Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
TSwezey?
- Thread starter fmarino1976
- Start date
fmarino1976
Well Known Member
Nice!
I was just thinking about bumping up this thread. The video is just cool! Was the cooling adequate without the cowling on? I really like the way you set up the rads.
I'm rooting for ya!
I was just thinking about bumping up this thread. The video is just cool! Was the cooling adequate without the cowling on? I really like the way you set up the rads.
I'm rooting for ya!
Thanks for the comments! When I said it was getting hot it wasn't the engine but me! I don't have the AC charged yet! It was in the eighties and we were sitting on a nice black parking lot in the middle of the afternoon.The engine ran very cool and the PSRU never got above 125 degrees. We are trying to determine if the supercharger is kicking on or not. It shouldn't be on. It is either the supercharger or a loose belt making a whining noise every so often.
Ross,
I hadn't noticed your post that you had gotten your engine running on your new system. Congrats!
Ross,
I hadn't noticed your post that you had gotten your engine running on your new system. Congrats!
170 driver
Well Known Member
Nice Trailer Todd!
Yes Jim it is! And Thank you! I didn't want to say anything about because people will be coming from all over to borrow it! We had to leave the sides down. The plane did not bounce at all. Talk about a great trailer! A tractor trailer almost took out the elevator when we were in the turn lane to Savannah Aviation.
Last edited:
I figured I had a corvette engine so I kind of copied the side look of a 2006 corvette.
Thanks! I am trying to get everything together to get it inspected this weekend or sometime next week.
The PSRU is running great. I am debating about adding an electric fan for ground cooling. I'm still waiting on some info before the choice is made. I got the oil temp up to 230 degrees while doing some aggressive taxiing. Basically I did 75% take-off power for about 100' feet then stopped, taxied back and did this 15 times. I was told by a knowledgeable mechanic that 230 was a ideal oil temp for the LS2 but I have not been able to confirm that. Anybody have some reliable oil temp knowledge for an LS2 engine?
Getting weighed this week some time!
Michael White
Well Known Member
Hey Todd,
When you get out of Phase 1, come on up to RYY. I'll buy lunch!
When you get out of Phase 1, come on up to RYY. I'll buy lunch!
Will do! Hopefully it will be ready for LOE!
Michael White
Well Known Member
I made a pig of a plane!
My plane weight is fat!!!!!!!
Well over anything out there and I can't blame it all on the engine! The c.g. is within an inch of Tim Olson's c.g. It is an unbelievable 2053 lbs.! At least I won't have a super forward c.g. issue but I really ended building a high powered Tiger.
My plane weight is fat!!!!!!!
Well over anything out there and I can't blame it all on the engine! The c.g. is within an inch of Tim Olson's c.g. It is an unbelievable 2053 lbs.! At least I won't have a super forward c.g. issue but I really ended building a high powered Tiger.
fmarino1976
Well Known Member
Wow!
I feel for you man! I'm sure you are already hard at work figuring out where you can trim some of that excess weight. Another route to consider might be increasing the gross weight of your aircraft by reasonable amount, maybe? I know that in AK the FAA allows a certain percentage over gross operation due to the air density, I believe it's in the 10-15% range. If you have enough power the climb performance might not get affected too much, off course the stall speed and other important V numbers would change! There are brighter minds than mine out there that could give you some input if you could do it and by how much. Just a thought. Opinions anyone?
I feel for you man! I'm sure you are already hard at work figuring out where you can trim some of that excess weight. Another route to consider might be increasing the gross weight of your aircraft by reasonable amount, maybe? I know that in AK the FAA allows a certain percentage over gross operation due to the air density, I believe it's in the 10-15% range. If you have enough power the climb performance might not get affected too much, off course the stall speed and other important V numbers would change! There are brighter minds than mine out there that could give you some input if you could do it and by how much. Just a thought. Opinions anyone?
Last edited:
Check the scales and re weight?
Yes I'm kidding but hey - 500lbs out of nothing? The IO-540 engine itself weighs just about that ~540lbs and with it the bird is supposed to weigh 1500. LS2 is comparable heavy, even if Vesta's package was 100lbs heavier we still are looking for 400lbs stuffed somewhere around CG. It's really a lot of weight. Unless you soundproofed it like passenger car and added full car upholstery - then the weight is reasonable.
arrrgghh
A/c, supercharger, coolant, rads all add up but it is at least 200 lbs. heavier than I would have imagined.: Check the scales for accuracy to be sure.
Sometimes reality just sucks!
Thanks for posting the numbers Todd. If the weight proves accurate it may change a few people's minds that the LS installations are suitably light for RV10s, keeping them as 4 place aircraft. I've always thought the V8 vendors numbers were a bit optimistic.
My 6A is pretty porky too with the Sube and all the rads. I was running some C of G and weight calcs for our trip to Reno in September a couple days ago and it was not great. With the stuff we have to carry, survival pack, tie downs, tow bar, tools, fuel additive and allowing for 30 lbs. of baggage, we're limited to 164 lbs. of fuel. My Dad and I total about 330 lbs. My gross is 1750 lbs. we'll be flying 2 hour legs to be safe on fuel.
Build light if you can- especially if you are extra large sized.
A/c, supercharger, coolant, rads all add up but it is at least 200 lbs. heavier than I would have imagined.: Check the scales for accuracy to be sure.
Sometimes reality just sucks!
Thanks for posting the numbers Todd. If the weight proves accurate it may change a few people's minds that the LS installations are suitably light for RV10s, keeping them as 4 place aircraft. I've always thought the V8 vendors numbers were a bit optimistic.
My 6A is pretty porky too with the Sube and all the rads. I was running some C of G and weight calcs for our trip to Reno in September a couple days ago and it was not great. With the stuff we have to carry, survival pack, tie downs, tow bar, tools, fuel additive and allowing for 30 lbs. of baggage, we're limited to 164 lbs. of fuel. My Dad and I total about 330 lbs. My gross is 1750 lbs. we'll be flying 2 hour legs to be safe on fuel.
Build light if you can- especially if you are extra large sized.
Last edited:
Scales are accurate.
I have:
AC
Supercharger
Pretty much a full interior with overhead panel.
30-40 tubes of sealant for anti-corrosion throughout the plane.
full zinc-chromate priming
two batteries
The only thing I might consider getting rid of is the supercharger. Which is maybe 30-35lbs. I will probably increase the gross. Which changes some V speeds but I have more than enough power to deal with the extra weight. A 10% increase in gross puts me at 2970 which leaves me about 557 lbs for people and stuff. Which is plenty for my family to travel. If I need more than that I could empty fuel. But I was hoping for a lot less weight. Thank god the planning for balancing the c.g. helped. Slightly forward of forward limit empty but OK after adding pilot weight. We will fly with approx. 60-100 lbs weight in the baggage area to keep the weight off the nose wheel when we fly it two or less people.
I have:
AC
Supercharger
Pretty much a full interior with overhead panel.
30-40 tubes of sealant for anti-corrosion throughout the plane.
full zinc-chromate priming
two batteries
The only thing I might consider getting rid of is the supercharger. Which is maybe 30-35lbs. I will probably increase the gross. Which changes some V speeds but I have more than enough power to deal with the extra weight. A 10% increase in gross puts me at 2970 which leaves me about 557 lbs for people and stuff. Which is plenty for my family to travel. If I need more than that I could empty fuel. But I was hoping for a lot less weight. Thank god the planning for balancing the c.g. helped. Slightly forward of forward limit empty but OK after adding pilot weight. We will fly with approx. 60-100 lbs weight in the baggage area to keep the weight off the nose wheel when we fly it two or less people.
Last edited:
porky planes.....
When I get back from KOSH this weekend I think i'll pull the LS1 out of the Jeep rockcrawler I'm building, strip off the iron exhaust manifolds and then weigh it. The total weight will include an A/C pump which should balance out the lack of exhaust headers. I'll be able to remove it in about 30 minutes so it'll be a worthwhile exercise. Otherwise, I think I'll start looking for a Lycosaurus.
I'll post what I find out. Dang!!
When I get back from KOSH this weekend I think i'll pull the LS1 out of the Jeep rockcrawler I'm building, strip off the iron exhaust manifolds and then weigh it. The total weight will include an A/C pump which should balance out the lack of exhaust headers. I'll be able to remove it in about 30 minutes so it'll be a worthwhile exercise. Otherwise, I think I'll start looking for a Lycosaurus.
I'll post what I find out. Dang!!Bud Warren who also builds LS packages for RV-10's says his package weighs in at 498 lbs.
I double checked the numbers from the weight and balance sheet given to me by the IA and he made a mistake on the CG calculation. My CG(empty) is actually a full 3 inches in front of the flying CG. I will have to keep approx. 100 lbs in the baggage area when flying solo.
I double checked the numbers from the weight and balance sheet given to me by the IA and he made a mistake on the CG calculation. My CG(empty) is actually a full 3 inches in front of the flying CG. I will have to keep approx. 100 lbs in the baggage area when flying solo.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Ouch
Any chance of mounting weight farther back, will require less total weight.
I suspect a competent engineer could determine the best location-----this is not something to just TLAR.
The 10 has a reputation for running out of up elevator authority when loaded front C/G, so please be careful.
Jconard
Well Known Member
Todd,
Is there any room to remake the engine mount to shift the engine back toward the firewall?
I would think that moving that would help alot, and perhaps a light propr spacer would make up the difference so that the cowl didn't need huge re-work.
Either way, I would get the CG correct before flying. As I understand the baggage limits, 100lbs is an awful lot of ballast to "need"
Sorry for the wieght, but the plane really does look exceptional, I would take the time to address it now. Deep breath, a few months of rework...I bet you will be glad you did.
Is there any room to remake the engine mount to shift the engine back toward the firewall?
I would think that moving that would help alot, and perhaps a light propr spacer would make up the difference so that the cowl didn't need huge re-work.
Either way, I would get the CG correct before flying. As I understand the baggage limits, 100lbs is an awful lot of ballast to "need"
Sorry for the wieght, but the plane really does look exceptional, I would take the time to address it now. Deep breath, a few months of rework...I bet you will be glad you did.
The engine is almost against the firewall now. I would rather carry an extra 100 lbs ballast anyway. We were going to add weight in the back originally but we would have to add about 30 lbs to equal the 100 lbs in the baggage area. I planned on keeping my tools in the baggage area anyway. If I carry someone in the back I wouldn't need the weight. I would rather have 100lbs of removable weight versus 30 pounds of fixed useless weight. It will be right before it is flown!
Todd, I bet you had that feeling that you were finally close to being "all done" this huge project and looking forward to flying it. I can only image how you must feel.
Surprisingly, I agree with John on this one. Maybe best to step back, take a couple weeks off the project and look at moving the engine back a bit. The prop extension would certainly save a lot of cowling rework. You really can't afford to always carry 100 lbs. in the back with the high empty weight. Ditching the blower would help both situations a bunch too as you should already have close to a 100 more hp than any other flying -10 without it. Will a 200 lb. gross weight increase be granted on a -10? They are not keen on doing that any more up here but your regs are probably different in the US.
I respect what Bud warren has done with V8 power but I just can't buy the sub 500 lb. FF figure with an LSX and rads up front.
Engine longblock with coils 378
Rads 15
Exhaust with mufflers 25
Coolant and hoses 15
PSRU and flywheel, gov 75
Starter 10
Alternator 8
Idlers, belts, mount tubing 10
Misc. brackets, tanks etc. 10
Total 546 lbs.
This would be the minimum I'd expect doing everything you could out of aluminum, ready to turn a hydraulic prop of your choice. I guess we might hear what Bud's RV10 testbed weighs when done. I'd like to be proven wrong.
It will take a very carefully done automotive conversion with forced induction to equal the weight and power of an IO-540 IMO.
Surprisingly, I agree with John on this one.
Maybe best to step back, take a couple weeks off the project and look at moving the engine back a bit. The prop extension would certainly save a lot of cowling rework. You really can't afford to always carry 100 lbs. in the back with the high empty weight. Ditching the blower would help both situations a bunch too as you should already have close to a 100 more hp than any other flying -10 without it. Will a 200 lb. gross weight increase be granted on a -10? They are not keen on doing that any more up here but your regs are probably different in the US.I respect what Bud warren has done with V8 power but I just can't buy the sub 500 lb. FF figure with an LSX and rads up front.
Engine longblock with coils 378
Rads 15
Exhaust with mufflers 25
Coolant and hoses 15
PSRU and flywheel, gov 75
Starter 10
Alternator 8
Idlers, belts, mount tubing 10
Misc. brackets, tanks etc. 10
Total 546 lbs.
This would be the minimum I'd expect doing everything you could out of aluminum, ready to turn a hydraulic prop of your choice. I guess we might hear what Bud's RV10 testbed weighs when done. I'd like to be proven wrong.
It will take a very carefully done automotive conversion with forced induction to equal the weight and power of an IO-540 IMO.
Last edited:
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Todd, I know that what I am going to mention would create a lot of work, but I just want to be sure you have this knowledge. Do what you wish with it.
You state that the engine is almost against the FW already---- I would assume you are referring the part farthest from the face of the block, which is typically the pulley flange on the water pump.
It is possible to relocate the water pump down to the side of the engine, and drive it with a belt like the alternator has. This saves about 5 or so inches in total engine length. I know this, because it is what I had to do when I put the Chevy V8 in my Porsche 914-----but as they say, another story.
Here is the folks who have the remote water pump setup I used.
Sorry if this is just more than you are looking for, just wanted you to know about it.
Good luck, and whatever you do, do it with safety in mind.
You state that the engine is almost against the FW already---- I would assume you are referring the part farthest from the face of the block, which is typically the pulley flange on the water pump.
It is possible to relocate the water pump down to the side of the engine, and drive it with a belt like the alternator has. This saves about 5 or so inches in total engine length. I know this, because it is what I had to do when I put the Chevy V8 in my Porsche 914-----but as they say, another story.
Here is the folks who have the remote water pump setup I used.
Sorry if this is just more than you are looking for, just wanted you to know about it.
Good luck, and whatever you do, do it with safety in mind.
Last edited:
Mike, you are clearly a nutcase.
Todd, I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say.
Putting myself in Todd's position this is what I'd do.
1. Have a drink and a cry.
2. Pull myself together and get the wrenches out to remove the blower system.
3. Put the weight in the back and test fly it.
4. If the thing doesn't cool in flight, ditch the front rads and do a belly scoop or even a submerged rad setup aft of the batteries. This will help the C of G a bunch without increasing weight. The French DIESELIS airplane used this successfully.
"The coolant radiator is the same as found on the car, 650 x 265 mm size, 17 dcm2 area, quite a large piece to try and fit under the front cowling. We solved the problem by putting it behind the seats under the rear package shelf, which then permitted us to move back the CG, but which obligated us to install a "central heating" system in the plane. The total weight of the radiator, hoses, expansion reservoir and radiator fluid (7.5 liters) is 13 kg. The advantage in having the radiator in the rear is the available space to install a divergent/convergent ductwork for cooling efficiency and drag reduction. The intake is through a flush NACA inlet under the fuselage in a positive pressure area. The entry section measures 250 x 65 mm, that is 1.7 dcm2. The exit (like on the P-51 mustang) has a moveable flap to adjust the airflow and thus the coolant temperature. The adjustable flap makes a 10° difference. Because of the engine to radiator distance, the thermostat was removed to increase coolant circulation speed.
The water temperature is about 80° during climb, 70° in level flight, and 60° in descent. As on many auto engines, the oil is cooled in an exchanger, with the water circuit located at the base of the oil filter." There are some good photos of this in the new Contact! book Volume 3.
Moving the engine is such a big job with the tight fit there. I'd cringe to think how many other things you'd would have to move too.
Mike is not the only nut here. Aren't we full of good ideas to make your life easier?
Todd, I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say.
Putting myself in Todd's position this is what I'd do.
1. Have a drink and a cry.
2. Pull myself together and get the wrenches out to remove the blower system.
3. Put the weight in the back and test fly it.
4. If the thing doesn't cool in flight, ditch the front rads and do a belly scoop or even a submerged rad setup aft of the batteries. This will help the C of G a bunch without increasing weight. The French DIESELIS airplane used this successfully.
"The coolant radiator is the same as found on the car, 650 x 265 mm size, 17 dcm2 area, quite a large piece to try and fit under the front cowling. We solved the problem by putting it behind the seats under the rear package shelf, which then permitted us to move back the CG, but which obligated us to install a "central heating" system in the plane. The total weight of the radiator, hoses, expansion reservoir and radiator fluid (7.5 liters) is 13 kg. The advantage in having the radiator in the rear is the available space to install a divergent/convergent ductwork for cooling efficiency and drag reduction. The intake is through a flush NACA inlet under the fuselage in a positive pressure area. The entry section measures 250 x 65 mm, that is 1.7 dcm2. The exit (like on the P-51 mustang) has a moveable flap to adjust the airflow and thus the coolant temperature. The adjustable flap makes a 10° difference. Because of the engine to radiator distance, the thermostat was removed to increase coolant circulation speed.
The water temperature is about 80° during climb, 70° in level flight, and 60° in descent. As on many auto engines, the oil is cooled in an exchanger, with the water circuit located at the base of the oil filter." There are some good photos of this in the new Contact! book Volume 3.
Moving the engine is such a big job with the tight fit there. I'd cringe to think how many other things you'd would have to move too.
Mike is not the only nut here. Aren't we full of good ideas to make your life easier?
Last edited:
Jconard
Well Known Member
I have never installed a V-8 in an airplane, but I have worked on a 914 swap...( NOT MINE I personally think it is a horrible thing to do to a 914.)
As I recall, the "sadle mounts" on the side of the block can be moved fore and aft with machined adapter plates, so depending on how it is fastened, it may be possible to engineer plates, and leave the rest of the mount birdcage alone.
There are many ways to make the water pump side of the engine shorter, these things have been crammed in some tight spaces, there is even a kit to put them in the back of a 911.
If the CG is really 3 full inches forward of the limit, will 100lbs of baggage do it? That seems like a pretty big shift, given that it maxes the baggage compartment.
Are there ways to lighten all those big plates in the Vesta Redrive? The things looks like a solid chunk in the pictures.
Perhaps the disconnect is which IO-540 they were comparing to, Vesta suggests that the package is the same as a continetal 550 or aa lycoming 540....the ONLY lycoming 540 which comes close to that weight (Conit 550's are heavy) is the angle valve 540 which Vans has specifically noted is way too heavy...just a thought.
Doesn't an LS2 have like 400 HP? Is the supercharger necessary?
Since Vesta may want to sell many of these, maybe they will ned to shift to a lightweight dry sump LS6...maybe they will swap it out for you since you bought their package?
I am not a huge fan of alternatives, but I have been secretly a little excited about yours....I have a pet TLAR theory that the side exit approach on yours may work really well at finally solving the Cooling drag issue. I must say that I am disapointed, and frankly if I were in your shoes I might call a meeting with the folks who sold me the package. If they will work with you, the results could be both better and quicker.
It seems to me that your vendor should help you get closer to a proper instal...balast is a band aid that you didn't pay for....jmho
As I recall, the "sadle mounts" on the side of the block can be moved fore and aft with machined adapter plates, so depending on how it is fastened, it may be possible to engineer plates, and leave the rest of the mount birdcage alone.
There are many ways to make the water pump side of the engine shorter, these things have been crammed in some tight spaces, there is even a kit to put them in the back of a 911.
If the CG is really 3 full inches forward of the limit, will 100lbs of baggage do it? That seems like a pretty big shift, given that it maxes the baggage compartment.
Are there ways to lighten all those big plates in the Vesta Redrive? The things looks like a solid chunk in the pictures.
Perhaps the disconnect is which IO-540 they were comparing to, Vesta suggests that the package is the same as a continetal 550 or aa lycoming 540....the ONLY lycoming 540 which comes close to that weight (Conit 550's are heavy) is the angle valve 540 which Vans has specifically noted is way too heavy...just a thought.
Doesn't an LS2 have like 400 HP? Is the supercharger necessary?
Since Vesta may want to sell many of these, maybe they will ned to shift to a lightweight dry sump LS6...maybe they will swap it out for you since you bought their package?
I am not a huge fan of alternatives, but I have been secretly a little excited about yours....I have a pet TLAR theory that the side exit approach on yours may work really well at finally solving the Cooling drag issue. I must say that I am disapointed, and frankly if I were in your shoes I might call a meeting with the folks who sold me the package. If they will work with you, the results could be both better and quicker.
It seems to me that your vendor should help you get closer to a proper instal...balast is a band aid that you didn't pay for....jmho
Last edited:
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Mike, you are clearly a nutcase.
Thanks Ross, flattery will get you everywhere.
Mike is not the only nut here.
I'll say, are you aware there are a bunch of kooks out there building their own airplanes
Thanks for the concerns and ideas.
The bad thing is we can't blame the fat plane on anybody but ourselves. It's not the engine that is making this plane a beast, it's helping but not the main cause.
The engine is not getting moved. I had many thoughts yesterday about designing some type of radiator system under the belly. Needless to say Ross had mentioned that idea also. The plane is nose heavy by 500 ft-lbs. The baggage area is a little over 5 ft back from center C.G. Adding a 100lbs to the baggage area solves the forward CG issue simply. Adding 30lbs of weight in the back would yield about 390 ft-lbs of rear moment almost solving the problem but adding 30lbs of dead weight that can never be exchanged for baggage/passengers.
But back to the radiators, the radiators are probably 50-60 lbs full at 4 feet forward CG creating a forward moment of approx 220 ft-lbs. I would have to move the radiators to under the baggage area to bring the CG back far enough. For now we will probably stick to adding weight to the baggage area.
The supercharger might go away though. It would release approx. 30 lbs and only about 100 ft-lbs of forward moment.
A ten percent increase in gross weight brings the plane to 2970 which would leave a useful load of 917 lbs. After fuel that's about 557 lbs. I will probably put tabs in the fuel tank and fly with 40 gallons of fuel most of the time. This is another 120 lbs off.
I am still not over it yet though! I imagine using West systems and microballons would have saved may pounds over bondo for filler. With a 10% increase in gross the plane will be more that adequate for my family use.
The bad thing is we can't blame the fat plane on anybody but ourselves. It's not the engine that is making this plane a beast, it's helping but not the main cause.
The engine is not getting moved. I had many thoughts yesterday about designing some type of radiator system under the belly. Needless to say Ross had mentioned that idea also. The plane is nose heavy by 500 ft-lbs. The baggage area is a little over 5 ft back from center C.G. Adding a 100lbs to the baggage area solves the forward CG issue simply. Adding 30lbs of weight in the back would yield about 390 ft-lbs of rear moment almost solving the problem but adding 30lbs of dead weight that can never be exchanged for baggage/passengers.
But back to the radiators, the radiators are probably 50-60 lbs full at 4 feet forward CG creating a forward moment of approx 220 ft-lbs. I would have to move the radiators to under the baggage area to bring the CG back far enough. For now we will probably stick to adding weight to the baggage area.
The supercharger might go away though. It would release approx. 30 lbs and only about 100 ft-lbs of forward moment.
A ten percent increase in gross weight brings the plane to 2970 which would leave a useful load of 917 lbs. After fuel that's about 557 lbs. I will probably put tabs in the fuel tank and fly with 40 gallons of fuel most of the time. This is another 120 lbs off.
I am still not over it yet though! I imagine using West systems and microballons would have saved may pounds over bondo for filler. With a 10% increase in gross the plane will be more that adequate for my family use.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
I just can't see where any sort of filler would be a significant amount of weight (unless a LOT of filler was used). A gallon of automotive body filler only weighs a few pounds and most of that would be sanded off the airframe. Likewise for corrosion protection. Primer just doesn't weigh very much in the overall scheme of things.
Best wishes for a successful series of test flights. I'm sure a lot of folks will be watching with great interest as you put the Chevy through its paces.
Sorry to hear about the weight problem.....
Todd, sorry to hear about the weight problem, but I'm sure you will work it out. I am building my RV6 in the same hangar that Bud Warren is developing his LS1 in. I am just an observer of Bud's project, but listen and observe carefully. I can't imagine needing a Supercharger on that engine set up. The power that Bud is developing at around 3k is certainly more than you would need to fly an RV10. It would be interesting to get an accurate weight on the two PSRU's. I have been told that the weight on Bud's setup is 488lbs (No a/c or supercharger). In observation, his radiator is set between the firewall & engine (this probably helps with the weight), I have watched this run on the ground for an hour, with very low temps. I did get involved with doing the fiberglass mod's to a stock RV10 cowl, they were minimal (no lengthening of the cowl, no special venting mod's). His cooling system is one of the things I like best about his project, very clean & light.
When he gets back from Osh, I am going to try to weigh it myself, I just want to know without a doubt.
Keep working this down, you'll get it. Your plane is gorgeous.
Todd, sorry to hear about the weight problem, but I'm sure you will work it out. I am building my RV6 in the same hangar that Bud Warren is developing his LS1 in. I am just an observer of Bud's project, but listen and observe carefully. I can't imagine needing a Supercharger on that engine set up. The power that Bud is developing at around 3k is certainly more than you would need to fly an RV10. It would be interesting to get an accurate weight on the two PSRU's. I have been told that the weight on Bud's setup is 488lbs (No a/c or supercharger). In observation, his radiator is set between the firewall & engine (this probably helps with the weight), I have watched this run on the ground for an hour, with very low temps. I did get involved with doing the fiberglass mod's to a stock RV10 cowl, they were minimal (no lengthening of the cowl, no special venting mod's). His cooling system is one of the things I like best about his project, very clean & light.
When he gets back from Osh, I am going to try to weigh it myself, I just want to know without a doubt.
Keep working this down, you'll get it. Your plane is gorgeous.
Thanks for the comments Chuck. Yeah my plane needs to go on a diet!
Has Bud run his engine with the cowl on? My temp were great with the cowl off. It was when I pushed it really hard on the ground for 15 minutes that the temps peaked. The supercharger benefit really comes into play at density high altitude. Do I really need it? No. I am ready to take it off? No. I am going to fly the beast first and see what really is needed or not needed. I will probably do some high speed taxis this Saturday and see if the temp will come down at high speeds. This is why they call it experimental! Let the fun begin!
Has Bud run his engine with the cowl on? My temp were great with the cowl off. It was when I pushed it really hard on the ground for 15 minutes that the temps peaked. The supercharger benefit really comes into play at density high altitude. Do I really need it? No. I am ready to take it off? No. I am going to fly the beast first and see what really is needed or not needed. I will probably do some high speed taxis this Saturday and see if the temp will come down at high speeds. This is why they call it experimental! Let the fun begin!
Coolant temps with the cowling off are almost never a problem with liquid cooled engines and front mounted rads. I can run mine for hours with no issues. I get a solid 20 minutes from cold start on a warm summer day with cowling on if I open everything up. Never had a problem yet on the ground even at our busy airport waiting for clearance but I know of many water pumpers who have to shut down in about 10 minutes under those conditions.
The next problem would be climb at max power. Cruise is rarely a problem.
Bud seemed to have great cooling on his Wheeler by all reports and had the very large rad similarly mounted to your plane Todd but with a large ram duct feeding it from the outside. Jess Meyers has used the firewall mounted rad and a plenum on his V6s with good success but I don't think you have the room there.
We'll be very interested to see how it works.
The next problem would be climb at max power. Cruise is rarely a problem.
Bud seemed to have great cooling on his Wheeler by all reports and had the very large rad similarly mounted to your plane Todd but with a large ram duct feeding it from the outside. Jess Meyers has used the firewall mounted rad and a plenum on his V6s with good success but I don't think you have the room there.
We'll be very interested to see how it works.
Last edited:
In the summer we are 25-35C a lot here so it's not that cold. In the winter, I have all my water valves and inlet doors closed just to get enough temp to take off.
I'd recommend doing the first flight in cool conditions, this will give you some more time if cooling is really bad. Some guys have hit 240F plus before they can get it back on the ground again. For every 10F more OAT you have, you can add about 10F to your coolant temps if the rads are not working right. On the first flight, everything is totally unknown.
I'd recommend doing the first flight in cool conditions, this will give you some more time if cooling is really bad. Some guys have hit 240F plus before they can get it back on the ground again. For every 10F more OAT you have, you can add about 10F to your coolant temps if the rads are not working right. On the first flight, everything is totally unknown.
Jconard
Well Known Member
Todd,
Please be careful. I say this because I am worried that even high speed tests without correcting some issues may be a problem. Whenever you do a high speed taxi test you should be prepared to fly. I can think of several local pilots who, in the bad old days, ended up hurting the bird when it took flight on a "simple" high speed test.
In addition, at low speed, with much much more power than the plane was designed for, you can expect significant, perhaps uncontrollable yaw...(catches low time warbird pilots from time to time in a go around for example.)
So, imagine the polar moments....tons of weight ahead of the mains, and tons of ballast behind the mains, with little weight in between once yaw begins to creep past the control authority it may not come back. There will also be increased loads on the various gear.
Also, the nosewheel is running with alot more weight on it than it was likely designed for, it appears in pictures that the rubber biscuits may be compressed and the nose gear flexing a little at rest.
It is a beautiful aircraft but it needs re-development...I am sure that some of the initial steps that have been suggested would move it much closer to a known envelope. I am not sure that at this moment cooling is the biggest safety issue you face.
I am not trying to be negative here. But I sit remembering not long ago sitting around with my friends analysing another member of the family who pushed too fast, and we could all see it coming, but said nothing...he made a big smoking hole.
PLEASE PLEASE take it slow, get it right, and be careful.
If there is an experienced engineering resource to consult, do that. Even if it cost a few bucks...you are far enough beyond the design to need some design validation before functional testing.
This is not an attack, it is an acknowledgement of the path you are on which could have great rewards in the end, but you have not built an RV which is consistent with the designers plans or with any other one that has been built. You are not within the envelope that many RV'ers are...who simply assemble and begin testing. You should look at this like a plans built, unproven design and test/develop accordingly. I know this is "experimental aviation" but when people build from plans or their own design, they also re-build, re-calculate and re-engineer until the pre-test article matches the requirements of the wings/gear/etc...We have been spoiled that RV's are a proven design. You have not built one of those.
I am sure I will get flamed for saying this, but after the last guy I do not want to be in the position of smiling and saying good luck, only to wonder later if we all had a part in the mistakes.
Please be careful. I say this because I am worried that even high speed tests without correcting some issues may be a problem. Whenever you do a high speed taxi test you should be prepared to fly. I can think of several local pilots who, in the bad old days, ended up hurting the bird when it took flight on a "simple" high speed test.
In addition, at low speed, with much much more power than the plane was designed for, you can expect significant, perhaps uncontrollable yaw...(catches low time warbird pilots from time to time in a go around for example.)
So, imagine the polar moments....tons of weight ahead of the mains, and tons of ballast behind the mains, with little weight in between once yaw begins to creep past the control authority it may not come back. There will also be increased loads on the various gear.
Also, the nosewheel is running with alot more weight on it than it was likely designed for, it appears in pictures that the rubber biscuits may be compressed and the nose gear flexing a little at rest.
It is a beautiful aircraft but it needs re-development...I am sure that some of the initial steps that have been suggested would move it much closer to a known envelope. I am not sure that at this moment cooling is the biggest safety issue you face.
I am not trying to be negative here. But I sit remembering not long ago sitting around with my friends analysing another member of the family who pushed too fast, and we could all see it coming, but said nothing...he made a big smoking hole.
PLEASE PLEASE take it slow, get it right, and be careful.
If there is an experienced engineering resource to consult, do that. Even if it cost a few bucks...you are far enough beyond the design to need some design validation before functional testing.
This is not an attack, it is an acknowledgement of the path you are on which could have great rewards in the end, but you have not built an RV which is consistent with the designers plans or with any other one that has been built. You are not within the envelope that many RV'ers are...who simply assemble and begin testing. You should look at this like a plans built, unproven design and test/develop accordingly. I know this is "experimental aviation" but when people build from plans or their own design, they also re-build, re-calculate and re-engineer until the pre-test article matches the requirements of the wings/gear/etc...We have been spoiled that RV's are a proven design. You have not built one of those.
I am sure I will get flamed for saying this, but after the last guy I do not want to be in the position of smiling and saying good luck, only to wonder later if we all had a part in the mistakes.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
What he said
John hit the major high points very well, weight on nose, polar momentum, adverse yaw----etc.
Todd, please believe that all of us want to see you succeed------but we want you safe.
I have no idea if you are a PHD in aero engineering, or a donut hole poker, most likely somewhere in between.
I--we--- am not trying to pass judgment on your efforts, I am pretty sure most applaud them, we are just concerned.
John, any flaming starts, I'll be right there with an extinguisher.
John hit the major high points very well, weight on nose, polar momentum, adverse yaw----etc.
Todd, please believe that all of us want to see you succeed------but we want you safe.
I have no idea if you are a PHD in aero engineering, or a donut hole poker, most likely somewhere in between.
I--we--- am not trying to pass judgment on your efforts, I am pretty sure most applaud them, we are just concerned.
John, any flaming starts, I'll be right there with an extinguisher.
I am not going to flame either of you for being concerned. I have an aero degree and so does Dave. He is the guy I am building the plane with. Dave is also a DER who approves modifications on many GA jets. I understand the polar momentum issue. It's like having two fat kids on a see saw. Don't worry we will be taking it extremely slow! I am in no hurry! It flies when it flies!
Last edited:
I like the 9000 foot runway part for test flying. Wish I had that much.
Good post John, for anyone contemplating major deviation from plans and especially the part about speaking up when you think something may not be as safe as it can be. I can think of one RV guy who might still be with us if some of his friends had had a talk with him.
Wish I had that much.Good post John, for anyone contemplating major deviation from plans and especially the part about speaking up when you think something may not be as safe as it can be. I can think of one RV guy who might still be with us if some of his friends had had a talk with him.
I have something in my plane that I use everytime the plane moves to remind myself to be safe and not take unnecessary risks and make sure everything is 100% right. I bought Dan Lloyd's tow bar.
Besides the 9000' runway there is a 7000' runway intersecting it with acres upon acres of tarmac, I could take off and land several times on many of the tarmacs alone. To the north is a field cleared for the VOR, to the west is a golf course and to the east is a dump. Gulfstream does all their flight testing from here.
Besides the 9000' runway there is a 7000' runway intersecting it with acres upon acres of tarmac, I could take off and land several times on many of the tarmacs alone. To the north is a field cleared for the VOR, to the west is a golf course and to the east is a dump. Gulfstream does all their flight testing from here.
Last edited:
You'll be MUCH faster than a doggy Gulfstream...Are you SURE you have enough tarmac?...
Frank
It might be close!
