Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

engines
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

billykay1(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: engines

Hello,

  

  Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative) in the 10?

  

  Billy Kehmeier

  tail kit 574 

  

    Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 

    [quote][b]

deruiteraircraftservices(
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:35 am Post subject: engines

Billy,

  

 The problem is not the power of the engine, but the  weight. Hanging a four cylinder up front will leave the tail relatively heavy.  This means little or no luggage, maybe one or none on the rear  seat.

  

 Stick with the original design as intended, build  and fly it. If you don't like at that stage sell it and start with a clean sheet  ofpaper and design your own.

 [quote]   ---

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: engines

I really don't know why you would!  If it is the fuel economy, you can run an IO- 540 nearly as economical as a four cylinder.  If is the cost, you can get a really good overhaul 540 for a little more that a new X 4 cylinder.  Have considered the CG?

do not archive

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:40 PM, billykay1(at)aol.com (billykay1(at)aol.com) wrote:

[quote]     Hello,

 

 Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative) in the 10?

 

 Billy Kehmeier

 tail kit 574 

 

   Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

 

  	  Quote: 	
		  

href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

ntribution



	
[b]

wayne.e(at)grandecom.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: engines

That sounds like blaspheme to me  :>}

  

 Wayne Edgerton #40336

   [quote][b]

wv4i(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: engines

4 cyl eng in RV-10? Me. Van's. But flying off grass in FL in the summer, 

probably need the bigger motor. Have some Cirrus SR-20 owners/neighbors 

that can speak to this subject, although I think the wing loading on the 

Cirrus is far greater than the RV-10?



Link McGarity

#40622

FD38, Wellington, FL

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:13 am Post subject: engines

The Cirrus uses a 210 Continental IO-360 6 cyl that is de-rated to 200

hp. That is essentially what is in Van's #2 demo. The plane was

designed to handle that engine, but there wasn't enough demand for

Vans to produce a FWF kit for it. It is a heavier engine than the Lyc

4 cyl. IO360, but not by a lot, maybe 20-30 lbs. It does take some CG

adjustment to switch between those two engines, as Cessna has done in

the 172, where they produced T41 with the Continental, and the current

172 with the Lyc, and the early 172 with O-300 Cont 145 hp. Mooney's

201 vs 231 is similar, but the 231 has both heavier Cont engine and wt

of turbo charger install up front, making it more nose heavy.



On 10/14/06, Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 4 cyl eng in RV-10? Me. Van's. But flying off grass in FL in the summer,

 probably need the bigger motor. Have some Cirrus SR-20 owners/neighbors

 that can speak to this subject, although I think the wing loading on the

 Cirrus is far greater than the RV-10?



 Link McGarity

 #40622

 FD38, Wellington, FL

ajhauter(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: engines

The new Superior XP-400 rated at 220 HP is worth looking into if the CG issues can be addressed.  What are you considering?



_________________________



Hello,

 Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative) in

the 10?

 Billy Kehmeier

 tail kit 574 



______________________



 [quote][b]

LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: engines

In a message dated 10/14/2006 2:56:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,  ajhauter(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Has anybody    (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative)    in

   the    10?

	


 

     I am currently flying a Cessna 170 with a 6  cylinder Continental 0-300.  I would NEVER go back to a horizontally  opposed 4 cylinder engine.  SOOOOoooooo much smoother.  Less  vibration and ultimately less stress on the internal parts if you do the math as  to how much horse power each cylinder has to put out.  If you want great  economy, just throtle the IO-540 back to 50% power and you will save tons on  fuel and still go faster then most spam cans with dome shaped rivets in the  breeze.   If you change the engine, you then have to redesign the  entire front end and deal with the W & B issues that are  significant.   What is the value of trying to use a 4 cylinder  engine?  Less reserve power, less performance???

  

 Steve

  

 DO NOT ARCHIVE  

Stephen  Blank              #40499 

766 SE River Lane

Port St. Lucie, FL 34983



772-475-5556  cell - evenings and weekends



  [quote][b]

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: engines

This has been a good discussion. I have also considered smaller engines, but my motivation has been more towards alternative fuels. I love the idea of a Turbo, but that would probably mean 100LL. My concern is that 100LL may be a dying product (can you still play the old VHS tapes of your kids growing up?).

Another advantage of a smaller, lighter engine is a larger alternator and maybe an air conditioner compressor on the engine. Moving the batteries and ELT forward could solve CG issues as well.

I am definitely listening to the guys who say a 6 runs smoother and I will probably go for the 540, but there is no harm in looking.

John

[quote="LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com"]In a message dated 10/14/2006 2:56:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,  ajhauter(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Has anybody    (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative)    in

   the    10?

	


 

     I am currently flying a Cessna 170 with a 6  cylinder Continental 0-300.  I would NEVER go back to a horizontally  opposed 4 cylinder engine.  SOOOOoooooo much smoother.  Less  vibration and ultimately less stress on the internal parts if you do the math as  to how much horse power each cylinder has to put out.  If you want great  economy, just throtle the IO-540 back to 50% power and you will save tons on  fuel and still go faster then most spam cans with dome shaped rivets in the  breeze.   If you change the engine, you then have to redesign the  entire front end and deal with the W & B issues that are  significant.   What is the value of trying to use a 4 cylinder  engine?  Less reserve power, less performance???

  

 Steve

  

 DO NOT ARCHIVE  

Stephen  Blank           ï¿½  #40499 

766 SE River Lane

Port St. Lucie, FL 34983



772-475-5556  cell - evenings and weekends



   	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

coop85(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: engines

John,

   I couldn't agree more that looking is half the fun, and it's free!

However, here's some thought's on your comments about the lighter engine.

Adding the air conditioner compressor to an already somewhat anemic engine

could lead to disappointing performance.  I have no clue what the actual

increase in load would be, but I know I can tell when the car's A/C kicks

in.  As for the battery, there's not a whole lot of options to move the

battery forward, other than all the way to the firewall.  It might work, but

there's limited real estate up there already and the move may be further

forward than you want.



Just some thoughts to kick around (or out the door  )



Marcus

Happy flying the IO-540 model.

--

robin1(at)mrmoisture.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: engines

John,  

      Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)  

      When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential savings.  

      A note not covered on the recent discussion “RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT” not mentioned when comparing each model and their respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build hours actually flying.  

   

Robin  

   

      [quote][b]

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: engines

Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? 



I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV.  That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.



John Cox

________________________________________

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re: engines



John,

      Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)

      When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential savings.

      A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build hours actually flying.



Robin

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: engines

You aren't going to find many 4 or 6 cyl engines as smooth as your

O-300. The I/O-540 certainly is not nearly as smooth. But with a well

balanced prop, at more than taxi power you really won't notice that

much difference flying along, whether behind a 4 or 6 running

smoothly.



On 10/14/06, LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com <LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 In a message dated 10/14/2006 2:56:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

 ajhauter(at)yahoo.com writes:



 Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative)

 in

 the 10?



     I am currently flying a Cessna 170 with a 6 cylinder Continental 0-300.

 I would NEVER go back to a horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine.

 SOOOOoooooo much smoother.  Less vibration and ultimately less stress on the

 internal parts if you do the math as to how much horse power each cylinder

 has to put out.  If you want great economy, just throtle the IO-540 back to

 50% power and you will save tons on fuel and still go faster then most spam

 cans with dome shaped rivets in the breeze.   If you change the engine, you

 then have to redesign the entire front end and deal with the W & B issues

 that are significant.   What is the value of trying to use a 4 cylinder

 engine?  Less reserve power, less performance???



 Steve



 DO NOT ARCHIVE



 Stephen Blank             #40499

 766 SE River Lane

 Port St. Lucie, FL 34983



 772-475-5556 cell - evenings and weekends

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: engines

Well said John!



Thank you!



John G. 409

Do Not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Re: engines

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700






Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% 

of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific 

based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?



I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV.  

That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No 

science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.



John Cox

________________________________________

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re: engines



John,

      Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when 

you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for 

the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one 

day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and 

regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to 

shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the 

total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These 

numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate 

engines)

      When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an 

alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential 

savings.

      A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. 

Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their 

respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the 

Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices 

are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build 

hours actually flying.



Robin

james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: engines

I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more avionic goodies.  

  

 Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things.  Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs.... 

  

  

 JKH 



 

 On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com (indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com)> wrote: [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com (indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com)>



Well said John!



Thank you!



John G. 409

Do Not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com  (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)>

Subject: RE: Re: engines 

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700



--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)>



Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% 

of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific

based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?



I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. 

That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No

science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.



John Cox

________________________________________

From:  owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM 

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Subject: RE: Re: engines



John,

 Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when

 >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one

day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and 

regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to

shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the

total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These 

numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate

engines)

 When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an

alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential 

savings.

 A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v.

Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their

respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the 

Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices

are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build

hours actually flying.



Robin



 
	




[b]

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: engines

Man, if people want to fly slow planes with poor performance at

altitude, it would he a heck of a lot cheaper to just buy a

spotless Cherokee/Sundowner/Sierra or something like that.

The RV-10 does great with a plain IO-540, but I sure wouldn't

have wanted to be climbing around on my flights this past week

with a 4-cyl 200hp engine. The RV-10 is well suited for 8000-14000'

crusing, but why put an anemic 4-cyl in it and wreck a beautiful

plane?  The 210 continental is a nice enough engine, but again,

where are the real significant benefits...more build time,

more mods.



If you want MoGas, go with the O-540 then.  For the 4-cyl fans

though, I can only hope that someone actually DOES this soon

so that people can learn how disappointing it would be...and

it can deter others from going down the road to a probable

mistake.



I'll put it this way.... An IO-540 is not too much engine

for the RV-10, and it's not too little.  Climbing out of

LOE (5T6), we were getting 800-900fpm in standard climb

config.  Isn't that slow enough?  Putting more HP isn't

really necessary though either.  Only a rare handful of

people would ever even think about cruising the RV-10

at altitudes above 18,000'.  I think Van's actually got

it very right on the engine...oh, and the plane too.

Just got back from LOE....put on over 20 hours and over

3000nm this week.  There's going to be one heck of a trip

story to see when I can get it posted.



Oops, almost forgot:  More specs coming, but how does

160-163 kts on 8.6gph sound?  4-cyl.....HA!



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

James K Hovis wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine 

 in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of 

 performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the 

 battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. 

 The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the 

 loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add 

 any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance 

 check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as 

 needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall 

 if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty 

 weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more 

 avionic goodies.

  

 Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up 

 some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things.  

 Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose 

 about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. 

 However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans 

 weighing 2,700 lbs....

  

  

 JKH 

 

  

 On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com 

 <mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>> wrote:

 

     

     indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com <mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>>

 

     Well said John!

 

     Thank you!

 

     John G. 409

     Do Not archive

 

 

 

 

 

      >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com

     <mailto:johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>>

      >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

      >To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list(at)matronics.com>>

      >Subject: RE: Re: engines

      >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700

      >

      >

     <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com <mailto:johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>>

      >

      >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your

     statement "~20%

      >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY

     scientific

      >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?

      >

      >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except

     N210RV.

      >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No

      >science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.

      >

      >John Cox

      >________________________________________

      >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

     <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>

      >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

     <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

      >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM

      >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

      >Subject: RE: Re: engines

      >

      >John,

      > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when

      >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am

     all for

      >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try)

     but one

      >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate

     choice and

      >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should

     expect to

      >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time

     limiting the

      >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects.

     (These

      >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with

     alternate

      >engines)

      > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an

      >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any

     potential

      >savings.

      > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v.

      >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their

      >respective traits is the significant increase in build time

     between the

      >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other

     choices

      >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build

      >hours actually flying.

      >

      >Robin

      >

 

 

 

 

 

 *

 

 

 *

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: engines

A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP.  To maintain the same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds.  

For simpletons like me that’s 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved on the empty weight side of the equation.  I guess that means a RV-9 with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine.  Oh, yeh – four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption.  Oh, no – I forgot about pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output.  Thus saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weather.  

Not all tradeoff are equal in logic.  This reminds me of 17 friends who embraced the idea of putting ½ VW engines (yes two cylinders) in Nieuport replicas.  I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing might not fly.  He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash from lack of power.  Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger.  Now with this logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial?  Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with Pitts.  

JWC  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis

 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: engines  

I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more avionic goodies.   

Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things.  Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs....   

JKH 

On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com (indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com)> wrote:   

--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com (indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com)>

 Well said John!

 Thank you!

 John G. 409

 Do Not archive

 >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com  (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)>

 >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 >To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)>

 >Subject: RE: Re: engines 

 >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700

 >

 >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)>

 >

 >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% 

 >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific

 >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?

 >

 >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. 

 >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No

 >science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.

 >

 >John Cox

 >________________________________________

 >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)

 >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

 >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM 

 >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 >Subject: RE: Re: engines

 >

 >John,

 > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when

 >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for

 >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one

 >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and 

 >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to

 >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the

 >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These 

 >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate

 >engines)

 > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an

 >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential 

 >savings.

 > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v.

 >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their

 >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the 

 >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices

 >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build

 >hours actually flying.

 >

 >Robin

 >

   [quote]   [b]

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: engines

Genrally putting the battery on the firewall will shorten the life of a  battery plus if you do put the battery on the firewall, you should consider  creating an easy access to it's location...having the battery close to the  starter may not be a bad thing as there is less line lose in the distance from  the firewall to the starter as opposed to a location in the rear of the  aircraft.

  

 P

  [quote][b]

james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: engines

I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical

airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a 210hp

engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in performance. To

me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to decide what type of

mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's data, you lose about 10 mph

in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate but gain about 125 miles in

range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd like to see these numbers

verified, but Van's has a pretty good track record of meeting the

performance figures they publish). Sure, you can back off power in cruise

with an O-540 and match the range figures for a 210hp engine, what's your

trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, I'd rather have the horsepower

reserve from a big engine and fly it more economically, say at 165 mph or

so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal to me, a 100kt C-150 is still

quicker than a car for most "long distance" trips. If I can get a hold of a

210-230hp engine that is significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while

weighing equal to or less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously consider

it. Having to do some additional engineering and fabrication for a

"non-stock" engine shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you could

end up with a lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the

airplane's mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation would be

cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight O-540. Don't

think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is RARE that a 260 hp

car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you consider reduction drive,

radiator, etc. needed for such installations.

Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane, a

smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission capabilities

conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR family truckster, a

210 hp engine might not be too bad.

JKH

On 10/16/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> wrote:

[quote]

  A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP.  To maintain the

 same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross

 weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds.

 For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers

 cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved on

 the empty weight side of the equation.  I guess that means a RV-9 with a

 four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine.  Oh, yeh

 – four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption.  Oh, no – I forgot about

 pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output.  Thus

 saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weather.

 Not all tradeoff are equal in logic.  This reminds me of 17 friends who

 embraced the idea of putting ½ VW engines (yes two cylinders) in Nieuport

 replicas.  I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing might

 not fly.  He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash

 from lack of power.  Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the

 mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger.  Now with this

 logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial?

 Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with Pitts.

 JWC

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

 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:

 owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *James K Hovis

 *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM

 *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Re: Re: engines

 I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in

 the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of

 performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the

 battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The

 firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading

 from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast

 up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If

 the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's

 about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with

 an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful

 load or more weight to add more avionic goodies.

 Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some

 top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things.  Van's specs

 for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of

 speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150

 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs....

 JKH

 On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> wrote:

 Well said John!

 Thank you!

 John G. 409

 Do Not archive

 >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com >

 >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 >To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

 >Subject: RE: Re: engines

 >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700

 >

 >

 >

 >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20%

 >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific

 >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?

 >

 >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV

sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: engines

Six Cylinders Truck - Four Cylinders Suck! 

(I have the same battle with the snowboarders but in that case, 4 edges

truck and two edges suck) 



Go fly in Van's 410RV and then make your decision. 



Scott Schmidt



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 1 of 5

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