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
  #21  
Old August 17th 06, 02:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Look at Van's Blather here.

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
  #22  
Old August 17th 06, 02:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Carriere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Look at Van's Blather here.

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?
  #23  
Old August 17th 06, 03:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
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 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.
  #24  
Old August 17th 06, 03:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default Look at Van's Blather here.


"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


  #25  
Old August 17th 06, 03:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default Look at Van's Blather here.


"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


  #26  
Old August 17th 06, 03:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Foley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Look at Ludwig's Blather here.

"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
=----



  #27  
Old August 17th 06, 03:54 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
...
"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 =----
  #28  
Old August 17th 06, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Doug[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default Look at Van's Blather here.

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....

  #29  
Old August 17th 06, 05:18 PM 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:
"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?
  #30  
Old August 17th 06, 05:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Bret Ludwig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Look at Van's Blather here.


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.

 




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 01:13 AM
Vans RV-11 Scott Correa Soaring 27 January 5th 04 08:56 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 08:02 PM.


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