Look at Van's Blather here.

Any chance there's a point to this drivel?




Bret Ludwig wrote:



Introduction - Powerplant Choices

RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

The RV-4 and RV-6/6A use 150/160 hp 0-320 or 180 hp 0-360 engines.
The RV-7/7A and RV-8/8A can accommodate O-320, O-360 or angle valve
IO-360 (200 hp) engines. The RV-9/9A is suitable for Lycoming engines
in the 118 hp to 160 hp range. The engine used in the 4-place RV-10 is
the Lycoming IO-540D4A5 rated at 260 hp. Van's recommendation for the 4
place includes any of the parallel valve 540's which are available from
235hp on up to the 260hp version. These engines are the most readily
available, affordable, and reliable of the possible choices. Other
aircraft engines of similar configuration, weight and power might
possibly be used, but only the Lycoming will fit the mounts and cowls
supplied with our kits.

Van's volume allows us to buy appropriate models of new engines at
O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) prices direct from Lycoming.
We market these engines to our customers at far less than list price.
This makes them an affordable alternative, even when compared to the
traditional used engine. Van's has similar arrangements with Hartzell
Propeller, Sensenich Propeller and other manufacturers.
Other Engines

We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We'd
like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane
business:
"the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a
good used Lycoming." This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it
reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be
as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a
traditional aircraft engine.

It seems that magazines are always printing stories about automobile
engines bought for junkyard prices, mated to inexpensive reduction
drives and flown off into the sunset. It simply doesn't work like
that in the real world. The reliability we have come to expect from
aircraft engines is the result of years of development and refinement
of engines designed specifically for the task. Automobile engines
function well in their intended application: delivering low cruising
power in vehicles with well designed transmissions and power trains.
Using them successfully in an airplane requires continuous high power
outputs and reduction systems coupled to the propeller. This is
completely foreign to their design intent. (You can imagine the car
engine designer banging his head slowly against his desk..."no, no, no.
If I'd known you wanted to do that with it, I would have designed
something different....)

(Why are Lycomings never found in boats, fire pumps, gensets or other
high output and often life-critical applications? They are less
reliable intrinsically than commodity powerplants, and secondarily
ridiculously priced.)

With enough research and development effort, auto engines may be made
to work acceptably or even well in an airplane. We are not opposed, in
principle, to RV builders using alternate engines, but we would hope
that this choice is made on facts, not hopes or dreams. Do you want to
spend your time and effort on engine development or do you want to fly
confidently behind an engine that has already been developed?

(Using that logic why should I spend more money to build your
noncertified, and presumably intrinsically uncertificatable by design,
airframe when less will buy me a PROVEN, certificated aircraft? )


We, too, would like to see "something better" in available powerplants.
We are carefully watching some alternatives. Meanwhile, the proven
Lycomings do the job very well and are the best "available now" option.
Despite the many claims and promises made by promoters, we feel that if
you will look closely at what is actually available, how many are
really flying, and how well they really perform, you will agree with
our conclusions.

(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".)

While we are not opposed to RV builders installing alternate engines,
we simply cannot recommend or encourage the installation of any other
engine - we don't feel it would best serve the interest or safety of
the builder.

(It wouldn't serve OUR interest.)

"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.





Bret Ludwig wrote:



Introduction - Powerplant Choices

RV aircraft are designed to use Lycoming aircraft engines.

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?

"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

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.

"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

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.

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

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?

"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