VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Traditional Aircraft Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-03-2007, 11:29 PM
rv969wf's Avatar
rv969wf rv969wf is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Beaver, OK
Posts: 447
Default HP

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan
Or just keep on leaning further...

Dag bernit Dan...you just couldn't let a thread go without the letters "L", "O", and "P" coming into play?!
OK, I've done the lean of peak at high alltitude,,,,,,, but I don't like flying slow..... Lean of Peak takes away Horsepower and my engine runs very cold moving air and not enough fuel through my engine.... If I run LOP I'm seeing CHT's around 275F and I can't do this,, so I keep it fat or should I say at 75-100F rich of peak and make power and speed.

I understand the LOP..... at High manifold Pressure....I've seen 30.5" at 800 MSL and OMG, please keep it 125-150F rich with what I'm running. At alltitude.... say 8,000 ft YES I bring it back but with in reason.
__________________
Alan (AJ) Judy
Beaver, OK in NO MANS LAND
RV-6 IO360A1B6 C/S Hartz 200HP ?
Also Fly North American NAVIONs
Race car engine builder/Machinist/Fabricator 1982--present.

Last edited by rv969wf : 04-03-2007 at 11:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-04-2007, 12:31 AM
scott7A scott7A is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 16
Default

If you want a light plane, it doesn't mean you have to forgo the angle valve. There are lots of ways to save weight other than putting in a lighter engine. My IO-390 and Hartzell powered RV-7A weighed in at 1078lbs.

Scott
N653S RV-7A
91 hours
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-04-2007, 01:48 PM
kevinsky18's Avatar
kevinsky18 kevinsky18 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Posts: 163
Default

Just to tip this thread back on track.

I have one outstanding question and that's the difference between the different IO-360-M engines.

I'm looking at Aerosports pricing page. http://www.aerosportpower.com/Prices.htm
and there is a $2000 price difference between a IO-360-M (M1) Constant Speed with Lycoming roller tappets and an IO-360-M1B with same roller tapets.

I looked at the Lycoming link for the differences in engines and I can't seem to see any except I think the M1B has a prop govenor in a different spot. . .
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Kevin Horton's Avatar
Kevin Horton Kevin Horton is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott7A
My IO-390 and Hartzell powered RV-7A weighed in at 1078lbs.
Where those recently calibrated scales? If so, that is an impressively low weight.
__________________
Kevin Horton
RV-8
Moses Lake, WA, USA
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-04-2007, 04:10 PM
Bill Palmer Bill Palmer is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 387
Thumbs up Engine Weights

I copied this off the Yahoo Lycoming Group:

Re: Engine weights

--- In lycoming@yahoogroups.com, "Carsten <cschanche@w...>"
<cschanche@w...> wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> Does anyone have the weight comparisons between the O-320 and O-360,
> or IO-320 and IO-360?
>
> Carsten
> RV-7A wings

My Lycomming "DATA PAK" from 2002 Airventure in Oshkosh lists the
following dry weights:

Model Comp Ratio HP RPM Dry Wt

O-320-A,E 7.00:1 140/150 2450/2700 244 lb
O-320-B,D 8.50:1 160 2700 255
IO-320-B,C 8.50:1 160 2700 259
O-360-A 8.50:1 180 2700 265
O-360-F 8.50:1 180 2700 270
IO-360-B 8.50:1 180 2700 270
IO-360-A,C 8.70:1 200 2700 293
LIO-360-C 8.70:1 200 2700 306
TO-360-C 7.30:1 210 2575 343
TO-360-F 7.30:1 210 2575 343
TIO-360-C 7.30:1 210 2575 348

I hope this info helps.
Dave Koopmans (Non-pilot, studying aviation options)

Conclusions?:

Dry Weight Difference = 293 (IO-360-A,C 200hp angle valve) minus 270 (IO-360-B[&M?] 180hp parallel valve) = 23 pounds for 20(+) more horsepower. Not a bad deal in favor of the 200hp engine (almost +1hp per pound). You have to decide if the increased horsepower (mainly better climb performance) is worth the extra $8K (Van's new prices) and 23 pounds.

(Note: Used/Overhauled 200hp engines are usually much better deals, dollar-wise, than brand new ones!)

Good Luck!

Bill Palmer
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-05-2007, 02:07 PM
mlwynn mlwynn is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Ramon, CA
Posts: 402
Default Counter weights?

This has been a very useful thread for me. I am also trying to make the engine decision.

Can someone explain the difference between a counterweighted and a non-counterweighted engine to me? Where are the counterweights, what is their function and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Regards,

Michael Wynn
RV8 Fuselage
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-05-2007, 03:25 PM
osxuser's Avatar
osxuser osxuser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,484
Default

Wahooo, how'd I miss this one?

For the original question the REASON that the website doesn't say IO-360-M1B is because the B refers to the ignition type for a Lycoming, and the ignition type is an option on their engines, hence the IO-360-M1 designation (Which lycoming doesn't use, all their designations are three characters in the form (*#*). The first letter * indications power train configuration, the number designates specific modifications to that basic configuration, and the last letter indicates ignition type.

To clarify, the M1 and M1B designations can be used interchangably in this conversation for all intents and purposes.

Now for LOP... wait, I'll shutup now.
__________________
Stephen Samuelian, CFII, A&P IA, CTO
RV4 wing in Jig @ KPOC
RV7 emp built
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-05-2007, 04:08 PM
srv srv is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 96
Default If money is an object

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Palmer
I copied this off the Yahoo Lycoming Group:

Re: Engine weights

Conclusions?:

Dry Weight Difference = 293 (IO-360-A,C 200hp angle valve) minus 270 (IO-360-B[&M?] 180hp parallel valve) = 23 pounds for 20(+) more horsepower. Not a bad deal in favor of the 200hp engine (almost +1hp per pound). You have to decide if the increased horsepower (mainly better climb performance) is worth the extra $8K (Van's new prices) and 23 pounds.

(Note: Used/Overhauled 200hp engines are usually much better deals, dollar-wise, than brand new ones!)

Good Luck!

Bill Palmer
Reputedly, the -M's horizontal induction gets you a couple of HP, so they say 180+. But I'd like to note that the 200's extra horsepower comes out to $400/HP. That's probably a couple hundred hours of gas.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-05-2007, 04:42 PM
rv969wf's Avatar
rv969wf rv969wf is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Beaver, OK
Posts: 447
Default Cranks

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlwynn
This has been a very useful thread for me. I am also trying to make the engine decision.

Can someone explain the difference between a counterweighted and a non-counterweighted engine to me? Where are the counterweights, what is their function and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Regards,

Michael Wynn
RV8 Fuselage
Hi Michael and others,
A counterweighted crank has tuned centrifugal pendulums, commonly referred to as crankshaft counterweights, they provide vibration absorption. The pendulum consists of weights attached to the crank webs in a manner which permits limited movement. When the shaft accelerated under the the action of cyclic torque fluctuations, the pendulum bobs lag behind and counteracts some of the energy imparted by the increased torque. The tuned pendulums on the crank reduce vibration amplitude to almost zero over a wide range of RPM. High compression pistons will change these frequencies. Some or most NON-counterweighted cranks are limited to a certain RPM range and that is why a NON-counterweighted should not be ran at certain RPM's over an extended period of time.

One example is an IO-360A1A 200HP engine with high compression 8:7:1 pistons and a 180HP NON-counterweighted crank, this engine should not be ran at extended periods of time at say 2,350 rpm, it is designed to be ran at say around the 2,450-2,550 rpm range because of the tuning/vibration frequencies. These are only examples and one should contact the engine builder and or Lycoming at recommended RPM ranges and limits.
Every engine has a sweet RPM that it likes to be ran at for smoothness and longevity.

Much of this can be studied in the Sky Ranch Engineering Manual as there are over 50 pages explaining all of this.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong or not, but the last I knew Lycoming is the only manufacture of a Counterweighted crank for the 360's and it is not cheap nor are the rods and rod bolts. The connecting rods are much bigger and the rod bolts are a stretch type bolt. Superior, ECI, etc sells the NON-counterweighted cranks but not the counterweighted.

The main reason I installed the counterweighted Lyco crank in my IO-360 angle valve is because I'm running 10:50 compression pistons and a NON-Counterweighted crank running the compression that high, the engine would not last as long under certain conditions.

My -6 originally had a 180HP crank in the IO-360A1A and after installing the Counterweighted crank I did notice a difference in vibration levels inside the cockpit. The instrument panel with all those $$$$$ radios and guages don't buzz or vibrate like before. It is very smooth over a wide range of RPM's and I'm very happy with it. I guess it depends on your pocket book and how you want to fly the plane.

Someone chime in with other comments if you see something I stated is not correct.


Hope this helps to explain your questions.
__________________
Alan (AJ) Judy
Beaver, OK in NO MANS LAND
RV-6 IO360A1B6 C/S Hartz 200HP ?
Also Fly North American NAVIONs
Race car engine builder/Machinist/Fabricator 1982--present.

Last edited by rv969wf : 04-05-2007 at 07:23 PM. Reason: typo and added a couple of things
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-05-2007, 06:39 PM
dan's Avatar
dan dan is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 2,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv969wf
Someone tell me if I'm wrong or not, but the last I knew Lycoming is the only manufacture of a Counterweighted crank for the 360's and it is not cheap nor are the rods and rod bolts. The connecting rods are much bigger and the rod bolts are a stretch type bolt. Superior, ECI, etc sells the NON-counterweighted cranks but not the counterweighted.
What does Superior put on the XP-400? Is it counterweighted? Beefed up? I know next to nothing about the XP-400 and I'm genuinely curious. A little bird told me it's the same form factor as the angle valve Lyc IO-360, but I have my doubts about whether "same form factor" is truly the "same." Somebody once told me that about the IO-390 vs. IO-360-A, and I now know that's not true either.
__________________
Dan Checkoway RV-7
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 09:18 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.