Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:22 AM - Re: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice (Gary Newsted)
2. 08:45 AM - Re: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice (Vic Jacko)
3. 01:11 PM - Re: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice (rv9@3rivers.net)
4. 04:14 PM - EAA technical review (Bill Repucci)
5. 07:01 PM - Looking for EAA technical advisor (Gerry Filby)
6. 08:05 PM - Re: Looking for EAA technical advisor (Bill Repucci)
7. 10:14 PM - Re: Looking for EAA technical advisor (Ken Moak)
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: | Re: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Gary Newsted" <fcs@jlc.net>
Vic, as mentioned before, you're in the wrong newsgroup for Eggenfellner
information, which is readily available in abundance.
To answer your question, mine is one of about four RV-9E's flying with the
2.5L non-supercharged E-motor. While it is factory rated for 165hp, we do
not operate the engine at the peak RPM required to achieve this. Not having
a dyno on hand, my best estimate is that the usable horsepower is around
150hp. My plane is on the very heavy side at 1200lbs, but that has more to
do with my tastes in avionics and upholstery than engines. I have a full
stack, EFIS, full set of backup instruments (primary six), CD, wood trim,
leather upholstery and on and on. Hey, what can I say, I like to be
comfortable as I zip around this country!
My W&B is within specifications, but I did have to add 10lbs of ballast in
the tail cone to achieve my most forward CG limit. Again, this was due to
all the above and has nothing to do with engine selection. Had I simply
mounted one of my redundant batteries further back instead of on the
firewall, the balast would not be required. In fact, now that I've logged
over 100 hours, I may remove the balast anyway since the plane demonstrates
wonderful flying characteristics. I can't provide numbers for other
peoples 9E's, but I know most are checking in around 1130 lbs.
As for performance, flying solo, I can stand her on end on takeoffs, maxing
out my VSI at 2200fpm. A typical "normal" takeoff will achieve about
1400fpm at 85 to 90 mph. My max recorded cruise performance, 4-way GPS, is
about 170 mph, a little slower than others have reported, but well within my
expectations. With the supercharger option, people report 205+ mph. For
the normally aspirated engine, altitude has shown minimal effect on top
speed. Lower altitude seems to be offset by higher performance and vise
versa. My tests were performed at 4, 8, and 10K with a variation of only 3
mph. The supercharged version has been tested up to 18000' with climb rate
to spare. There are also several new engine models, both 4 and 6 cylinder
types, which have not be characterized yet.
Bottom line is, I love this engine and airframe combination. It is smooth,
quiet, economical, looks great, meets my every expection, and turns heads
wherever I go.
Hope that helps. If you need more testimonials, just tune into the other
newsgroup.
Gary
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: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Gary, thank you for the well written expose' of your "E" engine 9,
Sounds like you have a fine machine.
I want to keep my 9A light and will probably go with the traditional engine
and call it a "9L"
Talk to you later.
Vic
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Newsted" <fcs@jlc.net>
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Gary Newsted" <fcs@jlc.net>
>
> Vic, as mentioned before, you're in the wrong newsgroup for Eggenfellner
> information, which is readily available in abundance.
>
> To answer your question, mine is one of about four RV-9E's flying with the
> 2.5L non-supercharged E-motor. While it is factory rated for 165hp, we
do
> not operate the engine at the peak RPM required to achieve this. Not
having
> a dyno on hand, my best estimate is that the usable horsepower is around
> 150hp. My plane is on the very heavy side at 1200lbs, but that has more
to
> do with my tastes in avionics and upholstery than engines. I have a full
> stack, EFIS, full set of backup instruments (primary six), CD, wood trim,
> leather upholstery and on and on. Hey, what can I say, I like to be
> comfortable as I zip around this country!
>
> My W&B is within specifications, but I did have to add 10lbs of ballast in
> the tail cone to achieve my most forward CG limit. Again, this was due
to
> all the above and has nothing to do with engine selection. Had I simply
> mounted one of my redundant batteries further back instead of on the
> firewall, the balast would not be required. In fact, now that I've
logged
> over 100 hours, I may remove the balast anyway since the plane
demonstrates
> wonderful flying characteristics. I can't provide numbers for other
> peoples 9E's, but I know most are checking in around 1130 lbs.
>
> As for performance, flying solo, I can stand her on end on takeoffs,
maxing
> out my VSI at 2200fpm. A typical "normal" takeoff will achieve about
> 1400fpm at 85 to 90 mph. My max recorded cruise performance, 4-way GPS,
is
> about 170 mph, a little slower than others have reported, but well within
my
> expectations. With the supercharger option, people report 205+ mph.
For
> the normally aspirated engine, altitude has shown minimal effect on top
> speed. Lower altitude seems to be offset by higher performance and vise
> versa. My tests were performed at 4, 8, and 10K with a variation of only
3
> mph. The supercharged version has been tested up to 18000' with climb
rate
> to spare. There are also several new engine models, both 4 and 6
cylinder
> types, which have not be characterized yet.
>
> Bottom line is, I love this engine and airframe combination. It is
smooth,
> quiet, economical, looks great, meets my every expection, and turns heads
> wherever I go.
>
> Hope that helps. If you need more testimonials, just tune into the other
> newsgroup.
>
> Gary
>
>
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: Weight an Balance/ Engine Choice |
TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL
--> RV9-List message posted by: rv9@3rivers.net
Gary....I'm really glad you are very happy with your engine choice and how it
performs, the noise level, and all. As you say, that is the real bottom line in
this whole thing.
For a rough, not too scientific comparison, here is what I am seeing. This is
at a field elevation of 4,000 msl or so. I am running just a little 0-320 E2D
150 HP Lycoming with an Ed Sterba Fixed wood prop.
My empty weight is 1032lbs (due to the engine?). This is with everything but
paint, one battery, and fairly simple panel. I have thick sound deadening
insulation, carpets front and back, and a low noise level. I have DJ's seats
from Cleveland, and am also very comfy.
My weight and balance is within specs with no ballast with the extremes of an
80 lb pilot, full fuel and no baggage, or 450 lbs of people, full or empty
tanks, and 100 lbs of baggage.
I can peg the VSI by pulling back on the stick also, and a "normal takeoff"
solo will show about 1600 fpm at 110 mph at this elevation on a mildly warm
day. It climbs very well anywhere from 80 to 120 mph. I have seen a steady 1000
fpm solo at 12,000 ft. My full bore speed at 5,000 ft shows right at 190 mph
(two-way GPS in little or no wind). I prefer to run it easier for cruise,
especially if it is bumpy. I really like an easy cruise setting of about 18
inches, 150 indicated, a bit over 165 true, and about 2150 rpm. This gives me
a consistent fuel burn of 5 to 5.5 gallons per hour. Performance with a full
sized passenger is not much different, except for a slightly longer takeoff
roll and slightly reduced climb rate.
I am really happy with my setup also. Again, this is the goal. These are such
good aiplanes that they do very well on moderate power. They are just
delightful to fly, and very well mannered while still being very sporty.
There are some real advantages to liquid cooling, especially in colder
climates. I am as yet unaware of any Subaru installations that are as light as
a comparable Lycoming installation. But again, comparing just on the basis of
cold numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Either way, you'll have a great airplane. Spam drivers probably get tired of
hearing RV guys talk, but once you get 20 or 30 hours in one, you'll know why.
Gary
Quoting Gary Newsted <fcs@jlc.net>:
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Gary Newsted" <fcs@jlc.net>
>
> Vic, as mentioned before, you're in the wrong newsgroup for Eggenfellner
> information, which is readily available in abundance.
>
> To answer your question, mine is one of about four RV-9E's flying with the
> 2.5L non-supercharged E-motor. While it is factory rated for 165hp, we do
> not operate the engine at the peak RPM required to achieve this. Not having
> a dyno on hand, my best estimate is that the usable horsepower is around
> 150hp. My plane is on the very heavy side at 1200lbs, but that has more to
> do with my tastes in avionics and upholstery than engines. I have a full
> stack, EFIS, full set of backup instruments (primary six), CD, wood trim,
> leather upholstery and on and on. Hey, what can I say, I like to be
> comfortable as I zip around this country!
>
> My W&B is within specifications, but I did have to add 10lbs of ballast in
> the tail cone to achieve my most forward CG limit. Again, this was due to
> all the above and has nothing to do with engine selection. Had I simply
> mounted one of my redundant batteries further back instead of on the
> firewall, the balast would not be required. In fact, now that I've logged
> over 100 hours, I may remove the balast anyway since the plane demonstrates
> wonderful flying characteristics. I can't provide numbers for other
> peoples 9E's, but I know most are checking in around 1130 lbs.
>
> As for performance, flying solo, I can stand her on end on takeoffs, maxing
> out my VSI at 2200fpm. A typical "normal" takeoff will achieve about
> 1400fpm at 85 to 90 mph. My max recorded cruise performance, 4-way GPS, is
> about 170 mph, a little slower than others have reported, but well within my
> expectations. With the supercharger option, people report 205+ mph. For
> the normally aspirated engine, altitude has shown minimal effect on top
> speed. Lower altitude seems to be offset by higher performance and vise
> versa. My tests were performed at 4, 8, and 10K with a variation of only 3
> mph. The supercharged version has been tested up to 18000' with climb rate
> to spare. There are also several new engine models, both 4 and 6 cylinder
> types, which have not be characterized yet.
>
> Bottom line is, I love this engine and airframe combination. It is smooth,
> quiet, economical, looks great, meets my every expection, and turns heads
> wherever I go.
>
> Hope that helps. If you need more testimonials, just tune into the other
> newsgroup.
>
> Gary
>
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: | EAA technical review |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Bill Repucci" <bill@repucci.com>
This morning my -9 project (empennage and first wing) was inspected by
our chapter's technical advisor.
He stated that the log should include the following entry after each
mile stone:
Completed and inspected the HS.
Lucky for me, my log is in Excel so adding such lines won't be a big
deal.
His other bit of advice was include myself in more of the pictures, not
just pictures of airplane parts.
Bill R.
RV-9
SN: 90737
N941WR (Reserved)
Closing the first fuel tank
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: | Looking for EAA technical advisor |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Hi Folks,
I'm on the Peninsula in San Francisco, got my empennage kit
beginning of December, getting ready to start the priming and
final assembly of the HS.
Can anyone recommend an EAA technical adivsor in the area that
would work with me once in a while ?
Regards,
Gerry.
RV-9 #90842.
do not archive
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Home (415) 239 4846
Cell (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: | Looking for EAA technical advisor |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Bill Repucci" <bill@repucci.com>
Gary,
Have you check with your local EAA chapter? If they can't help you,
contact the EAA national and see who they would recommend. Remember,
you don't need an advisor who is or has built an RV to inspect your kit.
Good luck!
Bill
RV-9
SN: 90737
N941WR (Reserved)
Left Wing
390 hours and counting
Bla bla bla ...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Filby
Subject: RV9-List: Looking for EAA technical advisor
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Hi Folks,
I'm on the Peninsula in San Francisco, got my empennage kit
beginning of December, getting ready to start the priming and
final assembly of the HS.
Can anyone recommend an EAA technical adivsor in the area that
would work with me once in a while ?
Regards,
Gerry.
RV-9 #90842.
do not archive
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Home (415) 239 4846
Cell (415) 203 9177
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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: | Looking for EAA technical advisor |
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Ken Moak" <airplanestuff@sbcglobal.net>
Gerry
I looked on the following site and started calling
http://members.eaa.org/home/lookup/FindFlightAdvisor.asp
The first three I called were all with 5 minutes of me, they would say they
something to the effect of, I need to look at my schedule and I'll call you
tomorrow. It has been almost a year, I know they are going to call anytime
now. I just wish they would say they were too busy. Found one that was
about 25 miles away, called back, came over, a super guy.
Nice to have helpful people give it the once over. I had assembled most of
the empennage, but left the rear spar open so he could easier look inside.
Good luck
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gerry Filby
Subject: RV9-List: Looking for EAA technical advisor
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Hi Folks,
I'm on the Peninsula in San Francisco, got my empennage kit
beginning of December, getting ready to start the priming and
final assembly of the HS.
Can anyone recommend an EAA technical adivsor in the area that
would work with me once in a while ?
Regards,
Gerry.
RV-9 #90842.
do not archive
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Home (415) 239 4846
Cell (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! --
|