VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-28-2006, 04:20 AM
Joey Joey is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorbak
How does the gph of a 118hp compare to a 160hp lycoming?

Extrapolating Van's numbers for the 118 hp engine (and checking the Lycoming Engine Manual) we get an estimation that follows:

Full power 173 mph 4.53 flight hrs 7.5 gal/hr
(assuming 34 gal. usable..start/taxi/takeoff...)
75% power 166 mph 5.27 flight hrs 6.45 gal/hr
55% power 150 mph 6.90 flight hrs 4.92 gal/hr
Van's RV-9A, N129RV, burned 6.1gph at 179.6mph (29.4mpg) when tested by the Cafe Foundation. Power was provided by a 160 horse O-320. That engine can be operated on premium automotive gasoline, too.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-28-2006, 07:24 AM
prkaye prkaye is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,116
Default

>> That engine can be operated on premium automotive gasoline, too.

>> The poster listed a 150 HP RV-9, which could burn mogas

Curious, where does this information come from? From what I've seen on Lycoming's website, they say nothing but AVGAS for all their engines. How does one know whether you can really safely run MOGAS in these engines?

>> Consider this. Go ahead and put the 160 HP Lyc in and when prudent throttle back to a fuel burn of the 118 HP engine

Be interesting to see how the consumption rates compare for the two engines running at the same speed, say 150mph. The 160HP would be going that speed at a lower power setting, but it's a bigger engine overall. I wonder how close the GPH would be between the two engines running at the same speed (150MPH).
__________________
Phil
RV9A (SB)
Flying since July 2010!
Ottawa, Canada

Last edited by prkaye : 07-28-2006 at 07:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-28-2006, 08:27 AM
Bruce Reynolds's Avatar
Bruce Reynolds Bruce Reynolds is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 54
Default Weather factor

I have had to park my plane (twice ) in bad weather and take the Greyhound home. No fun at all. Then I had to arrange to get back and retreive the plane. The saying goes, "When you have time to spare, go by air". I never leave home without bus fare. Having said that, I have made seven trips from Salem Oregon to Southern California in my RV and it's far better to fly than drive.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-28-2006, 03:52 PM
Joey Joey is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkaye
>> That engine can be operated on premium automotive gasoline, too.

>> The poster listed a 150 HP RV-9, which could burn mogas

Curious, where does this information come from? From what I've seen on Lycoming's website, they say nothing but AVGAS for all their engines. How does one know whether you can really safely run MOGAS in these engines?
Peterson Aviation has done extensive testing on auto fuel use in aircraft engines. They sell auto fuel STCs. You can see a list of engines on their website, www.autofuelstc.com
Quote:
>> Consider this. Go ahead and put the 160 HP Lyc in and when prudent throttle back to a fuel burn of the 118 HP engine

Be interesting to see how the consumption rates compare for the two engines running at the same speed, say 150mph. The 160HP would be going that speed at a lower power setting, but it's a bigger engine overall. I wonder how close the GPH would be between the two engines running at the same speed (150MPH).
So close as to be negligible. Regardless of the engine, an aircraft takes X amount of power to go Y speed. Assuming engines of similar efficiency (and most typical aircraft engines are) the fuel burn will be very close to the same.

If you come across some reliable performance numbers for an O-235 equipped RV-9, compare them to the Cafe Foundation report on the O-320 powered N129RV. The O-320 -9 will at least match the O-235 for efficiency in most situations.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-28-2006, 07:01 PM
Kevin Horton's Avatar
Kevin Horton Kevin Horton is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkaye
Be interesting to see how the consumption rates compare for the two engines running at the same speed, say 150mph. The 160HP would be going that speed at a lower power setting, but it's a bigger engine overall. I wonder how close the GPH would be between the two engines running at the same speed (150MPH).
The smaller engine will probably have a very slightly lower fuel burn, but the difference might be too small to measure. The small engine has three things going for it in this scenario:

1. smaller displacement means less frictional losses to turn it at a given rpm,

2. the throttle will be further open than the one on the larger engine, leading to lower pumping losses, and

3. the aircraft with the smaller engine should be a bit lighter than the one with the larger engine. The lighter weight should mean a bit less induced drag.
__________________
Kevin Horton
RV-8
Moses Lake, WA, USA
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-28-2006, 08:24 PM
Robert M's Avatar
Robert M Robert M is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 659
Default

(disclaimer) I'm only repeating what I have heard about the 118 hp gph.

I have been told that the 118 hp engine uses about 5 - 6 gph in econ. cruise.

According to Van's (and I think their numbers are pretty accurate) that would have you zooming along at 150 mph.

The biggest draw back for flying to visit relatives and such is ground transportation. Yeah, they can pick you up and drop you off but I would rather rent a car. Of course the "Wanna fly in my plane?" usually gets instant cooperation from anyone.

If your trying to save money by flying instead of driving - you might actually come out better going commercial.

HOWEVER! Getting in YOUR plane and flying yourself to whatever destination you desire brings into light the COOL factor. The COOL factor outweighs any and all cost or time considerations.
__________________
"Pilots: Looking down on people since 1903"
(author unknown)
RV-9, N556RM, O-320, Dual PMags, Catto 3 blade.
FLYING since 2018
Mosquito XEL ready for flight
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-28-2006, 08:42 PM
jcoloccia jcoloccia is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert M
HOWEVER! Getting in YOUR plane and flying yourself to whatever destination you desire brings into light the COOL factor. The COOL factor outweighs any and all cost or time considerations.
That pretty much says it all.
__________________
John Coloccia
www.ballofshame.com
Former builder, but still lurking 'cause you're a pretty cool bunch...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-28-2006, 08:58 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert M
HOWEVER! Getting in YOUR plane and flying yourself to whatever destination you desire brings into light the COOL factor. The COOL factor outweighs any and all cost or time considerations.
Flying in the big birds is like taking a Greyhound buss After 9/11 and all the so called security measures, I now avoid flying commercial every chance I get. I can't wait until my -9 is finished!

Robert, where in SC are you located?
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:32 PM
jsherblon's Avatar
jsherblon jsherblon is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Stuck in Lodi CA
Posts: 310
Default

I've never lost my luggage when I'm the pilot.
__________________
Jim Sherblon

-7 Slider Finishing Kit

Stuck in Lodi CA
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:14 PM
arffguy arffguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 411
Default That definitely says it all

And:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsherblon
I've never lost my luggage when I'm the pilot.
And was it Doug or Rosie that said that he could take his handgun and nail clippers too? Plus the plane leaves when and where you usually want it to.

Back to the small engine debate:

Wouldn't an RV-9 with an O-235 at 118 HP still use close to the same amount of gas as a 110 HP Cessna 152 at any given RPM?
__________________
Mike F
RV-6A wings/fuselage
RV-3 empennage (extra thanks to Mr. Zilik)
RV-4 Plans only S/N 2938
Cessna 152
Elk Grove, CA
VAF #744 Exempt but paid anyway
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 09:03 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.