VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #31  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:05 AM
decathlon737's Avatar
decathlon737 decathlon737 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 346
Default Vega

Once a long time ago I purchased blown Vega's for small block V8 conversions, nothing like 450 hp and a 4speed Muncie in a Vega.
__________________
Bill Woods
RV8 sold 180 hrs. of pure joy
(Nov 2018) Bought 7A Tip up
project, converting to tailwheel
slider (just because)
Thunderbolt YIO390
Hartzell BA
Steinair Panel (WOW)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:59 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpansier View Post
Interesting perspective on Aluminum cylinders from Sunnen the hone company.

https://www.sunnen.com/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=11
Excellent article, thanks. Makes more sense now.

This version includes images.

Last edited by breister : 02-18-2020 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-19-2020, 03:33 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Ok, you guys got me interested so I emailed ECI to ask if, like Lycomings, it would be recommended to run no more than 75% continuous power - particularly in light of the Rotax 915 which can run about 95% power continuously. Below is the text of the email thread. It is my humble opinion that a 160hp turbo engine designed to run continuously at full power and 80lbs lighter than an IO-360 would, in practice, beat the pants off an IO-360 or even a TIO-360 under most conditions, and that is not even accounting for the cost difference.

__________________________________________________ _____

Hi,

A quick question about your new engine - and of course it may be too soon for you to answer. Presuming (and we are all rooting for you!) success in the initial design, would you anticipate that the engine limits would be like traditional Lycomings (i.e. 75% maximum continuous power) or would it be more like the Rotax 915 (142 max / 135 continuous)?

Would really love for there to be a turbocharged engine with performance similar to the 915 at a substantially lower price by the time I retire (3 years or so); I'd love to replace the O-290 in my baby!

Best regards,

Bill
__________________________________________________ _____

Hello Bill.

Being perhaps a bit optimistic, but I would not be surprised if it could run 100% at 100%.
I designed a great deal of extra strength and stiffness into the engine, along with a HUGE amount of heat rejection capacity--so much in fact that we had problems with the initial piston design as a result of the low cylinder temperatures--and that was on the dyno with a fan doing the cooling.
I am working (occasionally) on the top-intake / turbo version that I am targeting 160 HP min, and could be more with an excellent intercooling system.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,

Jack Kane
__________________________________________________ _____

Jack - is it ok if I share your response on Van's Forums?

__________________________________________________ _____

Bill:
That's fine with me--just be clear that (a) the production version of the naturally-aspirated 125 HP version is currently in endurance testing, and (b) the turbo version is a good way off, and depends on the success of the NA version too.
You could also put in a link to my web page describing the engine if you like.
Best;
JK
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-19-2020, 04:22 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by breister View Post
... the engine limits would be like traditional Lycomings (i.e. 75% maximum continuous power) ...
I was under the impression that Maximum Continuous Power for most normally aspirated Lycoming's is 100% power, and they would make TBO at 100%.

For example, the FAA TCDS shows Max Continuous as full rated power, and does not show a limited-time "Takeoff" power setting of more than Max Continuous Power for most (if not all) of the normally aspirated Lycoming (I)O-360s.
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 675 Tach Hours
(Pic 1),(Pic 2)
- Out with the Old, In with the New
(Pic)
RV-8, 1938 Tach Hours (Pic 1),(Pic 2) - Sold

Glasflügel Standard Libelle 201B - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f - No longer owned

Last edited by RV8JD : 02-19-2020 at 05:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-20-2020, 07:19 AM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
I was under the impression that Maximum Continuous Power for most normally aspirated Lycoming's is 100% power, and they would make TBO at 100%.

For example, the FAA TCDS shows Max Continuous as full rated power, and does not show a limited-time "Takeoff" power setting of more than Max Continuous Power for most (if not all) of the normally aspirated Lycoming (I)O-360s.
That may be true, but since most operations are above 6500 feet is kind of irrelevant for normally aspirated.

I was focusing on turbocharged engines. I don’t recall ever seeing recommendations for more than 80% power continuous operation apart from the Rotax. That doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, only that I’ve never run across it. So, a turbo 160hp engine rated for 100% continuous slightly outperforms a turbo 200hp engine rated for only 75% continuous.

All of this is of course idle daydreaming until or unless the engine materializes.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-20-2020, 07:48 AM
lr172 lr172 is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 4,727
Default

The confusion may come from rated vs recommended. I believe the lyc's are "rated" for continuous power, but the manufacturer recommends no more than 75% power in cruise for optimum longevity. The same way that cylinders are rated for 500*, but recommended at 435 or less for longevity. Seems clear that chances of getting to TBO are higher at the recommended levels. Not sure if the rating requires running all the way to TBO hours. Vaguely remember it being 500 or 1000 hours without damage.
__________________
N64LR
RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
RV-10 in Phase I
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-21-2020, 01:35 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Interesting. I wonder if anyone out there has ever run their turbo engine more than 80% power continuously, and what the result was?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-21-2020, 02:05 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,577
Default

The Reno guys run 250-275% of stock rated power, 8 minutes at a time. Lifespan drop precipitously at those power settings...

In normal use, if thermal and crank stress levels don't exceed the design limits, I wouldn't expect a big reduction in life operating at 80% power. Most aircraft turbo engines run little more than 40-45 inches for takeoff which isn't much.

In cruise on turbo 520 Contis and 541 Lycs. (geared), MAP is usually around 34-36 inches with the rpm way back. Life is fine if you respect the MAP, CHT and turbine inlet temps and don't horse the throttles around in my experience. Conversely, some ham fisted, brain dead folks can take them out in a few hours...
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 437.8 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm


Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-21-2020, 02:47 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

So, my inference from that is that running it about RECOMMENDED power setting continuously is probably bad with current engines.

Well, we will have to wait and see if this new miracle engine allows recommending operation up to 95-100% power continuously. And then, of course, the gunea pigs get to find out if that was too optimistic...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-21-2020, 03:56 PM
cduster cduster is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Hertford, NC
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by breister View Post
Interesting. I wonder if anyone out there has ever run their turbo engine more than 80% power continuously, and what the result was?
The GAMI/APS crowd that runs LOPWOT (lean of peak, wide open throttle) run the TSIO-550s at about 80%+ nearly all the time. As near as I can tell, they make TBO just fine, but as a general rule, they are well instrumented and well educated. I think those engines are turbo normalized to run about 30" max but have the higher 8.5/1 compression pistons.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.