Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:28 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RAS)
2. 03:40 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
3. 05:33 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Marcus Cooper)
4. 05:59 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
5. 06:03 AM - Re: plenum design. (LIKE2LOOP@aol.com)
6. 06:28 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Jesse Saint)
7. 09:04 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Jeff Dalton)
8. 09:18 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
9. 09:58 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (John Hasbrouck)
10. 10:05 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Jeff Dalton)
11. 10:57 AM - Fuel Injector Spider installation question (Mike Kraus)
12. 01:10 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RAS)
13. 01:33 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (linn walters)
14. 01:46 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RAS)
15. 02:02 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
16. 02:02 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
17. 02:13 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Jeff Dalton)
18. 02:59 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (David McNeill)
19. 04:56 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
20. 05:32 PM - Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn (John McCarthy)
21. 06:46 PM - Re: Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn (Marcus Cooper)
22. 08:27 PM - Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn (bob.kaufmann)
23. 10:18 PM - Re: Fuel Injector Spider installation question (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: Turbocharged RV10 |
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the engine
the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple matter
called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of pounds
( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11 hole
optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155 +
203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get shockloaded.
The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload inspection
as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
I know exactly what that would do to the CG, help it. Don't forget two things.
One the -10 is nose heavy, and two she was designed for 210HP - 260HP with the
210HP being almost certainly much lighter than the standard O-540. Also you
can always add ballast to the tail to make up for a light engine, just prefer
not to.
The site for the Bombardier now says their second target market is experimental
after their Part 23 customer is going. As far as Crossflow, I wouldn't touch
them until they have many engines flying and have made up for their little customer
service problems.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on fuse/odds & ends
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the engine
the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple matter
called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of pounds
( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11 hole
optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155 +
203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get shockloaded.
The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload inspection
as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards, Rick Lark CGEKJ
=09
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
"Also you can always add ballast to the tail to make up for a light engine"
- I suspect this is not quite right. Folks are adding ballast now for a
heavy engine, it would require ballast up front if the engine was too light.
Might could move the battery to the firewall if desperate enough.
Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
I know exactly what that would do to the CG, help it. Don't forget two
things. One the -10 is nose heavy, and two she was designed for 210HP -
260HP with the 210HP being almost certainly much lighter than the standard
O-540. Also you can always add ballast to the tail to make up for a light
engine, just prefer not to.
The site for the Bombardier now says their second target market is
experimental after their Part 23 customer is going. As far as Crossflow, I
wouldn't touch them until they have many engines flying and have made up for
their little customer service problems.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on fuse/odds & ends
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the
engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a
simple matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into
Lycoming. If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a
couple of pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one
with the 11 hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76
Xpndr and a KX155 + 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's
and seldomly get shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which
also leads to shockload inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as
I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had
in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow
Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are
based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit.
There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc.
One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs
lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as
insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these
engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they
are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse
Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show
me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are
pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will
convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in
Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada.
Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
Doh! Sorry, too early in the morning here, half asleep when I was typing. Yes
you are correct Marcus. A lighter engine would help offset some of the ships
nose heaviness. I meant to say nose instead of tail. I think I'm spending too
much time in the tail talking about ballast. :-)
Michael
do not archive.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
"Also you can always add ballast to the tail to make up for a light engine" -
I suspect this is not quite right. Folks are adding ballast now for a heavy engine,
it would require ballast up front if the engine was too light. Might could
move the battery to the firewall if desperate enough.
Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
I know exactly what that would do to the CG, help it. Don't forget two things.
One the -10 is nose heavy, and two she was designed for 210HP - 260HP with the
210HP being almost certainly much lighter than the standard O-540. Also you
can always add ballast to the tail to make up for a light engine, just prefer
not to.
The site for the Bombardier now says their second target market is experimental
after their Part 23 customer is going. As far as Crossflow, I wouldn't touch
them until they have many engines flying and have made up for their little customer
service problems.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on fuse/odds & ends
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the engine
the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple matter
called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of pounds
( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11 hole
optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155 +
203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get shockloaded.
The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload inspection
as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards, Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: plenum design. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: LIKE2LOOP@aol.com
if you want to see a simple (you could build it yourself) design, pop
open the cowl of any 50+ year old Cessna 170b. My cowl swings up for easy
engine access on either side. Also a great idea, that is simple to create.
Inside is a plenum box over the top of the 6 cyl 145hp engine. The plenum has
three, quarter turn thumb locks on each side for easy access to the top half of
the cylinders. All air is directed downward and exits a larger cheater hole on
the bottom cowl. The engine restarts hot every time...good design.
Steve
Port St. Lucie, FL
772-475-5556
Sent from my Treo 600
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the -10 is not nose-heavy. It was
designed for 4 people. If you only have one or two people in it, then that
makes it nose-heavy. If you fly it like it was designed to fly, then it is
perfect. If you are going to be only flying with one or two people, then
there are 5 other models that will do this, go just as fast, and cost a lot
less to build. If you want to do this with an IO-540, then build a Harmon
Rocket and go a LOT faster.
In all honesty, when you sit down and think about it, taking 93lbs out of
the nose would certainly help when flying with one or two people, but it
would eliminate the possibility of flying full. The plane would sit on its
tail and never get off the ground. It has certainly got to be much easier
to add ballast to the tail when you are flying light than removing that
weight from the tail when you are flying heavy. What would go, the rudder?
The elevator? Maybe the whole tail? Lightening the nose that much would
make this a 2-seat aircraft with a huge baggage compartment capable of
holding probably the same 120 lbs. The way it is designed it WILL fly with
just a pilot and no ballast, but taking that 93lbs off the nose it WILL NOT
fly full. It's just that simple.
If you are going to take that weight off the nose, you will have to extend
the engine mount enough to make up the difference.
No offense, Michael, but I still insist that this plane is not nose-heavy.
If anything, I would say that it is CG-sensitive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
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] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
I know exactly what that would do to the CG, help it. Don't forget two
things. One the -10 is nose heavy, and two she was designed for 210HP -
260HP with the 210HP being almost certainly much lighter than the standard
O-540. Also you can always add ballast to the tail to make up for a light
engine, just prefer not to.
The site for the Bombardier now says their second target market is
experimental after their Part 23 customer is going. As far as Crossflow, I
wouldn't touch them until they have many engines flying and have made up for
their little customer service problems.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on fuse/odds & ends
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the
engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a
simple matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into
Lycoming. If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a
couple of pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one
with the 11 hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76
Xpndr and a KX155 + 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's
and seldomly get shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which
also leads to shockload inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as
I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had
in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow
Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are
based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit.
There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc.
One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs
lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as
insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these
engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they
are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse
Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show
me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are
pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will
convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in
Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada.
Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: Turbocharged RV10 |
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all read, the
-10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when flying with
only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job at the CG
and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier to
not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly alone. Seems
like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn were real
and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the engine
the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple
matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of pounds
( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11 hole
optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155
+ 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get shockloaded.
The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload
inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
Welcome to the real world. Try flying a Piper Cherokee 6 with only 1 or 2 people
- same issue.
If you don't like Van's design, you're more than welcome to design your own plane,
and try to match the RV-10 for performance, flying qualities, and versatility
. . . : )
TDT
40025
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all read, the
-10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when flying with
only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job at the CG
and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier to
not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly alone. Seems
like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn were real
and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS <mailto:deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
=09
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the
engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a
simple matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple
of pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the
11 hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a
KX155 + 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get
shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload
inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards, Rick Lark CGEKJ
=09
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
Good point Tim and it's not just the Cherokee 6. Just about every 4 place
I've flow is at its forward CG limit with 2 up front and full fuel. Friend
of mine flies a C177 and with 2 up front he always uses full nose up trim
during landing. C182's are a nose heavy beast (check out the history of
bent firewalls) with two up front. Is the -10 any worse than any other 4
place?
John Hasbrouck
#40264
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: Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jeff Dalton" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
I do fly a Cherokee Six - and I've never had to put shot bags in the back to
feel safe and in control.
I'm not being critical of vans design - I think it's great. I was making a
comment about the lighter enginer.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Welcome to the real world. Try flying a Piper Cherokee 6 with only 1 or 2
people - same issue.
If you don't like Van's design, you're more than welcome to design your own
plane, and try to match the RV-10 for performance, flying qualities, and
versatility . . . : )
TDT
40025
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all
read, the -10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when
flying with only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job
at the CG and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier
to not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly
alone. Seems like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn
were real and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS <mailto:deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the
engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a
simple matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into
Lycoming. If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a
couple of pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one
with the 11 hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76
Xpndr and a KX155 + 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's
and seldomly get shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which
also leads to shockload inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as
I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had
in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow
Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are
based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit.
There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc.
One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs
lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as
insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these
engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they
are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse
Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show
me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are
pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will
convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in
Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada.
Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: | Fuel Injector Spider installation question |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mike Kraus" <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net>
I am installing my Airflow Performance fuel injection spider and had a
question. Do I need to match location on the spider to a specific
cylinder, or do I hook up any cylinder to any location in the spider? I
could not seem to find any cylinder numbers on the spider and I
directions leave much to be desired.....
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
-Mike
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: Turbocharged RV10 |
As has been said by others the -10 is most certainly not nose heavy. I'll give
you something else to worry about just for the craic, Try guessing with the shift
does of 54 Gallons of fuel at 6lbs a gallon............get the drift. The
C of G calculations need done on both ends with any(!!) RV if you wish to use
the aircraft again. the aircarft has been designed to carry four people and baggage,
see the design brief of Van's, if you wish to do something else with it
you can't blame Van's for a narrow c of g envelope, you need to look in the mirror,
the guy lokking back at you has chosen the wrong airplane for his mission.
M
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dalton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all read,
the -10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when flying
with only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job at the CG
and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier
to not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly alone.
Seems like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn were
real and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the engine
the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple
matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of pounds
( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11
hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155
+ 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get shockloaded.
The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload
inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
And just remember that it's better to be nose heavy than tail heavy!
The only airplanes that stay within a narrow CG range are 2 place SBS
where pilot/pass sit over the spar. With a 4 place, there is NO way to
design an efficient aircraft without a major CG shift when all the seats
aren't full.
Linn ..... will be glad to experience the nasty nose-heavy qualities of
the -10!!!!
Linn
do not archive
John Hasbrouck wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>
> Good point Tim and it's not just the Cherokee 6. Just about every 4
> place I've flow is at its forward CG limit with 2 up front and full
> fuel. Friend of mine flies a C177 and with 2 up front he always uses
> full nose up trim during landing. C182's are a nose heavy beast
> (check out the history of bent firewalls) with two up front. Is the
> -10 any worse than any other 4 place?
>
> John Hasbrouck
> #40264
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Hi Linn
Have recently finished RV7 with VFR gyro panel, 180HP/FP @ 1029LBS empty.
Guess what, with 418 lbs of pilots and 100lbs of luggage, you can't fly the
tanks empty cause you drop out of the envelope at the rear...........
This si of course an extreme case and is illustarted to get up to max all up
with full fuel. The SBS RV's all tend to be a bit heavy at the tail despite
this one having been alodined to save weight. Having a forward c of g is
easier remedied than an aft C/G.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: "linn walters" <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> And just remember that it's better to be nose heavy than tail heavy! The
> only airplanes that stay within a narrow CG range are 2 place SBS where
> pilot/pass sit over the spar. With a 4 place, there is NO way to design
> an efficient aircraft without a major CG shift when all the seats aren't
> full.
> Linn ..... will be glad to experience the nasty nose-heavy qualities of
> the -10!!!!
> Linn
>
> do not archive
>
>
> John Hasbrouck wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>>
>> Good point Tim and it's not just the Cherokee 6. Just about every 4
>> place I've flow is at its forward CG limit with 2 up front and full fuel.
>> Friend of mine flies a C177 and with 2 up front he always uses full nose
>> up trim during landing. C182's are a nose heavy beast (check out the
>> history of bent firewalls) with two up front. Is the -10 any worse than
>> any other 4 place?
>>
>> John Hasbrouck
>> #40264
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
>
>
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
All right there boys and girls, everyone is starting to go off the deep end. Some
of you are starting to sound like the guys on the Subie list when you ask
them about resale. The -10 is very safe aircraft within it's CG. That being
said, if you are flying by yourself or with one passenger you will find yourself
using full elevator during landing, or at least so I've read and heard. All
this rhetoric about "you chose the wrong aircraft" is going a bit overboard.
Hey, if you never fly by yourself or with less than three people great. And
I don't believe that anyone thinks any other 4 seat is better. I flew skydivers
out of a grass strip for years in a beat up C-182 so believe me, I know what
CG shifts will do.
Now then, understand this, with a light load this aircraft has a very forward CG
(within limits) which WILL affect your elevator authority and you darn well
better be aware of this in a landing. This is all I'm referring to when I say
nose heavy. If you have less weight in the front (lighter engine) or a stretched
nose (offset that forward CG) you will end up with a great deal more elevator
authority here to the point where it may be the exact opposite, which is
much worse than a heavy nose!. That IO-540 is a lot of weight in the front compared
to other RV's which is why Van put the battery in the back.
I don't think the -10 is poorly designed and I don't think it has a CG problem.
I DO think that it can benefit from less weight in the front when being flown
with less than a full cabin. 'nuff said? Geeze. And incidentally, the 10
doesn't have a narrow CG envelope compared to many other 4 seat aircraft.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on the fuselage/odds and ends
do not archive
P.S. Thanks for the tip on the fuel burn, that never occurred to me.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
As has been said by others the -10 is most certainly not nose heavy. I'll give
you something else to worry about just for the craic, Try guessing with the shift
does of 54 Gallons of fuel at 6lbs a gallon............get the drift. The
C of G calculations need done on both ends with any(!!) RV if you wish to use
the aircraft again. the aircarft has been designed to carry four people and baggage,
see the design brief of Van's, if you wish to do something else with it
you can't blame Van's for a narrow c of g envelope, you need to look in the mirror,
the guy lokking back at you has chosen the wrong airplane for his mission.
M
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dalton <mailto:jdalton77@comcast.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all
read, the -10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when
flying with only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job at
the CG and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier
to not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly alone.
Seems like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn
were real and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS <mailto:deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
=09
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter
than the engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will
do to a simple matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$
into Lycoming. If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a
couple of pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one
with the 11 hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr
and a KX155 + 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly
get shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads
to shockload inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards, Rick Lark CGEKJ
=09
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Turbocharged RV10 |
Darn straight man.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
And just remember that it's better to be nose heavy than tail heavy!
The only airplanes that stay within a narrow CG range are 2 place SBS where pilot/pass
sit over the spar. With a 4 place, there is NO way to design an efficient
aircraft without a major CG shift when all the seats aren't full.
Linn ..... will be glad to experience the nasty nose-heavy qualities of the -10!!!!
Linn
do not archive
John Hasbrouck wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck"
> --> <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>
> Good point Tim and it's not just the Cherokee 6. Just about every 4
> place I've flow is at its forward CG limit with 2 up front and full
> fuel. Friend of mine flies a C177 and with 2 up front he always uses
> full nose up trim during landing. C182's are a nose heavy beast
> (check out the history of bent firewalls) with two up front. Is the
> -10 any worse than any other 4 place?
>
> John Hasbrouck
> #40264
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turbocharged RV10 |
not sure why you feel the need to get personal in your messages. It's really offensive.
I was simply pointing out what many people have said.
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
As has been said by others the -10 is most certainly not nose heavy. I'll give
you something else to worry about just for the craic, Try guessing with the
shift does of 54 Gallons of fuel at 6lbs a gallon............get the drift. The
C of G calculations need done on both ends with any(!!) RV if you wish to use
the aircraft again. the aircarft has been designed to carry four people and
baggage, see the design brief of Van's, if you wish to do something else with
it you can't blame Van's for a narrow c of g envelope, you need to look in the
mirror, the guy lokking back at you has chosen the wrong airplane for his mission.
M
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dalton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all read,
the -10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when flying
with only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job at the
CG and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier
to not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly alone.
Seems like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn were
real and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the
engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple
matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of
pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11
hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155
+ 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get
shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload
inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turbocharged RV10 |
The 10 has the same characteristics as the bonanza; CG moves aft with fuel burn
so plan accordingly.
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
All right there boys and girls, everyone is starting to go off the deep end.
Some of you are starting to sound like the guys on the Subie list when you ask
them about resale. The -10 is very safe aircraft within it's CG. That being
said, if you are flying by yourself or with one passenger you will find yourself
using full elevator during landing, or at least so I've read and heard.
All this rhetoric about "you chose the wrong aircraft" is going a bit overboard.
Hey, if you never fly by yourself or with less than three people great. And
I don't believe that anyone thinks any other 4 seat is better. I flew skydivers
out of a grass strip for years in a beat up C-182 so believe me, I know
what CG shifts will do.
Now then, understand this, with a light load this aircraft has a very forward
CG (within limits) which WILL affect your elevator authority and you darn well
better be aware of this in a landing. This is all I'm referring to when I say
nose heavy. If you have less weight in the front (lighter engine) or a stretched
nose (offset that forward CG) you will end up with a great deal more elevator
authority here to the point where it may be the exact opposite, which is
much worse than a heavy nose!. That IO-540 is a lot of weight in the front
compared to other RV's which is why Van put the battery in the back.
I don't think the -10 is poorly designed and I don't think it has a CG problem.
I DO think that it can benefit from less weight in the front when being flown
with less than a full cabin. 'nuff said? Geeze. And incidentally, the 10
doesn't have a narrow CG envelope compared to many other 4 seat aircraft.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on the fuselage/odds and ends
do not archive
P.S. Thanks for the tip on the fuel burn, that never occurred to me.
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 3:10 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
As has been said by others the -10 is most certainly not nose heavy. I'll give
you something else to worry about just for the craic, Try guessing with the
shift does of 54 Gallons of fuel at 6lbs a gallon............get the drift. The
C of G calculations need done on both ends with any(!!) RV if you wish to use
the aircraft again. the aircarft has been designed to carry four people and
baggage, see the design brief of Van's, if you wish to do something else with
it you can't blame Van's for a narrow c of g envelope, you need to look in the
mirror, the guy lokking back at you has chosen the wrong airplane for his mission.
M
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dalton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what we've all read,
the -10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in the back when flying
with only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have done a better job at the
CG and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one, would be happier
to not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back when I want to fly alone.
Seems like for $100 grand we shouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the Innodyn were
real and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming (188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs lighter than the
engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised what this will do to a simple
matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion is $$$ into Lycoming.
If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540 that is also a couple of
pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44 helicopter. Get one with the 11
hole optional panel and you get two BF Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155
+ 203indicator. The engines are belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get
shockloaded. The also rarely suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload
inspection as per guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine, hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh, and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their engines.
As well there is AES ( http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
Regards,
Rick Lark CGEKJ
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
As noted, a lot/most GA planes have cg issues of one sort or
another. My Velocity pusher, with an IO-540 hanging in back, is outside
of its cg envelope with no body setting in the front seat. Not a
problem. I've placard the plane with the warning "Do Not Fly Without
Pilot".
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
All right there boys and girls, everyone is starting to go off the deep
end. Some of you are starting to sound like the guys on the Subie list
when you ask them about resale. The -10 is very safe aircraft within
it's CG. That being said, if you are flying by yourself or with one
passenger you will find yourself using full elevator during landing, or
at least so I've read and heard. All this rhetoric about "you chose the
wrong aircraft" is going a bit overboard. Hey, if you never fly by
yourself or with less than three people great. And I don't believe that
anyone thinks any other 4 seat is better. I flew skydivers out of a
grass strip for years in a beat up C-182 so believe me, I know what CG
shifts will do.
Now then, understand this, with a light load this aircraft has a very
forward CG (within limits) which WILL affect your elevator authority and
you darn well better be aware of this in a landing. This is all I'm
referring to when I say nose heavy. If you have less weight in the
front (lighter engine) or a stretched nose (offset that forward CG) you
will end up with a great deal more elevator authority here to the point
where it may be the exact opposite, which is much worse than a heavy
nose!. That IO-540 is a lot of weight in the front compared to other
RV's which is why Van put the battery in the back.
I don't think the -10 is poorly designed and I don't think it has a CG
problem. I DO think that it can benefit from less weight in the front
when being flown with less than a full cabin. 'nuff said? Geeze. And
incidentally, the 10 doesn't have a narrow CG envelope compared to many
other 4 seat aircraft.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 waiting on the fuselage/odds and ends
do not archive
P.S. Thanks for the tip on the fuel burn, that never occurred to me.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
As has been said by others the -10 is most certainly not nose heavy.
I'll give you something else to worry about just for the craic, Try
guessing with the shift does of 54 Gallons of fuel at 6lbs a
gallon............get the drift. The C of G calculations need done on
both ends with any(!!) RV if you wish to use the aircraft again. the
aircarft has been designed to carry four people and baggage, see the
design brief of Van's, if you wish to do something else with it you
can't blame Van's for a narrow c of g envelope, you need to look in the
mirror, the guy lokking back at you has chosen the wrong airplane for
his mission.
M
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dalton <mailto:jdalton77@comcast.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
A true statement except for the fact that, at least from what
we've all read, the -10 is nose heavy and many have suggested ballast in
the back when flying with only 1-2 people. Seems like Vans coiuld have
done a better job at the CG and 93 pounds lighter would, in fact, be
welcomed by most pilots.
I'm not yet a builder (starting in January) but I, for one,
would be happier to not have to load 100lbs of shot bags in the back
when I want to fly alone. Seems like for $100 grand we shouldn't have
to worry about that.
I'm not promoting the Crossflow or any other engine. I wish the
Innodyn were real and that one weighs a lot less than the Lycoming
(188lbs).
----- Original Message -----
From: RAS
<mailto:deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Rick,
It's ver interesting to look at an engine that is 93lbs
lighter than the engine the RV10 was'designed' for. Have you realised
what this will do to a simple matter called C of G?
As Van himself frequently has stated, the best coversion
is $$$ into Lycoming. If you want a cheaper version of a Lycoming 540
that is also a couple of pounds ( not 93!!) lighter go for a damged R44
helicopter. Get one with the 11 hole optional panel and you get two BF
Goodrich gyros, A KT76 Xpndr and a KX155 + 203indicator. The engines are
belt driven in the R44's and seldomly get shockloaded. The also rarely
suffer a sudden stopage which also leads to shockload inspection as per
guidelines from Lycoming.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Lark <mailto:jrlark@bmts.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Hi Folks; I've been following the
Matronics and Yahoo lists (lurking), as I'm not a builder yet. I
recently flew to Collingwood, Ont, (CNY3) and had in interesting
conversation (with George ?) regarding putting a Crossflow Aero engine
in an RV10 (http://www.crossflow.com/). These engines are based on the
Subaru blocks incorporating liquid cooling and a PSR unit. There are
several horse power variations 200hp, 250hp, 300 turbocharged etc. One
really appealing aspect to me was that the 300 hp turbo was 93 lbs
lighter than a comparable IO-540. Not withstanding other issues such as
insurance, cowling etc, time will tell the tale how durable/reliable
these engines are. Personally, by the time I need an RV10 engine,
hopefully they are still around and have sufficient experience under
their belts. As Jesse Saint aptly stated," Would I modify mine to
incorporate that option? Show me some numbers and maybe I will!" Oh,
and I was also told they are pursuing a certified engine with Transport
Canada. Perhaps that will convince me of the viability of their
engines.
As well there is AES (
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/) in Florida, which was sold by
Bombardier Canada. Check them out.
=09
Regards, Rick Lark CGEKJ
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 |
|
| Subject: | Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John McCarthy" <john@whirled-routers.com>
Hello listmembers
I have been lurking & reading the list for some time now. I have no project underway
but I have been reading this list voraciously.
I noticed recently that some discussion regarding higher speeds and therefore a
higher TAS. I was wondering why no one had thought of Innodyn 255TE 255 Horse
power Turbo prop firewall forward package. I spoke to Innodyn last week and
was told that there is at least one RV-10 builder in the Las Vegas area that
is hoping to have a RV-10 Turboprop operational in the new year. One great thing
about these turbines is the weigh less than a typical IO-540 engine, & may
allow more fuel & thus longer range.
All of the above having been said by me, am I going over old ground here or is
it a stupid idea to even consider an RV-10 with a Turboprop?
BTW www.innodyn.com is the website for Innodyn turbines..
Thanks for your time
Regards
John McCarthy
Whirled Routers Inc.,
811 N. Catalina Ave # 3112
Redondo Beach CA 90277
310 376 8755
310 376 8785 Fax
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
John,
Hope you are able to start building soon, it's a lot more fun than
lurking! I think if you'll search the archives you will find a lot of
discussion about Innodyn, including some recently. I suspect a lot of folks
would love to try a turbine, but the company hasn't produced enough solid
data to support their claims and for most it's not worth the risk right now.
Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John McCarthy
Subject: RV10-List: Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John McCarthy" <john@whirled-routers.com>
Hello listmembers
I have been lurking & reading the list for some time now. I have no project
underway but I have been reading this list voraciously.
I noticed recently that some discussion regarding higher speeds and
therefore a higher TAS. I was wondering why no one had thought of Innodyn
255TE 255 Horse power Turbo prop firewall forward package. I spoke to
Innodyn last week and was told that there is at least one RV-10 builder in
the Las Vegas area that is hoping to have a RV-10 Turboprop operational in
the new year. One great thing about these turbines is the weigh less than a
typical IO-540 engine, & may allow more fuel & thus longer range.
All of the above having been said by me, am I going over old ground here or
is it a stupid idea to even consider an RV-10 with a Turboprop?
BTW www.innodyn.com is the website for Innodyn turbines..
Thanks for your time
Regards
John McCarthy
Whirled Routers Inc.,
811 N. Catalina Ave # 3112
Redondo Beach CA 90277
310 376 8755
310 376 8785 Fax
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: | Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann@cox.net>
Being one of the five Las Vegas builders, I think Innodyn is smoking some
pretty wacky tobaccy. I probably am the most unusual Las Vegas builder, but
will not do an Innodyn unless they pay me a lot of money.
Bob K
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John McCarthy
Subject: RV10-List: Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John McCarthy" <john@whirled-routers.com>
Hello listmembers
I have been lurking & reading the list for some time now. I have no project
underway but I have been reading this list voraciously.
I noticed recently that some discussion regarding higher speeds and
therefore a higher TAS. I was wondering why no one had thought of Innodyn
255TE 255 Horse power Turbo prop firewall forward package. I spoke to
Innodyn last week and was told that there is at least one RV-10 builder in
the Las Vegas area that is hoping to have a RV-10 Turboprop operational in
the new year. One great thing about these turbines is the weigh less than a
typical IO-540 engine, & may allow more fuel & thus longer range.
All of the above having been said by me, am I going over old ground here or
is it a stupid idea to even consider an RV-10 with a Turboprop?
BTW www.innodyn.com is the website for Innodyn turbines..
Thanks for your time
Regards
John McCarthy
Whirled Routers Inc.,
811 N. Catalina Ave # 3112
Redondo Beach CA 90277
310 376 8755
310 376 8785 Fax
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: Fuel Injector Spider installation question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "DejaVu" <wvu@ameritel.net>
Mike,
My engine came with the spider already installed. The fuel inlet and
pressure ports on the spider face aft. It's then apparent which cylinder is
hooked up to which fitting on the spider. Pictures of 410RV show the inlet
and pressure ports on their spider facing fwd. The left and right fittings
would then be reversed. I'm not an engine guru but it does not seem to
matter.
Anh
#40141
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Kraus" <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Injector Spider installation question
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Mike Kraus" <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net>
>
>
> I am installing my Airflow Performance fuel injection spider and had a
> question. Do I need to match location on the spider to a specific
> cylinder, or do I hook up any cylinder to any location in the spider? I
> could not seem to find any cylinder numbers on the spider and I
> directions leave much to be desired.....
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
> -Mike
>
>
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! --
|