centre, then when you're
trying to find the hole in the next segment you can rotate the pin to
fish for the hole.
4. On my 9A it works best to put the side pins half way in, then align
and only start the firewall pins, and then finish off inserting the side
pins. My pins on the firewall also benefit from a push with my pusher
stick.
After 55 hours removing and replacing the cowl is getting easier and
quicker. The pins do seem to loosen a bit, but developing a routine
that works for you helps too, especially if, like me, you usually have
to do it on your own.
Ian Brown, Bromont, QC, C-GOHM RV-9A
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: | Binding in Engine Cowl hinges |
Gentleman,
I just completed the cowling on my 7 and encountered the same issue
(slight misalignment/epoxy interference). My solution was to take a
long piece of the .090 pin material and flute one end like a drill bit.
I did this by hand on my bench grinding. This doesn=99t need to
perfect just a semi-sharp helix. I then matched up the top and bottom
cowl as if I were going to assemble with the hinge pin. Then I chucked
my .090 fluted pin in my cordless drill and ran it in and out through
the hinge eyes of my cowling. Continue cycle full depth until the
desired fit is achieved. A drop or two of oil goes a long way. Fine
lapping compound could also be used if needed.
Hope this helps!
Wade Roe
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:07 AM
Subject: RV-List: Binding in Engine Cowl hinges
Binding in Engine Cowl hinges
Joe,
My RV-9A gave me exactly the same grief and still does, putting in the
cowl hinge pins. Four tips that I seem to have eased the situation a
lot for me without changing the diameter of the pins are:
1. If you make a hardwood stick, about 12" long with a hole in one end
to receive the bent over end of the hinge pin, you can get much better
purchase on a sticky hinge pin by holding the pin against the stick.
It also helps when removing it too. I'm assuming you bent over the last
1/2" per the plans.
2. Do a visual check of exactly where it's binding and try to gently
ease those hinge segments over in the right direction. Don't use
something that will crush the inner diameter of the hinge (my
experience), or maybe fill the hole with a piece of pin before you start
trying to move it. It's time consuming, checking, removing the cowl,
bending, blah blah.
3. Taper the starting end of the pin off centre, then when you're
trying to find the hole in the next segment you can rotate the pin to
fish for the hole.
4. On my 9A it works best to put the side pins half way in, then align
and only start the firewall pins, and then finish off inserting the side
pins. My pins on the firewall also benefit from a push with my pusher
stick.
After 55 hours removing and replacing the cowl is getting easier and
quicker. The pins do seem to loosen a bit, but developing a routine
that works for you helps too, especially if, like me, you usually have
to do it on your own.
Ian Brown, Bromont, QC, C-GOHM RV-9A
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: | Stewart System **Discount** |
EAA Special of the week .....
20% Off Stewart System paints, primers.
Ends Feb 25th
Just a heads up for those in need now. I am restoring a Champ and it is a
pretty big savings since it includes the fabric too.
Check out the EAA web Site or The Stewart site.
Sal
RV 8
7AC
Lakeland FL
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: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, |
which model?
J Riffel wrote:
> While the RV6/7 flys fine on a 320 (a friend has one - and he wishes
> he'd gone w/ a 360), most have 360s. When you fly with other RVs (and
> you will), you'll have difficulty keeping up w/ a 320. And when you
> (or your family) sells, it'll be more difficult with a 320.
>
But the O-320s can burn car gas :) I'm planning on an O-320 in my RV-4.
do not archive
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: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, |
which model?
Either a 320 or a 360 can burn car gas - it depends on the compression
ratio. A 150hp O-320 (low compression) can run on unleaded regular and a
160hp can run on premium. The real issue is ethanol being added
everywhere you look. Recently, my trusty Indian reservation gas station
started adding ethanol. I talked to the tribe's gas stations manager and
he confirmed that they are not obligated to buy the ethanol-gas blend
but it is cheaper. We discussed the possibility of providing Premium
non-ethanol gas as a way to cater to the aircraft and boat people.
Side note: The ethanol destroys the gas station's underground fiberglass
tanks!
John Morgensen
RV4 - Purchased flying
RV9A - Soon
Scott wrote:
>
> But the O-320s can burn car gas :) I'm planning on an O-320 in my RV-4.
>
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: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, |
which model?
I have a Superior XP-O-360. I have 100LL in one tank and high octane
ethanol free unleaded in the other. I take off and land with the 100LL
and fly with the unleaded. Works great! Been doing it for 3 year :-)
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/RVSite.htm
Scott wrote:
>
>
> J Riffel wrote:
>> While the RV6/7 flys fine on a 320 (a friend has one - and he wishes
>> he'd gone w/ a 360), most have 360s. When you fly with other RVs (and
>> you will), you'll have difficulty keeping up w/ a 320. And when you
>> (or your family) sells, it'll be more difficult with a 320.
>>
> But the O-320s can burn car gas :) I'm planning on an O-320 in my RV-4.
>
> do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model? |
What is the world coming to . Several RV related topics and all
responses civil.
I favor the Lycoming 180 HP for the RV 4,6,7, and 8. My vote is for
the o-360A1A which is the carb version. While I agree with the theory
that you should be able to lean better with fuel injection, frankly I
have not seen any noticeable difference on trips between FI and carb
O-360s on vans airplanes. Very subjective.. Maybe i just lean more
than they do?
What I can say is the FI engines do not go faster or take off
shorter, or climb better I am referring to the 180HP Lycs and
clones. The only clear advantage for fuel injection on RVs with the
180 HP that I see is freedom from carb ice. HOWEVER, I have found it
very difficult to verify instances of carb ice in RVs who fly VFR.
Personally I have had none in my 2400 hours of flying my RV-6A from
Alaska to Florida and a few points in between. BUT I would never say
never. I am cautious and that is how I got so old in this business.
The operators handbook for my 180HP shows the same horsepower ratings
and, in fact if you study the unreadable fuel consumption charts it
shows the carb version with slightly less fuel flow at same horsepower!
Over the past few years I have experimented with various settings for
cruise and here is what I use: 7.2 GPH at 2400 RPM and 10.5 to 13.5
on the altitude. This yields between 160 and 165 KTAS. Climb to that
altitude is expensive and slower, so the trip fuel burn is usually
around 8GPH overall. Should add I have a hartzell constant speed, old
version.
You will find it is very very difficult to compare performance with
another RV pilot. You can't even get past the first input: What are
you using for flight time? Not to mention TAS vs GS or an
uncalibrated fuel flow instrument, etc etc. The comparison I use is
where we fly formation and compare fuel slips at the end of the trip.
EVEN THEN, you will find some folks vary the way they top off from one
fill up to the next.
So for me, the lower initial cost, lower complexity, simpler system
sways the decision to the Carb 180 HP. Personally I think there is a
slight safety edge to the carb, with its lower fuel pressure system
and no plumbing on top of the engine.
I can't comment with any authority on the starting characteristics,
but subjectively, I note it looks easier to hot start a carb version,
but I have seen it screwed up on both systems. Most people would say
the carb is easier to start hot and cold.
I do not operate above 18,000 MSL, but suspect that might be an area
where the fuel injection would operate better. I can say the carb
still works great at 17,500.
Last: I feel anyone who can build an airplane can overhaul a carb and
adjust the float level. No so with the fuel injection system.
Post script. I have not covered all the factors to be used for
comparison. Also there is more detail to some of my comparisons. One
example is weight. The O-360 is heavier than the O320, but only
marginally so. The 200HP and 210 HP versions are quite a bit
heavier. The 180 is right in the middle and offers a great CG with
awesome performance.
>
Denis RV-6A
N133DW
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: | Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which |
model?
I have been flying my RV-6 with O-320 for the past 12-years. I have a par
allel valve 360 core sitting in my hangar that I plan to built up as an IO-
360 Constant Speed prop when I get around to it.
I am putting the 180 HP FI in when I get around to it because I did not do
it when I built the airplane.
12+ years flying all over North America most of the time with other RVs has
shown me that the 360 will use less fuel than the 320 when flying the same
cruise speeds and will go FASTER than the 320 when you wish to burn more f
uel. Using the data from the FAA TCDS for both Lycoming engines shows that
there is only 10 pounds difference in weight between the 320 and 360. An
increase in 10 pounds to gain 20 HP and less pounds of fuel per HP produced
sounds good to me. IF you look at the TCDS for the Superior Vantage 360
=2C it has the same bore=2C stroke=2C and compression as the Lycoming and i
t was certificated on auto fuel and 100 LL.
SEE TCDS E00001SC for info on the Superior Air Parts engine.
--- insert from E00001SC ---
Motor Gasoline (R+M/2) (See Note 7)
ASTM D4814=2C Min Octane 91 (no alcohol)
--- snip ---
NOTE 7. .
Experience has shown that there is a higher probability of vapor locking on
aircraft=2C especially on those equipped with fuel injected reciprocating
engines when operating with high volatility fuels such as motor gasoline. A
ircraft fuel system designs for the powerplant installation of these engine
s may need to incorporate special design features or enhanced cooling to ac
commodate operation with high volatility fuels such as motor gasoline. The
aircraft fuel system hot weather testing requirements of FAR 23.961 must be
successfully accomplished for each aircraft powerplant installation design
of these engines (both carbureted and fuel injected) to obtain approval fo
r operation with motor gasoline.(Ref: AC 23.1521-1B).
...END...
--- end insert from E00001SC ---
The Parallel valve 360 is the way to go. There is not much difference in N
EW price of fuel injection vs carb or 320 vs 360 but the electric boost pum
p does cost more for the FI engine. Both the Carb and FI can run LEAN OF P
EAK but the FI can run leaner of peak than the carb. Leaner of peak will b
e lower fuel flow but from experience I can say for a fact that lower fuel
flow means lower air speed. You need the fuel to make the HP and get the s
peed. Not such thing as free HP.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C241+ Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service.
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: | Windscreen Fairing First Look! |
Dear Listers,
I've been working hard on the front, fixed fairing around the windscreen this week.
Literally, I've been dreading this job more than ANY other on this project.
Tonight I sanded though the first layer of electrical tape and in one little
spot the second layer started to come up, so I had to pull all of the electrical
tape off and so I was able to check out the actual fiberglass fairing after
two days of sanding! Yahoo! It came out nearly perfect!! Not bad for creating
a fairing out of nothing! The process described in the manual really
does work amazingly well. I followed it to the tee up to this point.
Now I have to retape everything, add a layer of resin mixed with filler, then final
sand the whole thing. Should be pretty straight forward, but a couple of
days worth of work.
Almost done...
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
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: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, |
which model?
I have a 160hp O-320 in my RV-4.... The only thing I'd do differently
next time is go with a constant speed prop. The lighter the RV-4, the
more fun it is to fly!!!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
>
>
> J Riffel wrote:
>> While the RV6/7 flys fine on a 320 (a friend has one - and he
>> wishes he'd gone w/ a 360), most have 360s. When you fly with other
>> RVs (and you will), you'll have difficulty keeping up w/ a 320. And
>> when you (or your family) sells, it'll be more difficult with a 320.
>>
> But the O-320s can burn car gas :) I'm planning on an O-320 in my
> RV-4.
>
> 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: | Re: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which |
model?
Very well said......I must add that on paper a FI engine beats a carbed engine
when it comes to economy especially after balancing the injectors. I am fuel injected,
W/elect ingnition, and I have NEVER flown with another RV that used the
same or less fuel. I am as much as 1.5 GPH less or as little as .5 GPH less,
but I have ALWAYS been less. many of these trips have been over 1k miles one
way. I am not saying your wrong but if you factor in ALL the variables, well
in my opinion you just cant compare one plane to another because they are ALL
different even when they are "the same".........if that makes sense.
Scott
RV-8a
________________________________
From: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 6:02:30 PM
Subject: RV-List: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model?
What is the world coming to . Several RV related topics and all responses civil.
I favor the Lycoming 180 HP for the RV 4,6,7, and 8. My vote is for the o-360A1A
which is the carb version. While I agree with the theory that you should
be able to lean better with fuel injection, frankly I have not seen any noticeable
difference on trips between FI and carb O-360s on vans airplanes. Very subjective..
Maybe i just lean more than they do?
What I can say is the FI engines do not go faster or take off shorter, or climb
better I am referring to the 180HP Lycs and clones. The only clear advantage
for fuel injection on RVs with the 180 HP that I see is freedom from carb
ice. HOWEVER, I have found it very difficult to verify instances of carb ice
in RVs who fly VFR. Personally I have had none in my 2400 hours of flying my
RV-6A from Alaska to Florida and a few points in between. BUT I would never
say never. I am cautious and that is how I got so old in this business.
The operators handbook for my 180HP shows the same horsepower ratings and, in fact
if you study the unreadable fuel consumption charts it shows the carb version
with slightly less fuel flow at same horsepower!
Over the past few years I have experimented with various settings for cruise and
here is what I use: 7.2 GPH at 2400 RPM and 10.5 to 13.5 on the altitude.
This yields between 160 and 165 KTAS. Climb to that altitude is expensive and
slower, so the trip fuel burn is usually around 8GPH overall. Should add I
have a hartzell constant speed, old version.
You will find it is very very difficult to compare performance with another RV
pilot. You can't even get past the first input: What are you using for flight
time? Not to mention TAS vs GS or an uncalibrated fuel flow instrument, etc
etc. The comparison I use is where we fly formation and compare fuel slips at
the end of the trip. EVEN THEN, you will find some folks vary the way they
top off from one fill up to the next.
So for me, the lower initial cost, lower complexity, simpler system sways the decision
to the Carb 180 HP. Personally I think there is a slight safety edge
to the carb, with its lower fuel pressure system and no plumbing on top of the
engine.
I can't comment with any authority on the starting characteristics, but subjectively,
I note it looks easier to hot start a carb version, but I have seen it
screwed up on both systems. Most people would say the carb is easier to start
hot and cold.
I do not operate above 18,000 MSL, but suspect that might be an area where the
fuel injection would operate better. I can say the carb still works great at
17,500.
Last: I feel anyone who can build an airplane can overhaul a carb and adjust the
float level. No so with the fuel injection system.
Post script. I have not covered all the factors to be used for comparison. Also
there is more detail to some of my comparisons. One example is weight. The
O-360 is heavier than the O320, but only marginally so. The 200HP and 210 HP
versions are quite a bit heavier. The 180 is right in the middle and offers
a great CG with awesome performance.
>
Denis RV-6A
N133DW
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! --
|