REFLECTOR: A question about engines

Fri Feb 4 11:01:09 CST 2005

Hey Andy,
Your information is very useful to help me with my own research.  
Approaches like this one are those that catch my attention in the 
Reflector.   I am not that concerned about individual opinions, as I am 
about the thought process used.  Thanks.
Regards,
  Jorge Bujanda
  XL FG
  Palmdale, CA

"Make your best case... not the best case."
"Spare the noise... convince through silence."

Andy Millin wrote:

>Hi Randy,
>
>This a dangerous question.  Actually, it is more of a dangerous thing to try
>to answer.  Choice of engine can be as personal as the choice of standard or
>XL, fixed or retract.  There is no wrong answer, just what is right for you
>based on your wallet, engineering skills, and desire to experiment.  I found
>very intense passion and strong opinion when looking at engines.
>
>I'm not sure that I have .02 cents worth, but I have studied the power plant
>trying to find my own answer.
>
>I found people who told me (at the Velocity get together at OSH) that if I
>put an automotive engine in my airplane that they didn't want me to fly over
>their house (yes, I was stunned).  I found those that had put in the rotary
>and couldn't be happier.  It is a great engine.  Others said that if it
>wasn't certified they didn't even want to talk to me.  Deltahawk isn't
>certified yet.  The Superior XP-360 isn't certified.  Running a GM
>alternator is not certified.  Kinda rough to be told that if you don't have
>a yellow tag for everything then you are a cheap bastard and are a safety
>hazard to everyone.  Engine research can be rough.
>
>It was not a pleasant experience.  I'll go out on a limb and share what I
>found.
>
>I too looked at the automotive option.  When I started the kit I was certain
>I would have an aluminum V8.  After more research, I came to the same
>general conclusion as Ronnie.  The automotive engine was a reliable option.
>However, there really isn't a dollar savings.  After making the
>modifications to make it an aircraft engine and developing the installation,
>you will have put plenty of cash into it.  Also it might be hard to find an
>installation to copy from.  You will probably be on your own for
>development.  You could spend three months just making a new cowl.  Jim
>Sower's installation is marvelous.  He did it right.  Better than right, it
>is fantastic.  He also spent the time and the money.  Great if that is your
>cup of tea.
>
>Velocity has developed installation packages for the most installed aircraft
>engines.  Reasonably priced, well understood, and you can get great tech
>support from the factory.
>
>When considering the engine, I looked at HP.  I wish that more was always
>better.  Unless you make some modifications to the airframe, your useful
>load can change with more power but your VNE will not.  200 kts is it.  Yes,
>there are guys that have gone well beyond that, but I don't want to be that
>pilot.  The XL/RG with the 260 hp and the right prop can cruise at 190 kts.
>Wes Rose was flying with the 300 hp Lycoming and he also cruised at 190 kts.
>My conclusion was the extra hp would be there for take off and climb
>performance.  The need for this might be based upon your personal use.  Will
>you need to get out of short strips, or possibly high DA?  The extra HP
>isn't free.  It costs more and generally weighs more.
>
>I looked at the Lycoming IO-540 and the Continental IO-520 and IO-550.  I
>don't know of a database or other reference that gives a compare and
>contrast on each engine type.  What I had were some great folks on the
>reflector (Rob Johnson, who I wish was still on the reflector) and my
>technical counselors.  I feel like I should put a million disclaimers here.
>This is what I found, and I'm sure others have different experience.  The
>Continental engines in general have a harder time making it to an 1800 hour
>TBO.  For the IO-520, I spoke with three people who had significant
>experience with the engine and said it was not uncommon for the engine to
>need overhaul after 1200 hours.  Even harder if it is turbo charged.  (Might
>be hearing from Scott Derrick on this one... )
>
>I also asked about the IO-550.  The engine can be hard on the cylinders and
>it has been known to need overhaul at 500 hours (from factory new).  I'm
>sure people have gotten to TBO.  My conclusion was that engine could be even
>more expensive to buy and own that I thought.
>
>Then came the Lycoming option.  Angle valve, 300 HP or parallel valve 260.
>I asked quite a few people.  Last year at OSH I must have stopped at half a
>dozen engine rebuild shop booths.  I explained that I am not a mechanic and
>don't know much about aircraft engines.  They were super nice and answered
>my questions.  What is wide deck?  What is narrow deck?  What is angle
>valve/parallel valve?  What difference does it make?  Why should I care?
>What do YOU think of the engines?  The general answer was that if I didn't
>need 300 HP then I might be better off with the 260 HP engine.  Their
>experience was that the engine was very reliable and had a good chance of
>making it to TBO.  The 300 HP engine had more problems and would probably
>cost more to own.
>
>Disclaimer.  Disclaimer.  Disclaimer.  Disclaimer.  Disclaimer..... Your
>mileage might vary. Your mileage WILL vary.   The people you talk to can and
>probably will have contrary opinions.  This is what I gathered from the
>people I spoke with.  I have never owned one of these engines.  I am not an
>expert.  Listening to me is probably dangerous.  :-) 
>
>I would ask you to look at the requirements you had set down for the
>airplane you wanted.  How fast do you want to cruise?  What kind of takeoff
>performance do you want or need?  What useful load do you want to carry?
>What range do you want?  How much do you want to spend?  How much do you
>want to experiment?  How much do you want to engineer?  Do you enjoy
>tinkering as much or even more than you like flying?  How important is it to
>you that your aircraft be unique?
>
>I'm sure you will get a lot of good, practical advice from others on the
>reflector.  I opted for the 260 HP Lycoming IO-540-C4B5.
>
>Best,
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: reflector-bounces at tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] On
>Behalf Of Randy Wharton
>Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:23 AM
>To: reflector at tvbf.org
>Subject: REFLECTOR: A question about engines
>
>
>I bought my XL kit last summer after taking the company XL-5 for a spin and
>loving it. 271TC has a Continental 550 on it, and I've just kind of planned
>on putting the same on mine. But I'm really getting daunted by the $40-45000
>price tag, especially when I hear guys talking about Chevy V8s, Subaru's
>etc, even though I know that water cooling adds a new level of complexity,
>not to mention weight to the plane.
> 
>I know that if I throw the question out there about what people recommend,
>I'm going to get a ton of different answers, because everyone probably loves
>the powerplant they have, but I'm not committed to any particular one at
>this point. I'm quite sure that the Conti 550 is the premier powerplant,
>assuming that a Conti 550 is in the budget, but what I haven't found is a
>source (pamphlet or article, or something like that) that lays out the pros
>and cons . As with any engineering task, there are advantages and
>disadvantages that have to be weighed according to how the engineer wants to
>play the game, and much of it comes down to a personal choice.
> 
>Is there a single source for information on the tradeoffs between
>Continentals, Lycomings, Chevy's, Subarus, Mazda's, etc? I'm guessing
>probably not. But in any case, I'd welcome a discussion on what the
>considerations are for various options. I know it's a nebulous question, so
>I'm ready for a massive download of information. Thanks!
> 
>Randy Wharton
>N248RB XL-RG
>http://clik.to/velocity
>
>_______________________________________________
>To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
>Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
>user:pw =vbf:jamaicangoose
>Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
>Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
>
>
>  
>