Author: "geraldmorrissey" <geraldmorrissey@...> Time: Fri Oct 11, 2002 7:00 am PDT Link
Thanks to all who responded. Looks like the 0235 is the choice for me.
Lightweight, clean, attention to detail, VFR only, good old reliable
steam quages, maybe lower insurance costs(?). So it takes me longer
to get there. Three quarters of my flights in my c-150 start and end
at the same airport. I like the sound of that $4,500 powerplant and
fuel burn close to my 150.
Gerry
Author: "kenrv6" <kenrv6@...> Time: Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:37 am PDT Link
For what it's worth, I've flown an O-235 powered RV-9 for about six
hours -- enought to get a good taste of it. I had no qualms about
the engine at all. Plenty of power for a light airplane, decent if
not overwhelming climb performance, excellent cruise for the power.
If I gave it full go at 5 or 6000 ft, it would eventually get up to
about 170 smph true. Cruised pretty easily at 155-158.
Biggest problem was the prop. Since the O-235 has no provision for a
hydraulic constant-speed, this airplane had a Sensenich metal prop,
pitched appropriately for that speedy cruise. When the airplane was
loaded, acceleration on take-off, with only about 1950 rpm available,
was pretty slow. Things got better about lift-off, when the prop was
able gain rpm. I often thought that what the airplane really needed
was not more power, but a way to get at the power it couldn't
produce. A simple two position
prop...takeoff...clunk...cruise...would be just the ticket. There
might be some stuff coming out of Europe/NZ that will accomplish
this.
With an O-235, the RV-9A is a fine little airplane. With an
adjustable propeller, it would sparkle.
--- In RV-9A@y..., "geraldmorrissey" <geraldmorrissey@y...> wrote:
> Thanks to all who responded. Looks like the 0235 is the choice for
me.
> Lightweight, clean, attention to detail, VFR only, good old
reliable
> steam quages, maybe lower insurance costs(?). So it takes me longer
> to get there. Three quarters of my flights in my c-150 start and
end
> at the same airport. I like the sound of that $4,500 powerplant and
> fuel burn close to my 150.
>
> Gerry
Author: "mark_dille" <mark_dille@...> Time: Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:21 am PDT Link
I think several things favor the O-320. I would presume it doesn't
cost much more used, but the support for the engine installation is
better. Furthermore, you can always rein it back and get great fuel
mileage. It also offers a higher power to weight safety margin (this
may not be that important, but it is at least a fact). No real big
deal either way I guess though. If it were me, I'd wait to sum up
the money for an Eggenfellner Subaru and be done with it.
Mark
Author: "Brian Dal Porto" <bdalporto@...> Time: Sat Oct 12, 2002 4:35 pm PDT Link
Gerry, don't think that the -9 with the an O-235 is slow. I flew the O235 proto type with Van at Sun-n-fun in 1999 and we were indicating over 160 mph at near gross weight. The best part was the landing. We had about a 10 k head wind and when we landed we turned off the runway into the run-up area. I think Van could have made a low slow pass and I could have got out and run as fast and I'm an old fat guy. Go with the O235 and fly longer legs your cross country times will be the same as the O-320 guys
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: geraldmorrissey
To: RV-9A@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:38 AM
Subject: [RV-9A] Less is More
Thanks to all who responded. Looks like the 0235 is the choice for me.
Lightweight, clean, attention to detail, VFR only, good old reliable
steam quages, maybe lower insurance costs(?). So it takes me longer
to get there. Three quarters of my flights in my c-150 start and end
at the same airport. I like the sound of that $4,500 powerplant and
fuel burn close to my 150.
Gerry
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV-9A-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]