A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Look at Van's Blather here.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 16th 06, 10:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,232
Default Look at Van's Blather here.

Bret Ludwig wrote:


Introduction - Powerplant Choices

RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.


Did you have a point here?

Matt
  #12  
Old August 16th 06, 11:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default Look at Van's Blather here.


"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


  #13  
Old August 16th 06, 11:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Look at Van's Blather here.



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.
  #14  
Old August 16th 06, 11:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default 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.
  #15  
Old August 16th 06, 11:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Ed Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default Look at Van's Blather here.

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.

  #16  
Old August 17th 06, 12:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Carriere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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.


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.
  #17  
Old August 17th 06, 12:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Morgans[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default 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.


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

  #18  
Old August 17th 06, 02:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default Look at Van's Blather here.


"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


  #19  
Old August 17th 06, 02:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Look at Van's Blather here.

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?
  #20  
Old August 17th 06, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
JJS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Look at Ludwig's Blather here.


"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 =----
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Look at Van's Blather here. Bret Ludwig Piloting 37 August 19th 06 12:49 AM
Very Nice Van's RV-6A For Sale Don Aviation Marketplace 3 January 14th 06 12:13 AM
Vans RV-11 Scott Correa Soaring 27 January 5th 04 07:56 AM
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? Flightdeck Home Built 10 September 9th 03 07:20 PM
Vans RV4 or RV6 wanted Joe Home Built 0 August 17th 03 01:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.