REFLECTOR:Engines

[Scott Derrick]

I was mistaken about the re-buildable engine that is available to me.

Its a TSIO520 not a TIO540.  I believe at max MP it produces 325 HP.  I 
would like to turbo normalize it or just run it at 30 inches MP all the 
time and allow it to live longer.  I hear that these TSIO520's that are run 
at 75%(40 inches MP) have a 800 to 1000 hour top end life time.   I won't 
need all that HP.

Know anybody that has done a pusher TSIO520?   Has the factory done any?

Scott

At 09:26 AM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
>At 07:54 AM 4/22/04 -0400, you wrote:
>All the same arguments we used when we went from the 360 to the 540 on the 
>Berkut.  Let me throw in a couple more.
>
>1) 540's aren't significantly more expensive on the used market than 
>360's.  Cores can be less.  Rebuilds, of course, are more, but not that 
>much more.
>
>2) I *think* that the CG change will be the same solo or dual.  Add weight 
>to the nose either in useful equipment or lead pushed forward to 
>counteract the 80-100 lb engine difference, after that the CG shift with 
>load will be just like a 360.  I think.
>
>3) It's an easy engine to hotrod.  We get 300 hp out of them with nothing 
>but porting and 9.5:1 pistons.  The 235 hp engines are exactly the same as 
>the 260 hp, the rating is just done at a different RPM.
>
>4) Smooooooth.
>
>5) There's no replacement for cubic inches.
>
>6) like you said, fly on a cruise prop, climb performance is as good or 
>better than a 360 with a climb prop.
>
>7) NO LOSS OF FUEL EFFICIENCY.  The fuel specific stays the same.  If 
>you're in formation with an identical airframe but with a 360 engine, 
>you'll have almost the same fuel burn - yours will be just a touch higher 
>because you're hauling the extra 80 lbs.
>
>The CG is the key.
>
>>I am considering engine options for my 173 Elite RG.
>>
>>Option 1.  Does anyone know of a used Franklin 220 available.  My current 
>>preference is a Franklin 220 with an IVO In-flight adjustable prop, but 
>>don't know if I can find a Franklin.
>>
>>Option 2.  Has anyone heard of installing an O-540 (250 Hp version) in a 
>>173 RG.  Here is my thinking (shoot holes in the theory as required)  I 
>>do not want to pay the high price of an MT (a real budget buster.)  The 
>>majority of my flying will be long cross countries so a fixed pitch prop 
>>optimized for cruise would be preferred.  With that prop I realize the 
>>trade off is longer takeoff distance and reduce climb performance.  So in 
>>comes the O-540, the additional horsepower will compensate for the lower 
>>climb performance prop.  (Lower climb fuel economy is OK.)  Other 
>>disadvantages: modifying the cowling (its only time),  increased empty 
>>weight (81 pound, I can live with that), more front ballast required when 
>>flying solo (can live with that too.)  Possible advantages: increased 
>>engine life (will be running slower than normal operating limits, lower 
>>CHT etc.), high density altitude or short strip - will have a little 
>>extra HP available.
>>
>>I welcome anyone's opinions or comments on #2.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Joe
>
>_______________________________________________
>To change your email address, visit 
>http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
>Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
>user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
>Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
>Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
>


"Those who sacrifice freedom to get security, deserve neither."
- Benjamin Franklin