Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:09 AM - Engine decision time ... (Gerry Filby)
2. 11:31 AM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Paul Folbrecht)
3. 11:44 AM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Gerry Filby)
4. 12:06 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Paul Folbrecht)
5. 01:03 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (John Disher)
6. 02:06 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... ()
7. 02:25 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (Matthew Brandes)
8. 02:38 PM - Re: Re: Engine decision time ... (Gerry Filby)
9. 03:22 PM - Re: Engine decision time ... (rv-9a-online)
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)
--> RV9-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: | Re: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
The reason for not exceeding 160hp is that the airframe isn't designed
for it and can't handle it long-term. I have read accounts from those
who have used 360s finding stress cracks in the tail after several
hundred hours. You would be wise to listen to the factory
recommendations on this issue.
Gerry Filby wrote:
>--> RV9-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 ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Thanks for your response Paul,
I'm guessing that's because the tail for the 9 is larger than
the 7 therefore greater twisting forces are possible - do you
know by chance where the cracks appeared ?
g
>
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> The reason for not exceeding 160hp is that the airframe isn't designed
> for it and can't handle it long-term. I have read accounts from those
> who have used 360s finding stress cracks in the tail after several
> hundred hours. You would be wise to listen to the factory
> recommendations on this issue.
>
> Gerry Filby wrote:
>
> >--> RV9-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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
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: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
I do not recall where the cracks were, other than "tail" - I remember
that that particular account caused me to rule out a 360 entirely.
I believe there's more to it than the larger tail, too - the metal is
thinner in some cases on the 9.
Hey, you'll burn quite a bit less gas with a 320 anyway. And the
difference in cruise speed is quite minimal.
~Paul 9A #1176
Gerry Filby wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
>Thanks for your response Paul,
>
>I'm guessing that's because the tail for the 9 is larger than
>the 7 therefore greater twisting forces are possible - do you
>know by chance where the cracks appeared ?
>
>g
>
>
>
>>--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>>
>>The reason for not exceeding 160hp is that the airframe isn't designed
>>for it and can't handle it long-term. I have read accounts from those
>>who have used 360s finding stress cracks in the tail after several
>>hundred hours. You would be wise to listen to the factory
>>recommendations on this issue.
>>
>>Gerry Filby wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV9-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: | Re: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "John Disher" <jdisher@intergate.com>
I too looked hard at engine size, mainly because I favored the 360. But the
tail differences, stories about cracks and the spar "stub" that is
sandwiched into the fuselage being so much smaller than the RV 6, and Vans
recommendation is enough for me.
I just can' imagine what the feeling would be in those last final seconds
after the plane started coming apart at 8000 feet as you started telling
yourself, "Van really knows best".
John Disher,
last 10% taking 90%
-------Original Message-------
From: Gerry Filby
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Engine decision time ...
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Thanks for your response Paul,
I'm guessing that's because the tail for the 9 is larger than
the 7 therefore greater twisting forces are possible - do you
know by chance where the cracks appeared ?
g
>
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> The reason for not exceeding 160hp is that the airframe isn't designed
> for it and can't handle it long-term. I have read accounts from those
> who have used 360s finding stress cracks in the tail after several
> hundred hours. You would be wise to listen to the factory
> recommendations on this issue.
>
> Gerry Filby wrote:
>
> >--> RV9-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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
__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: | Re: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: <dthomas773@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Gerry. I would think seriously about putting more
than 160 HP in your 9. The empennage and wings very
different from the 7.
Your in SF? Come down to Watsonville and fly my 9.
It only has 150 HP and I can usually eak out 190 MPH.
I don't do it other than very short test because it
redlines the prop.
--- Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> wrote:
> --> RV9-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
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
Gerry and gang....
The RV-7 now uses the same rudder as the -9. This was a change they made
about a year or more ago. The rudder cracking is usually along the trailing
edge of the rudder and is caused by the flexing near the ends of the
stiffeners on the skin. It is recommended that you proseal or glue the ends
of the stiffeners to the skin to keep the skin from flexing and developing
cracks. (Not to say that a larger engine isn't contributing to the
problem.. but RV-9's with O-320's also develop the problems.. ask Andy K.)
I fall in line with everyone else on the engine choice... stick with an
(I)O-320 as Van's recommends... get a 160hp if you want. All the numbers
I've seen have been close or right on with what Van's advertises. Besides..
do you really want to run near the top end speed all the time?? Are you
_really_ going to notice 5-10mph difference at the top end??
Just my $.05 worth
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Wiring)
#90569
http://www.n523rv.com <http://www.n523rv.com/>
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
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: | Re: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Phew ! I used T-88 on my trailing edges so I'm hoping cracking
won't be something I have to deal with.
If folks are getting the performance with 160hp then, as you
say, it doesn't make sense to divert from the plans.
Thx
g
>
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
>
> Gerry and gang....
>
> The RV-7 now uses the same rudder as the -9. This was a change
> they made
> about a year or more ago. The rudder cracking is usually along
> the trailing
> edge of the rudder and is caused by the flexing near the ends of the
> stiffeners on the skin. It is recommended that you proseal or
> glue the ends
> of the stiffeners to the skin to keep the skin from flexing and
> developing
> cracks. (Not to say that a larger engine isn't contributing to the
> problem.. but RV-9's with O-320's also develop the problems..
> ask Andy K.)
>
> I fall in line with everyone else on the engine choice... stick with an
> (I)O-320 as Van's recommends... get a 160hp if you want. All
> the numbers
> I've seen have been close or right on with what Van's
> advertises. Besides..
> do you really want to run near the top end speed all the time?? Are you
> _really_ going to notice 5-10mph difference at the top end??
>
> Just my $.05 worth
>
> Matthew Brandes,
> Van's RV-9A (Wiring)
> #90569
> http://www.n523rv.com <http://www.n523rv.com/>
>
> EAA Chapter 1329 President
> EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
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: Engine decision time ... |
--> RV9-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Let's see... spend 3000 hours to build an airplane that cruises 40 kt
faster than a 'spam can'.
If you fly 100 hrs per year in the RV, it would be about 130 hours to
cover the same distance in a '172. So you save 30 hours per year by
having an RV rather than a 172.
Break even is 100 years.
Putting an O-360 in might reduce the break-even to 95 years.
So let's not kid ourselves that we're building an airplane to save
time. We're building because we enjoy it, and flying an RV is a lot
more fun than flying a 172. It's a bonus to get where we are going
quickly and in style.
One bit of advice that I got was to install an oxygen system, fly high
to take advantage of favourable winds and weather and, save time that way.
Vern Little
RV-9A in fiberglass hell
Gerry Filby wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
>Thanks for your response Paul,
>
>I'm guessing that's because the tail for the 9 is larger than
>the 7 therefore greater twisting forces are possible - do you
>know by chance where the cracks appeared ?
>
>g
>
>
>
>>--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>>
>>The reason for not exceeding 160hp is that the airframe isn't designed
>>for it and can't handle it long-term. I have read accounts from those
>>who have used 360s finding stress cracks in the tail after several
>>hundred hours. You would be wise to listen to the factory
>>recommendations on this issue.
>>
>>Gerry Filby wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV9-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! --
|