Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:06 AM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (Matt Dralle)
2. 07:32 AM - Re: RV7-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 02/01/05 (benandginny)
3. 09:24 AM - Cruise performance (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
4. 10:01 AM - Re: Cruise performance (Dan Checkoway)
5. 10:56 AM - Re: Cruise performance (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
6. 02:30 PM - Re: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
7. 04:49 PM - SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Re: PROP SELECTION (Francis, David CMDR)
8. 04:51 PM - Re: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 06:42 PM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Re: PROP SELECTION (mark manda)
10. 08:41 PM - Whirl Wind prop fit (N67BT@AOL.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: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> RV7-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Lister,
Please read over the RV7-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
RV7-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/RV7-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
RV7-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the RV7-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the RV7-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
RV7-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the RV7-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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 |
|
"RV7-List Digest List" <rv7-list-digest@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: RV7-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 02/01/05 |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "benandginny" <benandginny@insightbb.com>
Hey Dennis,
Does Sam (Will) James ship the cowl in a crate or how does he package it.?
The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I get one can I use his container to
return my Van's cowl.
Ben Cunningham
RV7 Finish Kit
________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:52:03 PM PST US
> From: Dennis Haverlah <clouduster@austin.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
>
> --> RV7-List message posted by: Dennis Haverlah <clouduster@austin.rr.com>
>
> I just recieved the Sam James rotary versioin for my 7A. I plan on
> using a Mazda RX-8 engine and Tracy Crook's PSRU. The workmanship on
> the cowl is great. It has the shark air intake below the spinner. I
> won't be installing it until this spring.
> Dennis Haverlah
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: | Cruise performance |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I know an email about fuel economy and RV's is kind of an oxymoron and
it fact it hard to pin down data.
However part of my intended mission is long cross countries and it
appears the RV 7 could be pretty good, especially going slower but of
course I want to get there as well!
So with an IO360 with a modern EI and FI packages what do these planes
get at 200mph in the way of fuel burn?
I admit to a slightly hidden adgenda, I am pretty convinced the cooling
drag with a water cooled motor causes more drag and while there are
claims of the "same performance" to an IO360 it gets blurry to know at
what fuel burn they are making the same speed.
So what are your experiences?
Thanks
Frank
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: Cruise performance |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> So with an IO360 with a modern EI and FI packages what do these planes
> get at 200mph in the way of fuel burn?
At 173 KTAS (200mph true airspeed), mine burns about 8.7 gph. IO-360-A1B6
w/single Lightspeed Plasma II. I lean to about 50 ROP. With a 180hp
injected + EI you can probably beat that by a tenth of a gallon per hour or
two.
> So what are your experiences?
When I fly in formation with slower planes, and we do 160 to 165 KTAS or so
(kind of a lowest common denominator speed), I'm usually burning 7 to 7.5
gph. Other planes in the formation without FI or EI are burning 2+ gph more
than I am -- with smaller engines.
When I fly alone and am travelling "to get there," I fly at full throttle,
2470 RPM, leaned to 50 ROP. At 8000' DA, I usually see 9.4 to 9.6 gph and
about 175 to 180 KTAS.
I haven't even mentioned LOP operations...if you can live without the high
speed, you can get the fuel burn down dramatically.
FI + EI kicks butt for economy...and allows you to really fine tune power
output to your intention for the particular conditions.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | Cruise performance |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Damn that's good!
With my fuel system set up to run autogas this is going to be cheaper
than running my Dodge Neon...Well...Maybe not...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Subject: Re: RV7-List: Cruise performance
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> So with an IO360 with a modern EI and FI packages what do these planes
> get at 200mph in the way of fuel burn?
At 173 KTAS (200mph true airspeed), mine burns about 8.7 gph.
IO-360-A1B6 w/single Lightspeed Plasma II. I lean to about 50 ROP.
With a 180hp injected + EI you can probably beat that by a tenth of a
gallon per hour or two.
> So what are your experiences?
When I fly in formation with slower planes, and we do 160 to 165 KTAS or
so (kind of a lowest common denominator speed), I'm usually burning 7 to
7.5 gph. Other planes in the formation without FI or EI are burning 2+
gph more than I am -- with smaller engines.
When I fly alone and am travelling "to get there," I fly at full
throttle, 2470 RPM, leaned to 50 ROP. At 8000' DA, I usually see 9.4 to
9.6 gph and about 175 to 180 KTAS.
I haven't even mentioned LOP operations...if you can live without the
high speed, you can get the fuel burn down dramatically.
FI + EI kicks butt for economy...and allows you to really fine tune
power output to your intention for the particular conditions.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Seems like there is nervousness around using a 4" prop extension and C/s
prop for aerobatics. Can't as yet find a definative answer.
If the 3.5G limit is true and the Hartzell weighs a hefty 53lbs, then
one answer might be a Whirlwind prop which weighs a 20lb less?...Trouble
is thst option is another 2000 bucks (performance seems about the same)
and it still might not get back to the 6G the airframe is rated for.
Hmm...the extra 5 mph is looking expensive in terms of cash and/or
aerobatic performance loss.
Any thoughts anyone?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Will James just told me he thinks a 4" prop extension will limit the
motor to pull about 3.5 G's...Ouch...Don't like that.
I could go with an updraft and have no extension but I'm not sure I like
that option either....hmmm
Any thoughts?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Interesting...I saw the write up and it sounds even with the mold
corrected it is probably at least SOME more work...Hmm as you say Dan it
looks hot!
Thisnk I might check out the 4" extension and if Aerosport are happy
with this if required,,....Oh and yes, that Van's will refund the cost
of the cowl coming with my finish kit...:)
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Subject: Re: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I would consider using one next time. Thing is, you need an extended
hub propeller if I'm not mistaken. Wonder how much additional stress
that puts on the crankshaft. It wouldn't hurt CG-wise. Even if you
don't use the Sam James cowl, an extended hub prop would do wonders for
allowing more clearance for horizontal induction goodies...ram air
inlet, etc. I can tell you that making the ram air inlet work with a
compact hub Hartzell was interesting...
Back on topic...they sure look pretty with the nose extended with the
James cowl.
Have you read Randy Lervold's writeup on it? IIRC he said he might not
do it that way if he had to do it over. Apparently it added
considerable time and labor to the build process.
http://www.rv-8.com/Cowl.htm
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>
> Hi all, I'm planning ahead here
>
> Anyone have any thoughts about using one of these cowls compared to
the
> stock Van's item?
>
> I seen some posts that claim performance but at the cost of being
harder
> to fit.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
>
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: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: PROP SELECTION |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
My thoughts on prop selection.
A C/S prop is unlikely to make a plane go faster than a properly selected
coarse pitch fixed pitch prop. It does provide flexibility between climb and
cruise regimes, at a substantial cost in dollars and weight.
Generally, without a G-suit, most of us will start to grey out around 4.5G,
which is probably the practical G limit for most of us, variable with age,
fitness and recent exposure to G.
A conventional C/S prop is excellent for aerobatics. It treats the engine
very gently and provides lots of protection against overspeed.
The difference between a conventional and aerobatic C/S props is in the form
of protection against oil supply failure. A conventional prop that loses oil
pressure will fail to fine pitch, so the plane can climb and complete a
flight.
An aerobatic prop has counterweights and a reversed failure mode. The
aerobatic prop will fail to coarse pitch to prevent engine overspeed during
aeros. This means the governor acts in reverse. The counterweights are there
to provide protection from momentary failure of oil pressure during very
vigorous aeros, they keep the pitch as-is during short duration excursions
in oil pressure. Others with better knowledge may elaborate more accurately
on this point.
RVs are for recreational aeros only, not hard core vigorous stuff, so for
most of us a conventional C/S prop is really good for the engine compared to
fixed pitch. Provided you have the budget - a C/S prop will not pay for
itself in fuel savings, as fuel injection and electronic ignition will.
A final observation. Certified aerobatic aircraft have to meet a requirement
that, when going down vertically, at full power, the plane will not exceed
Vne. That is why 200hp planes like the Cap 10 are draggy and only cruise at
120kts.
An RV is experimental and does not meet that criteria, its a slippery
critter downhill. A fine pitch prop is an important brake when going
downhill.
Regards,
David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) [mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com]
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
Seems like there is nervousness around using a 4" prop extension and C/s
prop for aerobatics. Can't as yet find a definative answer.
If the 3.5G limit is true and the Hartzell weighs a hefty 53lbs, then
one answer might be a Whirlwind prop which weighs a 20lb less?...Trouble
is thst option is another 2000 bucks (performance seems about the same)
and it still might not get back to the 6G the airframe is rated for.
Hmm...the extra 5 mph is looking expensive in terms of cash and/or
aerobatic performance loss.
Any thoughts anyone?
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: | Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Another update,
Spoke to Sam Tilleman at Sabre manufacturing who tells me that "sure a
4" inch extension will cause more wear if you doin hardcore aerobatics,
but will it break anything?...NO!" He says he has litterally hundreds of
the extensions out there some of them pulling some hardcore G's.He waxed
lyrical about Berkuts pulling vertical with a 540 with a 6 to 8"
extension and all that.
Really it comes down to...How much hardcore aerobatics are going to
do?...Good point!
The other interesting observation was that his current plane runs a
Hartzell C/C which is coming off at the the first sign of the next AD.
He is sure the AD's have cost him way more than the extra $2K a
Whirlwind 200 will cost. Whilrwind save quite a bit of weight too.
Of course we don't know what AD's (of course they don't really exist in
experimental land) the Whirlwind will need either or when the front
bearing will start knocking...probably not in the 2000 hour TBO.
So apart from the risk of not being able to put 200lbs of baggage behind
the seats it looks like the Holy Cowl/ Whirlwind combo might be a good
plan.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Seems like there is nervousness around using a 4" prop extension and C/s
prop for aerobatics. Can't as yet find a definative answer.
If the 3.5G limit is true and the Hartzell weighs a hefty 53lbs, then
one answer might be a Whirlwind prop which weighs a 20lb less?...Trouble
is thst option is another 2000 bucks (performance seems about the same)
and it still might not get back to the 6G the airframe is rated for.
Hmm...the extra 5 mph is looking expensive in terms of cash and/or
aerobatic performance loss.
Any thoughts anyone?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Will James just told me he thinks a 4" prop extension will limit the
motor to pull about 3.5 G's...Ouch...Don't like that.
I could go with an updraft and have no extension but I'm not sure I like
that option either....hmmm
Any thoughts?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Interesting...I saw the write up and it sounds even with the mold
corrected it is probably at least SOME more work...Hmm as you say Dan it
looks hot!
Thisnk I might check out the 4" extension and if Aerosport are happy
with this if required,,....Oh and yes, that Van's will refund the cost
of the cowl coming with my finish kit...:)
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Subject: Re: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I would consider using one next time. Thing is, you need an extended
hub propeller if I'm not mistaken. Wonder how much additional stress
that puts on the crankshaft. It wouldn't hurt CG-wise. Even if you
don't use the Sam James cowl, an extended hub prop would do wonders for
allowing more clearance for horizontal induction goodies...ram air
inlet, etc. I can tell you that making the ram air inlet work with a
compact hub Hartzell was interesting...
Back on topic...they sure look pretty with the nose extended with the
James cowl.
Have you read Randy Lervold's writeup on it? IIRC he said he might not
do it that way if he had to do it over. Apparently it added
considerable time and labor to the build process.
http://www.rv-8.com/Cowl.htm
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RV7-List: Sam James Holy cowl, RV 7A
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>
> Hi all, I'm planning ahead here
>
> Anyone have any thoughts about using one of these cowls compared to
the
> stock Van's item?
>
> I seen some posts that claim performance but at the cost of being
harder
> to fit.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
>
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: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: PROP SELECTION |
--> RV7-List message posted by: mark manda <mark2nite@yahoo.com>
If you get a WW RV200 prop now called Titan, you might
want to keep it in the back of your mind that the
RV-7a engine cowling will need cutting,refitting or
replacing. Either the lower half or the upper half.
I'm off 3/32" at an angle so my "fitted for a
Hartzell" lower cowling is a paper weight and a new
lower $445 cowling is being shipped.
I know another RV-7a builder who also has a lower
cowling available since buying a WWRV200 prop.
Supposedly they(the WWRV 200) bolt right on the
RV-8's.
YMMV.
__________________________________
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: | Whirl Wind prop fit |
--> RV7-List message posted by: N67BT@aol.com
I had fitted my 7A cowl for the Hartzell but finally bought the Whirl Wind
RV200. Before purchase WW said that the fit is the same --- NOT. The spinner
gently rubbed the cowl and there is no adjustment. I'm thinking "hours and
hours of work shot, not to mention the cost of replacing both the top and
bottom cowl halves". I decided to build up the inside of the cowl ring 5/32"
+/- with epoxy and glass and then sanded the front to fit. It's better than
the original Hartzell fit. I made the gap at the top 1/8" and the bottom 3/16"
to account for the eventual engine sag. I'm assumed 1/4" sag (pure guess
work) and ran a computer model to get that 1/16" difference.
There is a photo of the installation at:
http://users.aol.com/n67bt
Bob Trumpfheller
PS, the original was posted on the RV7 list but I thought it might be of
interest to some RV listers as well.
--> RV7-List message posted by: mark manda mark2nite@yahoo.com
< If you get a WW RV200 prop now called Titan, you might
want to keep it in the back of your mind that the
RV-7a engine cowling will need cutting,refitting or
replacing. Either the lower half or the upper half.
I'm off 3/32" at an angle so my "fitted for a
Hartzell" lower cowling is a paper weight and a new
lower $445 cowling is being shipped.
I know another RV-7a builder who also has a lower
cowling available since buying a WWRV200 prop.
Supposedly they(the WWRV 200) bolt right on the
RV-8's.
YMMV. >
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! --
|