Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - 180hp engine (ivo welch)
2. 07:18 AM - Re: 180hp engine (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
3. 07:44 AM - Re: 180hp installations (Larry PERRYMAN)
4. 07:47 AM - Re: 180hp installations (Andy Karmy)
5. 08:00 AM - Re: 180hp engine (Stein Bruch)
6. 08:14 AM - Re: 180hp engine (Dean)
7. 08:24 AM - Re: 180hp engine (Larry PERRYMAN)
8. 04:03 PM - 0-360 on an RV-9A (Mark Schrimmer)
9. 04:22 PM - Re: 180hp engine (Mark Schrimmer)
10. 04:52 PM - Fellow RV builders I need your input/help (Merems)
11. 05:12 PM - Re: 0-360 on an RV-9A (Stein Bruch)
12. 05:15 PM - RV9-List; Re: 180hp engine-flutter (John Allen hurn)
13. 07:12 PM - Re: 0-360 on an RV-9A (Mark Schrimmer)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
there was a long article in the RVator why they do not recommend the
180hp (I have it scanned, but I do not have the copyright, so I cannot
distribute it). it states that one can easily exceed design limits if
one uses a 180hp engine. yet, upon careful reading, you will notice
that they somewhere state that the limiting factor for the 9a is
flutter. unlike structural failure, my guess is that when flutter
occurs, one can just pull back the throttle.
I am not an aviation engineer, so I do not know what I am talking
about. good luck.
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: 180hp engine |
--> RV9-List message posted by: kerrjohna@comcast.net
frequently, flutter is a short-lived event. The control surface often departs
the airplane faster than the throttle can be reduced. (Nanoseconds)
> --> RV9-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
>
>
> there was a long article in the RVator why they do not recommend the
> 180hp (I have it scanned, but I do not have the copyright, so I cannot
> distribute it). it states that one can easily exceed design limits if
> one uses a 180hp engine. yet, upon careful reading, you will notice
> that they somewhere state that the limiting factor for the 9a is
> flutter. unlike structural failure, my guess is that when flutter
> occurs, one can just pull back the throttle.
>
> I am not an aviation engineer, so I do not know what I am talking
> about. good luck.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: 180hp installations |
09/02/2003 04:44:36 PM,
Serialize complete at 09/02/2003 04:44:36 PM
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Larry PERRYMAN" <larry.perryman@atofina.com>
Rick,
It is NOT recommended by Vans due to there being to much power for the
design load of the wing. There was a long write-up in the RVator soon
after the 9 came out.
Regards,
Larry Perryman
Voice Supervisor
ATOFINA Petrochemicals Inc.
(281) 227-5550
Rick Smith <ricks3@us.ibm.com>
Sent by: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
09/01/2003 04:11 AM
Please respond to rv9-list
To: rv9-list@matronics.com
cc:
Subject: RV9-List: 180hp installations
--> RV9-List message posted by: Rick Smith <ricks3@us.ibm.com>
There was one -9 described in the RVator that had an O-360 in it. Anyone
have any additional info on that installation? A 180-hp would be a good
alternative to the 160-hp with a constant speed.
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: 180hp installations |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
As others have indicated, the RVator article talks about max speed etc... I saw
the RV9 at Vans homecomming on Sunday, can't tell what engine it has from the
outside! Here's the key, The pilot indicates that if he had it to do over again
he would go with an 0-320... Why? Weight, every bit of extra weight up front
gives it a much heavier feel on takeoff and landing and nose is harder to keep
off the ground. Ken Scott I think also has flown it and had similar feelings
compared to 129RV.
- Andy
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Rick Smith <ricks3@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>There was one -9 described in the RVator that had an O-360 in it. Anyone
>have any additional info on that installation? A 180-hp would be a good
>alternative to the 160-hp with a constant speed.
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hmmmm...I'd be VERY carefull with flutter. History shows us (and current
test pilots also) that flutter usually arrives with little to no warning,
and then the "fluttering part" simply exits the aircraft in rapid order!
Flutter is not the simple wing wagging or "twitching" of a control surface,
but a high frequency vibration which is usually very short lived - ending in
a failure of a part. Flutter is rarely something that is noticable until
it's too late, and flutter itself usually results in a structural failure.
Re: 180hp on a -9, I'd say...WHY??? It will already perform at the top end
of it's envelope with a 160hp, and remember that plane was originally
designed with a 118hp engine to start. Kind of like putting a 360 on a
C-150. Yes people have and will do it, but it's probably not the smartest
thing to do. I know this will probably start a flame war, because someone
has the bright idea of "de-rating" a 360, and using the reserve for high
density altitudes, but that's nothing more than rationalizing it to one's
self. These planes are NOT anemic performers anyway, and to avoid being a
statistic, stick somewhat close to the design!
I'll quit ranting, and expect the backlash that is sure to come, but please,
just be careful. Also, get a ride in an RV and you'll see they are just
fine as designed!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
Minneapolis
The SteinAir Store @ http://www.steinair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of ivo welch
Subject: RV9-List: 180hp engine
--> RV9-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
there was a long article in the RVator why they do not recommend the
180hp (I have it scanned, but I do not have the copyright, so I cannot
distribute it). it states that one can easily exceed design limits if
one uses a 180hp engine. yet, upon careful reading, you will notice
that they somewhere state that the limiting factor for the 9a is
flutter. unlike structural failure, my guess is that when flutter
occurs, one can just pull back the throttle.
I am not an aviation engineer, so I do not know what I am talking
about. good luck.
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: | Re: 180hp engine |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "ivo welch" <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
Subject: RV9-List: 180hp engine
> --> RV9-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
>
>
> there was a long article in the RVator why they do not recommend the
> 180hp (I have it scanned, but I do not have the copyright, so I cannot
> distribute it). it states that one can easily exceed design limits if
> one uses a 180hp engine. yet, upon careful reading, you will notice
> that they somewhere state that the limiting factor for the 9a is
> flutter. unlike structural failure, my guess is that when flutter
> occurs, one can just pull back the throttle.
>
> I am not an aviation engineer, so I do not know what I am talking
> about. good luck.
>
Ivo
I am also building an RV-9A. The limit "V" speeds that Van publishes for the
9 and 9A are intended to give a comfortable flutter margin and it is wise to
respect them. While it won't always happen, flutter can lead to
catastrophic structural failure before you could even pull the throttle
back. The Steve Wittman fatal accident comes to mind. Flutter is not
something that anyone would want to casually experience on their airplane.
Dean Van Winkle Retired Aeronautical Engineer and former Flight Test
Engineer
>
>
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 |
|
09/02/2003 05:24:34 PM,
Serialize complete at 09/02/2003 05:24:34 PM
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Larry PERRYMAN" <larry.perryman@atofina.com>
Stein,
I will stand beside you in the flame war. I agree. DO NOT DO IT.
Regards,
Larry Perryman
Voice Supervisor
ATOFINA Petrochemicals Inc.
(281) 227-5550
"Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Sent by: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
09/02/2003 10:03 AM
Please respond to rv9-list
To: <rv9-list@matronics.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: RV9-List: 180hp engine
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hmmmm...I'd be VERY carefull with flutter. History shows us (and current
test pilots also) that flutter usually arrives with little to no warning,
and then the "fluttering part" simply exits the aircraft in rapid order!
Flutter is not the simple wing wagging or "twitching" of a control
surface,
but a high frequency vibration which is usually very short lived - ending
in
a failure of a part. Flutter is rarely something that is noticable until
it's too late, and flutter itself usually results in a structural failure.
Re: 180hp on a -9, I'd say...WHY??? It will already perform at the top
end
of it's envelope with a 160hp, and remember that plane was originally
designed with a 118hp engine to start. Kind of like putting a 360 on a
C-150. Yes people have and will do it, but it's probably not the smartest
thing to do. I know this will probably start a flame war, because someone
has the bright idea of "de-rating" a 360, and using the reserve for high
density altitudes, but that's nothing more than rationalizing it to one's
self. These planes are NOT anemic performers anyway, and to avoid being a
statistic, stick somewhat close to the design!
I'll quit ranting, and expect the backlash that is sure to come, but
please,
just be careful. Also, get a ride in an RV and you'll see they are just
fine as designed!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
Minneapolis
The SteinAir Store @ http://www.steinair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of ivo welch
Subject: RV9-List: 180hp engine
--> RV9-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
there was a long article in the RVator why they do not recommend the
180hp (I have it scanned, but I do not have the copyright, so I cannot
distribute it). it states that one can easily exceed design limits if
one uses a 180hp engine. yet, upon careful reading, you will notice
that they somewhere state that the limiting factor for the 9a is
flutter. unlike structural failure, my guess is that when flutter
occurs, one can just pull back the throttle.
I am not an aviation engineer, so I do not know what I am talking
about. good luck.
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: | 0-360 on an RV-9A |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
I know this will probably start a flame war, because someone
has the bright idea of "de-rating" a 360, and using the reserve for high
density altitudes, but that's nothing more than rationalizing it to one's
self.
Stein,
Do not take this as a flame. Let me repeat, this is not a flame--it's just a
question from a builder who wants to learn more about this subject.
What's wrong with de-rating an O-360? Cessna did that a few years ago when
they re-introduced the Skyhawk with an 0-360 rated at 160 h.p. Why is this a
bad idea? Since the derated version redlines at something like 2400 rpm
wouldn't you be putting less stress on the engine and maybe enjoy less
vibration and quieter operation than you would if you were getting the same
amount of horsepower from an 0-320?
Mark Schrimmer
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: 180hp engine |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
Stein,
I will stand beside you in the flame war. I agree. DO NOT DO IT.
Regards,
Larry Perryman
Voice Supervisor
ATOFINA Petrochemicals Inc.
(281) 227-5550
Larry,
As I mentioned to Stein, this is not a flame, just a question from someone
who would like to learn more on this subject . . .
Aren't the Eggenfeller Subies rated at 165 h.p.? Does this engine push the
9A faster than it can go with a 160 h.p. Lycoming?
Mark Schrimmer
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 |
|
<rv7-list@matronics.com>, <rv8list@yahoogroups.com>,
<RV-9A@yahoogroups.com>, <rv9-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Fellow RV builders I need your input/help |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Merems" <merems@cox.net>
Fellow RV-7/8/9/10 builders,
I need to get some feedback from all of you RV7/8/9/10 builders out there. As some of you know I am in process of developing innovative solutions to help RV builders (http://www.experimentalaero.com/ )I am getting final pricing on the Modular Tie Down System (MTDS-1) and I need feedback on pricing.
The MTDS-1 (http://www.experimentalaero.com/MTDS-1.htm) is a tie down system that uses custom quick release pins and flush mount anchors in the floor, side and back of the baggage bay. With multiple anchor points the owner can configure the tie downs to fit their cargo needs. Since the anchors are flush, the unused anchor points won't interfere with the cargo, boxes can sit flush on the floor and softer baggage won't get hung up. Installation is quick and easy, no special tools required.
The homebuilt/experimental market doesn't command high volumes. In tern it is very
difficult to get volume discounts from vendors. Which means the higher cost
gets passed to the customer. In order for a product to be successful it must
fulfill a need and be priced right. I need to get an understanding from fellow
builders and possible customers how much you would pay for the MTDS-1. I plan
on offering it as single quick release pins, single flush anchors, webbing and
buckles. I believe the common configuration would be two strap assemblies (webbing/buckle
with two release pins) and 6 anchors. This system would cost between
$75-100. What is the maximum amount you would pay for this functionality.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Paul
Message 11
| 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: | 0-360 on an RV-9A |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Mark,
No flame taken, in fact you bring up a good point. What would be the
difference??
Well...
#1. The Plane was NOT designed for it.
#2. The 360 is heavier.
#3. Requires a bigger, therefore longer prop.
#4. More Money
#5. More Gas
#6. More Oil Cooler (Bigger)
#7. More Exhaust (Bigger)
#8. Different Baffles
#9. Different Sumps
#10. Differnt Carbs/Fuel servos and positions
#11. Engine Mount considerations?? Strength, Offset, Etc..
#12. Engine Length Considerations
#13. Cowl Modifications----see #12?
#14. Derating isn't a "simple" as it sounds, if you restrict RPM for normal
operation, then you need to re-think prop pitch for normal operation, etc..
#15. Probably a negliable or small difference in performance overall in the
RV9.
#16. The Plane was NOT designed for it.
All of those things may seem trite and easy to "modify", but believe me,
anytime you deviate from the standard, you become your own engineer,
designer, tester, guinea pig, etc.. Having built two of these now, I can
tell you even small things FWF can make for a LOT of time and creative
language.
I agree that Cessna did put a de-rated 360 on a skyhawk, but my point is
they never put one on a C-150, which is what Van's was going after with
the -9.
It would be different if the RV's had problems at high density altitudes,
but the DON'T. All the RV's, even with small engines in them perform
remarkably. I just am trying to figure out why 1000fpm is not good enough
on a hot,high,humid day with a loaded airplane?!?!?! So you might gain
another 250fpm, it's not like your in a slouch of an airplane anyway! I
guess I'm just saying if you really want an O-360, buy a -7. The -9
performs like greased lightning on 160hp, and even at high density altitudes
in hot weather you'll still be far and away above the original 118hp that
Van's designed the thing around anyway!
To me, I'm trying to see the rational for even considering a 360, other than
the seemingly impossible to shake theory that More must Mean Better when it
comes to Cubic Inches. Always remember the laws of diminishing
returns.....this is one of them.
Oh, and yes I don have experience with both. I have 2 RV6's. One with a
screamin AEIO-360, and one with a "baby" 320.
Sorry for the long rant, but I just don't want to see anyone end up a
statistic for no reason.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
Minneapolis
http://www.steinair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Schrimmer
Subject: RV9-List: 0-360 on an RV-9A
Stein,
Do not take this as a flame. Let me repeat, this is not a flame--it's just a
question from a builder who wants to learn more about this subject.
What's wrong with de-rating an O-360? Cessna did that a few years ago when
they re-introduced the Skyhawk with an 0-360 rated at 160 h.p. Why is this a
bad idea? Since the derated version redlines at something like 2400 rpm
wouldn't you be putting less stress on the engine and maybe enjoy less
vibration and quieter operation than you would if you were getting the same
amount of horsepower from an 0-320?
Mark Schrimmer
Message 12
| 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: RV9-List; Re: 180hp engine-flutter |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "John Allen hurn" <hurns-ac@comcast.net>
Well I guess I feel I should add a nickel to the pot, Yes I side with sticking
with the 160hp or lower, BUT it is very important to make sure that "all" the
flight controls are balanced after all the (paint nuts and bolts rivets and other
items are added to the flight control surface. This will really help in
keeping the flutter problem out of your aircraft.
For the new guys and gals get a copy of the A&P Airframe book EA-AC 65-15A and
on page 82 to 84 is a good balance methods.
Johnny Hurn A&P 1956 to date
Message 13
| 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: 0-360 on an RV-9A |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
I agree that Cessna did put a de-rated 360 on a skyhawk, but my point is
they never put one on a C-150, which is what Van's was going after with
the -9.
Thanks for the info, Stein. You make a very good point.
Mark Schrimmer
RV-9A fuselage
Finish kit on order with
engine mount and cowling for an 0-320
Do not archive
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! --
|