Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:22 AM - Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
2. 07:40 AM - Re: Auto Power (johngoodman)
3. 08:44 AM - Re: Auto Power (Robin Marks)
4. 08:55 AM - Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
5. 09:46 AM - Re: Auto Power (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
6. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Auto Power (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
7. 10:19 AM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
8. 10:46 AM - Re: Auto Power (orchidman)
9. 12:13 PM - MT Prop Controller (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
10. 12:49 PM - Re: MT Prop Controller (Ralph E. Capen)
11. 02:33 PM - Re: MT Prop Controller (Lew Gallagher)
12. 03:10 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Kelly McMullen)
13. 03:11 PM - Re: Auto Power (Chris and Susie)
14. 03:53 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
15. 03:53 PM - Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
16. 04:15 PM - Re: Auto Power (johngoodman)
17. 04:37 PM - Re: Auto Power (Chris and Susie)
18. 04:37 PM - Re: Auto Power (Kelly McMullen)
19. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Kelly McMullen)
20. 05:09 PM - Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
21. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Kelly McMullen)
22. 05:21 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
23. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Kelly McMullen)
24. 06:20 PM - Re: Auto Power (johngoodman)
25. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: MT Prop Controller (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
26. 06:53 PM - Re: MT Prop Controller (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
27. 06:58 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
28. 07:35 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Kelly McMullen)
29. 07:55 PM - Re: Auto Power (Bobby J. Hughes)
30. 08:18 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Jesse Saint)
31. 08:21 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
32. 08:21 PM - GRT EIS Probes (McGann, Ron)
33. 08:49 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (Dj Merrill)
34. 09:19 PM - Re: Re: Auto Power (ricksked@embarqmail.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 |
|
On 07/30/2009 01:44 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
> Paul is asking about the real performance numbers. Here they are Paul.
>
<snipped>
I get a chuckle every time I read posts like this. I can just
picture a few years back people saying something along the lines of "You
mean those two Wright brothers are going to make an airplane out of
bicycle parts, and they've designed their own engine to run it? They
must be crazy!"
Randy Crothers, like the Wright brothers, has had his share of
heartache getting a good system working, but back in March he posted on
VAF some performance numbers for his Subaru STi powered RV7A. Here is
part of his post:
"I kept dialing the boost back down and lowering the RPMs to try to stay
right at the RV7A VNE speed of 200 Knots TAS. I found I could maintain
this speed with the following settings:
4600 RPMs, 42.6" MAP, Fuel flow showed 11.2 GPH with an A/F mixture of
about 12.3:1, I was keeping it pretty rich to to make sure I had
detonation margin. OAT was 28F, Oil T 200F, PSRU T 165F, Coolant T 196F,
Intake Air T 99F. Altitude 8800'. I estimate I kept these settings in
place for a good 40 minutes and finally had to back out of it to descend
down below the clouds and duck under the class B airspace I have to deal
with. I stayed out on the West side of Puget Sound and turned to the
East down toward Olympia WA.
I guess this engine could make pretty good use of a faster airframe like
a Lancair, or maybe a Glasair etc.
So there you have it, I can cruise at VNE for extended periods of time
at 4600 RPMs and 43" MAP."
It may have cost him more than a straight Lycoming installation
since he has done a bunch of experimenting with various parts, however,
someone could come along and duplicate his working setup for far less
money. We don't have much of a resale market history for RV-10s, but on
average other aircraft do not seem to sell for any less due to different
engines being installed (Glastar, Zenith 601, for example). In fact,
for some airframes, an auto engine is actually preferred (KR2s,
Hummelbird, Sonerai, Sonex, etc).
An auto engine is certainly not for everyone, but IMHO it is not the
doom and gloom that Robin describes in his message. You definitely want
to do your research before going down that path, though.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by,
and that has made all the difference." --Robert Frost
-Dj
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 |
|
[quote="pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.a"]Hello to the group,
I came across an aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It was still
a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering if anyone in the
U.S. actually has a flying example of this type of engine installation and if
so how the performance numbers stack up compared to a Lycoming etc.
Paul
~
> [b]
Paul,
The youtube video you mentioned is probably one of two. Todd Swezey out of Savannah
with an LS2, or Bill Gipson out of Texas with an LS1. They both have run-up
videos on youtube.
This is probably not the best forum to ask that question - most of the guys here are married to their Lycosaurs. I would suggest you go to www.vansairforce.com and visit the Alternative Engines Forum.
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255212#255212
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 |
|
DJ,
My posts usually have a large component of tongue in cheek and
this one was no different however my main point is not that it is
impossible to develop a successful alternative engine for the -10 but
more that it is very expensive and time consuming beyond compare. I say
this as one of the first to make a simple modification by adding the
James Plenum & Cowl. This seemingly simple change has probably cost us
500+ hours of development and we are still dealing with the
ramifications of this small variant. I think I was clear that one needs
real knowledge & skill to take that leap and even if you were to develop
a successful platform your resale value may be significantly lower.
In reading a Wright Brothers biography I remember a favorite quote
of Wilbur Wright the original alternative engine builder: "I don't have
time for a wife and an airplane."
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Auto Power
On 07/30/2009 01:44 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
> Paul is asking about the real performance numbers. Here they are Paul.
>
<snipped>
I get a chuckle every time I read posts like this. I can just
picture a few years back people saying something along the lines of "You
mean those two Wright brothers are going to make an airplane out of
bicycle parts, and they've designed their own engine to run it? They
must be crazy!"
Randy Crothers, like the Wright brothers, has had his share of
heartache getting a good system working, but back in March he posted on
VAF some performance numbers for his Subaru STi powered RV7A. Here is
part of his post:
"I kept dialing the boost back down and lowering the RPMs to try to stay
right at the RV7A VNE speed of 200 Knots TAS. I found I could maintain
this speed with the following settings:
4600 RPMs, 42.6" MAP, Fuel flow showed 11.2 GPH with an A/F mixture of
about 12.3:1, I was keeping it pretty rich to to make sure I had
detonation margin. OAT was 28F, Oil T 200F, PSRU T 165F, Coolant T 196F,
Intake Air T 99F. Altitude 8800'. I estimate I kept these settings in
place for a good 40 minutes and finally had to back out of it to descend
down below the clouds and duck under the class B airspace I have to deal
with. I stayed out on the West side of Puget Sound and turned to the
East down toward Olympia WA.
I guess this engine could make pretty good use of a faster airframe like
a Lancair, or maybe a Glasair etc.
So there you have it, I can cruise at VNE for extended periods of time
at 4600 RPMs and 43" MAP."
It may have cost him more than a straight Lycoming installation
since he has done a bunch of experimenting with various parts, however,
someone could come along and duplicate his working setup for far less
money. We don't have much of a resale market history for RV-10s, but on
average other aircraft do not seem to sell for any less due to different
engines being installed (Glastar, Zenith 601, for example). In fact,
for some airframes, an auto engine is actually preferred (KR2s,
Hummelbird, Sonerai, Sonex, etc).
An auto engine is certainly not for everyone, but IMHO it is not the
doom and gloom that Robin describes in his message. You definitely want
to do your research before going down that path, though.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by,
and that has made all the difference." --Robert Frost
-Dj
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 |
|
On 07/30/2009 11:36 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
>
> In reading a Wright Brothers biography I remember a favorite quote of
> Wilbur Wright the original alternative engine builder: I dont have
> time for a wife and an airplane.
>
Good one! Another favorite: "My Ex-Wife told me it was her or the
airplane. I sure do miss her!" *grin*
-Dj
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 |
|
Ah yes, that always lurking disease, Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome. That one
can sneak up on you fast, especially for the dedicated builder. :D
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Auto Power
On 07/30/2009 11:36 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
>
> In reading a Wright Brothers biography I remember a favorite quote of
> Wilbur Wright the original alternative engine builder: "I don't have
> time for a wife and an airplane."
>
Good one! Another favorite: "My Ex-Wife told me it was her or the
airplane. I sure do miss her!" *grin*
-Dj
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 |
|
Hmm, I disagree that this isn't a good forum to discuss this. While many of
us have chosen the path of least resistance, this is still a worthwhile discussion.
I look at it this way, the experimental category has basically branched
unofficially into two sub categories which are "homebuilt" and "experimental".
Most of us in the RV-10 world fall into the homebuilt category and yes, this
list is geared primarily to that crowd.
Many people think I am anti-auto conversion but that couldn't be farther from
the truth. I looked very closely at Egg's offering but came to the conclusion
it wasn't ready for primetime without a lot of after the fact engineering on
my part. Anyone who can confidently standup and claim it is a true bolt on,
firewall forward package for the RV-10 is really just trying to justify their
decision. I also have personal feelings on the type of person Egg is and, in
my opinion, I wouldn't want to do business with someone of his questionable ethics.
I saw the geared drives package run last year at OSH, and they are there again
this year, and was really impressed with the direction it was going. It appears
to be a well thought out design with lots of potential. The failure of what
I would call the proof of concept -10 in the last couple weeks sounds to me
like an ECU problem vs a fundamental design flaw and I think they can bounce
back from it fairly quickly should that prove to have been the problem. I also
think this package has the most potential to be the first, real, FWF package
in the -10 that isn't a Lyc. I hope they do get there.
I also feel the rotary's have a lot of potential and hopefully Mistral will get
there one of these days. But what all three of these have shown is that it
is not a simple task to move an engine that was designed for auto use into an
airplane. Most of the truly successful conversions are of the air cooled, low
RPM type as used in many of the aircraft cited previously. Yes, Egg has had
a measure of success in the smaller RV series, but most people that have used
his FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort
to get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that
could rival a Lyc. And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars
put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.
Yes there will always be the homebuilders that see the experimental category
as a way to get what they want at a reduced cost and potentially have a hoot building
at the same time, but the experimental side needs to exist also in order
to keep pushing the envelope. I ultimately made the decision to go with a
"standard" IO-540 because I decided I didn't want to be in the experimental group
with my family on board. This doesn't make it a right or wrong decision,
just my decision and everyone needs to come to their own decision without worrying
about the background noise out there. We all need to remember these are
certified as an "experimental" for a reason. If you are worried that one of these
experimenters are going to screw with your homebuilt resale value or increase
your insurance premiums, I would suggest you reevaluate whether you made
the right decision to build your own aircraft. I knew the experimental part of
the group would be there and it was something I took into account when I made
the decision to build. If other people out there didn't, it is certainly not
the experimenters fault and you should just suck it up at this point as it is
what you have made the decision to be a part of.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of johngoodman
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:40 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Auto Power
[quote="pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.a"]Hello to the group,
I came across an aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It was still
a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering if anyone in the
U.S. actually has a flying example of this type of engine installation and if
so how the performance numbers stack up compared to a Lycoming etc.
Paul
~
> [b]
Paul,
The youtube video you mentioned is probably one of two. Todd Swezey out of Savannah
with an LS2, or Bill Gipson out of Texas with an LS1. They both have run-up
videos on youtube.
This is probably not the best forum to ask that question - most of the guys here are married to their Lycosaurs. I would suggest you go to www.vansairforce.com and visit the Alternative Engines Forum.
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit started.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255212#255212
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 |
|
On 07/30/2009 12:23 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort to get
through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that
could rival a Lyc. And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars
put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.
>
And as with any engine package, if we learn from those that went
before us, we can cut that $time$ and extra dollars down considerably.
Installations today take much less time than those done previously,
because we can duplicate the successful installations of those that
spent that time in the past doing the experimentation. There is a
"recipe for success" that has been worked out over the years so that
builders doing installations today have significantly higher chances of
a non-issue installation compared to installations even as recent as a
couple of years ago. It is not quite as turnkey as a typical Lyc
installation, but the gap has narrowed considerably, and is getting
narrower every year.
-Dj
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 |
|
deej(at)deej.net wrote:
> On 07/30/2009 11:36 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
> Good one! Another favorite: "My Ex-Wife told me it was her or the
> airplane. I sure do miss her!" *grin*
> -Dj
Or the tee shirt I saw at Osh Tuesday
"Got a plane for my wife.
Best trade I ever made"
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N2GB Flying)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255235#255235
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: | MT Prop Controller |
I'm searching the archives for information on re-aligning the actuating
arm on the controller and I've found a few items.
However, am I supposed to have some documentation on the controller as
part of my Van's/Lycoming engine package?
Any guidance appreciated.
Bill "baffling the engine while dreaming of Oshkosh" Watson
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: MT Prop Controller |
Bill,
I got documentation with mine (180hp 6A) - I'll try to remember to dig it out this
weekend and zap it to you.
Alternatively, check out the MT website - they may have it online....
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>Sent: Jul 30, 2009 3:04 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: MT Prop Controller
>
>
>I'm searching the archives for information on re-aligning the actuating
>arm on the controller and I've found a few items.
>
>However, am I supposed to have some documentation on the controller as
>part of my Van's/Lycoming engine package?
>
>Any guidance appreciated.
>
>Bill "baffling the engine while dreaming of Oshkosh" Watson
>
>
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: MT Prop Controller |
Hey Bill,
Until someone gives you the technical details, the process is astoundingly simple:
cut the safety wire that connects the straight blade screws around the perimiter
of the governor face, LOOSEN (do not remove) the screws, then rotate the
whole arm/face mechanism to the position you want, retighten and safety wire.
The screws provide a friction fit for the face plate so that it can be adjusted.
If you already know all that and are asking about the position to lock it down,
we looked at the position the control cable was coming from and aligned it so
that halfway between stops was at 90 degrees.
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Painting done!
On with wiring and avionics.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255265#255265
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 |
|
Besides the hassle of engineering a different engine package, and
making a cowl for it, even if it is "turn-key" there isn't anyone
besides Continental that has an engine in the horsepower range with
anywhere near as good fuel consumption specifics at total installed wt
even close. TCM is a little better on fuel and smoothness, at a cost
of at least 60lbs heavier. For all the hand wringing about old
technology, you simply are not gaining much with an auto engine in
technology. Yes automatic ignition advance. Liquid cooling has been
around aircraft engines since before WWII and generally rejected for
weight and space and leakage issues. Timed fuel injection is a very
minuscule gain over continuous mechanical. Most German cars still use
continuous mechanical.
So don't be fooled by the siren song of newer technology...most of it
has been tried and rejected on reliability, weight or cost
effectiveness.
While on engines, how many have considered the negatives of going with
a brand new untested engine at the same time as a brand new untested
airframe? Because of breakin issues, you don't have luxury of any taxi
testing, nor much prop testing etc. To avoid cylinder glazing you need
to get in the air quickly with minimal ground runs to check for leaks
first.
With a used certified engine, you don't have to worry about break-in
or infant mortality, and can focus on testing your airframe. Just a
thought.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Dj Merrill<deej@deej.net> wrote:
>
> On 07/30/2009 12:23 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>> FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort to
get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that
could rival a Lyc. And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars
put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.
>>
>
> And as with any engine package, if we learn from those that went
> before us, we can cut that $time$ and extra dollars down considerably.
> Installations today take much less time than those done previously,
> because we can duplicate the successful installations of those that
> spent that time in the past doing the experimentation. There is a
> "recipe for success" that has been worked out over the years so that
> builders doing installations today have significantly higher chances of
> a non-issue installation compared to installations even as recent as a
> couple of years ago. It is not quite as turnkey as a typical Lyc
> installation, but the gap has narrowed considerably, and is getting
> narrower every year.
>
> -Dj
>
>
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 |
|
No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want to
go experimental with wife and kids on board.
Search the archives on every RV forum
regards Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Auto Power
>
> On 07/30/2009 01:44 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>>
>> Paul is asking about the real performance numbers. Here they are Paul.
>>
>
> <snipped>
>
> I get a chuckle every time I read posts like this. I can just
> picture a few years back people saying something along the lines of "You
> mean those two Wright brothers are going to make an airplane out of
> bicycle parts, and they've designed their own engine to run it? They
> must be crazy!"
>
> Randy Crothers, like the Wright brothers, has had his share of
> heartache getting a good system working, but back in March he posted on
> VAF some performance numbers for his Subaru STi powered RV7A. Here is
> part of his post:
>
> "I kept dialing the boost back down and lowering the RPMs to try to stay
> right at the RV7A VNE speed of 200 Knots TAS. I found I could maintain
> this speed with the following settings:
> 4600 RPMs, 42.6" MAP, Fuel flow showed 11.2 GPH with an A/F mixture of
> about 12.3:1, I was keeping it pretty rich to to make sure I had
> detonation margin. OAT was 28F, Oil T 200F, PSRU T 165F, Coolant T 196F,
> Intake Air T 99F. Altitude 8800'. I estimate I kept these settings in
> place for a good 40 minutes and finally had to back out of it to descend
> down below the clouds and duck under the class B airspace I have to deal
> with. I stayed out on the West side of Puget Sound and turned to the
> East down toward Olympia WA.
> I guess this engine could make pretty good use of a faster airframe like
> a Lancair, or maybe a Glasair etc.
> So there you have it, I can cruise at VNE for extended periods of time
> at 4600 RPMs and 43" MAP."
>
> It may have cost him more than a straight Lycoming installation
> since he has done a bunch of experimenting with various parts, however,
> someone could come along and duplicate his working setup for far less
> money. We don't have much of a resale market history for RV-10s, but on
> average other aircraft do not seem to sell for any less due to different
> engines being installed (Glastar, Zenith 601, for example). In fact,
> for some airframes, an auto engine is actually preferred (KR2s,
> Hummelbird, Sonerai, Sonex, etc).
>
> An auto engine is certainly not for everyone, but IMHO it is not the
> doom and gloom that Robin describes in his message. You definitely want
> to do your research before going down that path, though.
>
> "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by,
> and that has made all the difference." --Robert Frost
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
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 |
|
On 7/30/2009 6:04 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Besides the hassle of engineering a different engine package, and
> making a cowl for it, even if it is "turn-key" there isn't anyone
Hi Kelly,
I think you missed the point of my post that you replied to. If you
are duplicating someone else's setup that seems to be working, you
aren't doing any engineering of your own. You are just assembling the
same as with a Lycoming and copying the engineering that someone else
has already done. Pre-made cowls are available for purchase if you do
not want to take the time to make the modifications to the stock
cowling. These were not available a few years ago, but they are today.
Things have progressed a long ways since the "old days".
> besides Continental that has an engine in the horsepower range with
> anywhere near as good fuel consumption specifics at total installed wt
> even close.
I bet Randy Crothers would beg to differ with you with his Subaru STi
installation.
> So don't be fooled by the siren song of newer technology...most of it
> has been tried and rejected on reliability, weight or cost
> effectiveness.
I'm sure some experimentation has shown that some technologies don't
work, and they phase out. The engine systems in cars of today aren't
even the same as they were 5 years ago in some cases. Progress is being
made all the time, and new technology replacing old. Who would consider
buying a car that uses magnetos these days? Things change, technology
improves, old stuff is phased out. Even Lycoming has their new FADEC
system, and magnetos and carbs of today will be phased out over time as
new technology replaces them. It is inevitable.
>
> To avoid cylinder glazing you need
> to get in the air quickly with minimal ground runs to check for leaks
> first.
Not necessary with today's auto engines.
> With a used certified engine, you don't have to worry about break-in
> or infant mortality, and can focus on testing your airframe. Just a
> thought.
No worries about break in with a modern car engine, either. Things
have changed from the days of old.
-Dj
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 |
|
On 7/30/2009 5:37 PM, Chris and Susie wrote:
>
> No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want
> to go experimental with wife and kids on board.
> Search the archives on every RV forum
Hi Chris, no offense taken, and none intended. There are thousands of
experimental aircraft flying with auto engines, taking their wife, kids,
and best friends along with no more fears than with the Lycoming
engines. Different strokes for different folks, but not as doom and
gloom as you indicate.
Take some time to Google Sonex, KR2, Soneraii, Hummelbird, etc and
Corvair, Subaru EA-81, and VW engines conversions. You will find lots
of successful auto conversions. You will also finds not so successful
ones, along with not so successful Lycoming installations as well. In
particular, look for things within the last 2 years and compare to the
old days to see the differences.
-Dj
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 |
|
Kelly,
Not to be nosy, but don't you work for, or represent, an engine manufacturer? If
I am mistaken, I apologize.
John
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Besides the hassle of engineering a different engine package, and
> making a cowl for it, even if it is "turn-key" there isn't anyone
> besides Continental that has an engine in the horsepower range with
> anywhere near as good fuel consumption specifics at total installed wt
> even close. TCM is a little better on fuel and smoothness, at a cost
> of at least 60lbs heavier. For all the hand wringing about old
> technology, you simply are not gaining much with an auto engine in
> technology. Yes automatic ignition advance. Liquid cooling has been
> around aircraft engines since before WWII and generally rejected for
> weight and space and leakage issues. Timed fuel injection is a very
> minuscule gain over continuous mechanical. Most German cars still use
> continuous mechanical.
> So don't be fooled by the siren song of newer technology...most of it
> has been tried and rejected on reliability, weight or cost
> effectiveness.
>
> While on engines, how many have considered the negatives of going with
> a brand new untested engine at the same time as a brand new untested
> airframe? Because of breakin issues, you don't have luxury of any taxi
> testing, nor much prop testing etc. To avoid cylinder glazing you need
> to get in the air quickly with minimal ground runs to check for leaks
> first.
> With a used certified engine, you don't have to worry about break-in
> or infant mortality, and can focus on testing your airframe. Just a
> thought.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 07/30/2009 12:23 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> > > FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort
to get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that
could rival a Lyc. And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars
put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.
> > >
> >
> > And as with any engine package, if we learn from those that went
> > before us, we can cut that $time$ and extra dollars down considerably.
> > Installations today take much less time than those done previously,
> > because we can duplicate the successful installations of those that
> > spent that time in the past doing the experimentation. There is a
> > "recipe for success" that has been worked out over the years so that
> > builders doing installations today have significantly higher chances of
> > a non-issue installation compared to installations even as recent as a
> > couple of years ago. It is not quite as turnkey as a typical Lyc
> > installation, but the gap has narrowed considerably, and is getting
> > narrower every year.
> >
> > -Dj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit progressing. Engine & Panel
delivery soon.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255284#255284
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 |
|
DJ that may be the case in the US but diferent here with RV's . The resale
here is shocking with anything other than Lyco etc
As you say each to there own
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Auto Power
>
> On 7/30/2009 5:37 PM, Chris and Susie wrote:
>>
>> No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want
>> to go experimental with wife and kids on board.
>> Search the archives on every RV forum
>
> Hi Chris, no offense taken, and none intended. There are thousands of
> experimental aircraft flying with auto engines, taking their wife, kids,
> and best friends along with no more fears than with the Lycoming
> engines. Different strokes for different folks, but not as doom and
> gloom as you indicate.
>
> Take some time to Google Sonex, KR2, Soneraii, Hummelbird, etc and
> Corvair, Subaru EA-81, and VW engines conversions. You will find lots
> of successful auto conversions. You will also finds not so successful
> ones, along with not so successful Lycoming installations as well. In
> particular, look for things within the last 2 years and compare to the
> old days to see the differences.
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
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 |
|
It is a bit of a sore subject here, as one RV-10 builder with
Eggenfeller engine augered in just hours before he planned to take
family on a trip in it. Some his fault, some engine's fault, as it was
a botched deadstick landing after loss of power. Only speculative what
caused loss of power. None-the-less, another experimental pilot
deceased, loss of a friend, with impacts on our insurance.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Dj Merrill<deej@deej.net> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/2009 5:37 PM, Chris and Susie wrote:
>>
>> No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want
>> to go experimental with wife and kids on board.
>> Search the archives on every RV forum
>
> Hi Chris, no offense taken, and none intended. There are thousands of
> experimental aircraft flying with auto engines, taking their wife, kids,
> and best friends along with no more fears than with the Lycoming
> engines. Different strokes for different folks, but not as doom and
> gloom as you indicate.
>
> Take some time to Google Sonex, KR2, Soneraii, Hummelbird, etc and
> Corvair, Subaru EA-81, and VW engines conversions. You will find lots
> of successful auto conversions. You will also finds not so successful
> ones, along with not so successful Lycoming installations as well. In
> particular, look for things within the last 2 years and compare to the
> old days to see the differences.
>
> -Dj
>
>
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 |
|
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Dj Merrill<deej@deej.net> wrote:
Show me a pre-molded cowling for RV-10 for any alternative
engine..haven't seen any.
> I bet Randy Crothers would beg to differ with you with his Subaru STi
> installation.
>
Show me the data, reliable, .041 lb/hp./hr or better, 2000 hr TBO. No
one has yet.
>
> I'm sure some experimentation has shown that some technologies don't
> work, and they phase out. The engine systems in cars of today aren't
> even the same as they were 5 years ago in some cases. Progress is being
> made all the time, and new technology replacing old. Who would consider
> buying a car that uses magnetos these days? Things change, technology
> improves, old stuff is phased out. Even Lycoming has their new FADEC
> system, and magnetos and carbs of today will be phased out over time as
> new technology replaces them. It is inevitable.
Right. Magnetos need no external power and are totally reliable with
reasonable maintenance intervals. There is no other system that
provides that. EMag and Pmag are less than perfect in reliability and
unavailable for 6 cyl. Electronic ignition and FADEC die without
power. Even the Diamond diesel crashed with loss of power taking out
FADEC.
No FADEC provides optimum fuel mixture management. They are designed
for lazy pilots. No one is talking carburetor. No FADEC does any
better than available fuel injection properly managed. None of what
you are citing is NEW. It just combines systems designed over 50 years
ago. Fuel injection and turbocharging were all available by 1960 in GA
engines. Nothing since adds 5% to power, economy or reliability.
You simply aren't telling us anything we haven't seen before.
Kelly
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
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 |
|
On 7/30/2009 7:31 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Some his fault, some engine's fault, as it was
> a botched deadstick landing after loss of power. Only speculative what
> caused loss of power.
Hi Kelly,
I knew Dan from multiple email and in-person chats. I was in the tent
site next to him the Oshkosh prior to the accident. It indeed was a sad
loss, and I was mortified when I heard about it. However, if you read
the preliminary NTSB report, and the series of emails exchanged on this
list, VAF and some of the other mailing lists, it seems pretty clear (to
me at least) that as unfortunate as this accident was, it seemed to be
primarily builder induced, and had nothing to do with the type of engine
that was installed. I am of the opinion that it could easily have been
prevented had proper tools and techniques been used, and the proper time
and training employed to learn the systems on the airplane prior to
flying it. We ALL learned an expensive and valuable lesson that if we
see any builder taking shortcuts, we need to speak up, and speak up
loudly, regardless of any hurt feelings. I heard plenty of comments
around the RV10 campsite at OSH that year about some of the issues seen
with his airplane, and no one, myself included, spoke up about it. That
is a lesson we must NEVER forget.
-Dj
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 |
|
I have NO idea where you got that idea. I am retired, RV-10 builder,
A&P/IA and Tech Counselor. Never worked for engine manufacturer in my
life. I was in one career a certified emissions technician on autos,
raced cars before switching hobbies to aviation many years ago.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM, johngoodman<johngoodman@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Kelly,
> Not to be nosy, but don't you work for, or represent, an engine manufacturer?
If I am mistaken, I apologize.
> John
>
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 |
|
On 7/30/2009 7:40 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Show me a pre-molded cowling for RV-10 for any alternative
> engine..haven't seen any.
<http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/Products.htm> $1495,
professionally made by Zach Chase, as well known and respected craftsman
in the fiberglass community, with tons of Glasair, Glastar, Sportsman
and other aircraft under his belt.
>
>> I bet Randy Crothers would beg to differ with you with his Subaru STi
>> installation.
>>
> Show me the data, reliable, .041 lb/hp./hr or better, 2000 hr TBO. No
> one has yet.
If you are truly interested, I invite you to contact Randy directly and
inquire about his installation to find out about the HP being produced,
weight of the overall installation, and other details that you may be
interested in. There is no need for me to be the middle man, which
would be detrimental to your fact finding mission.
> Right. Magnetos need no external power and are totally reliable with
<snip>
> You simply aren't telling us anything we haven't seen before.
I am one hundred percent certain we are not locked into magneto
technology (or any technology) in the aviation world from now until the
end of time. Just this year we have three (?) companies that brought
all electric aircraft to OSH. In another 50 years it is not unrealistic
to believe there will be lots more, or perhaps some even newer, better
technology available and in widespread use.
Technology improves, things change, and old tech is phased out. This
is inevitable.
-Dj
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 |
|
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Dj Merrill<deej@deej.net> wrote:
> <http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/Products.htm> $1495,
> professionally made by Zach Chase, as well known and respected craftsman
> in the fiberglass community, with tons of Glasair, Glastar, Sportsman
> and other aircraft under his belt.
>
OK,
One exists. Pardon me if I insult anyone, but that appearance is butt
ugly, compared to James cowl or Vans cowl.
>>> I bet Randy Crothers would beg to differ with you with his Subaru STi
>>> installation.
>>>
>> Show me the data, reliable, .041 lb/hp./hr or better, 2000 hr TBO. No
>> one has yet.
I am not willing to take the time to search the world for someone that
might have a one off producing those fuel specifics. If there were
one, that made enough since, they would have the ear of the aircraft
manufacturers. Porsche tried, and failed miserably with their PFM
engine. No, I don't think Subaru or their tuners are smarter than
Porsche.
>
>
>> Right. Magnetos need no external power and are totally reliable with
> <snip>
>> You simply aren't telling us anything we haven't seen before.
>
> I am one hundred percent certain we are not locked into magneto
> technology (or any technology) in the aviation world from now until the
> end of time. Just this year we have three (?) companies that brought
> all electric aircraft to OSH. In another 50 years it is not unrealistic
> to believe there will be lots more, or perhaps some even newer, better
> technology available and in widespread use.
We may not be locked into magnetos, but there is no more reliable way
to have independently powered ignition out there today. Every battery
powered system has failure points, and you can waste lots of time
building redundant power systems that are heavier, and no more
efficient.
There simply is not more than 5% power available by using the latest
variable timing electronic ignition, over fixed timing magnetos, and
the electronics simply are not as reliable. That has been fact for
many years and hasn't changed. Loss of power on Dan Lloyd's plane is
very likely from electrical failure, whether builder induced or not.
Had he been more careful, it might have gone a few years without a
failure, maybe not.
I'm not interested in a 220hp engine for a plane the size of the -10 anyway.
If that were sufficient, I could mount up a TCM IO-360 like 220RV and
dismiss all the development and vendor issues with Eggenfeller.
Message 24
| 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 |
|
Kelly,
As I said in my post, I apologize if it was not correct. I just remember you making
posts about Barrett, or somebody like that. I also remember that you were
the one who got me on to NAPA 7220 primer. Best primer advice I've ever gotten.
No harm intended.
John
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> I have NO idea where you got that idea. I am retired, RV-10 builder,
> A&P/IA and Tech Counselor. Never worked for engine manufacturer in my
> life. I was in one career a certified emissions technician on autos,
> raced cars before switching hobbies to aviation many years ago.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM, johngoodman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Kelly,
> > Not to be nosy, but don't you work for, or represent, an engine manufacturer?
If I am mistaken, I apologize.
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit progressing. Engine & Panel
delivery soon.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255307#255307
Message 25
| 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: MT Prop Controller |
Thanks Lew. That's sort of what I got from the archives but that is
clearer and more definitive. Also, don't move the arm on the spline
shaft, right?
Now that I have the doc, I can don my belt and suspenders before
diving in.
Thanks again,
Bill
do not archive
Lew Gallagher wrote:
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> Until someone gives you the technical details, the process is astoundingly simple:
cut the safety wire that connects the straight blade screws around the
perimiter of the governor face, LOOSEN (do not remove) the screws, then rotate
the whole arm/face mechanism to the position you want, retighten and safety wire.
The screws provide a friction fit for the face plate so that it can be
adjusted.
>
> If you already know all that and are asking about the position to lock it down,
we looked at the position the control cable was coming from and aligned it
so that halfway between stops was at 90 degrees.
>
> Later, - Lew
>
> --------
> non-pilot
> crazy about building
> NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
> Painting done!
> On with wiring and avionics.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255265#255265
>
>
>
Message 26
| 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: MT Prop Controller |
Thanks Ralph. I went (back) to the MT site and found the manual.
Printed it but not read yet but I'm sure I have whatever is available.
Thanks!
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I got documentation with mine (180hp 6A) - I'll try to remember to dig it out
this weekend and zap it to you.
>
> Alternatively, check out the MT website - they may have it online....
>
> Ralph
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>> Sent: Jul 30, 2009 3:04 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: MT Prop Controller
>>
>>
>> I'm searching the archives for information on re-aligning the actuating
>> arm on the controller and I've found a few items.
>>
>> However, am I supposed to have some documentation on the controller as
>> part of my Van's/Lycoming engine package?
>>
>> Any guidance appreciated.
>>
>> Bill "baffling the engine while dreaming of Oshkosh" Watson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 27
| 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 |
|
On 7/30/2009 9:03 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> One exists. Pardon me if I insult anyone, but that appearance is butt
> ugly, compared to James cowl or Vans cowl.
No insult taken. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and
aesthetics is always a personal choice.
I've always thought the A-10 "Warthog" aircraft were very cool looking,
but I know others that think they are butt ugly.
> I am not willing to take the time to search the world for someone that
> might have a one off producing those fuel specifics. If there were
*shrug* I can only point you to the source, I can't make you actually
go get the data and read it. If you decide you are interested enough,
you now have a potential place to find out more about it.
> We may not be locked into magnetos, but there is no more reliable way
> to have independently powered ignition out there today.
I haven't researched every single ignition source that is available
today, so I can't really comment whether this is true or not. It is
entirely possible there are ignition sources that are more reliable than
magnetos, but I don't know.
What about the three electric power aircraft that are being shown at
OSH this year? Are their electronic ignition sources more reliable than
magnetos? Are they more efficient?
> over fixed timing magnetos, and
> the electronics simply are not as reliable. That has been fact for
> many years and hasn't changed.
I'm not sure I am willing to accept this at face value. Typically in
the computing world, the MTBF of electronics is much higher than that of
physical devices that have moving parts. Do you have reliability data
on the electronics in the latest ignition systems versus magnetos that
you'd be willing to share with us?
> I'm not interested in a 220hp engine for a plane the size of the -10 anyway.
The current Subaru STi is putting out 305 hp in the car. I don't know
exactly what Randy's STi system is putting out for HP, but I bet if you
contacted him he might share that info with you... :-)
-Dj
Message 28
| 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 |
|
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Dj Merrill<deej@deej.net> wrote:
>> I am not willing to take the time to search the world for someone that
>> might have a one off producing those fuel specifics. If there were
>
> *shrug* I can only point you to the source, I can't make you actually
> go get the data and read it. If you decide you are interested enough,
> you now have a potential place to find out more about it.
You are free to make your choices. How many are flying with the STi
engine in what airframes?
What are the fuel specifics? What is the weight. If you make others go
search that info, maybe it isn't worth advertising how "good" it is.
>>
> I'm not sure I am willing to accept this at face value. Typically in
> the computing world, the MTBF of electronics is much higher than that of
> physical devices that have moving parts. Do you have reliability data
> on the electronics in the latest ignition systems versus magnetos that
> you'd be willing to share with us?
>
Simple. No 12 V power, electronic is dead, no backup. To be
independent you need two separate systems and batteries. Find me one
battery as light a magneto that can power an ignition as long as you
need.
>> I'm not interested in a 220hp engine for a plane the size of the -10 anyway.
>
> The current Subaru STi is putting out 305 hp in the car. I don't know
> exactly what Randy's STi system is putting out for HP, but I bet if you
> contacted him he might share that info with you... :-)
Why don't you show us how good it is? Can it do it without a failure
prone PSRU? Horsepower delivered to the prop?? If the product is so
good, I'm sure others want to know details. Color me skeptical.
Message 29
| 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 |
|
Paul,
I have a rotary powered RV10 in phase 1 with about 20 hours on it. So
far no major issues. It's the RX8 two-rotor engine with a small super
charger. It's producing about 238 hp and closely matches Van's estimates
for the 235 hp engine. No fuel flow data yet but should be between .45
and .55 BSFC. I'm running richer because of the super charger and the
100 +F degree days here in Texas. But I'm also running 93 octane auto
fuel so it's a little easier on the wallet than 100LL. My FWF probably
coast about 18K but I made several items several times. My engine was a
0 time crate engine and I paid $5000 for it with several mod's mostly to
remove internals not needed for aviation. Several others are putting 3
rotor, 20B's in RV-10's. They will see between 260 and 300 hp depending
on intake design and porting. There's also a nice twin turbo Subaru
RV-10 that should be close to completion. He's a second- time RV and
Subaru offender. Ross?
If you have an interest you should do the research. Then if anyone can
talk you out of it you shouldn't do it. If someone can talk you into it
then you also shouldn't do it. It will add years to your build time and
may not save you any money. Saving money on the engine block is not a
good reason to pursue an alternative. The total cost of ownership and
flying can be less expensive then a Lyc. http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://www.flyrotary.com/> is a good resource for learning about auto
conversions. Its rotary related but things like cooling and fuel systems
have almost become standard regardless of the alternative engine. Our
rotary group has had several first flights this year. I am very
fortunate to have two other flying rotary's here in Austin TX. One
Lancair ES and an RV-7A.
I will not debate the merits of alternative engines on this site but I
will debunk a few things that were stated as absolute.
BSFC better than .41. Piston and rotary engines average about .5 BSFC.
But who cares if you run at least 50% auto fuel.
Alternative engine FWF's are heaver. While this is usually true it's not
set in stone. There are a few flying examples of lighter installations.
2000 hr TBO. Who cares if you can buy 3-4 new engines for the price of
a lyc overhaul. We have several rotaries with over 1000 hrs. One should
be close to 3000. I have no data on the Chevy's or Subi's.
RV-10 Cowl. Egg's got one for the Subi. Extreme Composites has a base
cowl for the Rotary. You have to add your own cooling inlets. This
allows the builder more options for heat exchanger placement. Not sure
who makes the subi cowl but Extreme composites makes cowls for the F1
rocket and other aviation fiberglass parts.
I will also confirm a few things that have been said and add a few more.
Your FWF will likely take more time than the airframe.
Your personal Phase 1 will likely be more than 100 hrs.
Flight testing will carry more risk.
Your electrical system needs to be bullet proof.
Your resale value will be lower. No problem if you plan to keep the
plane at least 10 years. The money you save on fuel will make up most of
the difference.
Your own your own for service and repairs. No dropping it off at the
repair shop.
Dan's accident was a tragedy and a blow to everyone on this list. But
lyc's and cont's also fail. The rotary powered lancair ES driver here in
Austin keeps a chunk of steel in is hanger. If ask him why he chose to
put an alternative engine in his plane he will hand it to you. It's
what's left of a Lyc piston that exited the cowl. Fortunately they had
turned back to the airport about 30 seconds before the engine came
apart. Just made the runway. We have another rotary owner with the same
story.
Bobby Hughes
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:46 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Auto Power
Hello to the group,
I came across an aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It
was still a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering
if anyone in the U.S. actually has a flying example of this type of
engine installation and if so how the performance numbers stack up
compared to a Lycoming etc.
Paul
~=03
Message 30
| 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 |
|
Wow, we have completely revived an old Alt Engine War! What ever
happened to Innodyne?
Anybody know of a good primer to use or is it even worth priming at all?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation
jesse@saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Sent from my iPhone
Message 31
| 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 |
|
On 7/30/2009 10:30 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> You are free to make your choices. How many are flying with the STi
> engine in what airframes?
> What are the fuel specifics? What is the weight. If you make others go
> search that info, maybe it isn't worth advertising how "good" it is.
I have no idea. You seemed interested, so I was simply trying to help
you find the information you seek. If you are interested in the STi
information, I'd recommend that you contact Randy Crothers and ask him
about his setup. He posts frequently on the VAF forums, and I could
probably locate his e-mail address for you or anyone that may want it.
Just for clarification, I'm not advertising for anything. I am merely
trying to clarify some potential mis-information, and help point people
to sources for information if they are interested in finding out more.
> Simple. No 12 V power, electronic is dead, no backup. To be
> independent you need two separate systems and batteries. Find me one
> battery as light a magneto that can power an ignition as long as you
> need.
Okay, no fuel, piston engine goes dead. So which is more reliable, the
electric engine, or the piston engine? The two failure modes we just
mentioned tell us nothing about how reliable either engine package might
be. All they tell us is that without the source of fuel for the engine
(electrons for the electric engine, gasoline for the piston engine), the
engine does not run.
The electric engine needs power to run (ie, electricity). The piston
engine needs gasoline, air, and power (spark). On the surface it would
seem that needing 3 things to run versus 1 thing to run would make the
piston engine less reliable. In other words, the chances that 1 out of
the 3 things would fail might be higher than just one thing failing.
But that is misleading as well. We need to know what is the reliability
of each of the individual items, and then calculate them all together to
get a better idea of overall reliability.
The piston engine also has significantly more moving parts than the
electric engine. More moving parts generally means a higher chance of
one of those parts failing, but that doesn't paint the whole picture
either. The electric engine might have a single part that has an MTBF
of 10 hours, for example.
We can't really tell anything about the reliability of the piston
engine, the electric engine, or the various options available for piston
engines without having the reliability data for each part, and
calculating the assembled engine package as a whole. Without that
critical data, all of this is just speculation from both of us.
> Why don't you show us how good it is? Can it do it without a failure
> prone PSRU? Horsepower delivered to the prop?? If the product is so
> good, I'm sure others want to know details. Color me skeptical.
If you are the one interested, why would you ask me to do this work for
you? I've offered what help I can and tried to give some potential
sources for the information that you seek. If you are interested, you
should satisfy your curiosity for yourself, and I'll try to offer what
information I can. If you are not interested, I don't see how asking
others to do this work is of any benefit.
-Dj
Message 32
| 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 |
|
G'day all,
I have the GRT EIS installed. I have an intermittent connection on one
of my EGT probes (EGT #2 bounces wildly from actual Temp to 0). Anybody
know whether 0 degrees indicated is an Open Circuit or Short to ground
condition on the EGT wires?
Cheers,
Ron
VH-XRM, Flying in Oz
DISCLAIMER:----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files and previous e-mail messa
ges
attached to it are private and confidential. They may contain proprietary o
r copyright
material or information that is subject to legal professional privilege. Th
ey are for
the use of the intended recipient only. Any unauthorised viewing, use, dis
closure,
copying, alteration, storage or distribution of, or reliance on, this messa
ge is
strictly prohibited. No part may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted with
out the
written permission of the owner. If you have received this transmission in
error, or
are not an authorised recipient, please immediately notify the sender by re
turn email,
delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system, and destroy any
printed
copies. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient should not be d
eemed a
waiver of any privilege or protection. Thales Australia does not warrant or
represent
that this e-mail or any documents, files and previous e-mail messages attac
hed are
error or virus free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Message 33
| 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 |
|
On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
> Anybody know of a good primer to use
Sherwin Williams 988
http://www.sherwin-automotive.com/products/show_product.cfm?product=7565
:-)
-Dj
>
Message 34
| 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 |
|
Akzo for Lycomings' NAPA SE for auto conversions...
------Original Message------
From: Jesse Saint
Sender: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: Rv
Sent: Jul 30, 2009 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Auto Power
Wow, we have completely revived an old Alt Engine War! What ever
happened to Innodyne?
Anybody know of a good primer to use or is it even worth priming at all?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation
jesse@saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Sent from my iPhone
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
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! --
|