VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
w/a Donation






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet

  #11  
Old 04-26-2016, 12:10 PM
flyboy1963's Avatar
flyboy1963 flyboy1963 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lake Country, B.C. Canada
Posts: 2,440
Default go Lycoming???

if you like radials, go Lycosaurus!!!
...the 'little' R680 puts out 225 hp, and as an added bonus, will be 100 years old .....before too long!

ummm, ok, at 500+ lbs, you're gonna need a little ballast in the tail!
__________________
Perry Y.
RV-9a - SOLD!....
Lake Country, BC
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2016, 09:42 PM
VA Maule VA Maule is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Bucking ham, Virginia
Posts: 332
Default

F1R-Yes I believe I do want the radial, hopefully someone will allow me to experience their 8 (I'll do gas & lunch)

rvbuilder2002- This was actually suggested by Robby Grove of Grove Gear. My intent here is to tap into the wealth of knowledge here to get the understanding.

brad walton- Rotec had some cylinder base stud issues in the beginning and changed the hardware grade & some cam gear rivets issue prior to 2009. Warranty 12 mo. or 200 hr. after first start and or 3 years after delivery.
__________________
Maule MXT-7(daily flyer)
Lancer 235(partner)
Raidial RV-8R Standing on it's tall Grove gear swinging 84 of whirlwind prop & phase 1 testing under way
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:14 PM
Dave_Boxall Dave_Boxall is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 182
Smile

Hey Scott,
If Vans ever start supporting the Rotec I'll be building another RV!

(I think once is enough for a home-Brewed engine installation).
__________________
Dave Boxall
RV-9A / Wilksch WAM-120 diesel. Flying since April 09
Bath England
=VAF= membership dues paid April 2017
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:30 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 10,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Maule View Post
rvbuilder2002- This was actually suggested by Robby Grove of Grove Gear. My intent here is to tap into the wealth of knowledge here to get the understanding.
I am not sure what exactly Robby recommendation was, but my point was that if a one piece gear was added, the transfer of the vertical bending loads into the fuselage would be very different than for separate gear legs. It is possible that the gear towers would not even be needed. At least not for the type of loads they are used for now.
__________________
Opinions, information, and comments, are my own unless stated otherwise.
You are personally responsible for determining the suitability of any tips,
ideas, etc. obtained from any post I have made in this forum.


Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
Formerly of Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop
FAA/DAR, EAA Technical Councelor
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")

Last edited by rvbuilder2002 : 04-27-2016 at 09:24 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-27-2016, 05:53 AM
sblack sblack is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F1R View Post
A 150 HP O-320 will fly an 8 just fine, provided C of G is kept proper.
If you lower the nose a few degrees in flight you will still exceed VNE.
Only climb rate will be reduced along with a slightly longer take off roll.

The only question is do you really want the radial and the work to build the aircraft.
I might go for a flight in a few different 8's if I was not 100% sure about the Rotec.
All those things you say about the effect of less power are true, but you missed the top speed, which is pretty important.

It will fly, but 180hp 8s will leave it in the dust. The 4s and 6s fly well on 150hp but the 8 is a bigger, heavier airplane. The RVs are all about performance. 30hp is a BIG difference-almost 20%. I have never seen an -8 with an O320. I think the 150hp would be disappointing compared to the standard setup.
__________________
Scott Black
Old school simple VFR RV 4, O-320, wood prop, MGL iEfis Lite
VAF dues 2021
Instagram @sblack2154
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-27-2016, 06:08 AM
Don Patrick's Avatar
Don Patrick Don Patrick is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 917
Default 0-320s

Not to digress, but a good thread on RV-8s and O-320 engines.


http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...&highlight=320.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:29 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
I am not sure what exactly Robby recommendation was, but my point was that if a one piece gear was added, the transfer of the vertical bending loads into the fuselage would be very different than for separate gear legs. It is possible that the gear towers would even be needed. At least not for the type of loads they are used for now.
I think Scott meant to say "wouldn't" be needed? If that's correct, I have to wonder if Van would consider making a switch to one-piece gear on all -8's... Those gear towers in the fuselage make the footwell quite cramped, in my opinion.

Of course, everything is a tradeoff, so switching to one-piece gear and losing the gear towers inside may lead to a less desirable change elsewhere...
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-27-2016, 09:29 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 10,137
Default Oops....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
I think Scott meant to say "wouldn't" be needed? If that's correct, I have to wonder if Van would consider making a switch to one-piece gear on all -8's... Those gear towers in the fuselage make the footwell quite cramped, in my opinion.
Correct I meant would not

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
Of course, everything is a tradeoff, so switching to one-piece gear and losing the gear towers inside may lead to a less desirable change elsewhere...
Exactly my point.
The gear tower structure might be able to be deleted, but other structure likely would have to be added.
Doing this type of mod. properly, requires a full engineering evaluation with the new gear and then drop and pull tests to verify the engineering.
__________________
Opinions, information, and comments, are my own unless stated otherwise.
You are personally responsible for determining the suitability of any tips,
ideas, etc. obtained from any post I have made in this forum.


Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
Formerly of Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop
FAA/DAR, EAA Technical Councelor
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:39 PM
flyboykelly's Avatar
flyboykelly flyboykelly is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Port Orange, FL (7FL6)
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Maule View Post
Thanks for the quick replies ,and getting up with Brian is defiantly on the list. He chose to deal with the prop issue by going CS-electric I'm thinking of taller gear and the recommend 84". As I read in here there has been some discussion about gear "weak links" my thought is this may be elegant solution as I would prefer to avoid electric prop control. So as to be as simple mechanicaly as posable. I have been fllowing Radial Conversions FB for about 18 months and am quite familiar with Brian's posts. Besides I do not want to copy his just to be inspired by it, after all the goal is to unique and have that radial KOOL factor.
Morgan,

First off congrats on deciding to be different! I could go into the why's and how's for a long time, but I'll just say I went down every road you've talked about. In my experience and the by using the experience of other Rotec owners I can definitely say that the CS prop is the only way to go with this airframe and that engine. The 84" prop is mainly used on WWI replicas and frankly it's way to much prop for the engine. Will it fly? Yes, but at a major speed disadvantage. I'll post a couple of pictures from my flight back from Sun N Fun. You can see all of the data there from my current installation. I still have some development to do, mainly with cooling. I'm currently overcooling. Once that is solved I should pick up another 5 kts. Please feel free to call me and chat. I'll pm you my personal number. For everyone concerned about performance. It's not a 180hp rv, but she's plenty fast for me!

All the best,
BK
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
__________________
Flying as of 1-12-2016!!!!!

Last edited by flyboykelly : 04-27-2016 at 07:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-27-2016, 07:48 PM
VA Maule VA Maule is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Bucking ham, Virginia
Posts: 332
Default

The thought behind the potential added gear tower panels is the gear would be 9" taller and 6" wider, with a 5" top flang . Since the tower is set for 3" stock flang would it not make sense widen the loading area accordingly as the fore & aft forces of longer gear needs more support to compensate for the increased leverage at the attachment point. Remember my objective is prop clearance.

I believe my thought process here corresponds with the "Breaking News " and related threads on gear bolts.

This aircraft will be operated off a grass strip adding to the stresses on the gear.
__________________
Maule MXT-7(daily flyer)
Lancer 235(partner)
Raidial RV-8R Standing on it's tall Grove gear swinging 84 of whirlwind prop & phase 1 testing under way
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.