Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.67; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <419543BE.3000104@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:14:06 -0600
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Weight and Balance?
References: <list-529773@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-529773@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For those who aren't up on RV weights, 934 would be very good for a -4 
with  a Lyc 320. My previous -4 weighed ~930 (painted) with a barebones 
panel (no gyros at all) and only paint & cloth covered foam seats for 
the interior.

220+ mph is better than angle-valve IO-360 speed, and that engine/cs 
prop on a -4 would likely weigh around 1100 lbs. minimum.

Charlie
(hate top posting because I've never read a book that had paragraphs in 
reverse order & it doesn't make any more sense in emails than it does in 
books)  ;-)

Tracy Crook wrote:

> Hi Tommy,  Have not re-weighed the plane but I dropped about 25 pounds 
> with the new installation.  Only 10 of those were due to the lighter 
> Renesis.  The rest were due to engine mount, oil filter, hoses, intake 
> manifold, etc.  It was 934 pounds before paint back in 1994.  Time to 
> weigh it again. 
>  
> Total 'shoe box' runner length is about 11 inches now.
>  
> Tracy  (Preliminary test results on longer intake runners - Woo Hooo!  
> More details later)
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Tommy James <mailto:twjames@statesville.net>
>     To: Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>     Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:30 PM
>     Subject: [FlyRotary] Weight and Balance?
>
>     Hi T.  What is the new empty weight of the Otter?
>
>     What is the length of the new runners? (internal port to shoebox)
>
>     Regards, and very sorry to miss the flyin!
>
>     Tommy<><
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      
>
>     From: Rotary motors in aircraft
>     [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
>     Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:29 AM
>     To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>     Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: best cruise altitude and power
>
>      
>
>     Correct on all counts Rusty.  I'm using the airplane as a dyno in
>     these tests which has very little to do with the way airplanes are
>     actually used.  As I have said in the past, top speed and HP
>     numbers are good for only one thing -  Hangar bragging rights.  My
>     comment about never testing above 6000 applies only to the recent
>     Renesis testing.
>
>      
>
>     As an example of why it makes no sense to go fast down low, I can
>     fly 202 mph at 1000 ft (not full throttle) while sweating
>     profusely in a hot cockpit while burning about 16 GPH. I can go
>     the same speed at 14000 ft in complete comfort while burning 8.25
>     GPH (numbers from earlier 2nd gen 13B engine).
>
>      
>
>     Tracy (installing longer intake runners in shoebox manifold -
>     Turbo flyers beware : )
>