Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:56 AM - O-235 against O-320 : (was I'm back!) (Bob Hodgson)
2. 08:36 PM - Re: O-235 against O-320 : (was I'm back!) (LessDragProd@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | O-235 against O-320 : (was I'm back!) |
--> RV3-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson" <bob@hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
Morning Bruce (at least it's morning here!),
Just looked again at Van's website - they have similar figures to what we
thought, i.e. perhaps 207mph/2050fpm with 150 hp, 195/1700 with 125, so
188/1500 with 115 is close enough considering all the variables with
individual aeroplanes. Generally, more power improves climb impressively but
has little effect on horizontal speed.
O-320 is about 30lbs heavier, but weighs 1.79 lbs/hp against 2.09 lbs/hp for
the O-235.
There seem to be more O-320s than 235s available here, and prices are fairly
similar. Plus I already 'happened' to have one out of my old aeroplane
(Beagle Pup), so that seemed to be the way to go. I want to operate out of
short strips and do good vertical aeros too.
The propeller was bought years ago when it was virtually the standard
recommended prop. No rocket science involved !
Hope you get the horse corralled again. Sounds like the March Winds are
blowing like they're supposed to in the old rhyme - where are you ?
Bob
---------Original message--------
>
> Time: 06:18:11 PM PST US
> From: "Bruce Stewart" <bruce.stewart1@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: RV3-List: O-235 against O-320 : (was I'm back!)
>
> --> RV3-List message posted by: "Bruce Stewart"
<bruce.stewart1@bigpond.com>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I've started reading my way through 21 years of RVator last night and came
> across
> a fairly long piece on HP V Speed etc etc, after a while I was lost in
> thought
> and had to read it again and again and the more I read the more numb I
> became! maybe it was the Gin and tonics!
>
> Anyway as it stands I don't know what to buy, do or which way to think! so
> many
> options I guess, just as well I'm painting the house now as it gives me
> lotsa time to
> chew it over.
>
> Bob how did you arive at the 68 x 69 Pacesetter prop? was it a purely
> mathematical
> decission or other use one? just curious.
>
> Gotta go, back fence blew down last night and the neighbours horse is
eating
> his
> way through my garden!!!! urrggggggghhhhh,,,, pitty I can't make it into
> dog food ;o)
>
> Bruce
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: O-235 against O-320 : (was I'm back!) |
--> RV3-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
In a message dated 03/02/2003 1:56:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bob@hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk writes:
> Just looked again at Van's website - they have similar figures to what we
> thought, i.e. perhaps 207mph/2050fpm with 150 hp, 195/1700 with 125, so
> 188/1500 with 115 is close enough considering all the variables with
> individual aeroplanes.
They look like reasonable numbers. My IO-245 is in that speed and climb
range. Just a notch higher than what is shown. :-)
Jim Ayers
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! --
|