Look at Van's Blather here.

[Bret Ludwig]

Introduction - Powerplant Choices

RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

The RV-4 and RV-6/6A use 150/160 hp 0-320 or 180 hp 0-360 engines.
The RV-7/7A and RV-8/8A can accommodate O-320, O-360 or angle valve
IO-360 (200 hp) engines. The RV-9/9A is suitable for Lycoming engines
in the 118 hp to 160 hp range. The engine used in the 4-place RV-10 is
the Lycoming IO-540D4A5 rated at 260 hp. Van's recommendation for the 4
place includes any of the parallel valve 540's which are available from
235hp on up to the 260hp version. These engines are the most readily
available, affordable, and reliable of the possible choices. Other
aircraft engines of similar configuration, weight and power might
possibly be used, but only the Lycoming will fit the mounts and cowls
supplied with our kits.

Van's volume allows us to buy appropriate models of new engines at
O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) prices direct from Lycoming.
We market these engines to our customers at far less than list price.
This makes them an affordable alternative, even when compared to the
traditional used engine. Van's has similar arrangements with Hartzell
Propeller, Sensenich Propeller and other manufacturers.
Other Engines

We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We'd
like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane
business:
"the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a
good used Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it
reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be
as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a
traditional aircraft engine.

It seems that magazines are always printing stories about automobile
engines bought for junkyard prices, mated to inexpensive reduction
drives and flown off into the sunset. It simply doesn't work like
that in the real world. The reliability we have come to expect from
aircraft engines is the result of years of development and refinement
of engines designed specifically for the task. Automobile engines
function well in their intended application: delivering low cruising
power in vehicles with well designed transmissions and power trains.
Using them successfully in an airplane requires continuous high power
outputs and reduction systems coupled to the propeller. This is
completely foreign to their design intent. (You can imagine the car
engine designer banging his head slowly against his desk..."no, no, no.
If I'd known you wanted to do that with it, I would have designed
something different....)

(Why are Lycomings never found in boats, fire pumps, gensets or other
high output and often life-critical applications? They are less
reliable intrinsically than commodity powerplants, and secondarily
ridiculously priced.)

With enough research and development effort, auto engines may be made
to work acceptably or even well in an airplane. We are not opposed, in
principle, to RV builders using alternate engines, but we would hope
that this choice is made on facts, not hopes or dreams. Do you want to
spend your time and effort on engine development or do you want to fly
confidently behind an engine that has already been developed?

(Using that logic why should I spend more money to build your
noncertified, and presumably intrinsically uncertificatable by design,
airframe when less will buy me a PROVEN, certificated aircraft? )


We, too, would like to see "something better" in available powerplants.
We are carefully watching some alternatives. Meanwhile, the proven
Lycomings do the job very well and are the best "available now" option.
Despite the many claims and promises made by promoters, we feel that if
you will look closely at what is actually available, how many are
really flying, and how well they really perform, you will agree with
our conclusions.

(Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer! With all due
disrespect, Dick, I don't think you really would like to see any other
powerplant succeed because one, you have a sweetheart deal with
Lycoming, and two, you want your RVs to be alike as production aircraft
to fluff resale and insurability without the bother of type
certification and production. This is called "the tragedy of the
commons" or "why buy the cow if all those heifers will come to you for
you to milk the living daylights out of and they will buy you breakfast
too".)

While we are not opposed to RV builders installing alternate engines,
we simply cannot recommend or encourage the installation of any other
engine - we don't feel it would best serve the interest or safety of
the builder.

(It wouldn't serve OUR interest.)

[Richard Riley[_1_]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> (Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer!

Godwin <PLONK>

[Bret Ludwig]

Richard Riley wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > (Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer!
>
> Godwin <PLONK>

Richard Riley=HITLER

PLONK, you stupid moron!

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Automobile engines
> function well in their intended application: delivering low cruising
> power in vehicles with well designed transmissions and power trains.
> Using them successfully in an airplane requires continuous high power
> outputs and reduction systems coupled to the propeller. This is
> completely foreign to their design intent.

Join me for a drive in the off-peak hours on the Autobahn and then tell me
again that auto engines can't stand continuous high power output.

In German, there's even a word for that: "vollgasfest",
roughly "full-throttle safe", indicating that an engine is fit for
continuous operation at full throttle. Engines that aren't full-throttle
safe don't sell in Germany and are cause of ridicule, as FIAT had to learn
the hard way.

Anno.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

Are the comments in parentheses yours? It's kind of hard to tell who wrote
what.

In any case, I know of at one Lycoming engine designed for a boat. I think
it was used in the 1930s.

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...



Introduction - Powerplant Choices

RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

The RV-4 and RV-6/6A use 150/160 hp 0-320 or 180 hp 0-360 engines.
The RV-7/7A and RV-8/8A can accommodate O-320, O-360 or angle valve
IO-360 (200 hp) engines. The RV-9/9A is suitable for Lycoming engines
in the 118 hp to 160 hp range. The engine used in the 4-place RV-10 is
the Lycoming IO-540D4A5 rated at 260 hp. Van's recommendation for the 4
place includes any of the parallel valve 540's which are available from
235hp on up to the 260hp version. These engines are the most readily
available, affordable, and reliable of the possible choices. Other
aircraft engines of similar configuration, weight and power might
possibly be used, but only the Lycoming will fit the mounts and cowls
supplied with our kits.

Van's volume allows us to buy appropriate models of new engines at
O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) prices direct from Lycoming.
We market these engines to our customers at far less than list price.
This makes them an affordable alternative, even when compared to the
traditional used engine. Van's has similar arrangements with Hartzell
Propeller, Sensenich Propeller and other manufacturers.
Other Engines

We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We'd
like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane
business:
"the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a
good used Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it
reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be
as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a
traditional aircraft engine.

It seems that magazines are always printing stories about automobile
engines bought for junkyard prices, mated to inexpensive reduction
drives and flown off into the sunset. It simply doesn't work like
that in the real world. The reliability we have come to expect from
aircraft engines is the result of years of development and refinement
of engines designed specifically for the task. Automobile engines
function well in their intended application: delivering low cruising
power in vehicles with well designed transmissions and power trains.
Using them successfully in an airplane requires continuous high power
outputs and reduction systems coupled to the propeller. This is
completely foreign to their design intent. (You can imagine the car
engine designer banging his head slowly against his desk..."no, no, no.
If I'd known you wanted to do that with it, I would have designed
something different....)

(Why are Lycomings never found in boats, fire pumps, gensets or other
high output and often life-critical applications? They are less
reliable intrinsically than commodity powerplants, and secondarily
ridiculously priced.)

With enough research and development effort, auto engines may be made
to work acceptably or even well in an airplane. We are not opposed, in
principle, to RV builders using alternate engines, but we would hope
that this choice is made on facts, not hopes or dreams. Do you want to
spend your time and effort on engine development or do you want to fly
confidently behind an engine that has already been developed?

(Using that logic why should I spend more money to build your
noncertified, and presumably intrinsically uncertificatable by design,
airframe when less will buy me a PROVEN, certificated aircraft? )


We, too, would like to see "something better" in available powerplants.
We are carefully watching some alternatives. Meanwhile, the proven
Lycomings do the job very well and are the best "available now" option.
Despite the many claims and promises made by promoters, we feel that if
you will look closely at what is actually available, how many are
really flying, and how well they really perform, you will agree with
our conclusions.

(Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer! With all due
disrespect, Dick, I don't think you really would like to see any other
powerplant succeed because one, you have a sweetheart deal with
Lycoming, and two, you want your RVs to be alike as production aircraft
to fluff resale and insurability without the bother of type
certification and production. This is called "the tragedy of the
commons" or "why buy the cow if all those heifers will come to you for
you to milk the living daylights out of and they will buy you breakfast
too".)

While we are not opposed to RV builders installing alternate engines,
we simply cannot recommend or encourage the installation of any other
engine - we don't feel it would best serve the interest or safety of
the builder.

(It wouldn't serve OUR interest.)

[Newps]

Any chance there's a point to this drivel?




Bret Ludwig wrote:

>
>
> Introduction - Powerplant Choices
>
> RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.
>
> The RV-4 and RV-6/6A use 150/160 hp 0-320 or 180 hp 0-360 engines.
> The RV-7/7A and RV-8/8A can accommodate O-320, O-360 or angle valve
> IO-360 (200 hp) engines. The RV-9/9A is suitable for Lycoming engines
> in the 118 hp to 160 hp range. The engine used in the 4-place RV-10 is
> the Lycoming IO-540D4A5 rated at 260 hp. Van's recommendation for the 4
> place includes any of the parallel valve 540's which are available from
> 235hp on up to the 260hp version. These engines are the most readily
> available, affordable, and reliable of the possible choices. Other
> aircraft engines of similar configuration, weight and power might
> possibly be used, but only the Lycoming will fit the mounts and cowls
> supplied with our kits.
>
> Van's volume allows us to buy appropriate models of new engines at
> O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) prices direct from Lycoming.
> We market these engines to our customers at far less than list price.
> This makes them an affordable alternative, even when compared to the
> traditional used engine. Van's has similar arrangements with Hartzell
> Propeller, Sensenich Propeller and other manufacturers.
> Other Engines
>
> We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We'd
> like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane
> business:
> "the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a
> good used Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it
> reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be
> as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a
> traditional aircraft engine.
>
> It seems that magazines are always printing stories about automobile
> engines bought for junkyard prices, mated to inexpensive reduction
> drives and flown off into the sunset. It simply doesn't work like
> that in the real world. The reliability we have come to expect from
> aircraft engines is the result of years of development and refinement
> of engines designed specifically for the task. Automobile engines
> function well in their intended application: delivering low cruising
> power in vehicles with well designed transmissions and power trains.
> Using them successfully in an airplane requires continuous high power
> outputs and reduction systems coupled to the propeller. This is
> completely foreign to their design intent. (You can imagine the car
> engine designer banging his head slowly against his desk..."no, no, no.
> If I'd known you wanted to do that with it, I would have designed
> something different....)
>
> (Why are Lycomings never found in boats, fire pumps, gensets or other
> high output and often life-critical applications? They are less
> reliable intrinsically than commodity powerplants, and secondarily
> ridiculously priced.)
>
> With enough research and development effort, auto engines may be made
> to work acceptably or even well in an airplane. We are not opposed, in
> principle, to RV builders using alternate engines, but we would hope
> that this choice is made on facts, not hopes or dreams. Do you want to
> spend your time and effort on engine development or do you want to fly
> confidently behind an engine that has already been developed?
>
> (Using that logic why should I spend more money to build your
> noncertified, and presumably intrinsically uncertificatable by design,
> airframe when less will buy me a PROVEN, certificated aircraft? )
>
>
> We, too, would like to see "something better" in available powerplants.
> We are carefully watching some alternatives. Meanwhile, the proven
> Lycomings do the job very well and are the best "available now" option.
> Despite the many claims and promises made by promoters, we feel that if
> you will look closely at what is actually available, how many are
> really flying, and how well they really perform, you will agree with
> our conclusions.
>
> (Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer! With all due
> disrespect, Dick, I don't think you really would like to see any other
> powerplant succeed because one, you have a sweetheart deal with
> Lycoming, and two, you want your RVs to be alike as production aircraft
> to fluff resale and insurability without the bother of type
> certification and production. This is called "the tragedy of the
> commons" or "why buy the cow if all those heifers will come to you for
> you to milk the living daylights out of and they will buy you breakfast
> too".)
>
> While we are not opposed to RV builders installing alternate engines,
> we simply cannot recommend or encourage the installation of any other
> engine - we don't feel it would best serve the interest or safety of
> the builder.
>
> (It wouldn't serve OUR interest.)
>

[Casey Wilson[_1_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Any chance there's a point to this drivel?
>
Herr Ludwig didn't make it clear that he is ranting AGAINST the choice
of the Lycoming for all RVs. Akshully, Herr Ludwig makes no cogent remarks
as he stepped on his..., well let it go at that.


>
>
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Introduction - Powerplant Choices
>>
>> RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

[Kingfish]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> > Any chance there's a point to this drivel?

I found myself thinking the same thing

>>Herr Ludwig didn't make it clear that he is ranting AGAINST the choice
>> of the Lycoming for all RVs.

How hard would it be to mount a Continental to an RV? I'm no A&P but
how different could the mounts be for two engines of similar
architecture? Do Cont. engines use four-point mounts like Lycs?

[Maule Driver]

Van's attitude is exactly why I just started an RV10. Thanks for the
confirmation!

Bret Ludwig wrote:
(blather indeed)

[.Blueskies.]

I think someone lost their meds today...


"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
: Any chance there's a point to this drivel?
:
:
:
:
: Bret Ludwig wrote:
:
: >
: >
: > Introduction - Powerplant Choices
: >
: > RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.
: >
: > The RV-4 and RV-6/6A use 150/160 hp 0-320 or 180 hp 0-360 engines.
: > The RV-7/7A and RV-8/8A can accommodate O-320, O-360 or angle valve
: > IO-360 (200 hp) engines. The RV-9/9A is suitable for Lycoming engines
: > in the 118 hp to 160 hp range. The engine used in the 4-place RV-10 is
: > the Lycoming IO-540D4A5 rated at 260 hp. Van's recommendation for the 4
: > place includes any of the parallel valve 540's which are available from
: > 235hp on up to the 260hp version. These engines are the most readily
: > available, affordable, and reliable of the possible choices. Other
: > aircraft engines of similar configuration, weight and power might
: > possibly be used, but only the Lycoming will fit the mounts and cowls
: > supplied with our kits.
: >
: > Van's volume allows us to buy appropriate models of new engines at
: > O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) prices direct from Lycoming.
: > We market these engines to our customers at far less than list price.
: > This makes them an affordable alternative, even when compared to the
: > traditional used engine. Van's has similar arrangements with Hartzell
: > Propeller, Sensenich Propeller and other manufacturers.
: > Other Engines
: >
: > We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We'd
: > like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane
: > business:
: > "the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a
: > good used Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it
: > reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be
: > as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a
: > traditional aircraft engine.
: >
: > It seems that magazines are always printing stories about automobile
: > engines bought for junkyard prices, mated to inexpensive reduction
: > drives and flown off into the sunset. It simply doesn't work like
: > that in the real world. The reliability we have come to expect from
: > aircraft engines is the result of years of development and refinement
: > of engines designed specifically for the task. Automobile engines
: > function well in their intended application: delivering low cruising
: > power in vehicles with well designed transmissions and power trains.
: > Using them successfully in an airplane requires continuous high power
: > outputs and reduction systems coupled to the propeller. This is
: > completely foreign to their design intent. (You can imagine the car
: > engine designer banging his head slowly against his desk..."no, no, no.
: > If I'd known you wanted to do that with it, I would have designed
: > something different....)
: >
: > (Why are Lycomings never found in boats, fire pumps, gensets or other
: > high output and often life-critical applications? They are less
: > reliable intrinsically than commodity powerplants, and secondarily
: > ridiculously priced.)
: >
: > With enough research and development effort, auto engines may be made
: > to work acceptably or even well in an airplane. We are not opposed, in
: > principle, to RV builders using alternate engines, but we would hope
: > that this choice is made on facts, not hopes or dreams. Do you want to
: > spend your time and effort on engine development or do you want to fly
: > confidently behind an engine that has already been developed?
: >
: > (Using that logic why should I spend more money to build your
: > noncertified, and presumably intrinsically uncertificatable by design,
: > airframe when less will buy me a PROVEN, certificated aircraft? )
: >
: >
: > We, too, would like to see "something better" in available powerplants.
: > We are carefully watching some alternatives. Meanwhile, the proven
: > Lycomings do the job very well and are the best "available now" option.
: > Despite the many claims and promises made by promoters, we feel that if
: > you will look closely at what is actually available, how many are
: > really flying, and how well they really perform, you will agree with
: > our conclusions.
: >
: > (Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer! With all due
: > disrespect, Dick, I don't think you really would like to see any other
: > powerplant succeed because one, you have a sweetheart deal with
: > Lycoming, and two, you want your RVs to be alike as production aircraft
: > to fluff resale and insurability without the bother of type
: > certification and production. This is called "the tragedy of the
: > commons" or "why buy the cow if all those heifers will come to you for
: > you to milk the living daylights out of and they will buy you breakfast
: > too".)
: >
: > While we are not opposed to RV builders installing alternate engines,
: > we simply cannot recommend or encourage the installation of any other
: > engine - we don't feel it would best serve the interest or safety of
: > the builder.
: >
: > (It wouldn't serve OUR interest.)
: >

[Matt Whiting]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>
> Introduction - Powerplant Choices
>
> RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

Did you have a point here?

Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Casey Wilson wrote:
>
>> > Any chance there's a point to this drivel?
>
> I found myself thinking the same thing
>
>>>Herr Ludwig didn't make it clear that he is ranting AGAINST the choice
>>> of the Lycoming for all RVs.
>
> How hard would it be to mount a Continental to an RV? I'm no A&P but
> how different could the mounts be for two engines of similar
> architecture? Do Cont. engines use four-point mounts like Lycs?

Very different mounts. In addition, the 0-300 Continental is typically a
145 hp engine. Sure, it'll fly any of the 2 seat RV's, but *nobody* wants
less power than the other guy, who is probably flying behind a 160 or 180 hp
engine.

In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are a
few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is 20
hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

KB

[Newps]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Any chance there's a point to this drivel?
>>
>
> Herr Ludwig didn't make it clear that he is ranting AGAINST the choice
> of the Lycoming for all RVs. Akshully, Herr Ludwig makes no cogent remarks
> as he stepped on his..., well let it go at that.
>

So you could have answered my question with one word then.

[Newps]

Kyle Boatright wrote:


> In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
> customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are a
> few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is 20
> hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

And now there's an O-340 out there that puts out 190 hp. Oh the choices.

[Ed Sullivan]

On 16 Aug 2006 11:19:23 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

My armored infantry outfit drove all over south Germany in T-18
Armored personnel carriers which were powered by a big jesus
Continental 6 cylinder, horizontallyl opposed engines, worked pretty
good.

[Jim Carriere]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
> customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are a
> few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is 20
> hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
with that (among other changes) in mind.

There is an old Tony Bingelis article about the pros and cons (mostly
cons... weight, fuel flow) of bigger engines. Apparently a lot of RV
builders missed that memo... :) Or you could say it is a credit on the
basic design that it accepts increased power so well.

I think RVs are great airplanes although I don't want one for my own.
Apples and oranges thing I guess.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
> customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are
a
> few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which is
20
> hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.

I have a friend who was one of the few that chose the lower HP, then. He
built a fire breathing, race 4.3 liter Chevy RV-7, then got it done and
started almost immediately on a RV-9, which he put a 235 in.

He claims that he can go blasting around in the 235 HP Chevy when he wants
to go fast, and poke along in the O-235ci for trips, for next to nothing in
gas costs. The best of both worlds!
--
Jim in NC

[Kyle Boatright]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>
>> In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
>> customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there are
>> a few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp, which
>> is 20 hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the airplane.
>
> And now there's an O-340 out there that puts out 190 hp. Oh the choices.

You're right, there are lots of choices. The O-340 as you mentioned, but
also the O-390 and O-400, which are enlarged O-360's. Presumably all three
of these engines will be relatively low volume. I'd be scared to death to
buy one because if the Lyclone manufacturer who produces the oddball engine
goes out of business, I don't think there will enough units in the field to
drive anyone to support the engines.

People with GO-300's, GO-470's, C-85's, O-290's and several other legacy
powerplants are having problems getting parts for their engines. Those
engines had much longer production runs than today's oddball lyclones are
likely to see.

KB

[Jerry Springer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>
> (Not "you may" agree, "YOU WILL". Ja wohl Mein Führer! With all due
> disrespect, Dick, I don't think you really would like to see any other
> powerplant succeed because one, you have a sweetheart deal with
> Lycoming, and two, you want your RVs to be alike as production aircraft
> to fluff resale and insurability without the bother of type
> certification and production. This is called "the tragedy of the
> commons" or "why buy the cow if all those heifers will come to you for
> you to milk the living daylights out of and they will buy you breakfast
> too".)
>
Why do you even bother to get up in the mornings you are such a stupid
jacka++.
I have known Van since the early 1970s when he was building and flying
his RV-3. He did not have any kind of a "sweetheart" deal back then nor
is it a factor now. In the 1970s he would always say to people that
wanted to try different auto conversions that it was better to take cash
and convert it into a Lycoming. You are writing as crazy now as you did
when you said Van told you that he would lose %50 of his sales if the
hired guns went away. I did not see you respond to that when I posted
what Van said to me last weekend.

YOu hate homebuilts because you think they stole jobs away from you so
why don't you just go to a differnt group rather than hanging out in a
newsgroup that has people that love homebuilt, experimental aircraft?

[JJS]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message news:F4KEg.3078$df.1829@trndny06...
> Are the comments in parentheses yours? It's kind of hard to tell who wrote
> what.
>
> In any case, I know of at one Lycoming engine designed for a boat. I think
> it was used in the 1930s.

Lycomings are used in airboats all the time in Florida. And Van's aircraft built one of their RV-10s with a
Continental.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jerry Springer]

Jim Carriere wrote:

>
>
> That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
> originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
> apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
> with that (among other changes) in mind.

I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.

Jerry

[Jim Carriere]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> Jim Carriere wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
>> originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
>> apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
>> with that (among other changes) in mind.
>
> I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
> and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.

Hmmm, OK, was the -6 designed for the O-360 (to improve on the -4)? Or
am I misinformed?

[Jim Logajan]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> In talking with Van's, they really thought they would have quite a few
> customers for the RV-9 who would use the 0-235 or 0-290. Sure, there
> are a few, but there are far more guys bolting on the 0-360 @ 180 hp,
> which is 20 hp more than what Van had in mind when he designed the
> airplane.

I had contemplated an O-235 powered RV-9A. Here's the chain of reasoning
that I (and probably others inclined to lower horsepower) went through
before realizing it may be a less than optimum choice, even if one seeks to
lower operational expenses like avgas:

When I bought the RV info pack, I finally discovered why the specs on Van's
web site lists the gross weight (GW) range for the RV-9A from 1600 to 1750
pounds: the recommended gross weight increased with horsepower (a
dependency I could not find anywhere on Van's web site). At 118 HP,
recommended GW is 1600 lbs, at 135 HP it is 1675 lbs, and at 160 HP it is
1750 lbs. Now what is the actual structural limit?? Beats me - looks like
the GW goes as the cube root of the HP, so at 200 HP could I safely
increase the maximum GW to 1900 lbs? The designer recommended GW on _none_
of the other RV models changes with HP selection - only the 9 and 9A models
indicate a GW dependent on HP. If the lower max GWs are due to center-of-
gravity (CG) issues, or a takeoff performance issue, then it would be nice
to see that specifically stated somewhere.

Now with an 118 HP O-235 RV-9A @ 1600 lbs GW, Van's typical empty weight is
listed at 1028 lbs, leaving 572 lbs useful, or a miserly 356 lbs useful
with full fuel (36 gallons). So a couple who wish to travel cross-country
and wish to take any baggage at all immediately begins to cut into the fuel
- provided CG issues with that lighter engine up front doesn't limit their
baggage first. Lastly, the install cost difference between a Lycoming O-235
and a Lycoming O-320 does not appear to be terribly great. And if you want
to increase the still air MPG on the larger engine, you can just throttle
back and still get close to the same still air MPG at the same airspeed as
that provided by a smaller engine.

Given all the above, it doesn't seem hard to justify installing something
larger than an O-235 in an RV-9A.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>> Jim Carriere wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
>>> originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
>>> apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
>>> with that (among other changes) in mind.
>>
>> I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
>> and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.
>
> Hmmm, OK, was the -6 designed for the O-360 (to improve on the -4)? Or am
> I misinformed?

The RV-4 and RV-6 were designed for the 150-180 hp O (and IO) 320's and
360's.. Of course, clever builders started installing the angle valve
IO-360, which is a 200 hp engine and is significantly heavier than the
intended engines. So Van's introduced the RV-7 and RV-8 which are intended
to use any of the 150-200 hp engines. Accordingly, clever builders are
installing IO-390's and IO-400's, boosting compression, etc., so once again
people are installing bigger, more powerful engines than Van intended.

I think that if Van offered a PT-6 option, someone would want to shoehorn in
the 15,000 hp Kuznetsov turbine liberated from a Tu-95 Bear bomber.

KB

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

<< snip>>
>
> Given all the above, it doesn't seem hard to justify installing something
> larger than an O-235 in an RV-9A.

Another way to look at it is that you can always throttle the 180 hp engine
back to get roughly the same fuel burn as the 118 hp engine, but no matter
how hard you firewall the 118 hp engine, it is still only 118 hp...

In addition, I think you'll get a far better resale with a 150 hp or better
engine in the -9. I think there are plenty of people who wouldn't even
consider buying a 118 hp version.

KB

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:F4KEg.3078$df.1829@trndny06...
>> Are the comments in parentheses yours? It's kind of hard to tell who
>> wrote
>> what.
>>
>> In any case, I know of at one Lycoming engine designed for a boat. I
>> think
>> it was used in the 1930s.
>
> Lycomings are used in airboats all the time in Florida. And Van's
> aircraft built one of their RV-10s with a Continental.
>
>

This is an old wooden boat with an inboard marine engine built by Lycoming.
It's not an aircraft engine.



>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[JJS]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message ...
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message news:F4KEg.3078$df.1829@trndny06...
>>> Are the comments in parentheses yours? It's kind of hard to tell who wrote
>>> what.
>>>
>>> In any case, I know of at one Lycoming engine designed for a boat. I think
>>> it was used in the 1930s.
>>
>> Lycomings are used in airboats all the time in Florida. And Van's aircraft built one of their RV-10s with a
>> Continental.
>>
>>
>
> This is an old wooden boat with an inboard marine engine built by Lycoming. It's not an aircraft engine.
>
My bad Steve. My comment was poorly directed to Ludwig in response to his assertion that Lycomings are not used in
boats.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Doug[_1_]]

The problem with the guys putting in the V-8's is they are leaving out
the FOUR ON THE FLOOR. I'm gonna put in a CORVETT firebreathing
turbocharged chrome plated V-8, and by gum, it's gonna have a bitchin'
FOUR ON THE FLOOR!!! So there you have it. Auto conversions work great
on planes, but you gotta have the four on the floor, by gum....

[Jim Carriere]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Jerry Springer wrote:
>>> Jim Carriere wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That sounds a bit like the story of the RV-6. I thought it was
>>>> originally intended for the O-320, and as more and more builders were
>>>> apparently successful with O-360 installations, Van designed the RV-7
>>>> with that (among other changes) in mind.
>>> I built, own and still fly after 18 years the second customer built RV-6
>>> and it has always been designed for an O-320 Or a O-360.
>> Hmmm, OK, was the -6 designed for the O-360 (to improve on the -4)? Or am
>> I misinformed?
>
> The RV-4 and RV-6 were designed for the 150-180 hp O (and IO) 320's and
> 360's.. Of course, clever builders started installing the angle valve
> IO-360, which is a 200 hp engine and is significantly heavier than the
> intended engines. So Van's introduced the RV-7 and RV-8 which are intended
> to use any of the 150-200 hp engines. Accordingly, clever builders are
> installing IO-390's and IO-400's, boosting compression, etc., so once again
> people are installing bigger, more powerful engines than Van intended.

Aaah, got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

> I think that if Van offered a PT-6 option, someone would want to shoehorn in
> the 15,000 hp Kuznetsov turbine liberated from a Tu-95 Bear bomber.

Heheheh, but why stop at 15,000? :)

[Bret Ludwig]

Steve Foley wrote:
> Are the comments in parentheses yours? It's kind of hard to tell who wrote
> what.
>
> In any case, I know of at one Lycoming engine designed for a boat. I think
> it was used in the 1930s.

Lycoming, like Continental, built a wide range of general purpose
liquid cooled engines which were used in the "assembled cars" as well
as trucks, compressors, gensets, boats, etc. Continental did more of
that and the flathead fours and sixes in Kaisers and Henry Js were used
in welders and whatnot up until four or five years ago, new. They also
made a lot of truck diesels and multifuel variants thereof for the
military. Lycoming flathead V8s were used in Cords and Lyc built the
last of the mighty J and SJ Duesenberg engines as well. They had a
proud history. But their management got senile and ossified and only
type certification kept their dead carcass propped up aoll these last
40-50 years.

[Bret Ludwig]

Doug wrote:
> The problem with the guys putting in the V-8's is they are leaving out
> the FOUR ON THE FLOOR. I'm gonna put in a CORVETT firebreathing
> turbocharged chrome plated V-8, and by gum, it's gonna have a bitchin'
> FOUR ON THE FLOOR!!! So there you have it. Auto conversions work great
> on planes, but you gotta have the four on the floor, by gum....

The Corvette has SIX.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steve Foley wrote:
>> Are the comments in parentheses yours? It's kind of hard to tell who
>> wrote
>> what.
>>
>> In any case, I know of at one Lycoming engine designed for a boat. I
>> think
>> it was used in the 1930s.
>
> Lycoming, like Continental, built a wide range of general purpose
> liquid cooled engines which were used in the "assembled cars" as well
> as trucks, compressors, gensets, boats, etc. Continental did more of
> that and the flathead fours and sixes in Kaisers and Henry Js were used
> in welders and whatnot up until four or five years ago, new. They also
> made a lot of truck diesels and multifuel variants thereof for the
> military. Lycoming flathead V8s were used in Cords and Lyc built the
> last of the mighty J and SJ Duesenberg engines as well. They had a
> proud history. But their management got senile and ossified and only
> type certification kept their dead carcass propped up aoll these last
> 40-50 years.

Don't forget the Lycoming powered mighty Checker Marathon. Lot of tractors
running around with Continentals also.

[Bret Ludwig]

Dave Stadt wrote:


>
> Don't forget the Lycoming powered mighty Checker Marathon. Lot of tractors
> running around with Continentals also.

At one time I owned a early Checker Marathon which had been powered
with a Continental flathead six and had a Buick V6 when I bought it.
But I am pretty sure Lyc did not build any industrial/vehicle engines
after WWII. Oliver/Cockshutt, I think, used Continentals along with
dozens of cars, light trucks, (Jeep used a Continental flathead at one
time), Hobart welders, gen sets, Zambonis-they were very popular and
all the ag and forklift vendors still support (most of) them. But to
my knowledge Lycoming cars were limited to the Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg
family.

[Kingfish]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> At one time I owned a early Checker Marathon which had been powered
> with a Continental flathead six and had a Buick V6 when I bought it.
> But I am pretty sure Lyc did not build any industrial/vehicle engines
> after WWII. Oliver/Cockshutt, I think, used Continentals along with
> dozens of cars, light trucks, (Jeep used a Continental flathead at one
> time), Hobart welders, gen sets, Zambonis-they were very popular and
> all the ag and forklift vendors still support (most of) them. But to
> my knowledge Lycoming cars were limited to the Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg
> family.

***Warning: thread creep***

Didn't the Tucker have a Lyc or Cont engine? ISTR reading years back
that it was powered by a helicopter engine. I assume that means an
air-cooled flat six?

[JP[_1_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in
egroups.com...
>
> Didn't the Tucker have a Lyc or Cont engine? ISTR reading years back
> that it was powered by a helicopter engine. I assume that means an
> air-cooled flat six?
>

The Tucker engine is a modified air-cooled Franklin helicopter engine: H-6,
335 cid, 166 bhp.

JP

[Anthony W]

Kingfish wrote:
>
> ***Warning: thread creep***
>
> Didn't the Tucker have a Lyc or Cont engine? ISTR reading years back
> that it was powered by a helicopter engine. I assume that means an
> air-cooled flat six?

When Tucker was having trouble with their own engine design, they bought
out Franklin and converted one of the Franklin engines to water cooled.
When Franklin went belly-up, the Franklin engine division was sold off.

Tony

[Dave Stadt]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Don't forget the Lycoming powered mighty Checker Marathon. Lot of
>> tractors
>> running around with Continentals also.
>
> At one time I owned a early Checker Marathon which had been powered
> with a Continental flathead six and had a Buick V6 when I bought it.
> But I am pretty sure Lyc did not build any industrial/vehicle engines
> after WWII. Oliver/Cockshutt, I think, used Continentals along with
> dozens of cars, light trucks, (Jeep used a Continental flathead at one
> time), Hobart welders, gen sets, Zambonis-they were very popular and
> all the ag and forklift vendors still support (most of) them. But to
> my knowledge Lycoming cars were limited to the Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg
> family.

You are correct they were Continentals in the Checker.