Message-ID: <40F13A1D.2010209@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 08:01:17 -0500
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Powersport RV8 in the RVator
References: <list-311033@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-311033@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

DaveLeonard wrote:

>> Dave you need to write up an article for Rvator!!.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>You bet I will.  As soon as I install my intersection fairings and my new
>Harmon rocket gear leg fairings and improve cooling and "borrow" an O2
>bottle from the hospital.  Perhaps even a bigger prop.  That might be a good
>chance to go up into the flight levels and give Tracy Sailor a number to
>work toward.
>
>That would make a good article.  :-)
>
>Dave Leonard
>

A couple of questions/comments:

Tracy & Ed both seem to have respectable fuel burns at *low* cruise 
settings. Unfortunately, other RV flyers seem to be quoting burns in the 
10 GPH range at cruise speeds noticably lower than Lyc powered RV's at 
the same burn (and 'reasonable' VFR altitudes).

10 GPH is the ~burn of a 180 Lyc at 75% power (full throttle, properly 
leaned, 7k-8k feet). Is anyone able to match Van's published 75% cruise 
numbers, both speed & fuel burn?

One of the biggest knocks against the rotary is the perceived excessive 
fuel burn. I think that we need to see side-by-side flights with Lyc 160 
& 180 HP RV's at commonly flown VFR cruise altitudes (6k-10k feet). 
Until there are well documented comparisons showing similar fuel burns, 
the fence sitters will remain on the fence or fall on the Lyc side.

Comments?

Charlie