Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:20 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RAS)
2. 03:38 AM - Re: Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn (David McNeill)
3. 04:01 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RAS)
4. 05:27 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Scott Lewis)
5. 06:50 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Kelly McMullen)
6. 07:12 AM - Re: Fuel Spider (LIKE2LOOP@aol.com)
7. 10:54 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RAS)
8. 11:44 AM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (John W. Cox)
9. 01:40 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (David McNeill)
10. 02:28 PM - Aircraft Jack Hard points (Darton Steve)
11. 02:44 PM - Re: Aircraft Jack Hard points (Jim Wade)
12. 02:52 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Jesse Saint)
13. 03:13 PM - Re: Aircraft Jack Hard points (Jesse Saint)
14. 03:22 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Kelly McMullen)
15. 03:34 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Indran Chelvanayagam)
16. 04:02 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Jesse Saint)
17. 04:18 PM - CHELTON AHRS (brian bollaert)
18. 05:00 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (Kelly McMullen)
19. 05:33 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
20. 05:44 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (John W. Cox)
21. 05:50 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (David McNeill)
22. 06:35 PM - Re: Turbocharged RV10 (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
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,
I must correct you on your statement of the "the wrong" aircraft, no offence but
it has been taken out of context. I said the wrong aircraft for the mission
which is entirely different.
You don't use a C150 to set up a mass transport business? Why? It's the wrong aircraft
for that mission.
As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the continental
that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I might stand corrected,
but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and therefore doubt whether or
not it is an awful lighter (in weight) than the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
M
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:01 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 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: Faster Engines & higher speeds Innodyn |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
For those considering Innodyne; have you ever heard of the engine for the
BD5?
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann@cox.net>
Subject: RV10-List: 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
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:32 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 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: Turbocharged RV10 |
Hi Jeff,
I'm not getting personal, simply pointing out what Van's has been saying for years,
certain aircraft for certain missions. realise this though, playing around
with CofG issues can have serious complications. Being 93 LBS lighter isn't
a bad idea, providing being the 93 pound lighter is in the right place. On or
very near the empty CofG would be the most ideal place, however get to one of
the extremes of the aircraft and it won't work that sweet. Put 93lbs in tail and
the aircraft won't fly under any circumstances. take away 93lbs from the front
end and the aircraft will end up being tail heavy. A rough guess would make
me say that you have the same effect as having a tail that's 30lbs over weight
when you take away the 93lbs at the front.
Perhaps you should try and get the hold of a manual and in particular the weight
and balance section and see what effect it would have when you take away 93lbs
from the front. There's sample weight and balances in that section of the prototype
RV10.
Marcel
RV4~4324 construction
RV7~71553 flying
RV10~40277 construction
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dalton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
Hey all,
RAS wrote:
> As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the
> continental that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I might
> stand corrected, but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and
> therefore doubt whether or not it is an awful lighter (in weight) than
> the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
If my memory serves from the research I did at the time, the Lycoming
dry weight was about 380lbs and the Continental IO-360 dry weight was
about 300-310lbs.
Someone could probably recall the exact figures.
Have fun,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172
Adelaide, South Australia
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: Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Well, I just looked up the weight on a Lycoming IO360A3B6 as 333 lbs
according to the owners manual. I'm 99.94% certain the Continental IO360 is
a bit heavier, but don't have a reference handy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Lewis" <rv10@tpg.com.au>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
Hey all,
RAS wrote:
> As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the
> continental that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I might
> stand corrected, but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and
> therefore doubt whether or not it is an awful lighter (in weight) than
> the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
If my memory serves from the research I did at the time, the Lycoming
dry weight was about 380lbs and the Continental IO-360 dry weight was
about 300-310lbs.
Someone could probably recall the exact figures.
Have fun,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172
Adelaide, South Australia
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 |
|
The injector spider is NOT an "electronic controlled" fuel injection. It is
simply a 6 way splitter with fuel in, and 6 tubes out to the cylinders, with
injectors. It is a very crude fuel injection system that just keeps
working. The injectors are always ON!!! Similar to a carb that is just open
and
lets fuel go. There is no carb, so no carb ice. The injectors must be
slightly more efficient then a carb, but electronic fuel injection is even better,
but then has more failure modes and relies on electric power ans some
controller. The IO-540 system does not require a fuel return line to the tank.
Steve
Stephen Blank RV-10 Builder / Cessna 170B flyer
766 SE River Lane
Port St. Lucie, FL 34983
772-475-5556 cell - evenings and weekends
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 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
The Lycoming 360 series
are all four cylinders. Is this the case with continental 360 series?
Continental 300 series engines are six cylinders and produce 150HP, some
versions might be more powerful, I'm not that familair with the Continental
engines.
The reason I ask the question about weight is related to the weight and
balance issue raised under this tread. I have recently heard that Van's no
longer support the use of the Continental 210HP option for the RV10. I
haven't verified this, but just wondered if it is/was true if it was related
to weight and balance if this engine is physically lighter than the 540
series Lycoming.
Wasn't the Piper Turbo Arrow powered by a 210HP continental?
M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Well, I just looked up the weight on a Lycoming IO360A3B6 as 333 lbs
> according to the owners manual. I'm 99.94% certain the Continental IO360
> is
> a bit heavier, but don't have a reference handy.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Lewis" <rv10@tpg.com.au>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:26 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
>
> Hey all,
>
> RAS wrote:
>> As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the
>> continental that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I might
>> stand corrected, but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and
>> therefore doubt whether or not it is an awful lighter (in weight) than
>> the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
>
> If my memory serves from the research I did at the time, the Lycoming
> dry weight was about 380lbs and the Continental IO-360 dry weight was
> about 300-310lbs.
>
> Someone could probably recall the exact figures.
>
> Have fun,
> Scott Lewis
> RV-10 40172
> Adelaide, South Australia
>
>
>
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 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing
N220RV as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward
package and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also
lighter and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the
new kit build engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver
such a powerplant for the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall
Forward package. No cowl mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RAS"
<deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
The Lycoming 360 series
are all four cylinders. Is this the case with continental 360 series?
Continental 300 series engines are six cylinders and produce 150HP, some
versions might be more powerful, I'm not that familair with the
Continental
engines.
The reason I ask the question about weight is related to the weight and
balance issue raised under this tread. I have recently heard that Van's
no
longer support the use of the Continental 210HP option for the RV10. I
haven't verified this, but just wondered if it is/was true if it was
related
to weight and balance if this engine is physically lighter than the 540
series Lycoming.
Wasn't the Piper Turbo Arrow powered by a 210HP continental?
M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen"
<kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Well, I just looked up the weight on a Lycoming IO360A3B6 as 333 lbs
> according to the owners manual. I'm 99.94% certain the Continental
IO360
> is
> a bit heavier, but don't have a reference handy.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Lewis" <rv10@tpg.com.au>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:26 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
>
> Hey all,
>
> RAS wrote:
>> As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the
>> continental that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I
might
>> stand corrected, but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and
>> therefore doubt whether or not it is an awful lighter (in weight)
than
>> the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
>
> If my memory serves from the research I did at the time, the Lycoming
> dry weight was about 380lbs and the Continental IO-360 dry weight was
> about 300-310lbs.
>
> Someone could probably recall the exact figures.
>
> Have fun,
> Scott Lewis
> RV-10 40172
> Adelaide, South Australia
>
>
>
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: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
It's all a matter of economics; less than 5% of 10 builders were interested
in anything less than the 540. It is uneconomic for Vans to develop a FF kit
for anything but a 540 . Besides if you want to burn less fuel pull back the
throttle on the 540. The nice thing is that a reasonably loaded 540 will
power out of almost any density altitude. Most fixed gear certified
airplanes of similar gross weight have just enough power to meet the reg
climb requirements at SL. Excess HP is the essence of good climb
characteristics. my 2 cents.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
> than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing
> N220RV as a prototype demo.
>
> Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward
> package and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
>
> No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also
> lighter and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the
> new kit build engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver
> such a powerplant for the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall
> Forward package. No cowl mod required. Go Figure.
>
> John - KUAO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:54 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RAS"
> <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
>
> The Lycoming 360 series
> are all four cylinders. Is this the case with continental 360 series?
> Continental 300 series engines are six cylinders and produce 150HP, some
>
> versions might be more powerful, I'm not that familair with the
> Continental
> engines.
>
> The reason I ask the question about weight is related to the weight and
> balance issue raised under this tread. I have recently heard that Van's
> no
> longer support the use of the Continental 210HP option for the RV10. I
> haven't verified this, but just wondered if it is/was true if it was
> related
> to weight and balance if this engine is physically lighter than the 540
> series Lycoming.
>
> Wasn't the Piper Turbo Arrow powered by a 210HP continental?
>
> M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen"
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> Well, I just looked up the weight on a Lycoming IO360A3B6 as 333 lbs
>> according to the owners manual. I'm 99.94% certain the Continental
> IO360
>> is
>> a bit heavier, but don't have a reference handy.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Scott Lewis" <rv10@tpg.com.au>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>>
>>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> RAS wrote:
>>> As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the
>>> continental that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I
> might
>>> stand corrected, but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and
>>> therefore doubt whether or not it is an awful lighter (in weight)
> than
>>> the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
>>
>> If my memory serves from the research I did at the time, the Lycoming
>> dry weight was about 380lbs and the Continental IO-360 dry weight was
>> about 300-310lbs.
>>
>> Someone could probably recall the exact figures.
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Scott Lewis
>> RV-10 40172
>> Adelaide, South Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Aircraft Jack Hard points |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
Has anyone tried installing Jack stand hard points on
the main wing spar? I own a set of aircraft jacks. It
seems like it would be simple to use an aircraft jack
to lift one or both sides for wheel maintenance or
installing fairinrgs etc.
Steve 40212 Wings
__________________________________
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Jack Hard points |
Make an adapter and jack on the tiedown rig!
Jim 40383
-------Original Message-------
From: Darton Steve
Subject: RV10-List: Aircraft Jack Hard points
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
Has anyone tried installing Jack stand hard points on
the main wing spar? I own a set of aircraft jacks. It
seems like it would be simple to use an aircraft jack
to lift one or both sides for wheel maintenance or
installing fairinrgs etc.
Steve 40212 Wings
__________________________________
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
That's exactly right. I think it would be nice if there was an alternative
engine, but the poll told Van's that it wouldn't be used. The downside for
the -10 builders is there is now much more demand for the 540 so they are
harder to come by used or rebuilt. The upside for the -10 builders is there
is now much more demand for the 540 so manufacturers are starting to offer
experimental versions. Having one engine option both helps and hurts -10
builders for the exact same reason. Whether the help is greater than the
hurt or vice versa is hard to determine. I think it would be nice to have a
cheaper engine option, but again, a Superior experimental version might do
just that.
It is also true that if you have extra power you don't have to use it, but
if you don't have it, you can't use it. I guess this could be argued in
favor of a 300HP engine in place of the 260HP 540, but this engine will get
you up to 18,000ft and still have the power to get most of the cruise speed
out of it. This engine really will burn the same fuel as a 145HP 172 at
cruise if you want it to and still get ~180mph TAS.
I don't know a lot about the other engines being mentioned, but I have heard
from a number of people that the 540 is a VERY solid engine. The engine we
have on ours has been overhauled twice, once at about 4,000 hours and again
at about 8,000 hours. It was owned by a flight school and flown all the
time (on an Aztec). I don't hear about a lot of engines that will go that
long before an overhaul is needed, but I have heard a number of people say
that about the 260HP 540. They turbocharge this engine and get 3??HP and
still have a TBO of 2,000 hours (or near there), so running it at 260HP is
taking it easy on the internals. The prospect of a realistic 3,000-4,000
hours before overhaul starts helping the whole economic picture. Again, to
hit this you would have to fly it a lot and take care of it, but it is
possible.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
It's all a matter of economics; less than 5% of 10 builders were interested
in anything less than the 540. It is uneconomic for Vans to develop a FF kit
for anything but a 540 . Besides if you want to burn less fuel pull back the
throttle on the 540. The nice thing is that a reasonably loaded 540 will
power out of almost any density altitude. Most fixed gear certified
airplanes of similar gross weight have just enough power to meet the reg
climb requirements at SL. Excess HP is the essence of good climb
characteristics. my 2 cents.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
> than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing
> N220RV as a prototype demo.
>
> Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward
> package and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
>
> No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also
> lighter and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the
> new kit build engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver
> such a powerplant for the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall
> Forward package. No cowl mod required. Go Figure.
>
> John - KUAO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:54 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RAS"
> <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
>
> The Lycoming 360 series
> are all four cylinders. Is this the case with continental 360 series?
> Continental 300 series engines are six cylinders and produce 150HP, some
>
> versions might be more powerful, I'm not that familair with the
> Continental
> engines.
>
> The reason I ask the question about weight is related to the weight and
> balance issue raised under this tread. I have recently heard that Van's
> no
> longer support the use of the Continental 210HP option for the RV10. I
> haven't verified this, but just wondered if it is/was true if it was
> related
> to weight and balance if this engine is physically lighter than the 540
> series Lycoming.
>
> Wasn't the Piper Turbo Arrow powered by a 210HP continental?
>
> M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen"
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> Well, I just looked up the weight on a Lycoming IO360A3B6 as 333 lbs
>> according to the owners manual. I'm 99.94% certain the Continental
> IO360
>> is
>> a bit heavier, but don't have a reference handy.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Scott Lewis" <rv10@tpg.com.au>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
>>
>>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> RAS wrote:
>>> As a matter of interest, has anyone got the dry weight figure for the
>>> continental that Van's proposed to use as a 210HP engine option? I
> might
>>> stand corrected, but I believe this engine is a six cylinder and
>>> therefore doubt whether or not it is an awful lighter (in weight)
> than
>>> the 260HP Lycoming 540 series.
>>
>> If my memory serves from the research I did at the time, the Lycoming
>> dry weight was about 380lbs and the Continental IO-360 dry weight was
>> about 300-310lbs.
>>
>> Someone could probably recall the exact figures.
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Scott Lewis
>> RV-10 40172
>> Adelaide, South Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Aircraft Jack Hard points |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
For wheel maintenance you just need to run a steel pipe inside the axle when
the nut is off, then jack up the pipe (I think at least Avery, and maybe
some others, makes a sweet little jack adapter that does this same thing),
and then you can remove the wheel and work on it. To completely take the
wheel off you can then prop up the axle and remove the jack and pipe (jack
adapter). To jack up the plane when we were installing the fairings we just
put a 2x6 under the spar in the cabin and jacked that up, but you have to
make sure it won't tip side to side or roll forward or backward. In that
case it would be nice to have a good spot to jack the whole thing up, but it
really only needs to be done once unless you are going to be redoing the
wheel pants.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Darton Steve
Subject: RV10-List: Aircraft Jack Hard points
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
Has anyone tried installing Jack stand hard points on
the main wing spar? I own a set of aircraft jacks. It
seems like it would be simple to use an aircraft jack
to lift one or both sides for wheel maintenance or
installing fairinrgs etc.
Steve 40212 Wings
__________________________________
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: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
No and Yes. The Continental 360 is an enlarged, beefed up version of the
O300, six cylinder. I check with some Mooney 231 owners with the
turbocharged Cont IO360. Wt shown on their W&B is 400lbs. Not an
improvement if the Lyc IO540 truly is 380lbs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RAS"
<deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
The Lycoming 360 series
are all four cylinders. Is this the case with continental 360 series?
Continental 300 series engines are six cylinders and produce 150HP, some
versions might be more powerful, I'm not that familair with the Continental
engines.
The reason I ask the question about weight is related to the weight and
balance issue raised under this tread. I have recently heard that Van's no
longer support the use of the Continental 210HP option for the RV10. I
haven't verified this, but just wondered if it is/was true if it was related
to weight and balance if this engine is physically lighter than the 540
series Lycoming.
Wasn't the Piper Turbo Arrow powered by a 210HP continental?
M
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 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam" <ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing N220RV
as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward package
and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also lighter
and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the new kit build
engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver such a powerplant for
the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall Forward package. No cowl
mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
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 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Ah, yes! Good ol' Ken and his people skills.
By all means, do not archive!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam"
<ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing N220RV
as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward package
and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also lighter
and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the new kit build
engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver such a powerplant for
the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall Forward package. No cowl
mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
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 |
|
Hello Group this is an open message to all that have or are getting the Chelton
system installed in there -10 's there is a problem apparently with the AHRS
unit from Crossbow click on the link below to check it out .
Brian Bollaert
#40200
http://www.direct2avionics.com/news.html
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 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Of course you could put in the Mooney TLS engine, a parallel valve
turbo-charged IO540 rated at 270hp, assuming you find a way to fit the turbo
in. You could placard for lower MP to de-rate it to 260 hp to make Van's
happy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Ah, yes! Good ol' Ken and his people skills.
By all means, do not archive!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam"
<ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing N220RV
as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward package
and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also lighter
and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the new kit build
engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver such a powerplant for
the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall Forward package. No cowl
mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
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 |
Don't forget, this is an experimental aircraft that you can do anything you want
to. There is no regulatory reason to make Van's happy. Of course making your
insurance agent or loan officer happy is another story. I wouldn't be surprised
to see an aftermarket cowl for the IO-390-X.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Of course you could put in the Mooney TLS engine, a parallel valve turbo-charged
IO540 rated at 270hp, assuming you find a way to fit the turbo in. You could
placard for lower MP to de-rate it to 260 hp to make Van's happy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Ah, yes! Good ol' Ken and his people skills.
By all means, do not archive!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam"
<ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing N220RV
as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward package
and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also lighter
and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the new kit build
engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver such a powerplant for
the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall Forward package. No cowl
mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Others are tackling the cowl issue as we speak, from several unique
directions. The solution may even provide less frontal drag, improved
cooling and increased speed with no change in HP. I guess those idiots
will be first to break that projected rule. Oh, that's right, Noel
already is flying a finished RV-10 with N325HP. He should be falling
out of the sky soon right?
John - $00.02
-----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: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Ah, yes! Good ol' Ken and his people skills.
By all means, do not archive!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam"
<ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not
a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that
if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in
an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
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: | Re: Turbocharged RV10 |
RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10By all means make yourself happy with the powerplant.
If you like to fly put in an IO540. If you like to build and experiment
then put in the Crossflow/Innodyne/Chevy whatever. Any engine beside the pre-engineered
solution will cost you a year in extra development and testing to do
it safely. My Glastar construction took extra time because the factory approved
an engine that was an extra .5" wider than the prototype. We had to modify
the cowl to make it look right. Just look around at the Glastars with a "wart'
where the number 2 cylinder has been abrading the cowl. my 2 cents.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Don't forget, this is an experimental aircraft that you can do anything you
want to. There is no regulatory reason to make Van's happy. Of course making
your insurance agent or loan officer happy is another story. I wouldn't be surprised
to see an aftermarket cowl for the IO-390-X.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:59 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Of course you could put in the Mooney TLS engine, a parallel valve turbo-charged
IO540 rated at 270hp, assuming you find a way to fit the turbo in. You could
placard for lower MP to de-rate it to 260 hp to make Van's happy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Ah, yes! Good ol' Ken and his people skills.
By all means, do not archive!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:45 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam"
<ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2005 3:44 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing N220RV
as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward package
and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also lighter
and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the new kit build
engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver such a powerplant for
the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall Forward package. No cowl
mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
This Month --
Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
on
www.buildersbooks.com,
www.kitlog.com, and
www.homebuilthelp.com!
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
RV10-List Email Forum -
bsp;
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: | Turbocharged RV10 |
Michael, I have spoken to my insurance underwriter (back in 2003 and
again last month) and the powerplant selected did not affect the premium
quoted. However, to keep on track, the powerplants discussed were all
certified GA engines with certified propeller solutions. The powerplant
output did not change the quote - whether 210, 250, 260 or 310 HP...
This seems to be a poorly presented myth. The value was that it was a
kit with components build by Van's not by our other great kit
manufacturer here in Oregon. The shear number carried the day,
actuarially.
On a second more cogent note, how many builders remember the number of
kits sold and the number of responses received on the issue of alternate
engine firewall forward solutions "At that point in time"? This survey
done today with 500 kits in production and 100 builders ready to secure
"hard to find IO-540D4A5"s would paint a shockingly different outcome.
Good marketing is to never ask a question you do not already know the
outcome of and to always sell what the crowd perceives they need.
Advertising on the other hand, convinces consumers they need a product
that there was formerly no market for.
The cowls are coming. Market forces are at work and the writing is much
clearer than the ole referenced survey projected.
I would have contributed the quote to Ken Scott rather than Krueger
cause he is usually quite cautious and reserved in such comments. I
will be pleased to keep my ear open for the first RV-10 accepting the
IO-390X. I am also listening intently to reports from all 19 of the
flying 10s on their characteristics. That includes Noel's.
John - KUAO
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
Don't forget, this is an experimental aircraft that you can do anything
you want to. There is no regulatory reason to make Van's happy. Of
course making your insurance agent or loan officer happy is another
story. I wouldn't be surprised to see an aftermarket cowl for the
IO-390-X.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Of course you could put in the Mooney TLS engine, a parallel valve
turbo-charged IO540 rated at 270hp, assuming you find a way to fit the
turbo in. You could placard for lower MP to de-rate it to 260 hp to make
Van's happy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Ah, yes! Good ol' Ken and his people skills.
By all means, do not archive!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam"
<ichelva@netspace.net.au>
At the OSH RV-10 seminar, Ken Krueger mentioned that the IO-390x was not
a
possibility, as it would require a cowl modification. He also said that
if
they made this modification, they run the risk of some idiot putting in
an
angle valve 540, and exceeding the maximum recommended hp.
Indran Chelvanayagam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Turbocharged RV10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Yes the Continental IO-360 was a small six cylinder. Yes it was lighter
than the Lycoming IO-540. No they do not support it after completing
N220RV
as a prototype demo.
Problems were encountered with the engine mount, firewall forward
package
and cowling which did not justify further pursuit.
No mention has been made on using the new IO-390X Lycoming... also
lighter
and 210 hp. Ian flies an RV and would love VAN to embrace the new kit
build
engine. Suppliers are waiting in the wings to deliver such a powerplant
for
the RV-10 with DYNA-1 mount and similar Firewall Forward package. No
cowl
mod required. Go Figure.
John - KUAO
This Month --
Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
on
www.buildersbooks.com,
www.kitlog.com, and
www.homebuilthelp.com!
">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
RV10-List Email Forum -
bsp;
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! --
|