Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:14 AM - Re: Re: engine options (Jesse Saint)
2. 03:54 AM - Re: Re: engine options (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto)
3. 05:59 AM - Re: Re: engine options (Eric Parlow)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
5. 07:27 AM - Re: Re: engine options (Roger Standley)
6. 09:43 AM - Re: Re: engine options (Schawang, Darrin)
7. 10:19 AM - Re: Re: engine options (LessDragProd@aol.com)
8. 01:48 PM - Re: Re: engine options (Wayne Edgerton)
9. 07:31 PM - Edge Rolling Pipe (John Kirkland)
10. 07:50 PM - Re: Edge Rolling Pipe (Tim Olson)
11. 08:18 PM - Re: Edge Rolling Pipe (Mani Ravee)
12. 08:53 PM - Re: Edge Rolling Pipe (DejaVu)
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: engine options |
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz,
it is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM
turbine, so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel
flow at 0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I
would imagine that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something
that would have to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that
not all props can go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common
issue since turboprops are getting more and more popular on certified
aircraft and I don't hear of a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for
about $7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I
think Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in
Missionary aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world
the only fuel available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting
to come on the market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and
after 2,500 hours you hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it.
That starts getting a whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a
turboprop will be higher than in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go
higher and thus faster, which, along with the lower cost of fuel, may make
up for the difference in burn. Also, there are very few things on an
airplane that sound better then the whine of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any
other engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove
itself in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting
harder and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine.
The one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours
twice before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This
definitely makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to
see the little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy.
That's why I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon.
That's why I bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for
non-ANR headsets instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose,
in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub experience). That's why I
shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's
why I am building a VAN's (I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do
like the little innovative guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the
Innodyne that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap
solution is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of
the Innodyne which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz
APU. These APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with
commensurate fuel flows. It appears to be very much like the APU powering
the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel flow was the same whether you are using max
power or idle. Thrust is controlled by adjusting the pitch of the prop.
Hopefully without going to Beta. We had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after
a flat spin after inadvertently getting into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative
engine will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to
"engineer" the FF package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve
power failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later.
Which aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are
thousands of like engines operating or where there is a population of
50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to
touch your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a
Lycoming or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: engine options |
I thought a telling event was when Innodyn's partner Rivers Aviation dropped out
of the project. They were to develop and distribute all of the fire-wall forward
kits for the Innodyn engine, then suddenly they were out of the picture
and Innodyn was doing it in-house. My spider-sense started tingling after that
. . .
BTW, turboprops are great if the majority of your flying is at 17 to 25,000 feet.
If you're below that, reciprocating is probably more efficient, diesel or
conventional.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz, it
is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM turbine,
so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel flow at
0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I would imagine
that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something that would have
to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that not all props can
go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common issue since turboprops
are getting more and more popular on certified aircraft and I don't hear of
a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for about
$7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I think
Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in Missionary
aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world the only fuel
available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting to come on the
market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and after 2,500 hours you
hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it. That starts getting a
whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a turboprop will be higher than
in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go higher and thus faster, which,
along with the lower cost of fuel, may make up for the difference in burn. Also,
there are very few things on an airplane that sound better then the whine
of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any other
engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove itself
in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting harder
and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine. The
one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours twice
before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This definitely
makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to see the
little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy. That's why
I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon. That's why I
bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for non-ANR headsets
instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose, in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub
experience). That's why I shop almost exclusively
at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's why I am building a VAN's
(I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do like the little innovative
guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the Innodyne
that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap solution
is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of the Innodyne
which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz APU. These
APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with commensurate fuel flows.
It appears to be very much like the APU powering the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel
flow was the same whether you are using max power or idle. Thrust is controlled
by adjusting the pitch of the prop. Hopefully without going to Beta. We
had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after a flat spin after inadvertently getting
into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative engine
will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to "engineer" the FF
package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve power
failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later. Which
aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are thousands of
like engines operating or where there is a population of 50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to touch
your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a Lycoming
or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: engine options |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
You can expect a 250hp turbine to burn at least 30 gph.
That's gives 2 hour endurance in a std RV10 with no speed increase.
The Rivers/Innodyne RV6 conversion was heavier than the IO-360 it replaced.
Also, Jet A weighs 6.84lb/gal vs. 6lb/gal for Avgas, at 60 gal the
difference is +50.4lbs
I too was excited to use it in my RV-8 until I ran the numbers!
ERic--
RV-8
RV-10 planning stage
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
I thought a telling event was when Innodyn's partner Rivers Aviation dropped
out of the project. They were to develop and distribute all of the
fire-wall forward kits for the Innodyn engine, then suddenly they were out
of the picture and Innodyn was doing it in-house. My spider-sense started
tingling after that . . .
BTW, turboprops are great if the majority of your flying is at 17 to 25,000
feet. If you're below that, reciprocating is probably more efficient,
diesel or conventional.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz,
it is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM
turbine, so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel
flow at 0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I
would imagine that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something
that would have to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that
not all props can go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common
issue since turboprops are getting more and more popular on certified
aircraft and I don't hear of a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for
about $7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I
think Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in
Missionary aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world
the only fuel available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting
to come on the market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and
after 2,500 hours you hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it.
That starts getting a whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a
turboprop will be higher than in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go
higher and thus faster, which, along with the lower cost of fuel, may make
up for the difference in burn. Also, there are very few things on an
airplane that sound better then the whine of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any
other engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove
itself in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting
harder and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine.
The one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours
twice before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This
definitely makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to
see the little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy.
That's why I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon.
That's why I bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for
non-ANR headsets instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose,
in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub experience). That's why I
shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's
why I am building a VAN's (I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do
like the little innovative guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the
Innodyne that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap
solution is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of
the Innodyne which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz
APU. These APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with
commensurate fuel flows. It appears to be very much like the APU powering
the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel flow was the same whether you are using max
power or idle. Thrust is controlled by adjusting the pitch of the prop.
Hopefully without going to Beta. We had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after
a flat spin after inadvertently getting into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative
engine will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to
"engineer" the FF package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve
power failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later.
Which aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are
thousands of like engines operating or where there is a population of
50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to
touch your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a
Lycoming or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
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: | RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
While the technology does change every year, newer and better engines
are put in place. Lets not forget that a very small piece of the package
is the actual block, and those sell cheap enough that for less than the
price of a top overhaul you have a completely new engine with increased
HP! Modular design at its best! And you can go to the local AutoZone to
get parts.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
<billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Also looked at Jan's engines, visited his place and was very impressed
but
bought a Lyc anyway. Just a thought! Everyone is down on Lyc because
the
technology is the same every year, and everyone likes the Subaru because
the
technology is current. BUT,... No one will ever have the most current
because Jan is re-inventing every year as new model engines come out.
This
is good but also means that almost everyone is flying last years model
and
potentially disappointed or elated depending on that years conversion
package assuming continuous engine improvement from Subaru.
I would think that if you ordered one of the H6 180-190hps last year and
it
was being shipped this year while the 210-220 H6 was being introduced,
you
might feel slighted but that is the nature of continuous improvement.
You
pays your money and takes your chances. Since Jan must purchase the new
engines up front, you can't expect him to continually allow upgrades
without
figuring out how to get rid of the engines that were not taken but
committed
for.
BTW, never heard of one of Jan's packages going for less than 15K so
don't
know what the reference earlier to a 10K disappointment would be about.
My
impression is that Jan would have taken care of it.
Just a thought!
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
To all of the people who are looking at Eggenfellner engines, I don't
want to cause big waves, but you might be interested in another
viewpoint. Many people have good comments about them, and I've heard
a few who have bad opinions. I just happen to belong to the an EAA
chapter with a current RV-9 builder who isn't so happy with them.
In fact, I believe there is a lawsuit going on. From what I got out
of the story, Egg sold him an engine for his -9 with claims of something
like 170hp or so, but in the end, the guy found out from other builders
that it was really some extremely low HP model. Even Egg admitted later
to the HP discrepency. The guy also told me that the engine also
doesn't have all the stuff it needs to run, so it'll never fly.
He called Egg numerous times, and ended up being hung-up on. If
my memory of the situation is right, they actually dropped that engine
model and now have more powerful ones. All he was looking for was for
them to take the engine back, and give him credit towards one of the
newer ones that really did have the claimed HP ratings, but they
weren't willing to do much of anything about it.
It just surprised me because there are a lot of people who seem to
like either their theory, their engines, or maybe the fact that they're
just not Lycomings, but when I heard this guy's story, I know it
left an impression on me. I'm not saying that builders shouldn't
go that route, but, if you do go with any alternate engines, (or for
that matter, ANY engine) I'd make sure you ask a lot of questions
and get some good info up front. I believe the guy I know said he's
out over $10,000 for basically nothing, and he's now so turned off
by the thing that unless they sent him the right engine, he's going
Lycoming. He said if he could do it all over, he'd have just gone
that route up front.
Take it all with a grain of salt, but it's one more data point.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over,
but
> I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP
> Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
> completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7.
Then
> I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
> currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
> year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
> However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
> some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
> something related to this engine???
>
> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
> Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
> have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>
> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine
thing.
>
> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
> stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
> venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
> accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
> thoughts on this???
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Britton
> RV-10 Emp #40137
> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
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: re: engine options |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:29:21 -0700
So maybe now we add a "belly torpedo tank". That would look cool! Or maybe pontoons
with tanks! What is our mission again?
Roger
#40291
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Parlow<mailto:ericparlow@hotmail.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com<mailto:ericparlow@hotmail.com>>
You can expect a 250hp turbine to burn at least 30 gph.
That's gives 2 hour endurance in a std RV10 with no speed increase.
The Rivers/Innodyne RV6 conversion was heavier than the IO-360 it replaced.
Also, Jet A weighs 6.84lb/gal vs. 6lb/gal for Avgas, at 60 gal the
difference is +50.4lbs
I too was excited to use it in my RV-8 until I ran the numbers!
ERic--
RV-8
RV-10 planning stage
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com<mailto:Tdawson@Avidyne.com>>
Reply-To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
To: <rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:53:49 -0400
I thought a telling event was when Innodyn's partner Rivers Aviation dropped
out of the project. They were to develop and distribute all of the
fire-wall forward kits for the Innodyn engine, then suddenly they were out
of the picture and Innodyn was doing it in-house. My spider-sense started
tingling after that . . .
BTW, turboprops are great if the majority of your flying is at 17 to 25,000
feet. If you're below that, reciprocating is probably more efficient,
diesel or conventional.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:14 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz,
it is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM
turbine, so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel
flow at 0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I
would imagine that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something
that would have to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that
not all props can go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common
issue since turboprops are getting more and more popular on certified
aircraft and I don't hear of a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for
about $7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I
think Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in
Missionary aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world
the only fuel available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting
to come on the market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and
after 2,500 hours you hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it.
That starts getting a whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a
turboprop will be higher than in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go
higher and thus faster, which, along with the lower cost of fuel, may make
up for the difference in burn. Also, there are very few things on an
airplane that sound better then the whine of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any
other engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove
itself in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting
harder and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine.
The one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours
twice before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This
definitely makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to
see the little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy.
That's why I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon.
That's why I bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for
non-ANR headsets instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose,
in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub experience). That's why I
shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's
why I am building a VAN's (I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do
like the little innovative guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the
Innodyne that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org<mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
www.itecusa.org<http://www.itecusa.org/>
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:19 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap
solution is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of
the Innodyne which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz
APU. These APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with
commensurate fuel flows. It appears to be very much like the APU powering
the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel flow was the same whether you are using max
power or idle. Thrust is controlled by adjusting the pitch of the prop.
Hopefully without going to Beta. We had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after
a flat spin after inadvertently getting into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative
engine will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to
"engineer" the FF package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve
power failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later.
Which aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are
thousands of like engines operating or where there is a population of
50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to
touch your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a
Lycoming or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
igator?RV10-List>
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: engine options |
Has anyone checked into Cool Jugs, from Liquidcooledairpower.com ? They have a
kit to convert IO540 to liquid cooled.
#####################################################################################
The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use
of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive
it. If you have received this communication in error, you must notify
us immediately by responding to this e-mail and then deleting it from your system,
and further you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information without
written permission from MAC Equipment, Inc. is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. Any views, opinions, or authorizations contained in this email
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of MAC
Equipment, Inc.
#####################################################################################
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: re: engine options |
I haven't seen anyone mention the other liquid cooled alternative. The LS1
Corvette engine. :-)
Two different companies that I have talked with recently are developing FWF
packages. At least one of the companies is developing a FWF package spe
cifically for the RV-10 (i.e., on a RV-10).
I am trying to keep in touch with these developments. As hard data becomes
available, I'll pass it along.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/28/2005 9:45:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SchawangD@macequipment.com writes:
Has anyone checked into Cool Jugs, from Liquidcooledairpower.com ? They
have a kit to convert IO540 to liquid cooled.
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: | Re: re: engine options |
Maybe a silly question, but why would you want to do that?
----- Original Message -----
From: Schawang, Darrin
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
Has anyone checked into Cool Jugs, from Liquidcooledairpower.com ? They have
a kit to convert IO540 to liquid cooled.
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: | Edge Rolling Pipe |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps: how
long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges? I've got
my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and elevators, just want
to be sure its not too short when I start my wings kit. Thanks.
John Kirkland
#40333
N540XP
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: Edge Rolling Pipe |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I just got a few various sized pieces of 10' long PVC pipe....3/4", 1",
1.25", 1.5". It's so cheap, you can just buy one of each size, and cut
it to the most convenient length to work with at the time.
Tim
John Kirkland wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
>
> I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps:
> how long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges?
> I've got my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and
> elevators, just want to be sure its not too short when I start my wings
> kit. Thanks.
> John Kirkland
> #40333
> N540XP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Edge Rolling Pipe |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mani Ravee" <maniravee@sbcglobal.net>
I had good results with a 1" dia steel pipe. I think I am gonna stick with
that. I tried 1 1/4 and the radius was not good. Just my .02$
Be sure to pull down and into it while a helper is given the task of
rotating it with a pair of vice grips. Works well.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Kirkland
Subject: RV10-List: Edge Rolling Pipe
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps: how
long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges? I've got
my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and elevators, just want
to be sure its not too short when I start my wings kit. Thanks.
John Kirkland
#40333
N540XP
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: Edge Rolling Pipe |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "DejaVu" <wvu@mail.ameritel.net>
Don't have to roll the edges on the flaps and ailerons.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Edge Rolling Pipe
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
>
> I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps: how
> long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges? I've got
> my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and elevators, just
want
> to be sure its not too short when I start my wings kit. Thanks.
>
> John Kirkland
> #40333
> N540XP
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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! --
|