Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:53 PM - RV-4: engines 150hp/160hp/180hp (David J. Mittelstadt)
2. 01:37 PM - Re: RV-4: engines 150hp/160hp/180hp (Bill Gunn)
3. 02:47 PM - Re: RV-4: engines 150hp/160hp/180hp (rob ray)
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: | RV-4: engines 150hp/160hp/180hp |
--> RV4-List message posted by: "David J. Mittelstadt" <djmittelstadt@qwest.net>
I live at about 5000' and frequently spend time flying in the mountains
around 14,000' or above, often with aid of rising air.
I am thinking the 180hp plane with it's additional climb performance might
be better here. Also the thought that this would provide better vertical
performance for aerobatics. And that the 180hp might cruise a little faster.
But 180hp is heavier, burns more fuel, likely costs more to maintain...
probably doesn't fly all that much faster, 160hp may be sufficient climb
for my area.
Can anyone comment on the performance of the various engines?
Should I wait for the 180hp or is 150/160hp quite good enough?
Thanks for the information!!!
DaveM
David J.
Mittelstadt
email: djmittelstadt@qwest.net
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: RV-4: engines 150hp/160hp/180hp |
--> RV4-List message posted by: "Bill Gunn" <WGUNN@dot.state.tx.us>
I had 160 HP F/P for 850 hours. I averaged 153 KTAS at cruise and burned
about 7.4 GPH at 62% and peak EGT. I replaced this 250 hours ago with a
180 HP C/S prop and now get 163 KTAS and burn about 7.7 GPH at 62% power
and peak EGT. I have an ElectoAir ignition on the right side only ( on
the aircraft for 1000 hours now - totally maintenance free); I find my
best cruise altitude is 10,000 to 12,000 density altitude (about 9000 to
11000 MSL in the summer) because of the ignition system. The prop costs
more, but the engine is very close to the same in costs. Climb rate is
higher, as you would expect. RV4 N252MD - Bill Gunn
>>> djmittelstadt@qwest.net 11/23/2004 2:53:28 PM >>>
--> RV4-List message posted by: "David J. Mittelstadt"
<djmittelstadt@qwest.net>
I live at about 5000' and frequently spend time flying in the mountains
around 14,000' or above, often with aid of rising air.
I am thinking the 180hp plane with it's additional climb performance
might
be better here. Also the thought that this would provide better
vertical
performance for aerobatics. And that the 180hp might cruise a little
faster.
But 180hp is heavier, burns more fuel, likely costs more to maintain...
probably doesn't fly all that much faster, 160hp may be sufficient
climb
for my area.
Can anyone comment on the performance of the various engines?
Should I wait for the 180hp or is 150/160hp quite good enough?
Thanks for the information!!!
DaveM
David J.
Mittelstadt
email: djmittelstadt@qwest.net
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 |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=q/oSo9HK3w8wbXBo9JkHa/2YX6NVvHDLLttPX5LjmN2W0KGrQ99TZQTXAgDHI6du2D4Ntxmu2JpIAyCCtgcQSWNDh18ivi5phnLFrM5kYpX2KiMwKyVivS3etpiZOyBwKz4rU+gF7FXeyIzNU8CvHkTG20goRsRcxXzLA1tjUfY=
;
| Subject: | Re: RV-4: engines 150hp/160hp/180hp |
--> RV4-List message posted by: rob ray <smokyray@yahoo.com>
Fellow RV4-ers;
There are alot of pros and cons on engine changes for the RV4. My 150HP Rose ignition
RV4 and engine is approaching 1500 reliable, trouble free, 150 knot cruise
at 8GPH hours, for 8 years. With all the cool XP360 style experimental 180HP
engines out there and composite lightweight C/S props for the same money as
a 150.160, I know what I would go with now. Having flown alot of 180 C/S RV4's
I agree with Bill, it is a win/win, although the cost of admission is obviously
higher. To quote my Dad, "you can buy alot of gas for $15,000". (I am giving
him my old engine and prop for his RV6)
So what am I doing? I went with a very alternate route, building a super 0-320
airboat engine with 9.0:1 pistons to replace my current engine, built up custom
for me. Seven Grand for a new 0-320 but accepting that it uses alot of aftermarket
parts built for airboat racing that are not "yellow tagged". 175 Horsepower
with no weight gain and no cowling mods or other changes. For me, it's
a win/win.
Your mileage may vary...
Rob Ray
Bill Gunn <WGUNN@dot.state.tx.us> wrote:
--> RV4-List message posted by: "Bill Gunn"
I had 160 HP F/P for 850 hours. I averaged 153 KTAS at cruise and burned
about 7.4 GPH at 62% and peak EGT. I replaced this 250 hours ago with a
180 HP C/S prop and now get 163 KTAS and burn about 7.7 GPH at 62% power
and peak EGT. I have an ElectoAir ignition on the right side only ( on
the aircraft for 1000 hours now - totally maintenance free); I find my
best cruise altitude is 10,000 to 12,000 density altitude (about 9000 to
11000 MSL in the summer) because of the ignition system. The prop costs
more, but the engine is very close to the same in costs. Climb rate is
higher, as you would expect. RV4 N252MD - Bill Gunn
>>> djmittelstadt@qwest.net 11/23/2004 2:53:28 PM >>>
--> RV4-List message posted by: "David J. Mittelstadt"
I live at about 5000' and frequently spend time flying in the mountains
around 14,000' or above, often with aid of rising air.
I am thinking the 180hp plane with it's additional climb performance
might
be better here. Also the thought that this would provide better
vertical
performance for aerobatics. And that the 180hp might cruise a little
faster.
But 180hp is heavier, burns more fuel, likely costs more to maintain...
probably doesn't fly all that much faster, 160hp may be sufficient
climb
for my area.
Can anyone comment on the performance of the various engines?
Should I wait for the 180hp or is 150/160hp quite good enough?
Thanks for the information!!!
DaveM
David J.
Mittelstadt
email: djmittelstadt@qwest.net
---------------------------------
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! --
|