Alan Tolle wrote:

Thanks to Jim Mosur for the weight and balance data.  Presuming both he and
Ed Anderson were accurate in their measuring and weighing, we can draw some
conclusions

First conclusion: the rotary installation is all up about 100 pounds heavier
than the Lycoming engine that it replaces.  Both the rotary RV-6 and -6A are
heavier than the factory prototypes by about that much.  The extra 100
pounds will have no in flight effect beyond a slight degradation of climb
performance.

Second conclusion:  Most of the 100 pounds is up front with the engine.
Both the rotary RV-6 and -6A have an empty weight CG 1 inch forward of the
empty weight CG in the factory prototypes.  This is certainly a step in the
right direction in an airplane which is aft CG sensitive in the first place.
The -6A will need to keep a sharp eye on the nose gear strut --- it was
designed for a lighter load.

There appears to be a weight penalty of 100 pounds in the rotary engine
installation at this point.  This comes as a surprise to me because my
experience with rotary installation in both the RV-3 and -4 went the other
way.

A goal of future installations might be to work on decreasing the weight
penalty.

BTW if that Jim Mosur W/B was too hard to read I can scan it in at a
higher
rez at the expense of a longer download time. I will entertain a limited
number of private request for the hi rez scan.

Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org