Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy
I'd take the 390 turbo, lighter with likely lower fuel burn up high and will do the same job above 5000MSL anyway. Then again, I'm a turbo guy.
I looked at the IE2 stuff at Reno and was very impressed. I talked with one of the engineers involved in the design as well. It will be very nice but the cost will be pretty high the way they are approaching it due to FAA requirements for FADECs- fail safe modes etc.
|
You know, it's what I was thinking also but I wanted to know from someone with more experience in the matter.
The principle reason I don't want a huge engine in the RV-7A is weight. That much weight over the design parameters is bound to ruin the RVs slow flight / landing characteristics, the reason I decided on the RV in the first place. True, the 390 turbo weighs more than the recommended IO-360, 200 H.P., but not nearly as much as the six-cylinder.
Reading various test reports on the Glasair III (Lycoming 540 turbo) every writer mentions how hard to fly the thing is and especially how hard to land; and because the CG is up front, the glide ratio is very unfavorable. It is an unforgiving airplane. You can imagine what an engine like that would do to the 400-pound-lighter RV-7.
As for iE2, FADECS and the rest of it, while I am impressed with the technology, anything more than modern nav/com bothers me. Since the advent of calculators I have forgotten my times tables; since spell-check I have forgotten how to spell; what's next with all of this glass cockpit business? Will we forget how to fly and just be bus drivers like the airline pilots? No sir, not me. I'm happy to know where I am and where the terrain and weather are - after that I want to Fly The Plane.
Richard
Thanks for your help,
Richard
Linear Mode
