Look at Van's Blather here.

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.

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.

"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" 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.

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.

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.)
:

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

Bret Ludwig wrote:
(blather indeed)

Bret Ludwig wrote:


Introduction - Powerplant Choices

RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

Did you have a point here?

Matt

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?