PDA

View Full Version : F1 Rocket & continental


rv72004
07-03-2007, 12:00 PM
Does anyone have news of the F1 with the 550 conti engine ? Has one flown yet ? I am still craving for a evo.

rocketbob
07-03-2007, 12:50 PM
The engine is on the mount and in place. Of course there were some headaches with the engine positioning which required some changes to the mount but the issues have been resolved. I was involved in building the 550 mount and modifying the jigs for it so I can tell you it is indeed happening. I have a feeling that the EVO-550 will be a winner.

The 550 mount made a few trips to TX and back in my -6's luggage area, we were all amazed that it fit in there...

Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Indy

rv72004
07-03-2007, 12:56 PM
Bob,What is the advantage of the Conti? My experience with them is smoothness and fuel efficiency. They are non aerobatic and this kinda defeats the rocket profile. What am I missing ?

rocketbob
07-03-2007, 01:38 PM
Horsepower, pure and simple. From what I understand the 550's in stock form put out more HP than the specs show. I want to say they are 340hp stock but don't quote me on that.

Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Indy

rgbewley
07-03-2007, 02:16 PM
The crossflow IO-550 engines (N model like the Legacy) puts out 310 hp in stock configuration. With 10:1 compression pistons, the engine will produce 325 - but won't do 370 (CCF, once again.) Bob, was Marc F. able to find someone to machine the crossflow induction? This was his plan, but I know he had hit some snags with his supplier. I had also heard he was looking at buying direct from TCM.

osxuser
07-03-2007, 02:55 PM
Thanks Barrett for putting it into perspective. Would you do a 540 or a 550 if given the choice? I'm a Lyco guy myself, but I do like certain aspects of Conti design.

mark manda
07-04-2007, 12:25 AM
here's where the project was last year at this time. static display i think.

included some other big engines.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4055/72906361uf4.jpg
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4517/62107020tv1.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7234/62107102an6.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5213/61307063md3.jpg

rgbewley
07-05-2007, 07:21 AM
Thanks Barrett for putting it into perspective. Would you do a 540 or a 550 if given the choice? I'm a Lyco guy myself, but I do like certain aspects of Conti design.

The IO-550 is a good engine, but Conti's have sooooo many parts, it will make your head spin. Murder at overhaul and a little pricey. Also, the engine is relatively new and hard to find a core. We had a customer that recently paid $17,000, when TCM gives a core value of $12,000. TCM cylinders also have a tendency to "go soft" at 400-500 hours, so we recommend CermiNil on the cylinders. We don't use ECI parts, but their CermiNil process is quite good.

Hopefully, Marc will be able to find someone who can produce the crossflow induction or get an OEM deal going with TCM. That was the last thing I heard from him. Still, if you get a factory TCM engine, to get maximum performance and life out of the engine you'd want it torn down and tweaked. We have a program with Lancair to do that for the Legacy and IV-P. Factory new or remanufactured engines come here, get the full treatment and then out to Lancair for installation. With their OEM pricing, it is less expensive than buying one outright in the field (approximately 50K.)

rocketbob
07-05-2007, 07:51 AM
The prototype mount was built by someone else, and it positioned the engine too high; the induction tubes would have interfered with the cowling. We lowered the bed to allow for clearance. Since we fixed that that I don't think Mark is shopping for a new induction system.

Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Indy

rgbewley
07-05-2007, 08:22 AM
Thanks Bob. I thought the attempt to manufacture the induction system was from the standpoint of lack of available cores on the market. I was under the impression he was going to try and take other 550 engine models that are more readily avalable, put the crossflow induction on the engine and install the taper fin cylinders. Appreciate the clarification.

maddog
07-07-2007, 04:59 AM
How does the weight of the 550 compare to the Lyc guys?

I understand the angle valve 540 is not an option for the F1 because of weight and forward CoG issues - so do assume from that the TCM 550 comes in under the angle valve Lyc? Or has the new engine mount squeezed the TCM up against the firewall somehow? I know the Evo wing has a more aft CoG, so perhaps that is how the 550 mod has come about, but if so, would the angle valve Lycoming then be a starter also?

osxuser
07-08-2007, 10:09 AM
Well the EVO wing allowed for the higher wieght on the nose, but does that mean an Angle valve would work? I think it would.

rgbewley
07-09-2007, 08:12 AM
How does the weight of the 550 compare to the Lyc guys?

I understand the angle valve 540 is not an option for the F1 because of weight and forward CoG issues - so do assume from that the TCM 550 comes in under the angle valve Lyc? Or has the new engine mount squeezed the TCM up against the firewall somehow? I know the Evo wing has a more aft CoG, so perhaps that is how the 550 mod has come about, but if so, would the angle valve Lycoming then be a starter also?

The parallel head 540 (D4A5) is a dry weight of 379. The angle head 540 (K1G5) weighs in a 437. It has a shallow magnesium sump. The AEIO-540-L1B5 weighs a whopping 470 pounds. This is with Lycoming's cold air induction. These weights are without starter and alternator, so expect to add about 9 lbs for that depending on your model selection. The IO-550-N that is being considered for use in the Rocket weighs 460 pounds dry weight and includes mags, starter and alternator.

maddog
07-09-2007, 03:29 PM
Thanks for the good info RG

So if the angle head Lyc is lighter (446 lbs dry vs the Conti 550 at 460 lbs dry), then by that reasoning only the angle head 540 should be a possible starter??

Can any body tell me why an angle head 540 will not work on an Evo kit? Whereas the heavier 550 will? Or is there more to it than purely a CoG issue?

Aden Rich
07-21-2007, 02:41 AM
The angle valve engine is wider than the lite 540. Mark says it would be hard to get it to fit under the cowling he currently makes. I have an EVO and I heard it has an AFT C.G. problem. I am making efforts to lighten up the tail a bit. Thanks, Aden Rich.

osxuser
07-21-2007, 09:29 AM
Custom cowl work seems worth it for 350ish HP :D

Aden Rich
07-21-2007, 10:16 AM
I have a IO-540-C4B5 that is going into my Rocket EVO. It is juiced up and will put out close to 325HP. It has 10-1 pistons, ported,polished, flow matched, elect ignition, Airflow performance FM-200 fuel injection. I got the core for 10K and have about 15K into the overhaul. I looked at 300HP IO-540's but the cost to overhaul is alot more. People don't realize that the cylinders alone are almost double what the standard cylinders are on the 360/540. Then there is the extra weight (75lbs). Then comes the endless bash to fit, paint to match fitting you have to do to get the engine to fit under the cowling. With the extra weight, I don't think the extra 25hp would be worth it.

osxuser
07-21-2007, 12:17 PM
Yeah, but your 325HP Parallel valve probably won't make 2000hr's. The reason those angle valves are heavier is because they are built to take the HP. The most the Parallels make in stock trim is 270HP (TIO-540, as installed in some Mooneys and Lakes) and the most the angles make is 350 in stock trim (as installed in Malibu Mirages and Cheiftains). Can easily be pumped up to 370+HP, but why? The Cheiftain motors, putting out 350HP regularly make 2400hrs with proper maint and flight proceedures.

For me, yeah, it's worth it, but everyone has their own values for initial investment (in both time and labor) vs continued investment. I'd rather do a ton more work at the beginning, and have a high reliabilty product down the road, rather than race out a smaller engien to make a ton of HP, but have to overhaul at 1000hrs...

Aden Rich
07-25-2007, 09:59 PM
Most of the people that I talked to said they did tops on their engines long before TBO. These were 4 cylinder engines so they may be asked to do more than an IO-540 but there still is some maintaining to do on the angles that just isn't there on the staight valves. I personally don't care if the C.G. is there or not, you're hanging a heck of a lot of weight on a plane that is already over the limits. Granted the Rocket has been beefed up but you still have to pack it around. Wing loading goes way up, along with stall speeds, useful load goes down, fuel burn is up, and the list goes on. Besides there is not much for testing out there at the higher weights. I would not be much for finding out if there could be some bad habits for little gain. Van once said go from the known to the unknown very cautiously. Slapping a already giant engine on a very small airframe has usually led in accidents and fatalities. If money is no object and you love to experiment then go for it but it's hard to be beat what is already successful.

osxuser
08-16-2007, 08:31 PM
Most of the people that I talked to said they did tops on their engines long before TBO. These were 4 cylinder engines so they may be asked to do more than an IO-540 but there still is some maintaining to do on the angles that just isn't there on the staight valves. I personally don't care if the C.G. is there or not, you're hanging a heck of a lot of weight on a plane that is already over the limits. Granted the Rocket has been beefed up but you still have to pack it around. Wing loading goes way up, along with stall speeds, useful load goes down, fuel burn is up, and the list goes on. Besides there is not much for testing out there at the higher weights. I would not be much for finding out if there could be some bad habits for little gain. Van once said go from the known to the unknown very cautiously. Slapping a already giant engine on a very small airframe has usually led in accidents and fatalities. If money is no object and you love to experiment then go for it but it's hard to be beat what is already successful.Kinda contradict yourself. You have a 325HP engine on the same airframe, working harder... accident rates don't have much to do with the weight of the engine, and obviously as per the title of this thread, the heavy continentals are getting tested in the rocket airframe, that would extend to the the heavy lycs is the assumption that is being made. Giant engine isn't that much bigger than yours...

F1Boss
08-23-2007, 02:24 PM
Hi Fellas:

My understanding is that the IO550-P like we want to use weighs ~412lbs dry, which means no mags, starter, or alternator. I'll figure 5 lbs ea for the mags; 8 lbs for a starter (SkyTec of course), and maybe 8 lbs for the alternator. This adds up to 438 lbs (the cooler is part of the engine).

An IO540D4A5 weighs right at 400 lbs dry, but you have to add the oil cooler, starter, and alternator. I'll WAG this engine at about 417lbs.

The Evo is OK to use the Hartzell 3 blade, which weighs +22lbs compared to the MT...so the 550 version looks like it won't weigh any more than a 540 version which is equipped with the Hartzell prop.

But, why use the 550 at all? Well, the rising costs of the 540s has put their cost at about the same place as we can have a 550 for (low $40s or so for a 260HP TMX540 from Bart), but the 550 starts out with 50HP more than the 540, and is easily tuned upward. I met one of the 550 design team at OSH; he related that simply making sure that all casting flash is gone from the inake system and some very minor smoothing is done at the port/intake tube junction would net at min 10HP, and these engines generally put out about 320-325HP as delivered!

Let see, now we're ~70HP ahead of the 540, and still at the same weight! I like this equation.

The 550 has better fuel specifics in cruise, so we might gain some there too -- side by side testing will confirm or deny this.

At any rate, the project is moving forward, but of course slower than I wanted it to. But, if this was easy, everyone would be doing it!

Once we get this one flying, we are moving to the F4 and it's special series of mods.

Carry on!
Mark

pierre smith
08-23-2007, 03:38 PM
Hi Fellas:
Once we get this one flying, we are moving to the F4 and it's special series of mods.

Carry on!
Mark

Hi Mark,
Since you mentioned it, how is the F-4 progressing? Is most of your time on this F-1 build with the -4 on the backburner? Waitng with baited breath :)

Regards,
Pierre

F1Boss
08-28-2007, 07:22 AM
Hi Mark,
Since you mentioned it, how is the F-4 progressing? Is most of your time on this F-1 build with the -4 on the backburner? Waitng with baited breath :)

Regards,
Pierre

I have got to get that 550 finished before I can move to the 4 cyl. Sorry for the delay, but we are gonna get to it! Stay in touch for updates.

Cheers!
Mark

osxuser
08-28-2007, 11:31 AM
Thanks for the clarification. Since your here mark, whats your feeling on a lightened angle valve 540? Enquiring minds...