Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - RV-7 engine/prop options

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

RV-7 engine/prop options

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being 

lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance 

and fiddling in the long run. There are TRUE BELEIVER and they 

will tell you that there Mazda or Subaru is the greatest thing but 

when you really crunch the numbers it does not add up. However 

if you want to be DIFFERENT, for the sake of being unique than 

by all means. What is the resale on auto engine RV's? What is 

the resale on a Lyc powered RV? Huge difference. Nuff Said.

   

  Sam James makes short cowls now.

   

  Yes you can do mild aerobatics with the extended hub. Going 

back to your alternative engine question, forget hydraulic constant 

speed pops and frankly aerobatics if you went that route.

   

  I could write a book on your questions but make it simple for

your self, FOLLOW THE PLANS: LYC+HARTZELL or  SENSENICH.

   

  Yes you must fly within limits. The extended hartzell is 3.8 g's

If you know what you are doing 3 gs is enough to do acro. My 

old RV-4 had the same prop and logged +1000 hours, a large 

part looping and rolling with no issues.

   

  Charlie there is piles of info on the topic do some research, good luck

   

  George



   

   

   

   

  >From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>

 	  Quote: 	
		  Subject: RV-7 engine/prop options



I have a couple of questions about engine choices.



If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your 

experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or 

negative)?



and,



Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed 

for 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  some of the  James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild 

'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub 

with F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm 

not willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.



Thanks, Charlie ceengland(at)bellsouth.net (ceengland(at)bellsouth.net)


	


         Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?

 Check out [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-]new cars at Yahoo! Autos.[/url]  [quote][b]

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

I think he means a Lycoming "clone" like from  ECI.

  

 Ron Lee

 [quote]   ---

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Right. To be more specific, I'm interested in engines from builders who 

normally build converted a/c engines for non-aviation applications, 

rather than converted auto engines for a/c use. If you're flying one of 

these engines, you know who you are.  I have one data point from a 

very satisfied user; I'd like to hear more opinions from those who've 

gone that route.



I've also gotten one off-list email from someone who's having a bad 

experience with one of the premier a/c engine builders in the USA.



This is motivation to look at a builder who's trustworthy, builds *lots* 

of engines (& sees how they react to extreme abuse), & can build a 

non-certified engine to new limits from yellow tagged parts.



So, who's out there? Off list is fine, if you don't want to go public 

with your 'sin'.



Thanks,



Charlie



Ron Lee wrote:

[quote] I think he means a Lycoming "clone" like from ECI.

  

 Ron Lee

 

     ---

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Why not do it yourself?  It's not difficult or hard, nor requires many

special tools.  Buy the overhaul manual, buy the parts and "get 'er done"!

One thing I would stay away from is several of the airboat builders - don't

know specifically names, but I've seen plenty of their "handiwork" and have

not yet been overly impressed.  One such engine just cost one of my

employees BIG TIME in $$'s and pain in the rear. Engine was "new" by an

airboat builder.  I have the remains on the floor of my shop.  Not just

substandard, but downright scary (mismatched rods, butchered crank,

mismatched cyliners, mismatched pistons, the list goes on and on).



That being said, there are a ton of shops around the country that overhaul

lyc's and do a great job, as well as a ton of A&P's / builders who've done a

lot of engines. Depending on where you are in the country you'll find

plenty!



Anyway, in the end I'd just stick with a known quantity (read

AVIATION/AIRPLANE guys/shop). It's going to cost you "X" $$'s to get one

done no matter who does it, so saving a few pennies is one of those things

that can be "Pennywise and .....".  It's not like you can do it for half

price, so my advice is to just bite the bullet and buy from a known aviation

person/shop/mfgr.  Be it used, new, overhauled, reman or whatever.  You're

going to spend 90% to get anything, so spend the extra 10% and get it right.

No worries and night wondering....



Or, like I said do it yourself.  It's fun, easy and will save you just as

much as having some stranger do it for you.



Cheers,

Stein



RV6, Minneapolis

--

Mark Sletten

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 43
Location: St. Jacob, IL (Near St. Louis, MO)

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com said:

      

      Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being 

      lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance 

      and fiddling in the long run.

Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?



One person may satisfy himself the above statement is true, while another

may find just the opposite.



Blanket declarations like this are almost always found to be lacking when a

few intelligent questions are asked...

Mark

_________________
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com

shempdowling2(at)earthlin
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Just got back from sun n fun and sat in the mattituck engine 

teardown/rebuild classes for 3 days in a row.  The guy giving the class on 

the O-360 was excellent.  He put the entire engine together including 

torqueing all the bolts in about 5 hours.  He explained everything he was 

doing, what lubricants to use, and what tolerances to look for.  Excellent 

class.  They even give you a t shirt just for staying and listening.  Thats 

a good hook for pilots, free.



Anyway, if you can wait until Oshkosh, I recommend going to one of there 

classes.  You'll learn a ton.  They share a tent with Continental/Teledyne.



Shemp/Jeff Dowling

RV-6A, N915JD

300+ hours

Chicago/Louisville

---

shempdowling2(at)earthlin
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

This came directly from Van's during Sun n Fun



What engines to put in your rv



1.  Lycoming

2.  Lycoming clones

......

second to last.  Auto conversions

last.  Rubber bands.



Shemp



---

deruiteraircraftservices(
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Mark,



the designer of the RV series says the best conversion is $8000 into a used 

a lycoming.



The designer has been around for the experimental scene for a few decades 

and has a 'bit' of experience...

panamared5(at)brier.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

 	  Quote: 	
		         Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being

       lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance

       and fiddling in the long run.



Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?


	


OK, I'll bite.  For you alternative engine experts on the list, why 

is an alternative engine lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to 

build and less maintenance?



I personally fly a Lycoming, but would be interested in a 220 HP, 250 

lb fully aerobatic (+10,-10 G) alternative engine with a constant 

speed prop and inverted oil system (inverted cooling system?).



Bob

RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Gotta disagree with the statement below.  Each and every person needs to look at what they are trying to accomplish.  Alternative engines are completely viable but they may not be better than a Lyc or Cont in all respects.  Remember, we are building our own aircraft for recreational and educational reasons, not for production.  We need more people that are willing to take the plunge into the alternative world and come up with something new to keep this hobby interesting.  I have to laugh at people that will pay $1000 or more for a product that could be recreated with maybe 10 hours and $50 bucks in materials.  But hey, if you have the money more power to ya. However if you are in this to build a airplane to sell, go play in the stock market before you screw it up for the rest of us.  

   

Michael Sausen  

RV-10 #352 Limbo  

Do not archive  

     

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com

 Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:37 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options  

  

     

Stay way from Alternative Engines  

   

  [quote] [b]

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Very well stated Michael. After all, all the homebuilts carry a "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker in it. Some of us just take that concept to a greater extent then others. 

 An alternative engine is just another option. 

do not archive

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



-- "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> wrote:

  

  Gotta disagree with the statement below.  Each and every person needs to look at what they are trying to accomplish.  Alternative engines are completely viable but they may not be better than a Lyc or Cont in all respects.  Remember, we are building our own aircraft for recreational and educational reasons, not for production.  We need more people that are willing to take the plunge into the alternative world and come up with something new to keep this hobby interesting.  I have to laugh at people that will pay $1000 or more for a product that could be recreated with maybe 10 hours and $50 bucks in materials.  But hey, if you have the money more power to ya. However if you are in this to build a airplane to sell, go play in the stock market before you screw it up for the rest of us.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

  

Michael Sausen 

RV-10 #352 Limbo 

Do not archive 

   

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:37 PM

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options

 

   

Stay way from Alternative Engines 

 

[quote] 



====================================

tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

====================================

tronics.com

====================================



[b]

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

A 220 hp engine that's dependable and weighs 250  lbs total. I am also looking to by the Brooklyn Bridge too. .......... 

do not archive



Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



-- Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> wrote:

--> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>

 	  Quote: 	
		         Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being

       lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance

       and fiddling in the long run.



Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?


	


OK, I'll bite.  For you alternative engine experts on the list, why 

is an alternative engine lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to 

build and less maintenance?



I personally fly a Lycoming, but would be interested in a 220 HP, 250 

lb fully aerobatic (+10,-10 G) alternative engine with a constant 

speed prop and inverted oil system (inverted cooling system?).



Bob

RV6 "Wicked Witch================================================ Use the Matronics List Features Navigator;Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse,&n========================             Same great content now also available&nbs================================================



   [quote][b]

carlosh(at)sec-engr.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 A 220 hp engine that's dependable and weighs 250  lbs total. I am also 

 looking to by the Brooklyn Bridge too. ...........

 do not archive

 Ben Haas

 N801BH

 www.haaspowerair.com

 -- Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> wrote:

 >       Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being

 >       lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance

 >       and fiddling in the long run.

 >

 >Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?

 OK, I'll bite.  For you alternative engine experts on the list, why 

 is an alternative engine lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to 

 build and less maintenance?

 I personally fly a Lycoming, but would be interested in a 220 HP, 250 

 lb fully aerobatic (+10,-10 G) alternative engine with a constant 

 speed prop and inverted oil system (inverted cooling system?).

 Bob

 RV6 "Wicked Witch================================================ Use the Matronics List Features Navigator;Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse,&n========================             Same great content now also available&nbs================================================

 *

 *

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep saving the pennies. Who knows, by he time you have enough to buy 

the bridge, the dependable 250 lb - 220 hp engine might be available. 

I'm looking for the same engine. Great...another decision in 

bulding...what to do...what to do?

There's my two pennies.

Carlos

Do Not Archive

-- 

Carlos Hernandez <carlosh(at)sec-engr.com>

Structural Engineers, LLC

2963 W. Elliot Rd. - Suite 3

Chandler, AZ 85224

Phone: 480.968.8600

Fax: 480.968.8608

www.sec-engr.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.

This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or

organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or

an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any review, dissemination or copyingof this email and

its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is

prohibited. If you havereceived this email in error, please

immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email

from your system.

lors01(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Lots of valid points George but I'll take issue with the 'forget aerobatics  with alternative engines' part.  I enjoy aerobatics and get my RV-4  upside down on almost every flight.  There are no prop weight or length  limitations on the RD-1x series of gear drives but you are correct about the 'no  hydraulic CS option'   I'm hoping that the Vari-Pitch prop with a  hydraulic coupler at the hub fixes that problem.  MT electric and  others are always an option.  

  

 On maintenance issues it's a lot more complicated than you imply.  I  do a lot of fiddling on my installation but it is mostly by choice.  I've  never had a core engine problem in over 1600 hours.  It's the accessories  and installation details that make up the majority of problems.  An  alternator and an exhaust system are the only things that have caused me to  scrub a planned flight.

  

 But your point about wanting something different is the key point.  If  the thought of an alternative engine does not stir something in your soul,  forget it, it's not for you.  For me, a Lycoming has about as much  emotional impact as my toaster.

  

 Tracy Crook

 Mazda 13B powered RV-4 1600+ hrs.  (200 HP, empty weight  950,   217.5 MPH avg. in 2004 Sun100 race )

 Mazda 20B powered RV-8    0  hrs      (300 HP, empty weight ??) First flight  expected June 2007 - 2020

 [quote]   ---

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Might that be because they sell Lycoming? And have a vested interest in

the consumer to keep buying the cool aid?

Dan

"GRIN" 



--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

Well I would also want to see a Lycoming FWF weighing that, and creating

that much HP?

Dan 



--

panamared5(at)brier.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: RV-7 engine/prop options

At 09:14 AM 4/24/07, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  A 220 hp engine that's dependable and weighs 250  lbs total. I am 

also looking to by the Brooklyn Bridge too. ..........


	




Last week I saw a IO 360 Mattituck Superior clone with 10:1 pistons 

(not an angle valved engine), cold air induction, front facing sump 

(ram air), 4 tuned exhaust pipes, polished intake ports, inverted oil 

system.  Empty weight around 285-290, rated HP 215-220.  Super 

looking engine.



Now I don't know if you call a Lycoming clone dependable, but the HP 

to weight of this engine is pretty good for aviation or alternative 

engines.  It doesn't meet the 250 pound goal, but it is not that far 

off.  This will give the automotive guys something to work for.



NOTE:  This debate started with Lycoming is the best, no it isn't, 

yes it is.  Then we talked about the automotive engines are better if 

you consider................., yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.  So 

I decided to determine what is best for me:  220 HP, 250 pounds and + 

or - 10G and a reasonable TBO.  The engine that comes the closest, 

goes in my next plane!



Bob

RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum