Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

partner14

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:41 am Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

Totally agree Robin... it was really hard for me to understand when looking at a kit built Superior Perfromance Cobra, with a Jack Rousch prepared engine, sitting next to my partially complete (at that time-currently 367 hours) RV10, cost less than the engine in my RV10.... and to clarify, that's the car and engine!!!!!

Don McDonald

  From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>

 To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" <rv10-list(at)matronics.com> 

 Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:59 AM

 Subject: RE: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)>

Jason,

I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop & go traffic Phoenix  in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI  in January would be harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and over time a static design would come down in price with competitive pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not  covering anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540 will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !

 sport further damaging GA. 

Robin

Do Not Archive

--

_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636

jkreidler

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 151
Location: Sheboygan Falls WI

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

DJ, when I visited Lycoming we had a conversation around how they test and certify.  It is very common for auto manufacturers to list peak HP instead of listing continuous HP.  It looks more impressive and in reality doesn't matter for 99% of operation.  Aside from the autobahn and a super speedway it is very difficult to run a car at continuous power.  This topic is a bit near and dear to me as my day job is to engineer electric motors, understanding how the HP numbers were come by is important to me.  With that said I don't think Lycoming wants to see us run at 100% power continuously either, but they have been tested that way, or so I was told.



Robin, I really don't understand where they get their pricing from, it is amazing!  You are right the parameters do not make for an engine that costs three times as much.  That is kind of why I made the reference to the cost per pound, ultimately that is what we are buying is processed raw material.  On the other hand if they were making money hand over fist there would naturally be competition right?  The real problem is that overall GA is shrinking meaning Lycoming needs to make their money off from a smaller pool of people, it is a downward spiral that if left unchecked will be fatal to what we do.

_________________
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

On 1/22/2012 1:59 PM, jkreidler wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 DJ, when I visited Lycoming we had a conversation around how they test and certify.  It is very common for auto manufacturers to list peak HP instead of listing continuous HP.  It looks more impressive and in reality doesn't matter for 99% of operation.  Aside from the autobahn and a super speedway it is very difficult to run a car at continuous power.  This topic is a bit near and dear to me as my day job is to engineer electric motors, understanding how the HP numbers were come by is important to me.  With that said I don't think Lycoming wants to see us run at 100% power continuously either, but they have been tested that way, or so I was told.


	


     I'm pretty sure I would not take a Lycoming rep's word on using 

automotive engines in an airplane...  *grin*



     There are lots of automotive engines in airplanes that are running 

fine, and have not "blown up" from high RPMs.  That is one of the 

biggest myth's surrounding the use of these engines.



     If you really want to familiarize yourself, I'd recommend starting 

with Ross Farnham's web site.  He has been doing the automotive thing 

for years and probably knows more than you and I put together about 

using an automotive engine in an aircraft.



I'd start here:  http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html



and then go here:  http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm



and more general info here:  http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html



     Of note:



"Auto engines today are designed and routinely tested to higher 

standards than certified aircraft engine requirements. The FAA only 

requires 100 hours of full throttle, full rpm for certified engines and 

another 50 hours at 75-100% power, 50 hours of which are required to be 

at redline oil and cylinder head temperatures. Most auto engine 

manufacturers today do a minimum validation of 200 hours of WOT at rated 

hp rpm and some as much as 1200 hours. In addition to this test, they 

perform cold weather testing to the tune of 1000+ cycles of cold soaking 

the engine to 0F and immediately taking the engine to WOT and high rpm 

until coolant reaches 240F. While the engine is still hot, 0F coolant is 

pumped into the engine until the block achieves 0F and the test is 

repeated- over 1000 times. Additional tests often include idle testing 

to 2000 hours with oil temperatures of 260F+ and transmission validation 

where the engine is cycled from low rpm to shift point rpm at WOT while 

the transmission is shifted up and down for up to 1600 hours. Not just 

one engine is put through these tests- dozens are. Wear rates are noted 

and obviously failures are not acceptable before release of the design."



     To date, I've not heard of an auto engine blowing itself up due to 

running at high RPMs.  However, I have heard of Lycoming engines blowing 

cylinders out the sides of cowlings, breaking cranks, etc, and I have 

heard of auto engines having other kinds of problems, but nothing in 

relation to high RPMS.



-Dj

jkreidler

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 151
Location: Sheboygan Falls WI

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

DJ, point taken...  A few add on comments, my information came from the individual running the test cell (hand on the controls) at Lycoming.  High RPM's are not an issue, high power settings are.  Getting full torque at 2700 RPM is a whole different world than at 6000 RPM.  I understand many folks are happy with auto conversions, great, we all have our own thresholds for risk.  I have no doubt auto engines are tested as stated above, but an important distinction in terms needs to be kept in mind.  They are at full power for 200 hours, that is the continuous HP rating, what is usually advertised is max or peak HP, all I am asking is that we compare the same numbers.

_________________
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:06 pm Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

I have yet to see an automotive engine with main bearings that support the forces of a 60 lb prop hanging off it. Porsche thought they knew a thing or two about engines, and made an aircraft engine in the 210hp range. They persuaded Mooney to hang it off the front of one of there planes. It flew very nicely, smooth and all. But it didn't climb as well and was slower than the 200hp Lycoming powered Mooney, and cost a bunch more.  Porsche stopped supporting the engine and turned in the type certificate less than 20 yrs after it was introduced.

 If you look at all the versions of Lyc 540s you will see a fair amount of evolution in the first 20 years it was available, then things went stagnant by the late 70s, and not much has happened since. 



On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)>

  

 

Jason,

 I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop & go traffic Phoenix  in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI  in January would be harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and over time a static design would come down in price with competitive pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540 will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !

   sport further damaging GA.

 

 Robin

 Do Not Archive

 



	




  [quote][b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

rv10(at)colohan.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly?

	




There is a mistaken assumption in this thread that the price Lycoming charges is directly related to their cost.  Other than it being unlikely they would sell engines under cost, there isn't (and shouldn't be) a strong relationship.

 



Lycoming will charge as much as they think people will pay, raising the price until either people don't buy enough engines to make the business worthwhile, or a viable price competitor emerges.  Given that:

 



a) the number of engines sold per year is quite low;

b) the cost barrier to entry in this market is quite high; and

c) many (not all!) purchasers are quite price insensitive

 



this means that prices will remain high, and it would not be surprising if they went higher yet.

Chris



  [quote][b]

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

That is not a correct statement on the HP output of auto engines........ And the testing of V-8 auto engines are ALOT more demanding then what Lycoming and Continental are required to show the FAA for certification........ 

For example.... Taket a marine application...  It is the same Chevy or Ford  basic engine  used by Mercruiser, or Volvo, or lots of other boat engine suppliers... The 'less then smart' owners of those boats powered by that motor  do minimal maintenance on them, put um in the water at the beginning of the season. hoop in, start the motor , don't let is warm up and run full throttle all day,,, day after day, week after week, year after year... The motor lives through all that abuse......... 

  

You really want  to see a motor tortured... Rent a U Haul or Ryder or any other brand that rents

box trucks...... The idiots who rent them stuff them to the gills and most often the box is overweight, they then fill it up with gas... hit the interstate and hold it to the floor  all day and night,  turn the truck in and the next idiot rents it...... Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat..... Those motors consistantly make 200,000 miles of extreme abuse..... Just try that with a Lycoming or Continental..... IMHO... 

Ben 

do not archive.



Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:00 pm Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

Touche!  Kelly.  I remember the Mooney Porsche as a "Pretty" but under-performer with a most un-orthodox engine mount. On Jan 22, 2012 2:11 PM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:[quote] 



I have yet to see an automotive engine with main bearings that support the forces of a 60 lb prop hanging off it. Porsche thought they knew a thing or two about engines, and made an aircraft engine in the 210hp range. They persuaded Mooney to hang it off the front of one of there planes. It flew very nicely, smooth and all. But it didn't climb as well and was slower than the 200hp Lycoming powered Mooney, and cost a bunch more.  Porsche stopped supporting the engine and turned in the type certificate less than 20 yrs after it was introduced.

  If you look at all the versions of Lyc 540s you will see a fair amount of evolution in the first 20 years it was available, then things went stagnant by the late 70s, and not much has happened since. 



On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)>

   

 

Jason,

 I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop & go traffic Phoenix  in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI  in January would be harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and over time a static design would come down in price with competitive pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540 will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !

    sport further damaging GA.

 

 Robin

 Do Not Archive

 



	




   	  Quote: 	
		  



get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
[b]

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:32 pm Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

Well,....... IMHO, the difference in a/c engines and auto engines as they relate to aircraft installations is more about the various components that surround them, than about the engines themselves. From where I sit the problems that plague the auto engine installations arise from attempting to combine, props, reduction/controllingsystems, fuel systems, cooling systems, electrical systems, exhaust systems, engine mounting. cowling, instrumentation ...... etc. No doubt individually most of these components could be argued to satisfy the requirements of an a/c installation, However, taken as a whole, and how well they integrate & operate TOGETHER. they represent the true experieince of EXPERIMENTAL, and should be attempted only by those who possess the capacity to see the integration all of the way through. I admire those that feel they qualify. I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'bolt-on' auto conversion for an aircraft. 

   

 Additionally, IMO (not so humble) the next 'generation' of aircraft engines, will be either electric or hybrid. I've been amazed at what has been accomplished within the last 5 years wrt electric propulsion. There are definately a number of challenges to be solved, but I'm planning on replacing my 100LL burner with some version of electron flux gate when I can't buy avgas any more. [img]cid:gtalk.35C(at)goomoji.gmail[/img]

   

 Deems

  

 www.deemsrv10.com 

 On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:56 PM, John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com (rv10pro(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   

Touche!  Kelly.  I remember the Mooney Porsche as a "Pretty" but under-performer with a most un-orthodox engine mount. On Jan 22, 2012 2:11 PM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  



 I have yet to see an automotive engine with main bearings that support the forces of a 60 lb prop hanging off it. Porsche thought they knew a thing or two about engines, and made an aircraft engine in the 210hp range. They persuaded Mooney to hang it off the front of one of there planes. It flew very nicely, smooth and all. But it didn't climb as well and was slower than the 200hp Lycoming powered Mooney, and cost a bunch more.  Porsche stopped supporting the engine and turned in the type certificate less than 20 yrs after it was introduced.

 If you look at all the versions of Lyc 540s you will see a fair amount of evolution in the first 20 years it was available, then things went stagnant by the late 70s, and not much has happened since. 



On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		   --> RV10-List message posted by: Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)>

Jason,

I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop & go traffic Phoenix  in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI  in January would be harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and over time a static design would come down in price with competitive pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540 will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !

  sport further damaging GA.



Robin

Do Not Archive

 



	


 

 	  Quote: 	
		  



get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

ttp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

35C.png

Description:

Filesize:

593 Bytes

Viewed:

4883 Time(s)

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:50 am Post subject: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?

I resemble both of those remarks.  

 

 

 Michael

 

 On Jan 22, 2012, at 7:12 PM, "n801bh(at)netzero.com (n801bh(at)netzero.com)" <n801bh(at)netzero.com (n801bh(at)netzero.com)> wrote:

 

 

 

 [quote]  

That is not a correct statement on the HP output of auto engines........ And the testing of V-8 auto engines are ALOT more demanding then what Lycoming and Continental are required to show the FAA for certification........ 

For example.... Taket a marine application...  It is the same Chevy or Ford  basic engine  used by Mercruiser, or Volvo, or lots of other boat engine suppliers... The 'less then smart' owners of those boats powered by that motor  do minimal maintenance on  them, put um in the water at the beginning of the season. hoop in, start the motor , don't let is warm up and run full throttle all day,,, day after day, week after week, year after year... The motor lives through all that abuse......... 

  

You really want  to see a motor tortured... Rent a U Haul or Ryder or any other brand that rents

 box trucks...... The idiots who rent them stuff them to the gills and most often the box is overweight, they then fill it up with gas... hit the interstate and hold it to the floor  all day and night,  turn the truck in and the next idiot rents it...... Rinse  and repeat, rinse and repeat..... Those motors consistantly make 200,000 miles of extreme abuse..... Just try that with a Lycoming or Continental..... IMHO... 

Ben 

do not archive.

 

 Ben Haas

 N801BH

 www.haaspowerair.com

 

 --------

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum