Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:30 AM - Re: RV-7 engine/prop options (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
2. 07:33 AM - Re: Torque Values for Sensors and other not nuts and bolts stuff ? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
3. 11:14 AM - Re: RV-7 engine/prop options (J. Brunke)
4. 11:59 AM - Re: RV-7 engine/prop options (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
5. 03:16 PM - Re: RV-7 engine/prop options (J. Brunke)
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-7 engine/prop options |
I dug into this one with some vigour before eventually settling in on a
2.25" prop extension with a new Hartzell C/S BA prop. (The actual length
should be 2 and 5/8ths but 2.25 is what Sam Tillman had in stock).
Bottom line its not an issue, all of the normal manouvers can be
performed within 3G's and try as I might My max recorded g so far has
been +5 and -1G's...Its just not pleasant beyond 5G and the RV is just
not a hard core aerobatic machine, the Gyroscopic loads (so I'm told)
are nothing like those in say a Pitts...This airplane is going through
the motions but a Pitts is trying to rip the prop off in comparison.
Sam Tillman (Sabre prop extensions) will tell you some hairaising
stories about what his extensions have been put thru but there has never
been a failure of the extension.
If you go with an Airflow Performance FI system and a FF sump (As I did)
it's a very tight fit...The Bendix will fit much easier.
Yes I used Mattituck, Mahlon Russel is one of a handful of folks who
know more about airplane engines than I ever will. Service has been
superb. (Mahlon also supports the prop extension on the RV)
Annecdotally I have never heard a bad word said about Mattituck,
Aerosport, Barratt..All highly reputable firms.
The cowl looks superb with the right paint job and Two of my buddies are
also building the Sam James Cowl.
Frank 7a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:58 PM
Subject: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
--> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or
negative)?
and,
Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed for
some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
with F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm
not willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
Feel free to reply either on or off-list.
Thanks,
Charlie
ceengland@bellsouth.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: | Torque Values for Sensors and other not nuts and bolts |
stuff ?
My personal take is leave the torque wrench on the bench and do it by
feel...You'll spend a surprising amount of time torquing everything this
way.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: RV7-List: Torque Values for Sensors and other not nuts and
bolts stuff ?
Where or how would you find what to torque something like a Oil Temp
Sensor? Big brass fitting, 7/8 socket size into the case just above the
oil filter. Easy enough to get to with a crows foot and extension but
how much do you tighten it? I'm thinking something like 100-125 inch
pounds which feels like enough to flatten the copper gasket?
How about carb and fuel pump fittings ? ( I did find the AN values in
the AC43 but nothing on the "banjo" part,.... Why do they call it a
banjo fitting ? )
Is there any kind of rule of thumb for things which don't fall into the
nut and bolt category? How about the synthetic Oil filler tube on an
O-360 ? Takes a 1 1/8 wrench but it would look like you could twist it
off if you're not careful? (Snug, then a little more, and wire it ??
All help appreciated, thanks
Bill S
7a Ark
Wired, cowled, canopied and "engining"
But nowhere near done ;-(
Do not archive
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: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Charlie,
About a year ago I was talking to a women in Hartzell's engineering
department about the hub extension.
Sorry I don't recall her name. Anyway Hartzell is worried about the stress
levels on the extended hub
during any acro. You could argue that the hub should at least be good up to
3.8 G's normal catagory, but
do you want to be the test pilot that finds out?
Like you I am leaning towards the James cowl so the extension is definitely
needed.
I talked to the folks at Aerocomposite props. Not only will their
extensions stand up to the g-loading,
they are very familiar with Sam James Cowl and what is required. They also
don't have any RPM type
restrictions on their props like Hartzell does.
I was just talking to a -7 owner at Sun and fun who has the James cowl and
an MT prop. MT's are an
excellent prop, but he said it was quite a hassle getting the correct length
hub from them. Now that they've
done his airplane, they might be more knowledgable about the whole thing.
Either composite prop is going to be a lot more than the Hartzell, but piece
of mind sometimes costs a little extra. I only plan on
building one RV7. If I can do it right the first time, it will be cheaper
in the long run.
John Brunke
RV7 tip-up in progress.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
> I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
>
> If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
> experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or negative)?
>
> and,
>
> Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed for
> some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
> 'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub with
> F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm not
> willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
>
> Feel free to reply either on or off-list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
> ceengland@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
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: | RV-7 engine/prop options |
That argument may have some validity as far as the extended (M) hub prop
is concerned. But The Compact (C) hub prop does not care....The
extension and the big crank bearing and the crank itself are the
components that will see the extra force or torque of acro with a prop
extension....Not the prop.
Hartzell is concerned about the EXTENDED HUB PROP....this is not the
same as the compact hub prop plus extension.
This set up has been done numerous times and there have been no failures
of the Sabre prop extension. Mahlon russel told me he would "do it in a
heartbeat"...Really it's a non issue I think. When you consider just how
much G force (and Gyroscopic force) the professional acro boys and girls
put on a Lycoming crank (you ever see Kirbly Chambliss do an English
Bunt flip/ tumble thingy?) then you know they don't break...At least not
for that reason.
Sure I had the same conversation with an engineer at Hartzell...he even
said do not use a prop extension period..Why?...Well because Hartzell
cannot guarantee the extension will not fall apart etc....In other words
it was hartz's official don't sue me line....He also pointed out the RV
was by nature a pretty gentle acro plane...I.e in his personal opinion
"don't worry about it".
Now of course one could get into the whole prop debate too but for me at
least the hartz was the fastest prop that Van's tested and its by far
the cheapest too.
As they say YMMV...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of J. Brunke
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
Charlie,
About a year ago I was talking to a women in Hartzell's engineering
department about the hub extension.
Sorry I don't recall her name. Anyway Hartzell is worried about the
stress
levels on the extended hub
during any acro. You could argue that the hub should at least be good
up to
3.8 G's normal catagory, but
do you want to be the test pilot that finds out?
Like you I am leaning towards the James cowl so the extension is
definitely needed.
I talked to the folks at Aerocomposite props. Not only will their
extensions stand up to the g-loading,
they are very familiar with Sam James Cowl and what is required. They
also
don't have any RPM type
restrictions on their props like Hartzell does.
I was just talking to a -7 owner at Sun and fun who has the James cowl
and an MT prop. MT's are an excellent prop, but he said it was quite a
hassle getting the correct length hub from them. Now that they've done
his airplane, they might be more knowledgable about the whole thing.
Either composite prop is going to be a lot more than the Hartzell, but
piece of mind sometimes costs a little extra. I only plan on
building one RV7. If I can do it right the first time, it will be
cheaper
in the long run.
John Brunke
RV7 tip-up in progress.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
<ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
>
> If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
> experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or
negative)?
>
> and,
>
> Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed
for
> some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
> 'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
with
> F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm not
> willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
>
> Feel free to reply either on or off-list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
> ceengland@bellsouth.net
>
>
>
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: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Frank is correct. The engineer at Hartzell was talking about the M hub
prop. I did not know
about the Sabre extension. Thanks Frank for adding more decisions to the
decisions. : )
Just when you think you've got things figured out........................
John Brunke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> That argument may have some validity as far as the extended (M) hub prop
> is concerned. But The Compact (C) hub prop does not care....The
> extension and the big crank bearing and the crank itself are the
> components that will see the extra force or torque of acro with a prop
> extension....Not the prop.
>
> Hartzell is concerned about the EXTENDED HUB PROP....this is not the
> same as the compact hub prop plus extension.
>
> This set up has been done numerous times and there have been no failures
> of the Sabre prop extension. Mahlon russel told me he would "do it in a
> heartbeat"...Really it's a non issue I think. When you consider just how
> much G force (and Gyroscopic force) the professional acro boys and girls
> put on a Lycoming crank (you ever see Kirbly Chambliss do an English
> Bunt flip/ tumble thingy?) then you know they don't break...At least not
> for that reason.
>
> Sure I had the same conversation with an engineer at Hartzell...he even
> said do not use a prop extension period..Why?...Well because Hartzell
> cannot guarantee the extension will not fall apart etc....In other words
> it was hartz's official don't sue me line....He also pointed out the RV
> was by nature a pretty gentle acro plane...I.e in his personal opinion
> "don't worry about it".
>
> Now of course one could get into the whole prop debate too but for me at
> least the hartz was the fastest prop that Van's tested and its by far
> the cheapest too.
>
> As they say YMMV...:)
>
> Frank
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of J. Brunke
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:13 AM
> To: rv7-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
>
> Charlie,
>
> About a year ago I was talking to a women in Hartzell's engineering
> department about the hub extension.
> Sorry I don't recall her name. Anyway Hartzell is worried about the
> stress
> levels on the extended hub
> during any acro. You could argue that the hub should at least be good
> up to
> 3.8 G's normal catagory, but
> do you want to be the test pilot that finds out?
>
> Like you I am leaning towards the James cowl so the extension is
> definitely needed.
> I talked to the folks at Aerocomposite props. Not only will their
> extensions stand up to the g-loading,
> they are very familiar with Sam James Cowl and what is required. They
> also
> don't have any RPM type
> restrictions on their props like Hartzell does.
>
> I was just talking to a -7 owner at Sun and fun who has the James cowl
> and an MT prop. MT's are an excellent prop, but he said it was quite a
> hassle getting the correct length hub from them. Now that they've done
> his airplane, they might be more knowledgable about the whole thing.
>
> Either composite prop is going to be a lot more than the Hartzell, but
> piece of mind sometimes costs a little extra. I only plan on
> building one RV7. If I can do it right the first time, it will be
> cheaper
> in the long run.
>
> John Brunke
> RV7 tip-up in progress.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:58 PM
> Subject: RV7-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
>
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
>>
>> If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
>> experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or
> negative)?
>>
>> and,
>>
>> Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed
> for
>> some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
>> 'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
> with
>> F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm not
>> willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
>>
>> Feel free to reply either on or off-list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charlie
>> ceengland@bellsouth.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! --
|