Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:09 AM - Engine decision time ... (Gerry Filby)
2. 01:51 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
3. 02:56 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (LarryRobertHelming)
4. 03:26 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Mark Taylor)
5. 03:58 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
6. 08:19 PM - which pitot tube? (Don Hall)
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: | Engine decision time ... |
0.25 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP)
0.74 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC)
1.40 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP
addr 1)
--> RV7-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Fellow builders,
Its that daunting and exciting time to decide what engine to
put in my RV9 (taildragger). I've decided to rule out the auto
conversions and go Lycosaur (IO-320 or 360) but I could use a
like a little help deciding which. The 9 fuselage is pretty
much identical to the 7, so it will take a 360. I know Van's
recommends the 320 as the max for the 9 presumably to limit the
possibility of exceeding Vne for the airframe etc etc.
I'm wondering if folks already flying their 9s are getting max
performance as advertised with the 320 and thus there's no
purpose to putting in the 360. My mission is fastest possible
cruise for frequent trips up and down the California coast from
my home base in San Francisco to destinations like LA, San
Diego, Tahoe, Portland, Seattle with the occassional coast to
coast jaunt. Resale value is probably less of a concern to me
- I can't ever see myself selling this puppy.
Any experiences, thoughts, rants, prejudices and musings will
be most welcome :)
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
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: | Engine decision time ... |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
If it were me...:)
I'd stuff an IO360 in there and get some close to red line cruise and
run LOP all the time in cruise and get some serious economy.
But then I'm bulding a 7a and could easily see me putting an IO540 in it
for the same reaon if it weren't so heavy.
The only other consideration is insurance cost.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Filby
Subject: RV7-List: Engine decision time ...
--> RV7-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Fellow builders,
Its that daunting and exciting time to decide what engine to put in my
RV9 (taildragger). I've decided to rule out the auto conversions and go
Lycosaur (IO-320 or 360) but I could use a like a little help deciding
which. The 9 fuselage is pretty much identical to the 7, so it will
take a 360. I know Van's recommends the 320 as the max for the 9
presumably to limit the possibility of exceeding Vne for the airframe
etc etc.
I'm wondering if folks already flying their 9s are getting max
performance as advertised with the 320 and thus there's no purpose to
putting in the 360. My mission is fastest possible cruise for frequent
trips up and down the California coast from my home base in San
Francisco to destinations like LA, San Diego, Tahoe, Portland, Seattle
with the occassional coast to coast jaunt. Resale value is probably
less of a concern to me
- I can't ever see myself selling this puppy.
Any experiences, thoughts, rants, prejudices and musings will be most
welcome :)
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Interesting, you post a question for an RV9 on the RV7 list. ( do not
archive )
Gerry, You might be more of a test pilot than me,,,,,,,,,,but,,,,,,,,,,,My
suggestion: Better to send this question to Vans and challenge them as to
why they do not suggest or support putting an 360 in the RV9?
I have a friend that has an O-320 FP prop in an RV6. It does 185 mph very
easily.
I have heard other pilots say something like it doesn't matter how fast your
plane, you always want to go faster at times. So, will you be happy going
185 or even 190 if someone else is going 195?
I would not override the design of Vans without understanding fully what the
trade offs and risks are.
Also, Imagine what your insurance agent is going to say and charge when they
learn you are stepping beyond the kit design limit? It's no longer a kit
plane!! If you were the agent, would you insure yourself putting a bigger
engine in an airframe designed for 160 hp max.? The plane is designed for
certain stresses and the extra 20 hp and weight could be a problem. Think
about it and your motivations for considering a 360. You are the
pilot/owner however. Your life. Your insurance premiums.
You got to get there fast, right?. Maybe you could just take off the ramp 5
minutes earlier with the 320 and arrive there at the same time. Could
another way to look at it come down to time management? Your life. Think
about it.....
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV7-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
> Fellow builders,
>
> Its that daunting and exciting time to decide what engine to
> put in my RV9 (taildragger). I've decided to rule out the auto
> conversions and go Lycosaur (IO-320 or 360) but I could use a
> like a little help deciding which. The 9 fuselage is pretty
> much identical to the 7, so it will take a 360. I know Van's
> recommends the 320 as the max for the 9 presumably to limit the
> possibility of exceeding Vne for the airframe etc etc.
>
snip
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: | Engine decision time ... |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Mark Taylor" <mtaylo17@msn.com>
You can use the 360, derated in the 9, then at altitude you get a little
more power. I think that it's derated by rpm restriction, but cant' be sure.
I remember reading an artical somewhere, but I can't remember where it was.
Anybody else remember that one?
I got mine from Mattituck. Their TMX is great value as far as Lycosaurs go,
and they can build it out of Superior parts if you should so desire. The TMX
is normally ECI based. I asked for the Ryton sump on mine so I could
eliminate the intake from the cowling. This basically means that Mattituck
have to order a complete XP-360 to get the sump as Superior do not sell the
sump separately.
On the flip side, Cameron a couple of hangars down has a 320 in his 9A and
is very pleased with the way it performs. Van's are pretty honest in
department too, which is nice as we all get a realistic guide as to how our
aircraft will perform.
Check out the Firewall Forward page on my website to see more info on the
engine.
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
>From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>Reply-To: rv7-list@matronics.com
>To: rv9-list@matronics.com, rv7-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV7-List: Engine decision time ...
>Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:08:44 -0700 0.25 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP
>Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) 0.74 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC
> Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) 1.40
>HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr 1)
>
>--> RV7-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
>Fellow builders,
>
>Its that daunting and exciting time to decide what engine to
>put in my RV9 (taildragger). I've decided to rule out the auto
>conversions and go Lycosaur (IO-320 or 360) but I could use a
>like a little help deciding which. The 9 fuselage is pretty
>much identical to the 7, so it will take a 360. I know Van's
>recommends the 320 as the max for the 9 presumably to limit the
>possibility of exceeding Vne for the airframe etc etc.
>
>I'm wondering if folks already flying their 9s are getting max
>performance as advertised with the 320 and thus there's no
>purpose to putting in the 360. My mission is fastest possible
>cruise for frequent trips up and down the California coast from
>my home base in San Francisco to destinations like LA, San
>Diego, Tahoe, Portland, Seattle with the occassional coast to
>coast jaunt. Resale value is probably less of a concern to me
>- I can't ever see myself selling this puppy.
>
>Any experiences, thoughts, rants, prejudices and musings will
>be most welcome :)
>
>__g__
>
>==========================================================
>Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
> Tel: 415 203 9177
>
>
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: | Engine decision time ... |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Actually I remember seeing the derated 360 option on the Superior
website.
I might just, er... Forget to derate it...:)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine decision time ...
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Mark Taylor" <mtaylo17@msn.com>
You can use the 360, derated in the 9, then at altitude you get a little
more power. I think that it's derated by rpm restriction, but cant' be
sure.
I remember reading an artical somewhere, but I can't remember where it
was.
Anybody else remember that one?
I got mine from Mattituck. Their TMX is great value as far as Lycosaurs
go, and they can build it out of Superior parts if you should so desire.
The TMX is normally ECI based. I asked for the Ryton sump on mine so I
could eliminate the intake from the cowling. This basically means that
Mattituck have to order a complete XP-360 to get the sump as Superior do
not sell the sump separately.
On the flip side, Cameron a couple of hangars down has a 320 in his 9A
and is very pleased with the way it performs. Van's are pretty honest in
department too, which is nice as we all get a realistic guide as to how
our aircraft will perform.
Check out the Firewall Forward page on my website to see more info on
the engine.
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
>From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>Reply-To: rv7-list@matronics.com
>To: rv9-list@matronics.com, rv7-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV7-List: Engine decision time ...
>Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:08:44 -0700 0.25 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP
>Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) 0.74
HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC
> Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) 1.40
>HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr
1)
>
>--> RV7-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
>Fellow builders,
>
>Its that daunting and exciting time to decide what engine to put in my
>RV9 (taildragger). I've decided to rule out the auto conversions and
>go Lycosaur (IO-320 or 360) but I could use a like a little help
>deciding which. The 9 fuselage is pretty much identical to the 7, so
>it will take a 360. I know Van's recommends the 320 as the max for the
>9 presumably to limit the possibility of exceeding Vne for the airframe
>etc etc.
>
>I'm wondering if folks already flying their 9s are getting max
>performance as advertised with the 320 and thus there's no purpose to
>putting in the 360. My mission is fastest possible cruise for frequent
>trips up and down the California coast from my home base in San
>Francisco to destinations like LA, San Diego, Tahoe, Portland, Seattle
>with the occassional coast to coast jaunt. Resale value is probably
>less of a concern to me
>- I can't ever see myself selling this puppy.
>
>Any experiences, thoughts, rants, prejudices and musings will be most
>welcome :)
>
>__g__
>
>==========================================================
>Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
> Tel: 415 203 9177
>
>
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: | which pitot tube? |
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Don Hall" <dhall@donka.net>
Make of Pitot Model Amps Circuit Breaker to use
Wire Size
----
Aero Instruments AN5812 8A 10A
14 ga
Aero Instruments AN5814 12A 20A
12 ga
-----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: Engine decision time ...
--> RV7-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
If it were me...:)
I'd stuff an IO360 in there and get some close to red line cruise and run
LOP all the time in cruise and get some serious economy.
But then I'm bulding a 7a and could easily see me putting an IO540 in it for
the same reaon if it weren't so heavy.
The only other consideration is insurance cost.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Filby
Subject: RV7-List: Engine decision time ...
--> RV7-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Fellow builders,
Its that daunting and exciting time to decide what engine to put in my
RV9 (taildragger). I've decided to rule out the auto conversions and go
Lycosaur (IO-320 or 360) but I could use a like a little help deciding
which. The 9 fuselage is pretty much identical to the 7, so it will take a
360. I know Van's recommends the 320 as the max for the 9 presumably to
limit the possibility of exceeding Vne for the airframe etc etc.
I'm wondering if folks already flying their 9s are getting max performance
as advertised with the 320 and thus there's no purpose to putting in the
360. My mission is fastest possible cruise for frequent trips up and down
the California coast from my home base in San Francisco to destinations like
LA, San Diego, Tahoe, Portland, Seattle with the occassional coast to coast
jaunt. Resale value is probably less of a concern to me
- I can't ever see myself selling this puppy.
Any experiences, thoughts, rants, prejudices and musings will be most
welcome :)
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
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! --
|