REFLECTOR:Engines

[Scott Derrick]

This is good news.

I was just offered a rebuildable TIO540 for a very reasonable sum.  I was 
considering replacing my IO360 with it and putting a fixed pitched Catto on 
it.

Like Joe,  I thought it would have plenty of  power to get me airborn in a 
more reasonable runway length and I could run it in cruise at 50% power and 
get the same performance I get with the IO360.  I could also fly high with 
the turbo and get some really interesting speeds no doubt.

I was wondering how much weight I would gain in the conversion.

Scott

At 05:54 AM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
>Hi Joe,
>Alan Shaw once had a standard with an IO540 on it.  I heard a presentation 
>he did at Sun-n-Fun a few years back saying that this was a great 
>combination (although I'm not sure which prop he used).  He says the CG 
>box is very conservative and that the standard can actually handle the 
>added weight of the 540.  But, I do know the 173 wings are heavier and 
>places more weight aft of the CG than the standard wings.
>
>Craig Catto can make a 3 blade prop for the 
>540.  <http://www.cattoprops.com/>http://www.cattoprops.com/
>
>And of course the 173 wings are the same as the XL, so that shouldn't be 
>an issue.
>
>You'll have a real screamer - for certain.  >From my owner list, I count 
>at least 4 540's on standard fuselages - and Alan Shaw's was a 173.
>
>Ronnie
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jewen@comporium.net>Joe
>To: <mailto:reflector@tvbf.org>reflector@tvbf.org
>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:14 PM
>Subject: REFLECTOR:Engines
>
>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


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