Wanted / Choices in engines For -10 - Page 4

jrdalton · #31 08-30-2006, 03:57 PM

That's not really a serious problem to solve is it?

That kind of problem is not to difficult to solve because it's underweight with lot's of extra room in the cowling area. And by moving 2 batteries (because of all electric requiements) it would balance out well. You might even consider a small baggage compartment in the front like the smaller RVs.

szutowiczrv10 · #32 09-03-2006, 11:16 AM

Just found this site http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/ and it appears many builders are using this engine. Many -7 and -9 builders have been using it for years and have had know known issues with this design and weight will not be an issue not to mention they make the engine mount and forward kit as well for the -10. It could be a proven power plant option to seriously look into. It is a very clean design.

rv6ejguy · #33 09-03-2006, 12:35 PM

My understanding is that Eggenfellner is developing a turbocharged EZ30 six package for the RV10. This will run very low boost like 34-36 inches for takeoff. A prototype engine mount was completed several months ago and a James cowling will be used apparently. I believe that firewall forward weight even with MT prop, turbos, rads and intercoolers will be within 20 lbs. of an IO-540/ Hartzell.

Jconard · #34 09-03-2006, 02:21 PM

szutowiczrv10,

I suggest that you review independant builder websites, like Meyette's for example.

Not to start a flame war, but in the 7 and 9 weight is an issue, as is complexity. The "clean" approach is the traditional approach.

rv6ejguy · #35 09-03-2006, 11:32 PM

The RV10 of course uses an IO-540 commonly which is about 50% heavier than an IO-360. Where the EZ30 installation is heavier than typical IO-360 installations, the basic installation is much lighter than a 540, the longblock weighing around 245 lbs. vs. 400 for the 540. To this is added the redrive weight, rads, coolant, turbos, intake , intercoolers, slightly heavier engine mount, 2nd battery, ducting and an MT prop which is about 20 lbs. lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell.

Overall, I think the weight will be almost identical to a 540 installation with the C of G somewhat further aft if the backup battery is rear mounted in the normal location and the 3 blade MT is fitted. If the experimental 4 blade Sensenich composite prop is fitted, the installation may even be slightly lighter but the battery would probably have to come forward to correct the C of G.

It will be interesting to watch the development of this FF package.

sellards18 · #36 09-05-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

The RV10 of course uses an IO-540 commonly which is about 50% heavier than an IO-360. Where the EZ30 installation is heavier than typical IO-360 installations, the basic installation is much lighter than a 540, the longblock weighing around 245 lbs. vs. 400 for the 540. To this is added the redrive weight, rads, coolant, turbos, intake , intercoolers, slightly heavier engine mount, 2nd battery, ducting and an MT prop which is about 20 lbs. lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell.

Overall, I think the weight will be almost identical to a 540 installation with the C of G somewhat further aft if the backup battery is rear mounted in the normal location and the 3 blade MT is fitted. If the experimental 4 blade Sensenich composite prop is fitted, the installation may even be slightly lighter but the battery would probably have to come forward to correct the C of G.

It will be interesting to watch the development of this FF package.

What about an IO-390? I just left Van's last week after flying in there RV with the IO-540 in it. The other RV-10 the have has the continental O-360 in it. The guy that I flew with told me the 540 is to heavy. You have to put weight in the back if no one is sitting in the back. He said it is alot harder to land, do to the fact it won't flare. To my understanding, if you are logging most hours loaded down with the family, the 540 is for you. If your gonna take a bud out for lunch and want the option to take extra people if you want, go lighter. He said the O-360 cont was fairly equal in performance.
The problem is the IO-390 Lycoming is only a four cylinder and the cowling may need modified so you can move the engine forward for CG. Bart at Aero Sport Power thought the IO-390 may be a perfect fit for the RV-10. Light weight, Cheaper to rebuild, underated HP (actually around 213-215HP), better fuel economy, and more room.
Let me know your thoughts!

rv6ejguy · #37 09-05-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sellards18

What about an IO-390? I just left Van's last week after flying in there RV with the IO-540 in it. The other RV-10 the have has the continental O-360 in it. The guy that I flew with told me the 540 is to heavy. You have to put weight in the back if no one is sitting in the back. He said it is alot harder to land, do to the fact it won't flare. To my understanding, if you are logging most hours loaded down with the family, the 540 is for you. If your gonna take a bud out for lunch and want the option to take extra people if you want, go lighter. He said the O-360 cont was fairly equal in performance.
The problem is the IO-390 Lycoming is only a four cylinder and the cowling may need modified so you can move the engine forward for CG. Bart at Aero Sport Power thought the IO-390 may be a perfect fit for the RV-10. Light weight, Cheaper to rebuild, underated HP (actually around 213-215HP), better fuel economy, and more room.
Let me know your thoughts!

Yes, I think the IO-390 would be suitable for the RV10. Lighter, more economical to buy, feed and overhaul. The climb rate would be down quite a bit at gross but still pretty acceptable by spam can standards. Does Vans think this is a good enough idea to do the mount engineering? After reading a lot about the lack of elevator authority in the flare with only 2 in the front seats and full flaps, I moved everything aft that I could in my conversion as I doubt I'll be flying with all 4 seats full very often.

jrdalton · #38 09-05-2006, 06:33 PM

or maybe it's called the IO-400.

Anyway, it's their new engine and it's said to put out 210HP, the same as the Conti - but lighter.

It would be pretty close to perfect from a weight standpoint. I asked Vans about this and they said "the -10 flies behind a six-cyl engine only." That's it.

sellards18 · #39 09-06-2006, 07:08 AM

I just finished building my tail section at synergy air in Oregon in 3 1/2 days. I had Wally Anderson call Van's and Aero Sport Power. They problem vas has is the claim only 2% of RV-10 owners would opt for the smaller engine even though it suits the plane better. They both said the thought of bigger is better isn't always true. It's like putting a 350 chevy in a s10. It goes faster but you sacrafice handeling and fuel. That's why they didn't sell them with big blocks.
As far as vans making an engine mount, it"s not gonna happen. I'm gonna have a guy (who I'll get his name from Wally later) to build mine for the IO-390. I'm set on it and I'll let you know my progress.

rv6ejguy · #40 09-06-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sellards18

I just finished building my tail section at synergy air in Oregon in 3 1/2 days. I had Wally Anderson call Van's and Aero Sport Power. They problem vas has is the claim only 2% of RV-10 owners would opt for the smaller engine even though it suits the plane better.

If engine choices for the smaller are RVs are any indication, Van's is probably right about this on the -10. Keep us posted on your 390 conversion.

I talked to another fellow who is installing a Mazda Renesis in his 10. He'd just finished the mount and custom cowling with 15 inch spinner and twin rads fed by two huge NACA ducts on the cowling sides.

Cool to see some other engines being fitted to these airframes.