Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

engines
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

robin1(at)mrmoisture.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: engines

John,

	That was the humor part of the email thus the bold HIGHLY. As

there are almost no -10 sales recorded and basically no alternate

engines let alone sales of alternate engine -10's. My fundamental point

is that if one wanted to go the alternate engine route for fuel / power

plant savings that they would ultimately experience the "expense" an

alternate engine costs at resale.

	I looked at a beautiful 7A slider with a Subaru engine mounted

up front. It was as nice (panel & build) as the $110K 7's that have sold

except the seller was having a hard time getting $70K for it. IMHO most

prospective RV buyers were not willing to take the risk of owning an

alternate engine especially when they don't have the experience of an

alternate engine installation or are the holders of the planes

repairman's certificate.

	

Happy flying,

Robin



--

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: engines

I like the discussion I am reading about this.  I agree completely with Tim’s last post.  The IO-540 is perfect for most missions on both economy at altitude and take-off/climb performance.  The main problem with the 540 is the upfront cost and the lack of power that might be achievable at altitude with a turbo-normalized engine.  Ideally, normalizing a 540 to get more than 80hp at 18k (rough number estimates based on our flying experience in N256H) would be great, maybe even reaching a 200Kt cruise speed.  That is what I would like to see happen.  The cost of a turbo is high, which would be the only reason for possibly going with a smaller engine and a turbo.  You really can perform well at sea level with less power, and it doesn’t make any sense (IMHO) to cruise low because of the fuel burn, so the HP down low is just used to get you up high.  You can get as good or better range with a 540 than with a 360 Continental because of the altitude performance (probably, not knowing numbers because Van’s doesn’t publish 15k feet performance on their planes).  Again, having more power doesn’t have to be used if you don’t want it (again, following Tim’s comments), but I think I might be willing to sacrifice a little power down low to get more up high.  How much would it cost for a Superior 400 with a turbonormalizer?  Might we worth a try.  

To further this discussion, for those flying, what does the sweet speed of economy seem to be in indicated airspeed?  I think it is probably about 120Kts or so.  You can’t get that at 18k normally aspirated, so how many horsepower would it take to get that speed up high, and how fast would that be in TAS at standard temps?  That’s what I would like to see.  

Jesse Saint  

I-TEC, Inc.  

jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)  

www.itecusa.org  

W: 352-465-4545  

C: 352-427-0285  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis

 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:13 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: engines  

I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a 210hp engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in performance. To me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to decide what type of mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's data, you lose about 10 mph in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate but gain about 125 miles in range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd like to see these numbers verified, but Van's has a pretty good track record of meeting the performance figures they publish). Sure, you can back off power in cruise with an O-540 and match the range figures for a 210hp engine, what's your trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, I'd rather have the horsepower reserve from a big engine and fly it more economically, say at 165 mph or so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal to me, a 100kt C-150 is still quicker than a car for most "long distance" trips. If I can get a hold of a 210-230hp engine that is significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while weighing equal to or less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously consider it. Having to do some additional engineering and fabrication for a "non-stock" engine shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you could end up with a lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the airplane's mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation would be cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight O-540. Don't think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is RARE that a 260 hp car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you consider reduction drive, radiator, etc. needed for such installations.    

Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane, a smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission capabilities conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR family truckster, a 210 hp engine might not be too bad.    

JKH  

On 10/16/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)> wrote:       

A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP.  To maintain the same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds.   

For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved on the empty weight side of the equation.  I guess that means a RV-9 with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine.  Oh, yeh – four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption.  Oh, no – I forgot about pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output.  Thus saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weather.   

Not all tradeoff are equal in logic.  This reminds me of 17 friends who embraced the idea of putting ½ VW engines (yes two cylinders) in Nieuport replicas.  I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing might not fly.  He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash from lack of power.  Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger.  Now with this logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial?  Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with Pitts.   

JWC  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of James K Hovis

 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: engines  

I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more avionic goodies.   

Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things.  Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs....   

JKH 

On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez < indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com (indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com)> wrote:   

--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com (indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com)>

 Well said John!

 Thank you!

 John G. 409 

 Do Not archive

 >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com  (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)> 

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

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

 >Subject: RE: Re: engines 

 >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700

 >

 >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" < johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)>

 >

 >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% 

 >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific

 >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?

 >

 >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. 

 >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No

 >science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.

 >

 >John Cox

 >________________________________________

 >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)

 >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

 >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM 

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

 >Subject: RE: Re: engines

 >

 >John,

 > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when

 >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for 

 >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one

 >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and 

 >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to 

 >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the

 >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These 

 >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate 

 >engines)

 > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an

 >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential 

 >savings.

 > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. 

 >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their

 >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the 

 >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices 

 >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build

 >hours actually flying.

 >

 >Robin

 >

    	  Quote: 	

 	  Quote: 	

 	  Quote: 	

 	  Quote: 	
		  [/url][url=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List  	
 	  Quote: 	

 	  Quote: 	

 	  Quote: 	
		       href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://wiki.matronics.com/" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2

    	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4 	  Quote: 	

5 	  Quote: 	

6 	  Quote: 	

7 	  Quote: 	

8 	  Quote: 	

9 	  Quote: 	

0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2 	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4 	  Quote: 	

5 	  Quote: 	

6 	  Quote: 	

7 	  Quote: 	

8 	  Quote: 	

9 	  Quote: 	

0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2 	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4 	  Quote: 	

5 	  Quote: 	

6

     --  Date: 10/14/2006 

--

 10/14/2006

     [quote][b]

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:17 am Post subject: engines

Heat and vibration are the two reasons that Cessna moved batteries from the firewall to locations aft.  I take a contrarian view that the thickness of the material provided by VANS in the firewall is adequate for the weight of the appropriate battery.  Marine and RV batteries are built for such vibration abuse and trade weight for durability.  The big advantage is distance of the electric cable run.  Some builders resort to welders wire which has vastly more strands, much smaller individually which makes it more flexible and it carries higher amperage.  Oh, did I mention it is more expensive per foot.  

   

Maybe people are considering welding another bead onto the engine mount for the battery.  That is a whole nother consideration.  Trade offs/trade offs.  

   

John Cox  

Do not archive  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com

 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:59 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: engines  

  

     

Genrally putting the battery on the firewall will shorten the life of a battery plus if you do put the battery on the firewall, you should consider creating an easy access to it's location...having the battery close to the starter may not be a bad thing as there is less line lose in the distance from the firewall to the starter as opposed to a location in the rear of the aircraft.  

    

   

    

P  

  [quote]   [b]

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: engines

btw Scott, B E A U T I F U L Plane1 Congrats on your 1st flight.



Deems Davis # 406

Finishing

http://deemsrv10.com/



 	  Quote:

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: engines

I yield to your humor and logic.  Resale, Insurability and Flying

enjoyment are all qualitative and important factors.  Reliability and

Safety are two others for consideration.



JC

Do not Archive



--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: engines

Amen!

One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory.

Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles.  I was motoring

along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my

chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw

that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range

left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal).  The easiest

way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and

go LOP on the mixture.  LOP is best done with an IO-540,

not an O-540, in most cases.  I figured on this 3000+

mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise.

Do that a few times and you start paying for the

engine rebuild faster too.  You also stop less often

so you get there quicker.

Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl

engine discussion...just an anecdote.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I like the discussion I am reading about this.  I agree completely with 

 Tim’s last post.  The IO-540 is perfect for most missions on both 

 economy at altitude and take-off/climb performance.  The main problem 

 with the 540 is the upfront cost and the lack of power that might be 

 achievable at altitude with a turbo-normalized engine.  Ideally, 

 normalizing a 540 to get more than 80hp at 18k (rough number estimates 

 based on our flying experience in N256H) would be great, maybe even 

 reaching a 200Kt cruise speed.  That is what I would like to see 

 happen.  The cost of a turbo is high, which would be the only reason for 

 possibly going with a smaller engine and a turbo.  You really can 

 perform well at sea level with less power, and it doesn’t make any sense 

 (IMHO) to cruise low because of the fuel burn, so the HP down low is 

 just used to get you up high.  You can get as good or better range with 

 a 540 than with a 360 Continental because of the altitude performance 

 (probably, not knowing numbers because Van’s doesn’t publish 15k feet 

 performance on their planes).  Again, having more power doesn’t have to 

 be used if you don’t want it (again, following Tim’s comments), but I 

 think I might be willing to sacrifice a little power down low to get 

 more up high.  How much would it cost for a Superior 400 with a 

 turbonormalizer?  Might we worth a try.

 To further this discussion, for those flying, what does the sweet speed 

 of economy seem to be in indicated airspeed?  I think it is probably 

 about 120Kts or so.  You can’t get that at 18k normally aspirated, so 

 how many horsepower would it take to get that speed up high, and how 

 fast would that be in TAS at standard temps?  That’s what I would like 

 to see.

 Jesse Saint

 I-TEC, Inc.

 jesse(at)itecusa.org <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>

 www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>

 W: 352-465-4545

 C: 352-427-0285

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *James K Hovis

 *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 1:13 PM

 *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Re: Re: engines

 I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical 

 airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a 

 210hp engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in 

 performance. To me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to 

 decide what type of mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's 

 data, you lose about 10 mph in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate 

 but gain about 125 miles in range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd 

 like to see these numbers verified, but Van's has a pretty good track 

 record of meeting the performance figures they publish). Sure, you can 

 back off power in cruise with an O-540 and match the range figures for a 

 210hp engine, what's your trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, 

 I'd rather have the horsepower reserve from a big engine and fly it more 

 economically, say at 165 mph or so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal 

 to me, a 100kt C-150 is still quicker than a car for most "long 

 distance" trips. If I can get a hold of a 210-230hp engine that is 

 significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while weighing equal to or 

 less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously consider it. Having to do 

 some additional engineering and fabrication for a "non-stock" engine 

 shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you could end up with a 

 lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the airplane's 

 mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation would be 

 cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight 

 O-540. Don't think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is 

 RARE that a 260 hp car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you 

 consider reduction drive, radiator, etc. needed for such installations. 

 Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane, 

 a smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission 

 capabilities conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR 

 family truckster, a 210 hp engine might not be too bad. 

 JKH  

 On 10/16/06, *John W. Cox* <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com 

 <mailto:johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>> wrote:

 A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP.  To maintain the 

 same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross 

 weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds.

 For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers 

 cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved 

 on the empty weight side of the equation.  I guess that means a RV-9 

 with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic 

 engine.  Oh, yeh – four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption.  Oh, 

 no – I forgot about pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic 

 power output.  Thus saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and 

 climbouts to avoid weather.

 Not all tradeoff are equal in logic.  This reminds me of 17 friends who 

 embraced the idea of putting ½ VW engines (yes two cylinders) in 

 Nieuport replicas.  I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the 

 thing might not fly.  He bailed on the project and watched the first 

 prototype crash from lack of power.  Conclusion, Van has done a pretty 

 good job with the mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six 

 banger.  Now with this logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 

 cylinder, 360 hp radial?  Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated 

 four cylinder owners with Pitts.

 JWC

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto: 

 owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>] *On Behalf Of *James K Hovis

 *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM

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

 *Subject:* Re: Re: engines

 I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine 

 in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of 

 performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the 

 battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. 

 The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the 

 loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add 

 any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance 

 check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as 

 needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall 

 if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty 

 weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more 

 avionic goodies.

 Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up 

 some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things.  

 Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose 

 about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. 

 However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans 

 weighing 2,700 lbs....

 JKH 

 On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* < indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com 

 <mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>> wrote:

 indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com <mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>>

 Well said John!

 Thank you!

 John G. 409

 Do Not archive

>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com 

 <mailto:johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>>

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

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

>Subject: RE: Re: engines

>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700

>

>

 <mailto:johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>>

>

>Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20%

>of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific

>based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?

>

>I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV.

>That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental).  No

>science used in this conclusion.  I'm baffled.

>

>John Cox

>________________________________________

>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>

  >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Robin Marks

>Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM

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

>Subject: RE: Re: engines

>

>John,

>  Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when

>you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for

>the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one

>day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and

>regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to

>shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the

>total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These

>numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate

>engines)

>  When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an

>alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential

>savings.

>  A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v.

>Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their

>respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the

>Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices

>are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build

>hours actually flying.

>

>Robin

>

 * *

 * *

 * *

 * <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>*

 *_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_*

 * *

 * *

 * *

 * *

 *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>*

 *_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_***

 *href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank"> <http://forums.matronics.com/>*

 *_http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>_***

 *href="http://wiki.matronics.com/" target="_blank"> <http://wiki.matronics.com/>*

 *_http://wiki.matronics.com <http://wiki.matronics.com/>_***

 *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*

 * *

 * *

 * *

 **

 **

 **

 **

 **

 **

 **

 **

 **

 **

 * *

 -- Date: 10/14/2006

 --

 10/14/2006

 *

 *

Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: engines

OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me.

Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation?



I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec).

I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be

able to save some fuel, running it LOP.  I've had at least one RV-10

owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540

in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts).  The conversion

will cost between $3,000 and $4,000.  If I can really save $300 on a

single long trip, it would certainly be worth it.  Or should I just

leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the

carburetor?



Opinions?  (I figure this group has some)



Jack Phillips

# 40610



--

deutscht(at)rhwhotels.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: engines

Don't mean to be a know it all however I have a lot of experience

running large Lycomings lean of peak.(and I also stayed at a Holiday Inn

Express last night)  We have had good luck LOP if you fly high and/or

keep the power at 65% or less.  It is important to have good engine

monitoring system allowing a good read on each cylinder egt and temp.

Just keep all the temperatures well within Lycombing's recommendations

ie cht's below 380* or so.   Remember it is temperature not amount of

fuel that will hurt your engine.  The trade off for LOP is reduced power

to 65% or less.



Tom Deutsch, 



#40545 engine hung and wiring panel



 

--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: engines

Phillips, Jack wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me.

 Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation?

 


	


Nope, Aerosport just balances the standard ones with their

engines....I believe GAMI does the same thing, but at a higher

cost and Bart will swap injectors for free until you get the

proper ones.  Mine are close enough that it runs real well

LOP, but far enough off that some day I'm going to perfect

the 2 or 3 cylinders that are furthest from the center.

 	  Quote: 	
		   I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec).

 I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be

 able to save some fuel, running it LOP.  I've had at least one RV-10

 owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540

 in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts).  The conversion

 will cost between $3,000 and $4,000.  If I can really save $300 on a

 single long trip, it would certainly be worth it.  Or should I just

 leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the

 carburetor?

 


	


Strange...and RV-10 owner with hot start problems?  Which FI system?

I have precision, and although you can screw it up and make it

start hard, I've never had anything remotely close to causing

me big headaches.  At LOE it amazed some people at how easily

it started cold, and hot starts aren't much worse if done right.



When I flew to Oregon for Van's Homecoming, I figured I saved

a little over $200 or $220 by running LOP.  So in the last

month or slightly more, that's $500 in savings for sure.



Obviously if it were me I'd get an IO-540...but if you're really

thinking mogas, then stick with the "oh".  I myself am too

squeamish to try Mogas even if I had an O-540, due to the

concept of vapor lock....real or perceived.



As far as saving money to put into avionics....if you want my

possibly un-popular opinion....I'd build the plane EXACTLY

the way you WANT it to be...regardless of the cost being $3000

or even $10000 higher.  You don't want to spend $150,000+ on

a plane and still go away thinking you "wish you woulda"...



Tim



[quote] Opinions?  (I figure this group has some)

 

 Jack Phillips

 # 40610

 

 --

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: engines

GAMI runs an excel spreadsheet to determine volumetric efficiency per

cylinder.  Tuned induction and a balanced flow engines make the big

difference.  In the Beech F-33 (IO-520BB) we tested, there were only two

differing sizes between six cylinders.  EGT similarly at differing fuel

flow rates were the test.  It takes a recorder and a pilot.  Invest

about an hour and you will have your answers.  The goal is not to have

any single cylinder being fried at one time.  We ran it at multiple

altitude and flow rates.



My guess is avionics will give the greatest return.  However, that said,

I am a big proponent of LOP for individuals with six CHT and six EGT

probes working correctly and a pilot knowing when to richen the mixture.

The GAMI injectors do a quantum leap in efficiency in the Continental

systems.



John

Do not Archive



--

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: engines

I was hot to trot on GAMI and asked my engine builer to add them, He 

cautioned me (politely of course) that the biggest benefit from the 

GAMI's is to Continental engines. Apparently the Lyc's are more 

efficient at burning the fuel as a stock engine. I'm putting in a AFP 

fuel system, and they have the same ability to 'tune' their injector 

nozzels as does the GAMI.



Deems Davis # 406

Panel/Finishing

http://deemsrv10.com/



John W. Cox wrote:



[quote]



GAMI runs an excel spreadsheet to determine volumetric efficiency per

cylinder.  Tuned induction and a balanced flow engines make the big

difference.  In the Beech F-33 (IO-520BB) we tested, there were only two

differing sizes between six cylinders.  EGT similarly at differing fuel

flow rates were the test.  It takes a recorder and a pilot.  Invest

about an hour and you will have your answers.  The goal is not to have

any single cylinder being fried at one time.  We ran it at multiple

altitude and flow rates.



My guess is avionics will give the greatest return.  However, that said,

I am a big proponent of LOP for individuals with six CHT and six EGT

probes working correctly and a pilot knowing when to richen the mixture.

The GAMI injectors do a quantum leap in efficiency in the Continental

systems.



John

Do not Archive



--

sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: engines

I was also interested in the Gami injectors but Bart at Aerosport

steered me away from them.  If I remember right, he felt he could

balance them as good or better without the complexity and price.  He

didn't feel they offered much.  I would just check into it and ask

around.  



Here is the truth with all of this, none of it really matters a lot.

They all seem like big decisions when you are planning and building but

when you are flying all you really care about is that the engine runs

great, you have good communication, and the weather is good.  I spent

days and days (maybe months or a year) planning my panel, paint, wiring

and interior.  When you take off it is nice to have some of the features

but really you are looking outside and having a great time.  



I do have some rules that I always follow when buying anything.  Always

buy something that is proven (Van's).  ALWAYS get the most (approved)

horsepower you can (260 HP).  Always plan on 20-30% more than you

thought even though your budget is down to the fifth significant figure.

I live by these rules whether I buy a car, motorcycle, or a plane.  I

can't tell you how many people I have had to talk into buying the 1100cc

bike over the 700cc.  



Scott Schmidt

--

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: engines

Wow!

I didn't mean to help start a firestorm, but the discussion has been very enlightening. Obviously, there are lots of trade-offs in the engine department. Frankly, I would be very happy with an IO-540, and will probably get one. The O-540 is a possiblility (I've noticed the hot start issue when I tag along with my brother and his RV formation buddies).



My real concern is the availability of 100LL. It is my understanding that there are only two refineries left in the world that still produce it. What if 100LL becomes as hard to find as whale oil? Also, what are the issues with fuel tanks that were designed for - and only contain - 100LL? Obviously, there would be a run for autogas, and I assume that a way would be found to adapt an IO-540 to autogas. But autogas is a chemical soup that the industry and states feel free to alter on a whim.

The real answer for our generation of flyers is diesel/jetA. That's all I'm looking for - a diesel 540 (g).

John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: engines

In a message dated 10/16/2006 9:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  johngoodman(at)earthlink.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  The    O-540 is a possiblility (I've noticed the hot start issue when I tag along    with my brother and his RV formation buddies).



	


 

 I fly behind an O-540 for a number of years and in flying behind the  IO-540 also...the IO has occasionally a "re-start" problem if you try to start  it in the cold start mode.  The O 540 is almost bullet proof in  starting.

  

 Lead additive...only one company makes the lead active for leaded gas and  their plant is located in the UK.  Most O-540 can use regular gas  (leaded or unleaded) but if you think you're going to get an alcohol  blended gas then you've got to make sure the pump's, lines etc will not be  plasticized by the alcohol.  Your fuel burn will be high with the alcohol  as it's not delivering as many BTU's as pure gas.

  

 Diesel...not too many selections for aviation engines out there in large HP  engines.  Delta Hawk said they would create a larger engine after the  successful introduction of the 4 cyclinder engine.  I  understand that  they have finally begun delivering a few engines...my buddy Pete received his a  week ago.  But they are really 2-3 years behind where they said there were  going to be...but at least they are in some sort of production.  Guess you  can see if SMA or Theilert can produce an engine in your time frame.

  

 P

  [quote][b]

acs(at)acspropeller.com.a
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: engines

Good points Scott and congratulations on such a fine turn out of your

aircraft.

John 40315

Do not archive



--

jdalton77(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: engines

Jesse,

  

 I agree with everything you said . . . except one  little thing 

  

 The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice.   Like any other aircraft engine - it's way too expensive for the average  builder.  It's does seem to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly  to purchase and maintain (overhaul is also obscene).

  

 The rationale on aircraft parts in general,  including engines, being so expensive is the liability and insurance that's  required for certified aircraft.  OK, I'll buy at least some of that.   But Lycoming has ignored that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe  for a fraction of the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a  "certified" price on an engine.

  

 It couldn't cost so much to build these could  it?

  

 Jeff

 [quote]   ---

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: engines

I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks.  I also know that people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the lycosaurs and have failed.  A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with aluminum block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of building, waiting for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for better gearbox.  It still hasn’t flown and the guys that own it have so much stinking money invested in this stinking engine that they can’t afford to take it off and put on a certified engine so they can fly it.  I know this isn’t always the case, but there are Continental and Lycoming engine all over the ramp that have a lot of flying hours on them, and just about every small plane A&P knows more about them then about the precious few other engines out there.  I like what Superior is doing with their experimental engines, although they are not innovating much, but rather copying designs with small modifications.  Again, they are improving a little bit on something very proven.  I wish we could buy a 260HP experimental engine with a very proven track record for $20,000, but I don’t see that happening.  I know this is going to get a little heat from the Subaru fans, which is fine, but there are roughly 50 RV-10’s flying with IO-540’s and “not nearly as many” with anything else, which is where this whole discussion started.  Get a row of Subie-10’s at Oshkosh 2007 and I promise you there will be a lot more people getting on that train.  

   

Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldn’t be paying as much as we are for their experimental engines because they don’t have the certified data tag.  Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming back again.  I guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because they can and we still buy them.  We’re shooting ourselves in the foot (feet?), but are really enjoying the flying!  

     

Jesse Saint  

I-TEC, Inc.  

jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)  

www.itecusa.org  

W: 352-465-4545  

C: 352-427-0285  

        

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77

 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: engines  

  

     

Jesse,  

    

   

    

I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing   

    

   

    

The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice.  Like any other aircraft engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder.  It's does seem to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and maintain (overhaul is also obscene).  

    

   

    

The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified aircraft.  OK, I'll buy at least some of that.  But Lycoming has ignored that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a "certified" price on an engine.  

    

   

    

It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?  

    

   

    

Jeff  

  [quote]    

---

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: engines

Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think

part of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I

don't see the total logic in is that a lycoming is

"way too expensive for the average builder".   2 points.



First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming

IO-540 into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...

Mr. Soobie man.  )



Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you

Mr. Bob K with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese

during the build) alternative engines will be found to eventually

cost just as much to install, with all the mods you'll have to

live through doing.



Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that

a Lyc. is outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me

that's just throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise

the person got in over their head with the RV-10 project.

So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished

and flying RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark.  The

RV-10 kit isn't really something I would see the "average"

person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit

above average if we can consider building an RV-10.  The

average person where I live, lives in a family with about

a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not something that

will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases.   I feel this

3rd point is an important one because people really need to

know what they're getting into when they start the kit, and

it is truly not something everyone can or should try to afford.

Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the

"average builder" would be looking more towards buying an

RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective.  The RV-10

will never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs

similar to planes like RV-9's.   One good comment I saw this

week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...

or was it 20-30%.  I can say that until I actually had every

avionics item, paint, interior, and other item figured out

and priced (maybe just under 1 year from completion of the kit)

I had steadily been finding these unexpected things and

didn't have a predictable total...and it was probably $40-50K

beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost could

be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost.  But,

to get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your

goals accordingly.   Despite what you see invested in my panel,

my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack

from what an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.

My guess is that a recently starting build may very well

end up spending within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.

But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of

the completed RV-10's are probably very near center of the

curve for what you'll see when there are 100 or 200 of

them flying.



Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall

scheme of things, you're not going to save huge percentages

of the total cost by doing anything different.  (Except

for you Bob K.  )



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Jesse Saint wrote:

[quote] I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an 

 experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks.  I also know that 

 people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the 

 lycosaurs and have failed.  A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with 

 aluminum block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of 

 building, waiting for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for 

 better gearbox.  It still hasn’t flown and the guys that own it have so 

 much stinking money invested in this stinking engine that they can’t 

 afford to take it off and put on a certified engine so they can fly it.  

 I know this isn’t always the case, but there are Continental and 

 Lycoming engine all over the ramp that have a lot of flying hours on 

 them, and just about every small plane A&P knows more about them then 

 about the precious few other engines out there.  I like what Superior is 

 doing with their experimental engines, although they are not innovating 

 much, but rather copying designs with small modifications.  Again, they 

 are improving a little bit on something very proven.  I wish we could 

 buy a 260HP experimental engine with a very proven track record for 

 $20,000, but I don’t see that happening.  I know this is going to get a 

 little heat from the Subaru fans, which is fine, but there are roughly 

 50 RV-10’s flying with IO-540’s and “not nearly as many” with anything 

 else, which is where this whole discussion started.  Get a row of 

 Subie-10’s at Oshkosh 2007 and I promise you there will be a lot more 

 people getting on that train.

 

  

 

 Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldn’t be paying as much as 

 we are for their experimental engines because they don’t have the 

 certified data tag.  Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming 

 back again.  I guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because 

 they can and we still buy them.  We’re shooting ourselves in the foot 

 (feet?), but are really enjoying the flying!

 

  

 

 Jesse Saint

 

 I-TEC, Inc.

 

 jesse(at)itecusa.org <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>

 

 www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>

 

 W: 352-465-4545

 

 C: 352-427-0285

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *jdalton77

 *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM

 *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* Re: Re: engines

 

  

 

 Jesse,

 

  

 

 I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing 

 

  

 

 The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice.  Like any other aircraft 

 engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder.  It's does seem 

 to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and 

 maintain (overhaul is also obscene).

 

  

 

 The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so 

 expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified 

 aircraft.  OK, I'll buy at least some of that.  But Lycoming has ignored 

 that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of 

 the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a 

 "certified" price on an engine.

 

  

 

 It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?

 

  

 

 Jeff

 

     ---

BPA(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: engines

The cost of a new Lycoming C4B5/D4A5 in certified status EXCHANGED is almost 50 grand according to Lycoming 2006 pricing index. If no engine core is available to swap out with them, you have to add the core value, driving the cost over 60 thousand dollars. Lycoming won’t even sell an overhauled engine without a core return. This is because the core market has dried up.  

   

The experimental kit engine on the other hand is certainly a better option cost wise, the down side being of course that it cannot be certified even if maintained as such. The advantage is the shops that build these kit engines have the capability to ‘tailor’ the engine to your needs (within reason). There are lots of options to enhance the performance of the engine that don’t come in a certified factory engine. Balanced rotating assemblies, re-worked cylinders, options on accessories, higher compression just to name a few. The list goes on and on…….  

   

Liability is a factor in any business whether it’s for profit or non profit (although who’s in business NOT to make a profit), big shop or small. Just because the engines are experimental does not lessen the liability on Lycoming’s part. They are just as responsible whether it’s certified or experimental. The overhead to operate these engine shops would shake you to your boots! Take a look for a minute. You have an employee with 30 years of time invested in your company. He expects a return for his investment (good wage, benefits) and rightly so, just as production is expected from them. Multiply this by 6,500 employees as in the case of Lycoming and other big manufacturers. Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add 30% to your overhead. Utilities, taxes, wages, insurance both health and liability, freight, all add to the cost of the product. This is one reason Lycoming out sources where in years past all manufacturing was done in house. Now we get back to the liability (again). Because of out sourcing the manufacture of parts, quality control suffers because you can’t keep as tight a reign on it, which in turn raises the cost of liability. It is a viscous cycle that seems to get bigger and bigger.  

   

   

   

Allen Barrett  

Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.  

www.barrettprecisionengines.com  

   

do not archive  

        

   

    

   

   

   

--

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:57 am Post subject: engines

One should use the rule of threes on any aircraft project. Take the cost of 

the airframe kit including the freight to get it to you, then add that cost 

again for engine and prop, and again for avionics and finishing. The cost of 

the airframe (QB) is 45-50K so triple it and you have the final costs to 

have a decent flying machine. Same calculation works for two place kits.

---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5

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