Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Continental TSIO 360
- Thread starter wannaRV
- Start date
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
I have flown behind them
I flew charters and freight in a twin Seneca-II with the Cont TSIO-360. First it is a six banger and second it is turbo and 210hp. I think Van's has designated it as a potential engine for the RV-10.
The engine is fine and never let me down
Here are the problems. You will need a special engine mount. It's dimensions may cause a need for extensive cowl modification. There are no off the shelf RV exhaust systems or engine bay parts that will work. I am not sure a Seneca II firewall forward parts would fit, even if you could buy one. The turbo set up will be more extensive and you will have a challenge fitting it. I don't think the stock Seneca II set-up had an intercooler, which would be real hard to fit in a RV cowl. An intercooler however would improve performance and be less strain on the engine.
Bottom line it will be a custom installation and you will end up paying a premium. What is wrong with an IO-360 (180 or 200HP)?
Here is an article on turbos and problems with the TSIO-360:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182808-1.html
excerpt below:
Problem engines
Some engines use turbocharging to gain additional sea-level horsepower, rather than simply to maintain sea-level performance at altitude. Highly ground-boosted engines like the 325 hp TSIO-520 found in late-model T210s and P210s and many RAM-converted twins have a dismal record of making published TBO, much less going beyond it. The same is true of the 225 hp TSIO-360 in the P337.
All other things being equal, the higher the MP redline, the poorer the longevity of a turbocharged engine. The best candidates for good engine longevity are "turbo-normalized" engines like the 285 hp engines in my T310 (red-lined at a very conservative 32" of MP).
[SNIP]
Some lower-cost turbocharged airplanes like the Piper Turbo Arrow, Mooney 231 and Piper Seneca II use the problem-prone Continental IO-360-series engine coupled with a fixed-wastegate system that makes the turbocharger work hard even when you don't need it. These installations rarely make TBO and usually require a mid-term turbo overhaul. Fixed-wastegate engines also demand high pilot workload because the manifold pressure tends to be quite unstable.
You can change the fixed waste gate to an auto system with a STC product.
I will repeat Van's golden rule: Build it per plans and as light and simple as you can. You can't go wrong with the golden rule.
Good Luck G
I flew charters and freight in a twin Seneca-II with the Cont TSIO-360. First it is a six banger and second it is turbo and 210hp. I think Van's has designated it as a potential engine for the RV-10.
The engine is fine and never let me down
Here are the problems. You will need a special engine mount. It's dimensions may cause a need for extensive cowl modification. There are no off the shelf RV exhaust systems or engine bay parts that will work. I am not sure a Seneca II firewall forward parts would fit, even if you could buy one. The turbo set up will be more extensive and you will have a challenge fitting it. I don't think the stock Seneca II set-up had an intercooler, which would be real hard to fit in a RV cowl. An intercooler however would improve performance and be less strain on the engine.
Bottom line it will be a custom installation and you will end up paying a premium. What is wrong with an IO-360 (180 or 200HP)?
Here is an article on turbos and problems with the TSIO-360:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182808-1.html
excerpt below:
Problem engines
Some engines use turbocharging to gain additional sea-level horsepower, rather than simply to maintain sea-level performance at altitude. Highly ground-boosted engines like the 325 hp TSIO-520 found in late-model T210s and P210s and many RAM-converted twins have a dismal record of making published TBO, much less going beyond it. The same is true of the 225 hp TSIO-360 in the P337.
All other things being equal, the higher the MP redline, the poorer the longevity of a turbocharged engine. The best candidates for good engine longevity are "turbo-normalized" engines like the 285 hp engines in my T310 (red-lined at a very conservative 32" of MP).
[SNIP]
Some lower-cost turbocharged airplanes like the Piper Turbo Arrow, Mooney 231 and Piper Seneca II use the problem-prone Continental IO-360-series engine coupled with a fixed-wastegate system that makes the turbocharger work hard even when you don't need it. These installations rarely make TBO and usually require a mid-term turbo overhaul. Fixed-wastegate engines also demand high pilot workload because the manifold pressure tends to be quite unstable.
You can change the fixed waste gate to an auto system with a STC product.
I will repeat Van's golden rule: Build it per plans and as light and simple as you can. You can't go wrong with the golden rule.
Good Luck G
Last edited:
osxuser
Well Known Member
The Continental TSIO-360 series is the abosolute worst modern piston engine i've ever seen. People I know with mooney 231's leave the caps off the oil filler so that the mosture that normally condenses in the crankcase will evaporate out instead. But these engines will rust themselves to pieces if not flown regularly.
Thanks for the advice, I've flown Seneca's in the past and like how the engine feels and sounds. The enginges were always reliable and never left us standing in snow on a cold winter's day. Has any one "turbonormalized" an IO 360, I like to fly in the lower teens and would like to maintain close to sea level power.
osxuser
Well Known Member
wannaRV said:
Yes there is a couple of guys that have normalized Lyc IO-360's. I was/am planning that for my 7. Here are my 3 possible configurations:
Parrallel Valve IO-360 180HP w/car turbo and automatic wastegate, engineering & maintanence nightmare
Angle Valve IO-360, tune, port & polish, valve job, possibly with crossflow cylinders, still working on this one idea.
IO-390 <--- Higher initial cost, but standard engine & stuff.
The IO-390, should give decent performance in the mid-teens.
The same engine is in the 251 but with a better wastegate system. There is an after-market upgrade for Mooney's called "Black Magic" which purports to correct the underlying problems, but cowling / plenums are probably more critical to the solution than a particular variety of variable wastegate (which is common now).
You may be better served by getting a high-compression IO-400 from Superior than messing with a turbo. Weight and engine mount remain the same, and with a good plenum you shouldn't need to worry about cooling. Search the forums on "plenum" for good examples - a really good one not only improves cooling but actually REDUCES drag.
>edit< If you just HAVE to have a turbo, I would also look into the new Lycoming TEO-360 or TEO-390 which should be appearing in short order. They have "officially" announced the TEO-540, but also implied that they are adding the new iE2 engine technologies on other stock blocks. However, the whole reason for going turbo is to go high and fast - and you are going to be pushing hard against the Vne of the VANS airframe with any of those engines if you produce full power at 25,000'.
If your real need is speed, look at the Lancairs.
Last edited:
I looked at the new turbo normalized 360 Lycoming at Reno and was impressed with what I saw. They really did everything right from a turbo system perspective with nice piping, casting and proper mounts. This would be much easier and lighter to fit into an RV than the Conti.
There is no big concern with staying within the envelope as you are aware. You use to power to get up high fast, then pull back to 55-60% power and enjoy the TAS up there and catch the good winds when available.
I've probably got more turbo RV time than most and I never regret having the turbo, especially in HHH conditions. That's why I'm doing it again on the RV10.
There is no big concern with staying within the envelope as you are aware. You use to power to get up high fast, then pull back to 55-60% power and enjoy the TAS up there and catch the good winds when available.
I've probably got more turbo RV time than most and I never regret having the turbo, especially in HHH conditions. That's why I'm doing it again on the RV10.
Steve Mills
Well Known Member
I had a Turbo Arrow, with the TSIO360 engine, and it was a maintainance nightmare. If you must, be sure to get the FB version, and verify that it has the VAR crank. Then sock away lots of money for uncoming repairs.
Perhaps you should read that article a bit more closely. Van (actually, Ken Krueger) is talking about the RV10 when he explains why maintaining 260hp into the flight levels via turbocharging could get you in trouble.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf
In a follow on article, he explains why 180hp is too much for an RV9.
Assuming that Van's doesn't know what they are talking about in regards to Vne on the aircraft they designed is not how the smart money would bet!
Best Luck.
Jconard
Well Known Member
I assume liability and close FAA scrutiny when some tinkerer buys the farm because of unimpressive building / flying technique.
I agree wholeheartedly that it will be a stain on all of us when some tinkerer....can't imagine who.....has a flutter event....and buys the farm because of their unimpressive building technique. As an example of such technique, perhaps it will be a builder who without any basis in fact or design creates an airplane capable of destroying itself...simply because they want to.
Of course, ALL of us are so good that the experience of a professional combat pilot is probably an example of his negligence and has no prescriptive value for the rest of us SKILLED pilots (yes I am being sarcastic).
Why not build a compair? It really seems like the pedestrian performance of the RV series is just not enough for you.
I agree wholeheartedly that it will be a stain on all of us when some tinkerer....can't imagine who.....has a flutter event....and buys the farm because of their unimpressive building technique. As an example of such technique, perhaps it will be a builder who without any basis in fact or design creates an airplane capable of destroying itself...simply because they want to.
Of course, ALL of us are so good that the experience of a professional combat pilot is probably an example of his negligence and has no prescriptive value for the rest of us SKILLED pilots (yes I am being sarcastic).
Why not build a compair? It really seems like the pedestrian performance of the RV series is just not enough for you.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Y'know....
.....This seems to be a Universal tendency....always more power. In my business, I've watched Ag airplanes like the early Pawnees with 0-540's derated to 235HP work and carry big loads just fine. Same thing with the Cessna Agwagons and their 230 HP Conti O-470's. Both airplanes eventually had bigger engines...260 for the Pawnees and 300 HP IO-520 Conti's in the Agwagons, and now 350 HP Conti's. It never ends. Heck, my Air Tractor has right at 700 HP. Just fly it with what you have. Van really does know better.
Regards,
.....This seems to be a Universal tendency....always more power. In my business, I've watched Ag airplanes like the early Pawnees with 0-540's derated to 235HP work and carry big loads just fine. Same thing with the Cessna Agwagons and their 230 HP Conti O-470's. Both airplanes eventually had bigger engines...260 for the Pawnees and 300 HP IO-520 Conti's in the Agwagons, and now 350 HP Conti's. It never ends. Heck, my Air Tractor has right at 700 HP. Just fly it with what you have. Van really does know better.
Regards,
Richard seems to understand the perils of maintaining full SL power to 20,000 feet and using it. That would be foolish.
Assuming that most RV builders are not complete idiots, you can safely fly your turbo normalized RV without it coming apart. Heck you can already get flutter on an atmo 360 powered RV if you just put the nose down 20-30 degrees at WOT and medium altitudes and of course you can stall an RV too. All things like this are up to the pilot. We all know that stalling an RV at 50 feet and pointing the nose vertically down at full power for more than 15 seconds at 15,000 feet is also a bad idea.
I have gone to Vne at 15,000 feet in level flight in my 6A- once, just to see what it would do and to check that it was flutter free there. I have no need to repeat that again. When descending from altitude, power comes back first, nose goes down second. No big deal.
Like any other aircraft, operate it within limits and you'll be fine. Not sure where all the sky is falling comments are coming from.
I haven't pulled the wings off my 6A which has a 182 knot Vne- quite a bit lower than the newer RVs.
A turbo 360 in an RV9 would not be of much use other than high altitude climb performance due to the lower limiting speeds compared to a 7.
Lots of people highly modify their RVs in many ways- 4 place 6s, 390,400 or 540 cubic inch engines, extra fuel tanks, retractable gear, fastback fuselages etc. Do these mods with eyes wide open but really, a turbo normalized 360 is almost a mild mod by comparison. Build what you want.
Assuming that most RV builders are not complete idiots, you can safely fly your turbo normalized RV without it coming apart. Heck you can already get flutter on an atmo 360 powered RV if you just put the nose down 20-30 degrees at WOT and medium altitudes and of course you can stall an RV too. All things like this are up to the pilot. We all know that stalling an RV at 50 feet and pointing the nose vertically down at full power for more than 15 seconds at 15,000 feet is also a bad idea.
I have gone to Vne at 15,000 feet in level flight in my 6A- once, just to see what it would do and to check that it was flutter free there. I have no need to repeat that again. When descending from altitude, power comes back first, nose goes down second. No big deal.
Like any other aircraft, operate it within limits and you'll be fine. Not sure where all the sky is falling comments are coming from.
I haven't pulled the wings off my 6A which has a 182 knot Vne- quite a bit lower than the newer RVs.
A turbo 360 in an RV9 would not be of much use other than high altitude climb performance due to the lower limiting speeds compared to a 7.
Lots of people highly modify their RVs in many ways- 4 place 6s, 390,400 or 540 cubic inch engines, extra fuel tanks, retractable gear, fastback fuselages etc. Do these mods with eyes wide open but really, a turbo normalized 360 is almost a mild mod by comparison. Build what you want.
Last edited:
????
The chart is for an RV-10. For an RV10, 260hp is the standard, recommended engine. However, 260hp into the flight levels via turbo-normalizing is not, and that was the whole point of the article.
Likewise, 210hp with turbo-normalizing is not the recommended RV-8 engine.
And yes, Ross, you could fly behind a PT6 in an RV-8 and stay safe, but you would be throwing away a bunch of money and hp.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, nor am I advocating any legislation.
I'm just sticking up for the reasonableness of Van's article and recommendations.
Come on guys, the premise is just silly here. Only a complete idiot is going to try using the whole 260hp of a normalized 540 in an RV10 at 18,000 feet.
Van's made us aware of the realties of this with their articles on the subject which is good. It is up to builders and pilots to apply this in their aircraft and operations. Turbocharging is an easy way to pick up 10-25 knots without using as much fuel as you would down low.
Van's made us aware of the realties of this with their articles on the subject which is good. It is up to builders and pilots to apply this in their aircraft and operations. Turbocharging is an easy way to pick up 10-25 knots without using as much fuel as you would down low.
Or even 75% of 260hp @ 20,000 feet, which is where Van says you go negative on the flutter margin.
Yup. (edit: With some misgivings about the word "easy" ...)
Last edited:
You'll be able to buy the engine from Lycoming in early 2009 I think, complete, ready to bolt up. Duct some air to the integral intercooler and you are ready to go. I say that is pretty easy compared to building the airplane. Lycoming did all the engineering for you and it is a very nice job I might add.
I think you will find that the first combo will start feeling a bit sluggish at 15-18,000 feet, depends what you are used to. You are down to about 50% power at full throttle up there with an atmo engine.
With the turbo, you can zoom around at 25-30,000 if you have the right oxygen equipment and watch the Vne of course. Bruce Bohannon went up to 47,000 with a highly modified RV and special 540 turbo Lycoming several years back.
In practical use, you can catch the good tail winds up high and pull back to 55% at 20-25,000 and get some fantastic fuel economy if that is your game. In the mountains, you can maintain your SL ROC pretty much right to 25,000 if you can cool the engine properly and that is a nice feeling.
Last edited:
I'm probably a little more open minded than some of the folks posting here and one of the few with turbocharged RV experience. There is a weight penalty with turbocharging but with Lycoming's good design job on their latest system, I don't think you will see much more maintenance over an atmo model. I often see a lot of people who haven't flown turbos much to have a negative attitude towards them. There is a world of difference in Lycoming's latest system compared to many poorly executed OE turbo systems from the past IMO.
Last edited:
Hey Richard,
FYI - Vans calculates a reasonable safety margin on Vne for TRUE airspeed; Lancair sets their Vne based on INDICATED airspeed. Thus turbonormalized engines are not nearly so risky in the Lancairs.
Why the difference? For whatever reason, the aluminum construction used on the Van's models is reputedly more susceptible to flutter - I believe it has to do with harmonics, there are bona fide engineers here who will certainly correct me...
In that particular regard (and I'm sure others here will chime in with it's relative weaknesses, too) composites seem to have an advantage in naturally damping harmonics.Thus, if a Legacy's Vne is 276 then you can build a heavily turbocharged version which allows firewalling the throttle at FL250 and getting darned near 270 IAS without exceeding Vne. Special notes: Legacies racing at Reno usually have an additional layer of carbon fiber to stiffen the tail section, and they denounce using a 6-cylinder on the glass version of the Legacy (have to upgrade to the carbon-fiber version).
Vans airplanes are preferrable for grass and aerobatics and vastly superior on smaller budgets, but if you decide to turbonormalize and then fly your Vne as IAS in the Flight Levels you are taking your life in your hands, as you will have exceeded your True airspeed Vne by 50 knots or more.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Aluminum has nothing (or little ) to do with it.
No Sir, the material has nothing to do with it, it is the design. If you made a lancair our of aluminum it would have the same limits or even greater limits (see SX300 or P51 with 505 mph Vne). A RV made of fiber glass would not gain any speed.
I see where you are going and the link or logic you used but its not true. In a true engineering stand point you can make composite structure super stiff. That would affect something called "aeroelasticity", which is a fancy word for very complicated aerodynamic and flexural (stiffness) characteristics of aircraft. So yes composites could improve flutter, but not in subsonic aircraft like our little piston planes.
No Sir, the material has nothing to do with it, it is the design. If you made a lancair our of aluminum it would have the same limits or even greater limits (see SX300 or P51 with 505 mph Vne). A RV made of fiber glass would not gain any speed.
I see where you are going and the link or logic you used but its not true. In a true engineering stand point you can make composite structure super stiff. That would affect something called "aeroelasticity", which is a fancy word for very complicated aerodynamic and flexural (stiffness) characteristics of aircraft. So yes composites could improve flutter, but not in subsonic aircraft like our little piston planes.
In the turbine Lancairs, some builders add more aileron counterbalance weight to ensure a higher margin from aileron buzz at high speeds. RVs might also benefit from this. Someone could confirm with ground testing.
As someone noted previously, most of the top row Sport Class airframes at Reno have been modified to increase stiffness and flutter margins as they are running way over the original design speeds now. Running in the wakes, propwash and serious Reno turbulence pulling fair Gs and 400+ MPH at 50-150 feet... well everything has to be right or you are dead.
Sometimes these lessons are learned the hard way as with the tragic breakup of Tommy Rose's Venture several years back. Mike Dacey's Venture is seriously beefed up in many key areas now and is running 375+ mph laps.
As someone noted previously, most of the top row Sport Class airframes at Reno have been modified to increase stiffness and flutter margins as they are running way over the original design speeds now. Running in the wakes, propwash and serious Reno turbulence pulling fair Gs and 400+ MPH at 50-150 feet... well everything has to be right or you are dead.
Sometimes these lessons are learned the hard way as with the tragic breakup of Tommy Rose's Venture several years back. Mike Dacey's Venture is seriously beefed up in many key areas now and is running 375+ mph laps.
Last edited:
I think you will find that the first combo will start feeling a bit sluggish at 15-18,000 feet, depends what you are used to. You are down to about 50% power at full throttle up there with an atmo engine.
With the turbo, you can zoom around at 25-30,000 if you have the right oxygen equipment and watch the Vne of course. Bruce Bohannon went up to 47,000 with a highly modified RV and special 540 turbo Lycoming several years back.
In practical use, you can catch the good tail winds up high and pull back to 55% at 20-25,000 and get some fantastic fuel economy if that is your game. In the mountains, you can maintain your SL ROC pretty much right to 25,000 if you can cool the engine properly and that is a nice feeling.
Not to be nit-picky, but if you use a high-compression IO-400 from Superior or high-compression IO-390 "Thunderbolt Extreme" from Lycoming (about 250hp at S/L) then 50% hp is 125, or still producing 78% of the max hp of a "normal" IO-320 at 18,000', and only a few pounds heavier.
In other words, it should perform just fine.
For years I dreamed about a turbo, for years my mechanic told me all the horror stories (appropriate as we approach Halloween). Now that I have had enough ownership time to experience the frustration of mechanical woes, I prefer simplicity.
Until, of course, I gain access to unlimited funds...
My comment meant that a given atmo engine at 18,000 feet will be producing about half its SL power. Obviously a 390 or 400 cubic inch engine will give you more everywhere than a 320.
Certainly if you are flying high a lot of the time, these engines are another way to go. With a 9 or a 6, you'll have to be extra wary of the Vne limit.
Certainly if you are flying high a lot of the time, these engines are another way to go. With a 9 or a 6, you'll have to be extra wary of the Vne limit.
Absolutely correct. I'm only pointing out that there are two ways to acheive the same result - one with a turbocharger, the other by going high-compression. Some people think high compression is only for racers, and aren't aware that the latter option can provide nearly the same benefit as a turbo without the added complexity, weight, and cooling issues. Too, you don't HAVE to run a high-compression engine at full rated horsepower all the time - if treated well it should be as reliable as a normal compression engine.
I'd disagree that high CRs have anywhere near the same power potential as turbocharging, especially at altitude. Not the route chosen by any high altitude aircraft designers from the past or today. Turbos are way faster.
For an RV with low limiting speeds, a big inch, high CR atmo engine would be fine but it would never match the climb performance of a good turbo engine. I think that is an important aspect to Richard's needs.
For an RV with low limiting speeds, a big inch, high CR atmo engine would be fine but it would never match the climb performance of a good turbo engine. I think that is an important aspect to Richard's needs.
richvidaurri
I'm New Here
Climb performance
You're right, RVguy, not only is performance at altitude a concern but also aggressive climb-outs over rough terrain in hot humid weather.
My dream is to explore the Rockies from Canada down through the Sierra Nevadas of California and then the Sierra Madre ranges of Mexico.
A good example of Mexican mountain flying is the town of Creel, in Chihuahua. The town overlooks the magnificent Copper Canyon; twenty separate canyons and six rivers which alone would take a week to explore from the air. Well, the Creel airfield (corn field?) is 7,500+ elevation and only about 1,500 - 2000 feet long. And that's the easy part.
At the bottom of the canyons there are any number of impromptu strips suitable for an RV. They are at about 3000+ MSL and surrounded by mountains, crags, canyon walls and other obstacles - I will take a Lycoming TNIO 390X with air conditioning in an RV-7A, lose the fairings, and get over ridges, mountains and weather.
Richard Vidaurri
Alhambra, California
You're right, RVguy, not only is performance at altitude a concern but also aggressive climb-outs over rough terrain in hot humid weather.
My dream is to explore the Rockies from Canada down through the Sierra Nevadas of California and then the Sierra Madre ranges of Mexico.
A good example of Mexican mountain flying is the town of Creel, in Chihuahua. The town overlooks the magnificent Copper Canyon; twenty separate canyons and six rivers which alone would take a week to explore from the air. Well, the Creel airfield (corn field?) is 7,500+ elevation and only about 1,500 - 2000 feet long. And that's the easy part.
At the bottom of the canyons there are any number of impromptu strips suitable for an RV. They are at about 3000+ MSL and surrounded by mountains, crags, canyon walls and other obstacles - I will take a Lycoming TNIO 390X with air conditioning in an RV-7A, lose the fairings, and get over ridges, mountains and weather.
Richard Vidaurri
Alhambra, California
Last edited:
BikePilot
Well Known Member
That sounds like it would be an incredible trip. I know some folks who have travled more or less that route by motorcycle (there's a huge gathering in Creel/Copper Canyon every year) and have marveled at the picutres. Once done with school I'll at lest run down to Copper Canyon.
Compression can allow you to regain some power and effency lost due to thin air. It won't get as much power back as turbo charging, but helps. Thin air causes power loss in a NA motor partly because there's simply less oxygen there to be burnt and partially because it reduces compression so there are effency losses. I run various types of high preformance motorcycles and it is standard to run much higher compression when racing in the Denver area than is run at sea level. It doesn't get all the power back, but makes a big difference. Of course you probably don't want to do major motor work in order to allow the motor to run safely at sea level so that will limit things somewhat. I suppose if you were planning on running autofuel you could build a motor to run on autofuel at say 6k+ feet if spend most of your time in the mountains, then on the rare occasion where you'll be flying lower than that on a regular basis you could run higher octane av gas.
Anyway, I look forward to pictures from your antisipated rocky mountain flight!
Compression can allow you to regain some power and effency lost due to thin air. It won't get as much power back as turbo charging, but helps. Thin air causes power loss in a NA motor partly because there's simply less oxygen there to be burnt and partially because it reduces compression so there are effency losses. I run various types of high preformance motorcycles and it is standard to run much higher compression when racing in the Denver area than is run at sea level. It doesn't get all the power back, but makes a big difference. Of course you probably don't want to do major motor work in order to allow the motor to run safely at sea level so that will limit things somewhat. I suppose if you were planning on running autofuel you could build a motor to run on autofuel at say 6k+ feet if spend most of your time in the mountains, then on the rare occasion where you'll be flying lower than that on a regular basis you could run higher octane av gas.
Anyway, I look forward to pictures from your antisipated rocky mountain flight!
There have been some great comments here. I don't take a position for or against turbo for other folks, just want the facts laid out.
As I understand it, the TIO (or, I think they are calling it the TEO) 390 Lyc is 210hp at sea level. As you go up in altitude, you will get full MP but there will be a slight drop in hp due to the turbo air being much hotter (and will create additional heating problems - particularly down low in hot tropical places).
A Superior IO-400 with 10:1 compression creates 250hp at SL and just under 190hp at 8,000'. I believe the IO-390 can be configured similarly. It will be a few pounds lighter than the turbo. At 3,500' hp should be about identical with the turbo. In that altitude range (3,000 - 8,000) performance between the two should be almost indistinguishable - but the turbo will cost more money and burn more fuel and require more maintenance and may pose additional cooling problems.
If you have the money and the patience to work out all of the cooling challenges, I say go for it. If you don't want to be one of only 1% of all RVs with a turbo Lyc, then I would opt for the extra compression.
One last factor to consider - what happens when (not if) you break down some day? I wonder how hard it would be to get a mechanic to work on a turbo in Chihuahua?
Whatever you decide - keep us informed!
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Wisdom handed to me from upon high
"There Ain't no replacement for Displacement"
Turbo or compression you need Cubes
"There Ain't no replacement for Displacement"
Turbo or compression you need Cubes
Well, we'll see how the "small" Trace turbo V8 does against the 540 and 550 cubic inch Lycos and Contis in the next couple years at Reno. I say the writing is on the wall. I saw fear in the Lyco boys eyes when the announcement was made this year. They are scared because they are smart- but they relished the challenge at the same time.
More valve area, higher port flow, geared, water cooled, stiffer block and higher revs all spell a big advantage in hp over the air cooled stuff.
I love a good gunfight.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Save me from my Lyc
Again we shall see, I have been waiting for my engine hero to save me from my air cooled Lyc.
So what do these racing 550 cuin V8's cost $21k like a Lyc 360?
Is there an engine mount fora 550 cu-in race engine for my RV?
Cheers Ross, hope to make it to Reno some day, if not to fly at least watch.
Wait you change the subject. I am slow but not dumb. We where talking about some Acura engine, now we are V8's in race planes. OK we shall see. I like a big ol V8 super or turboed.Well, we'll see how the "small" Trace turbo V8 does against the 540 and 550 cubic inch Lycos and Contis in the next couple years at Reno. I say the writing is on the wall. I saw fear in the Lyco boys eyes when the announcement was made this year. They are scared because they are smart- but they relished the challenge at the same time.
More valve area, higher port flow, geared, water cooled, stiffer block and higher revs all spell a big advantage in hp over the air cooled stuff.
I love a good gunfight.
Again we shall see, I have been waiting for my engine hero to save me from my air cooled Lyc.
So what do these racing 550 cuin V8's cost $21k like a Lyc 360?
Is there an engine mount fora 550 cu-in race engine for my RV?
Cheers Ross, hope to make it to Reno some day, if not to fly at least watch.
Nope, just trying to put this cubic inch myth to rest. Technology trumps displacement every time in racing whether it was in CART, IMSA, Trans Am, endurance racing, F1 or at Reno. More power and better reliability than their big inch, atmo cousins.
As you might have heard, the Merlins are back and they trounced the Wright 3350s with HALF the displacement this year. Lately the 3350s have been poppin' like corks. Nice to see Mike Nixon's success after 4 years of struggle when the Merlins were doing the same thing, year after year. We shall see if the radials can respond in 2009.
I was impressed with Lee Behel's "Breathless" using an atmo engine doing 343 mph in qualifying and winning Sport Class Gold but he's no match for the serious turbocharged entries in Super Sport using the same size engines.
A normalized 360 is not working very hard at all with the factory intercooler setup and well matched turbo. Lycoming obviously thinks it is a good idea for Lancairs and they should know. I spent almost an hour in the Lycoming tent at Reno looking over their new offerings, especially the iE2 line and experimental turbos and talking to their techs. I came away impressed with what they are doing and that says a lot. I'm not easily impressed.
George, you really should fly up to Reno and take this in. I think you'd love it.
As you might have heard, the Merlins are back and they trounced the Wright 3350s with HALF the displacement this year. Lately the 3350s have been poppin' like corks. Nice to see Mike Nixon's success after 4 years of struggle when the Merlins were doing the same thing, year after year. We shall see if the radials can respond in 2009.
I was impressed with Lee Behel's "Breathless" using an atmo engine doing 343 mph in qualifying and winning Sport Class Gold but he's no match for the serious turbocharged entries in Super Sport using the same size engines.
A normalized 360 is not working very hard at all with the factory intercooler setup and well matched turbo. Lycoming obviously thinks it is a good idea for Lancairs and they should know. I spent almost an hour in the Lycoming tent at Reno looking over their new offerings, especially the iE2 line and experimental turbos and talking to their techs. I came away impressed with what they are doing and that says a lot. I'm not easily impressed.
George, you really should fly up to Reno and take this in. I think you'd love it.
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Reno here I come (some day)
OK now you are talking HP. True you can make HP other ways than just displacement, higher revving engines and turbo charging being two of your favorite methods. There are 15 ways to Sunday to get power.
You do qualify your "myth" comment with "in racing". Than you said something about "technology". True and racing is not really relevant to most planes we fly our wife or kids in. Technology wise, there is really nothing new; it all has been done before, it's just being refined for spacific applications, like racing.
Granted tiny race engines turning fantastical high RPM with twin intercooled turbos is a mighty mighty thing to behold. I personally don't think its the best approach for an aircraft engine. I am an admitted BIG ENGINE addict. More is better in my book.
Look I've a fraction of your engine and race experience, but I have had engines torn apart in my bed room as a kid before I had facial hair. I have stroked and bored out engines, even turboed a motorcycle. I HAVE NEVER HERD A GUY SAY, "Gee I wish I had a smaller engine".
I am a fan of making the most with what you have, Airplanes especially. Small drag improvments can equal gobs more of HP but with out the fuel BURN. I love the illusive free lunch. Turbos and all the assoc inter-coolers and valves and plumbing are not free lunches. In fact there is a price to pay both in dollars, maintenance and weight. It's good just not for me. (A side note with gas prices, I think turbos will and should become more popular because they can not only add power but add efficiency, aka MPG.)
Ross big fan of the turbo but a KISS guy I am, normal aspirated (ATMO) engines are pretty easy to build, maintain and fly. I have lots of turbo charge engine time flying fright dog twins like the Seneca, Aerostar and C421. I heard and saw the mechanics cursing as they had to replace turbos, plumbing and cylinders. The all time worse is a Cessna P210. It was in the maintence hanger for something engine/turbo related every 25-50 hours, something big and expensive I might add. I know "modern" turbos and turbo systems are better, true. I am looking forward to buying a TDI if the stock market bumps back up.
Yes small high revving engines are best for cars and motorcycles that need fast rev's to accelerate off a corner. None of that applies to a lumbering aircraft engine or even a racing aircraft's engine, its WIDE OPEN, period.
Just my take and YES RENO, GOT TO LOSE MY RENO VIRGINITY, BEERS ON ME.
OK now you are talking HP. True you can make HP other ways than just displacement, higher revving engines and turbo charging being two of your favorite methods. There are 15 ways to Sunday to get power.
Ross I appreciate your respect your approach but.........
"There Ain't no Replacement for Displacement"
is not a myth and it stands as is and undisputed.
It is a undisputed fact. If you keep RPM, compression and/or boost the same cubic inches counts. If you increase RPM, compression and/or boost AND displacement WOW, even better (but not always granted)."There Ain't no Replacement for Displacement"
is not a myth and it stands as is and undisputed.
You do qualify your "myth" comment with "in racing". Than you said something about "technology". True and racing is not really relevant to most planes we fly our wife or kids in. Technology wise, there is really nothing new; it all has been done before, it's just being refined for spacific applications, like racing.
Granted tiny race engines turning fantastical high RPM with twin intercooled turbos is a mighty mighty thing to behold. I personally don't think its the best approach for an aircraft engine. I am an admitted BIG ENGINE addict. More is better in my book.
Look I've a fraction of your engine and race experience, but I have had engines torn apart in my bed room as a kid before I had facial hair. I have stroked and bored out engines, even turboed a motorcycle. I HAVE NEVER HERD A GUY SAY, "Gee I wish I had a smaller engine".
I am a fan of making the most with what you have, Airplanes especially. Small drag improvments can equal gobs more of HP but with out the fuel BURN. I love the illusive free lunch. Turbos and all the assoc inter-coolers and valves and plumbing are not free lunches. In fact there is a price to pay both in dollars, maintenance and weight. It's good just not for me. (A side note with gas prices, I think turbos will and should become more popular because they can not only add power but add efficiency, aka MPG.)
Ross big fan of the turbo but a KISS guy I am, normal aspirated (ATMO) engines are pretty easy to build, maintain and fly. I have lots of turbo charge engine time flying fright dog twins like the Seneca, Aerostar and C421. I heard and saw the mechanics cursing as they had to replace turbos, plumbing and cylinders. The all time worse is a Cessna P210. It was in the maintence hanger for something engine/turbo related every 25-50 hours, something big and expensive I might add. I know "modern" turbos and turbo systems are better, true. I am looking forward to buying a TDI if the stock market bumps back up.
Yes small high revving engines are best for cars and motorcycles that need fast rev's to accelerate off a corner. None of that applies to a lumbering aircraft engine or even a racing aircraft's engine, its WIDE OPEN, period.
Just my take and YES RENO, GOT TO LOSE MY RENO VIRGINITY, BEERS ON ME.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Reno here I come (some day)
OK now you are talking HP. True you can make HP other ways than just displacement, higher revving engines and turbo charging being two of your favorite methods. There are 15 ways to Sunday to get power.
You do qualify your "myth" comment with "in racing". Than you said something about "technology". Racing is not really relevant to most planes we fly our wife or kids in. However turbos and altitude performance are golden and great in the rocky mountains, Sierra Nevada's or Cascades, especially store bought planes that have suckie performance at sea level to start with. Most RV's (non-turbo) give many turbo factory planes a run for the money.
Technology wise, there is really nothing new; it all has been done before, it's just being refined, especially for spacific applications, like racing, producing fantastic results.
Granted tiny race engines turning fantastical high RPM with twin intercooled turbos is a mighty-mighty thing to behold. I personally don't think its the best approach for an aircraft engine. I am an admitted BIG ENGINE addict. More is better in my book (but I like getting the most with least engine as well with out greatly increasing cost of engine or operations, aka fine tuning).
Ross, I've have a fraction of your engine and race experience, but I have had engines torn apart in my bed room as a kid before I had facial hair. I have stroked and bored out engines, even turboed a motorcycle. I HAVE NEVER HERD A GUY SAY, "Gee I wish I had a smaller engine". It just does not happen. (well may be now with gas prices.)
DRAG REDUCTION IS KEY TO AIRPLANES:
I'm a fan of making the most with what you have, Airplanes especially. Small drag improvments can equal gobs more of HP but with out the fuel BURN. I love the illusive free lunch. Turbos and all the assoc inter-coolers and valves and plumbing are not free lunches. In fact there is a price to pay both in dollars, maintenance and weight. It's good just not for me.
Ross you are a fan of turbos. I am a normally aspirated (ATMO) engine guy, because they are pretty easy to build, maintain & fly. I have lots of turbo-charged engine time flying freight dog twins like the Seneca & Aerostar. I have seen and heard my share of A&P's and AI mechanics cursing as they replaced turbos, plumbing and cylinders. Those mechanics weeping, gnashing their teeth in a lump on the hanger floor (joke) was burned into my soul, turbo equaled grief. I have seen some things to change my mind since but not enough.
Yes small high revving engines are best for cars & motorcycles that need fast rev's to accelerate off a corner. None of that applies to a lumbering aircraft engine or even a racing aircraft engine, its WIDE OPEN, period. I am not ANTI turbo. More power to you (pun intended). Just my take.
YES RENO, GOT TO LOSE MY RENO VIRGINITY, BEERS ON ME THE RENO NEWBIE.
OK now you are talking HP. True you can make HP other ways than just displacement, higher revving engines and turbo charging being two of your favorite methods. There are 15 ways to Sunday to get power.
Ross I appreciate your respect your approach but.........
"There Ain't no Replacement for Displacement"
is not a myth and it stands; it's an undisputed truism.
It is a undisputed fact. If you keep RPM, compression and/or boost the same, cubic inches count. If you increase RPM, compression and/or boost AND displacement WOW, even better (but not always for some applications, granted)."There Ain't no Replacement for Displacement"
is not a myth and it stands; it's an undisputed truism.
You do qualify your "myth" comment with "in racing". Than you said something about "technology". Racing is not really relevant to most planes we fly our wife or kids in. However turbos and altitude performance are golden and great in the rocky mountains, Sierra Nevada's or Cascades, especially store bought planes that have suckie performance at sea level to start with. Most RV's (non-turbo) give many turbo factory planes a run for the money.
Technology wise, there is really nothing new; it all has been done before, it's just being refined, especially for spacific applications, like racing, producing fantastic results.
Granted tiny race engines turning fantastical high RPM with twin intercooled turbos is a mighty-mighty thing to behold. I personally don't think its the best approach for an aircraft engine. I am an admitted BIG ENGINE addict. More is better in my book (but I like getting the most with least engine as well with out greatly increasing cost of engine or operations, aka fine tuning).
Ross, I've have a fraction of your engine and race experience, but I have had engines torn apart in my bed room as a kid before I had facial hair. I have stroked and bored out engines, even turboed a motorcycle. I HAVE NEVER HERD A GUY SAY, "Gee I wish I had a smaller engine". It just does not happen. (well may be now with gas prices.)
DRAG REDUCTION IS KEY TO AIRPLANES:
I'm a fan of making the most with what you have, Airplanes especially. Small drag improvments can equal gobs more of HP but with out the fuel BURN. I love the illusive free lunch. Turbos and all the assoc inter-coolers and valves and plumbing are not free lunches. In fact there is a price to pay both in dollars, maintenance and weight. It's good just not for me.
Ross you are a fan of turbos. I am a normally aspirated (ATMO) engine guy, because they are pretty easy to build, maintain & fly. I have lots of turbo-charged engine time flying freight dog twins like the Seneca & Aerostar. I have seen and heard my share of A&P's and AI mechanics cursing as they replaced turbos, plumbing and cylinders. Those mechanics weeping, gnashing their teeth in a lump on the hanger floor (joke) was burned into my soul, turbo equaled grief. I have seen some things to change my mind since but not enough.
Yes small high revving engines are best for cars & motorcycles that need fast rev's to accelerate off a corner. None of that applies to a lumbering aircraft engine or even a racing aircraft engine, its WIDE OPEN, period. I am not ANTI turbo. More power to you (pun intended). Just my take.
YES RENO, GOT TO LOSE MY RENO VIRGINITY, BEERS ON ME THE RENO NEWBIE.
Last edited:
The older certified turbo installations are almost universally- not so good and I think you will see Lycomings latest stuff is light years ahead in reliability. The only thing I did not like was the use of old school hydraulic wastegate actuators which are complicated, expensive and not as reliable as automotive type pneumatic ones.
The hot parts were all done the way I would have done them if I had Lycoming's resources- like stainless merge castings- very nice. It sounds like you are questioning Lycoming's wisdom in introducing the turbos rather than just doing 40 more cubes and staying atmo. I would say that strictly speaking, all things being equal, a 400 inch engine running 25 inches will last longer than a 360 inch engine running 30 inches but would expect both to go 2000 hours if they are screwed together right and run within limits.
I've said this so many times before- small displacement turbo engines have dominated every form of auto racing they have ever been allowed into, trouncing big atmo engines up to three times their displacement and winning the championships, showing they have equal or superior reliability. I've seen many old school "displacement" guys shake their heads in disbelief that some 4 banger turbo engine can completely waste them down the straight- wishing they had that much power. You simply can't ignore the historical record here.
By technology, I mean 4 valve OHC engines are superior in port flow, fill ratio and valvetrain friction at high rpm to 2 valve pushrod engines. The 1650 cubic inch Merlins (4 valve OHC) are putting out 3950hp at 150 inches@ 3550 rpm without nitrous. This is almost as much as what has been loosely claimed with the 3350 cubic inch Wrights (2 valve pushrod) with a snoot full of nitrous. A P51 with this hp is very difficult to beat with any radial engine because of the drag difference in the airframes.
You are correct about drag reduction and our efforts are being focused mainly along those lines on Mike's Venture for Reno 2009. We want to see a 400mph lap! Who would have thought that air cooled flat engines could sound this good!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6XcP0xJNIA
Scuttlebutt is that either the heads or barrels part company with the rest of the engine at around 800 hp on the direct drive Contis so we don't want explore that one!
The hot parts were all done the way I would have done them if I had Lycoming's resources- like stainless merge castings- very nice. It sounds like you are questioning Lycoming's wisdom in introducing the turbos rather than just doing 40 more cubes and staying atmo. I would say that strictly speaking, all things being equal, a 400 inch engine running 25 inches will last longer than a 360 inch engine running 30 inches but would expect both to go 2000 hours if they are screwed together right and run within limits.
I've said this so many times before- small displacement turbo engines have dominated every form of auto racing they have ever been allowed into, trouncing big atmo engines up to three times their displacement and winning the championships, showing they have equal or superior reliability. I've seen many old school "displacement" guys shake their heads in disbelief that some 4 banger turbo engine can completely waste them down the straight- wishing they had that much power. You simply can't ignore the historical record here.
By technology, I mean 4 valve OHC engines are superior in port flow, fill ratio and valvetrain friction at high rpm to 2 valve pushrod engines. The 1650 cubic inch Merlins (4 valve OHC) are putting out 3950hp at 150 inches@ 3550 rpm without nitrous. This is almost as much as what has been loosely claimed with the 3350 cubic inch Wrights (2 valve pushrod) with a snoot full of nitrous. A P51 with this hp is very difficult to beat with any radial engine because of the drag difference in the airframes.
You are correct about drag reduction and our efforts are being focused mainly along those lines on Mike's Venture for Reno 2009. We want to see a 400mph lap!
Who would have thought that air cooled flat engines could sound this good!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6XcP0xJNIAScuttlebutt is that either the heads or barrels part company with the rest of the engine at around 800 hp on the direct drive Contis so we don't want explore that one!
Last edited:
richvidaurri
I'm New Here
I am going to go with a turbo-normalized RV-7A. It will be Lycoming's, Experimantal TNIO 390-X. This, I believe, is the perfect turbo for the RV-7. It's rated at 210 H.P. and has a normal 2000 hour TBO. It even comes with air conditioning provisions.
So.
I am going to seek the help of an aeronautical engineer. He will tell me precisely why the VNE margin on Van's airplanes is so slim and how, if possible, it can be widened. He will also tell me what, if anything, I must do to modify the cowling to accommodate my new turbo Lycoming (w/ air conditioning unit). I will then come back to this forum and post the results.
You've been much help to me RVguy.
Ciao,
Richard
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool Richard, I think this Lycoming will be a great choice. Post some pix of the installation when you get going on it. You should have one of the fastest RVs around. My itty bitty 134 cubic inches has trued 181 knots at 15K and 35 inches.
I'd be interested in what the AE has to say about the RV airframe and beefing it up for more speed safely.
I'd be interested in what the AE has to say about the RV airframe and beefing it up for more speed safely.
richvidaurri
I'm New Here
OK now you are talking HP. True you can make HP other ways than just displacement, higher revving engines and turbo charging being two of your favorite methods. There are 15 ways to Sunday to get power.
Ross I appreciate your respect your approach but.........It is a undisputed fact. If you keep RPM, compression and/or boost the same cubic inches counts. If you increase RPM, compression and/or boost AND displacement WOW, even better (but not always granted).
"There Ain't no Replacement for Displacement"
is not a myth and it stands as is and undisputed.
You do qualify your "myth" comment with "in racing". Than you said something about "technology". True and racing is not really relevant to most planes we fly our wife or kids in. Technology wise, there is really nothing new; it all has been done before, it's just being refined for spacific applications, like racing.
Granted tiny race engines turning fantastical high RPM with twin intercooled turbos is a mighty mighty thing to behold. I personally don't think its the best approach for an aircraft engine. I am an admitted BIG ENGINE addict. More is better in my book.
Look I've a fraction of your engine and race experience, but I have had engines torn apart in my bed room as a kid before I had facial hair. I have stroked and bored out engines, even turboed a motorcycle. I HAVE NEVER HERD A GUY SAY, "Gee I wish I had a smaller engine".
I am a fan of making the most with what you have, Airplanes especially. Small drag improvments can equal gobs more of HP but with out the fuel BURN. I love the illusive free lunch. Turbos and all the assoc inter-coolers and valves and plumbing are not free lunches. In fact there is a price to pay both in dollars, maintenance and weight. It's good just not for me. (A side note with gas prices, I think turbos will and should become more popular because they can not only add power but add efficiency, aka MPG.)
Ross big fan of the turbo but a KISS guy I am, normal aspirated (ATMO) engines are pretty easy to build, maintain and fly. I have lots of turbo charge engine time flying fright dog twins like the Seneca, Aerostar and C421. I heard and saw the mechanics cursing as they had to replace turbos, plumbing and cylinders. The all time worse is a Cessna P210. It was in the maintence hanger for something engine/turbo related every 25-50 hours, something big and expensive I might add. I know "modern" turbos and turbo systems are better, true. I am looking forward to buying a TDI if the stock market bumps back up.
Yes small high revving engines are best for cars and motorcycles that need fast rev's to accelerate off a corner. None of that applies to a lumbering aircraft engine or even a racing aircraft's engine, its WIDE OPEN, period.
Just my take and YES RENO, GOT TO LOSE MY RENO VIRGINITY, BEERS ON ME.
Now, you might like this: go to the Lycoming site, and along the top of the home page click on News and Events, then The Buzz. Read down a bit and you will see a press release re: the platform for their new iE squared electronic engine. See that?
A Lycoming 350 H.P., TEO 540-A1A, twin turbocharged, inter-cooled, soon-to-be-certified engine. As the lower end 540 is rated at 260 H.P., Lycoming must have installed some serious internals to get that much power.
I spoke to a very nice fellow at Lancair and he told me that just like the Lycoming TNIO 390X (210 H.P. turbo) "Specialty Engine" and the Lancair Legacy FG were made for each other, the same is the case for this new 540 turbo and the Lancair Legacy. He also said this about the iE squared:
"Yeah, I hear there's gonna be just one lever. Ya push it forward to go fast and back to go slow." Or words to that effect.
Up until now Lancair has offered the 390 turbo for its Legacy FG but no turbo for its Legacy...should be exciting.
I, however, am sticking to the RV-7A with the above-mentioned TNIO 390X Specialty Engine if I get the O.K. from my engineering consultant re: Vne margins + necessary modifications to widen them substantially. The RV is 400 pounds lighter than either Legacy and the thought of cramming a six-cylinder turbo into one just doesn't feel right. But I wouldn't mind being corrected.
Now, maybe you can give me your opinion on this:
If you had a choice between operating a Lancair Legacy FG with a 390 turbo or the carbon version of the same aircraft with the optional 540 ATMO @ 260 H.P., which would you take? The conditions are HHH, mountainous terrain, frequent bad weather and long distances. Some rough strips are as high as 9000' and as short as 2000 feet. Fuel economy is not a major concern but quick climbs out of mountain valleys are. The nominal cruise speed @ 8000' for either engine is adequate. As for max. cruise altitudes, the higher the better.
Both airplanes have had the fairings removed and are air conditioned.
It's a tall order but it sounds that like RVguy you know your stuff.
Thanks,
Richard
Richard
Last edited:
I'd take the 390 turbo, lighter with likely lower fuel burn up high and will do the same job above 5000MSL anyway. Then again, I'm a turbo guy.
I looked at the IE2 stuff at Reno and was very impressed. I talked with one of the engineers involved in the design as well. It will be very nice but the cost will be pretty high the way they are approaching it due to FAA requirements for FADECs- fail safe modes etc.
I looked at the IE2 stuff at Reno and was very impressed. I talked with one of the engineers involved in the design as well. It will be very nice but the cost will be pretty high the way they are approaching it due to FAA requirements for FADECs- fail safe modes etc.
richvidaurri
I'm New Here
You know, it's what I was thinking also but I wanted to know from someone with more experience in the matter.
The principle reason I don't want a huge engine in the RV-7A is weight. That much weight over the design parameters is bound to ruin the RVs slow flight / landing characteristics, the reason I decided on the RV in the first place. True, the 390 turbo weighs more than the recommended IO-360, 200 H.P., but not nearly as much as the six-cylinder.
Reading various test reports on the Glasair III (Lycoming 540 turbo) every writer mentions how hard to fly the thing is and especially how hard to land; and because the CG is up front, the glide ratio is very unfavorable. It is an unforgiving airplane. You can imagine what an engine like that would do to the 400-pound-lighter RV-7.
As for iE2, FADECS and the rest of it, while I am impressed with the technology, anything more than modern nav/com bothers me. Since the advent of calculators I have forgotten my times tables; since spell-check I have forgotten how to spell; what's next with all of this glass cockpit business? Will we forget how to fly and just be bus drivers like the airline pilots? No sir, not me. I'm happy to know where I am and where the terrain and weather are - after that I want to Fly The Plane.
Richard
Thanks for your help,
Richard
Last edited:
