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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |