This Channel is for everyone interested in Aviation and the beautiful aircraft from Van's Aircraft. Website: VansAircraftBuilders.com Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/VansAircraftBuilders/ Facebook Page:facebook.com/VansAircraftBuilders/
Tell me how are you doing? I heard Vans was having problems, did they affect you? I'm really looking forward to new videos on assembling the RV12, I hope you will make a continuation?
The majority are standard rivets, using a bucking bar for the most RV kits, however the rivets supplied by Van's aircraft are pop-rivets for the RV-12iS. I think the new RV-15 will be pop-rivets as well. I always go with the suggested rivets from the mother company.
Everyone, I got a big list of 34 comments and questions this morning. Apparently the auto notification was off line for a while. Normally I reply to each individual’s set of questions. But I leave for AirVenture at 5 am tomorrow morning and time does not permit that. Luckily for me there were several repeats on the list. First, I want to thank all the positive comments about our designs and installations. Second, we will be in booth #624 in the North Aircraft Display Area, a corner booth at the south end. That area is just south of the war bird area. Our RV-10 featured in the videos will be there parked at an angle facing the outer corner. Answers: Yes, there are some great Toyota engines that would make good aircraft engines. We have smaller PSRU’s for them as well. No, because the factory ECU will not support a mechanical throttle body. The factory electric throttle bodies have reliability issues in an aircraft application and the FAA does not allow fly-by-wire throttles. So all of our ECU’s have been MEFI-4’s, FiTech, or MSD Atomic systems. Holley also make a great ECU, and they all support mechanical throttle bodies. All or these ECU’s have tables that go to 5,200 meters MSL (17,060 feet) and will interpolate timing and A/F ratios above that based on sensor inputs. We won’t do turbo’s or superchargers for more power. We will do turbo’s for turbo normalizing. Many of the available turbo systems can maintain sea level performance to 16,000+ feet. The clutch will disengage if the engine shuts down for what ever reason. This will allow the propeller to free wheel in flight. A fixed pitch or normal constant speed propeller free wheeling will cause more drag than if it were in a fixed/stopped position. To correct that, and reduce the drag below what a fixed/stopped propeller would cause, we recommend using a constant speed propeller that reduces pitch with increased oil pressure rather than the standard increasing pitch with increased oil pressure propeller. This type of propeller will go to a high pitch setting after loosing oil pressure and possibly auto-feather, rather than go to a low pitch setting, which greatly reduces the drag from the propeller. The clutch has three major advantages that solves several issues. The engine starts like it is in park/neutral in a car allowing the start to live a long life. The clutch engages at 800 to 900 rpm’s, which sounds high, but is only 480 to 540 rpm’s at the propeller. The air flow at that rpm is the minimum needed for air flow through the radiators to keep the engine cool idling on the ramp. Getting most aircraft to start taxiing requires the propeller to turn at at least 1200 to 1600 rpm’s, which is 2000 to 2667 rpm’s on the engine. It’s all relative to the propeller requirements, not what a car needs. The damping hub of the clutch helps greatly to manage the secondary and third order harmonics. If either of those ever match up with the primary harmonics a lot of things will start to fail all over the aircraft. Since 1996 we have not had to put any RPM limitations on any engine in any airframe. Ask any certified engine manufacturer if they can say that. The clutch disengaging after parking the aircraft prevents Propeller Kickback, which is the inertial mass of the spinning propeller forcing the engine through compression cycles. A reduction gearbox gives any propeller the mechanical advantage needed to do that. This is very similar to a gas engine dieseling in a car. It is very hard on the propeller, gearbox, engine, airframe, and instruments. It is not a pleasant experience for anyone inside the airplane either. The inertial mass of a given propeller will determine how much the propeller will spin after the clutch disengages after shutting down the engine. Light weight composite propellers will spin 2 to 3 times, while a heavier metal propeller will spin up to 12 times. Winds less than 25 to 30 mph will not start the propeller to spin because the aft end of the propeller shaft drives the oil pump and the propeller governor as well as trying to rotate the gears through a bath of gear lube. The weight of an LS3 engine installation will vary for different aircraft types, but that is also true for certified engines. The LS3 installation for an RV-10 is 580 to 582 lbs. The 260 HP Lycoming sold for the RV-10 installation is 587 to 589 lbs. That does NOT include a propeller or propeller governor. It does include all fluids required to fly both engines. The higher 375 HP for take-off is pure gravy. Why an LS3 engine? Yes, they cost less, about 45% less to install at retail costs for both. Their maintenance also costs a lot less. Very good spark plugs cost only $14 each rather than $40+ each, they last 5 times longer, and there are only 8 instead of 12. Savings on oil changes are about the same. The engine operated like we set them up will last 3000+ hours, not 2000 hours, and we don’t have to replace any jugs to get there. The fuel burn rates are 25-30% less at the same horsepower settings. And a replacement long block costs only $4800 to get back to a zero time engine. Our PSRU’s are also good for 3000 hours, and economical to overhaul. If you do the math for just 2000 hours for a certified engine it comes out to over $120,000 of savings. So they cost a lot less, weigh a little bit less, last 50% longer, and produce 37% more horsepower. In any other market I would be able to charge more, not 45% less. The cooling system design took some development early on, but by 1999 we had that nailed down. Since then all of our LS-V8 engine installations never over heat on the ground, in long climbs, or in cruise. Because the thermostat controls the cooling they can’t be shock cooled during decent either. The only time I have seen an in-line 6 engine installation was in WW1 replica’s. Yes, they were Ford 300’s. In an installation were the engine is never run over 4500 rpm’s, and only for take-off and climb, there is no need to upgrade the rotating assembly parts to forged components. But if you want to do that cheaply buy and LS376-480 or LS376-525 with all forged rotating parts, and put an LS3 cam in it. All versions of the stock LS-V8’s are used in stationary power installations around the world where they are run at 4000 to 4500 rpm’s contentiously at 50% power or higher for a year or more using several types of fuel. They get oil changes while they are running so they never shut down. That’s a very tough engine design! The SD400 weighs 109 lbs with the flywheel/clutch assy and 3 quarts of oil, without a propeller or propeller governor. We get a lot of hot-rod guys asking about all sorts of power adders and improvers. We call them NASCAR Bubba’s. It is very easy to take a stock car and beef up the frame and suspension to handle up to 3 times more horsepower. I know because I’ve done it, and watched all the TV shoes that tell you how to do it. But that is VERY hard to do for any airplane. You can easily end up with an engine that can twist the airframe up in a little ball on take-off. Worse than putting a V8 in a motorcycle. Even a stock LS3 in an RV-10 can force you into an uncontrollable torque turn off the runway if you slam in full power all at once. This is by far is the longest, most comprehensive reply I have ever posted for this sight. If you have more questions I will try not to let so many slip by and return to answering them individually again. If you visit our booth next week we can go into great detail on everything.
Turbo normalizing to 15,000 feet is already available. With sea level engine performance and less drag cruise speed will increase dramatically. The biggest issue with turbo charging to 700 hp is the torque goes up to 1300 lb-ft. That would be like putting a PT-6 in these small air frames. That would twist them up like an empty soda can. But wait, there are weirder things than that coming by this time next year with bigger engines on bigger air frames that can handle the power.
Add a big boy turbo and a built blick with upgraded internals to last and you got a 700 hp that will last you for a very long time, only thing that would need replacing is tranny and turbo after a while
That depends on what you want to compare to. The LS3 as we install it puts out 375 HP at our 4500 rpm limit. So for take-off through cruise settings the fuel burns are; 4500 rpm 100% - 375 HP = 22.5 gph 3700 rpm 75% - 283 HP = 17.0 gph 3400 rpm 65% - 247 HP = 14.8 gph 3000 rpm 55% - 210 HP = 12.6 gph None of those power settings compares to the IO-540D that it replaces. A bigger engine puts out higher horsepower and consumes more fuel, even with water cooling allowing for 20 to 30% lower gph/HP. The closest that we can get to a similar power setting for the IO-540D is: 2700 rpm 100% - 260 HP = 19.9 gph compares to on the LS3 at 3500 rpm 69% - 258.6 HP = 15.5 gph, or 22% less 2340 rpm 75% - 195 HP = 14.3 gph compares to on the LS3 at 2800 rpm 69% - 194.2 HP = 11.3 gph, or 21% less All of these numbers are based on dyno data corrected for standard sea level conditions. Actual rpm and MAP settings will vary the performance and fuel flows. The physics of density altitude that effect engine performance is the same for all engines.
Is that power what the propeller actually uses? 217g/kwh is very good for an old engine. that is is it is actually using the stated fuel at the stated power. I'm guessing the power stated is what it is rated to and not what the propeller consumes. It is still a 200kg engine though. And having such a wide rpm range reduces propeller efficiency.
You are like a lot of interested watchers that have all sorts of ideas on how we should spend a lot of money. But we need to be a lot more practical than artsy. NACA ducts are internal structures and ducts that size will not fit inside the cowling. Each radiator is 15x18 for 270 in2 of area and are within 1.0" average of the inner cowling. That space is required for the silicon rubber baffling between the radiators and the cowling to eliminate cooling air from being lost around the radiator. There is no room to move the radiators further inboard for NACA scoops large enough to supply the same air volume as our scoops, especially during slow ground operations on a hot day. Your comment about the clunky appearance of the front corners does have good merit. We have had discussions with James Aircraft (close to us by Texas standards) to develop at least the lower cowling for us to replace the two scoops and center tunnel that we currently give customers to modify the Vans cowling that they get in their kit. If that plan were expanded to include the upper cowling as a set then modifying those corners could make the RV-10 look at least 10 knots faster without much extra effort. The big questions is always how much more would customers be willing to pay for a custom cowling than what Vans charges for the standard cowling. With that subject opened up, would anyone like to comment on how much more they would pay for a ready made cowling versus doing their own fiberglass work to modify a Vans cowling?
Great idea. Any chance of wicking in and trapping moisture? I'm in the Pacific Northwest, and even though my airplane is hangared, it get's pretty humid inside.
is there any risk of them coming off in high winds while tied outside? is there a method of connecting them together at the spinner to prevent them from coming off?
That is a good question that no one has asked on this platform before and worthy of a full explanation. This explanation will be for a true certification, not a temporary certification under Experimental Exhibition or Experimental Test that other people have been done recently. Yes, the LS3 could be certified, but it's not practical. It would cost 2 to 3 million and take 2 to 4 years. The certification process requires a lot of paperwork, approvals, and testing. That process will eventually destroy 4 to 6 engines to learn how long they last and how they fail under several conditions like lack of oil, low pressure, abusive uses, loss of coolant, etc. Each failure mode requires it's own engine and the results might require repeating the test with another engine. The worst part is the certification would be good for only that specific version of the LS3. As soon as GM "upgrades" anything or substitutes/replaces any part from another supplier (GM tracks this by issuing a new part number for the same engine with the different parts) the original FAA certification is voided. History has shown that GM changes the part number for the base LS3 about every 10 to 16 months, so the version of the engines you started testing with will be outdated before you finish. It is possible to get a modification to the certification by proving to the FAA that the new part(s) are equivalent or better than the old part(s) making the new part number engine compliant with the certification. Again, more money and time, the possibility of having to repeat some or all of the testing, plus a risk that it will be rejected. The only way to improve on that situation is to invest a few million more and warehouse (more money) as many of the current version of the engine as you can get in the beginning. The risk there is if testing proves that any modifications are required then all of the engines in the warehouse will also need to be modified exactly the same way. But when the supply of those engines run out you have to start over, or file for a modification to the original certification and refill the warehouse. It tends to become a bottomless rabbit hole to throw money and time into. The only way around the central issue of not being in control of the engine configuration is to manufacture the engines under license, if GM will let you do that. Either way you end up with an certified engine that costs as much or more than a Lycoming IO-540 or Continental IO-550, and that is an even tougher selling point to overcome. To me this is not a good way to promote aviation. In recent aviation history over the past 30 years there have been three companies that invested all the money and effort to certify different auto engines. All three went bankrupt in less than 7 years. This company, under two owners and two names, has survived over 22 years without certifying anything, so we don't feel any need to change that. But if you are rich and in need of a huge tax deduction call me. :) Thanks for asking.
Hello. I'm glad to see the video about the construction of RV 12 again. I look forward to continuing. I hope you have already ordered the rest of the parts and we will see the continuation soon.
Martin, Thanks for your enthusiasm. If you can drop in for a visit and we will take you up for a ride that you will always remember. The side scoops are to get better airflow than what is available with the stock openings next to the spinner (closed off), especially while taxiing. We have never had an over heating problem on the ground no matter how long ground control makes you wait. The side scoops stick out far enough to allow for the boundary layer looses next to the skin. The new inlet area is roughly the same as the old inlet area. The pressure drop across the radiator core is achieved with an exit flap at the bottom of the firewall (behind the nose gear) that is at least 150% larger than the inlet area. The larger exit area also accounts for the expanded volume of air after absorbing heat from the radiators as well as creating a slight vacuum drop. After this video was made we replace the fixed exit area flap with an adjustable cowl flap to do more testing for ground versus flight cooling requirements. Our hope is to reduce drag in flight without sacrificing cooling on the ground, assuming the difference is big enough to measure.
Cooling inlets with higher velocity for better cooling? Please! Lower velocity provides higher pressure at the grill and therefore more flow and more cooling. Yes, I like your airplane very much! Enjoy many many flights with it!!
Nice video -- clever use of paint roller frame. If performing the stab counterweight SB be sure to secure the aft ends of the stab control cables so they don't fall back into the fuselage -- it ain't no fun trying to fish them back out....
Instead of finding “shim” material to raise my tables, I lifted at the front of the plane to lower the tail into position. You can balance the stabilator counter balance off the plane by hanging it from the pivot bolts.
The main conversion for an LS3 engine to do unlimited aerobatics is changing it to a dry sump oil system with 5 pickup points. That is not required to do "Gentleman" type aerobatics without negative G's. The only issue you might have without a dry sump oil system is with a bad PCV valve allowing too much oil into the intake. Replacing the $5 PCV valve during annual inspections will prevent that from developing. The difficult part of using any diesel engine for the gearbox and the propeller is how the explosive combustion cycle pulses are dealt with. The combustion cycle pulses on a gas engine is a much slower burn. The older mechanically injected diesel combustion cycle is an instantaneous explosion. This causes the loads on the gears, bearings, shafts, propeller hub, and propeller blades to increase by 12+ times. The modern electronic diesel injection systems will pulse the fuel 10 times during each combustion cycle to dampen the power into more of a sin wave instead of one massive pulse. That helps a lot but the loads form the power pulses are still 3+ times that of a gas engine. That is a big improvement but still requires structural upgrades to everything. This is why certified aircraft diesel engines have a 500-1000 hour TBR instead of a 2000 hour TBO. The weight that you quoted for the R2.8 engine is 20-24 pounds heavier than an LS3. To that you have to add a heavier duty gearbox and propeller. I can't estimate the weight increase for the propeller, but the last time I studied this issue the gearbox would go up at least 45-50 pounds. Adding 65-74 pounds to the engine installation makes any aircraft too nose heavy.
Loops and rolls with an LS3 are the same as with an IO-540. As long as you don't sustain negative G's for more than a few seconds the oil pressure will recover before any damage is done. If the loops and rolls are done right that won't happen. Any amount of positive G's will keep the oil flowing to the oil pickup in the oil pan. We have done one installation with full inverted oil systems on the LS3 and gearbox. It fills the cowling with a lot of oil hoses but works very well. To be honest, only the one customer has ever liked to hang upside down at more than 1G for any length of time.
@@stuartpsrus5413 Thanks for the information. I was thinking of using a dry sump system so the oil would be under pressure at all times. How adaptable are your products to other auto engines? I am researching the Cummins R2.8 diesel (only weighs 503lbs).
Ben, there are a lot of opinions all over the internet, including here, that think the radiators and coolant must make the LS3 engine heavier. In fact if you unbolt everything from the firewall for the IO-540 and one with an LS3 with the same propeller and fully wet our installations typically weigh 2-3 pounds less with a smaller alternator and light weight starter. We have weighed both for the RV-10. Using the stock alternator and starter will add 5 to 6 pounds, but we like to go with the lighter parts. Many people think that the radiators add a lot of drag too. But the inlet area of our scoops is slightly less than the area of the inlets on either side of the spinner that we eliminate. The scoops moved to the side of the cowling is more efficient due to being further out on the propeller blades where they blow a lot more air into them, especially on the ground. The exit area is larger than the inlet area to create low pressure that helps to pull the air through the radiators as well. The fixed cowling exit shown in the video aft of the nose gear strut has been replaced with an adjustable cowl flap that works the same as the one on a P-51 belly scoop. We hope testing will prove that this will reduce the overall drag further. We are already faster than an IO-540 and burn 30% less fuel at the same power setting, but saving more on fuel costs is always a good thing to have.
You should be proud. You are probably in the top 1% of all the billions of people in the world that will make and fly their own aircraft. Truly truly wrap your mind around that.
