Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #12843
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Weight and Balance?
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:14:06 -0600
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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 : )



Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster