  | 
				Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists   
				 | 
			 
		 
		 
	
		| View previous topic :: View next topic   | 
	 
	
	
		| Author | 
		Message | 
	 
	
		armywrights(at)adelphia.n Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				The O-540-E4A5 says it's for higher speed and rating.  How do they do that?
 I know that the "E" is for the power section and nose, but what does that
 really mean in comparison to the "C" in the -C4B5 model?  What parts are
 different?
 
 Rob Wright
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		bcondrey
 
 
  Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 580
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:34 pm    Post subject: Re: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Turns out the power section identifier was for the first version of the engine in that series.  Pick a couple engines from the info on Tim's web page and look at the lineage - you'll find that they essentially start with the same thing and are simply configuration differences.  Funny thing is that occasionally you wind up with something like the IO-540-C4B5 and IO-540-D4A5 (different power section code) but are absolutely identical engines physically but rated differently.  The C4B5 is rated 250(at)2575 and the D4A5 is 260(at)2700.    You'll also see that the IO-540-D4A5 is the same as the O-540-E4A5 but with fuel injection instead of a carb.
 
 Bob
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		armywrights(at)adelphia.n Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:43 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Bob, Thanks.  It always helps to have a confirmation.  
 
 I bought a -F4B5 from an R44 and had it overhauled to a D4A5.  The research
 I had done led me to believe that the two engines were identical, just
 certificated at different rating depending on the airplane installation.
 The overhauler told me the same thing, and then even wrote ... reconfigured
 to -C4B5 in the engine logbook.  It's when I asked him about the C4B5
 write-up that he told me about the same engine/different rating issue.
 
 So yes, even though my logbook says that it was reconfigured to a -C4B5, I
 plan on operating it as high as 2700 RPM for the 260 HP.  
 
 So here's a follow up question for the A&P types: even though I know that I
 "can" operate it however I want to since it's an experimental installation,
 since I'd like to keep decent records on the engine should I make a write-up
 of my intentions to operate the engine as a D4A5?
 
 Rob Wright
 #392
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		jesse(at)itecusa.org Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Do you really think the added 10HP at sea level will do anything except
 increase your fuel burn?  I know a guy who, in essence, derated the D4A5 to
 a C4B5 so he didn't have to worry about backing off on the prop when
 climbing.  He set his governor for a max of about 1550rpm and doesn't feel
 any need for more power, no matter how heavy he is loaded.
 
 Do not archive.
 
 Jesse Saint
 I-TEC, Inc.
 jesse(at)itecusa.org
 www.itecusa.org
 W: 352-465-4545
 C: 352-427-0285
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		armywrights(at)adelphia.n Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Boy the list could have a field day with this guy's personal choices, even
 if they may be yours!
 
 I'm not worried about fuel burn since the time at 260HP would be so short.
 However, an airfield that strains a 250HP's short field capabilities _may_
 allow a safe margin in a 260 HP.  Too many other factors could change this
 simple analogy, so it still boils down to personal choices.
 
 Rob Wright
 #392
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth. Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:03 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Rob Wright wrote:
 
  	  | Quote: | 	 		  
 
 Bob, Thanks.  It always helps to have a confirmation.  
 
 I bought a -F4B5 from an R44 and had it overhauled to a D4A5.  The research
 I had done led me to believe that the two engines were identical, just
 certificated at different rating depending on the airplane installation.
 The overhauler told me the same thing, and then even wrote ... reconfigured
 to -C4B5 in the engine logbook.  It's when I asked him about the C4B5
 write-up that he told me about the same engine/different rating issue.
 
 So yes, even though my logbook says that it was reconfigured to a -C4B5, I
 plan on operating it as high as 2700 RPM for the 260 HP.  
 
 So here's a follow up question for the A&P types: even though I know that I
 "can" operate it however I want to since it's an experimental installation,
 since I'd like to keep decent records on the engine should I make a write-up
 of my intentions to operate the engine as a D4A5?
 
 Rob Wright
 #392
 
 Rob, I'm no A&P, so you might take this with a grain of salt (whatever 
 | 	  
 THAT means   )!
 It really doesn't matter how you run your engine ..... it won't change 
 anything.  Putting that info in your logs would just confuse a buyer 
 down the road, since he probably wouldn't know what the differences are.
 
 Having said that, I'll point out that the 'redline' an engine is saddled 
 with is a number chosen to get the engine through it's rather rigorous 
 certification stage.  The same is true of the leaning scenario.  And 
 too, for the mogas issue!  I've said here before .... I run the dickens 
 out of my O-360 on 92 octane mogas and it's nothing to see 3300 to 3400 
 on the tach when I'm wringing out the Pitts.  No bad things have 
 happened so far in the 25 years I've been abusing it ..... because of 
 the high RPMs.  So, just go out and fly the way you want to.  The 
 operating limitations on your engine are rather conservative .... and 
 are that way so the manufacturer can get it certified.
 Just MHO, and your mileage may differ.
 Linn
 do not archive
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		rvbuilder(at)sausen.net Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:07 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				I find it funny that people would go to all this trouble for nothing
 more than a psychological barrier.  If you can do the same thing by
 reducing or adding power then do it.  Resetting governors to derate an
 engine seems really stupid.  I sure want to know I have ALL available
 power in an emergency.  If it shakes the engine apart so be it as long
 as I have the option if needed.  The rest of the time I will manage the
 engine just like any other part of a flight to keep it in normal
 parameters.
 
 Michael
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		jim(at)CombsFive.Com Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: 0-540 E vs C | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				I can't resist!
 
 Why not make a throttle quadrant with a military power setting and a latch that you lift to get to "Military Power".
 
 Set the engine up for 2400 (Normal T/O power) and have the other setting for full military power (2700 or so). 
 
 Then you can look over at the right seat and ask "Would you like to see a military power takeoff?"  Shove it into "Afterburner" so to speak.  Watch the fuel get poured into the tailpipe just like the real thing!
 
 You have the power if you need it! but if you want to pinch pennies then use the "Normal T/O" power
 
 Just a thought!
 
 Jim Combs
 N312F
 #40192 - Finishing kit
 ============================================================
 From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
 Date: 2006/11/15 Wed PM 09:06:57 EST
 To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>
 Subject: RE: Re: 0-540 E vs C
 
  
   I find it funny that people would go to all this trouble for nothing
 more than a psychological barrier.  If you can do the same thing by
 reducing or adding power then do it.  Resetting governors to derate an
 engine seems really stupid.  I sure want to know I have ALL available
 power in an emergency.  If it shakes the engine apart so be it as long
 as I have the option if needed.  The rest of the time I will manage the
 engine just like any other part of a flight to keep it in normal
 parameters.
 
 Michael
 
 --
 
  |  | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  | 
	 
	
		| Back to top | 
		 | 
	 
	
		  | 
	 
	
		 | 
	 
 
  
	 
	    
	   | 
	
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
  | 
   
 
  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  
		 |