Most HP for the buck.?

[rgbewley]

Originally Posted by grantcarruthers

What about a 540 with a nice light fixed pitch prop. Gain back some of the weight penalty, plenty of hp for take off, a bunch cheaper, just as fast as you want in cruise by picking the right pitch???

Cheapest option as far as I can tell from the thread so far. The engine is cheaper, the prop is cheaper, maintanence is cheaper, go as fast as you want by picking the right pitch for cruise.

So what would be the bottom line weight penalty with a wrung out 390 with a CS prop to get the power vs. a 540 loafing along with a FP prop?

Price difference for engine prop combo could be closing in on $15-20k going with a good overhaul 540 vs 390.

I'd love a 6 cylinder in the -8 if I ever get to making progress again, and right now money/budget is getting more and more important???????

Where are people coming up with the information that a 540 is cheaper than a 390 or angle head 360? Are you comparing a new engine to overhauled engine prices? Keep in mind I have no issue with buying an overhauled engine for an airplane, but an overhauled 540 and a new 390 are probably pretty comparable in price. I am generally not a fan of buying a mid-time engine and putting it into a new airplane that you have spent thousands of $$ and hours building unless it has been thoroughly inspected and the history of the engine is a known factor. That's the only way I can thinnk that the option of the 540 would be more cost effective at initial install.

The weight penalty on the engine side alone is 85-90 lbs depending on accessory configuration. What would the weight offset be with fp prop?

[Mel]

Rhonda,
I'm going to have to respectively disagree about putting a freshly overhauled or new engine on a new airplane. A mid-time engine has a history. Hopefully a good history, otherwise you probably wouldn't have bought it. A new or freshly OH engine has no history. The other big thing is that a new or fresh OH engine needs to be run hard for the first few hours. This is not the way a new airplane should be flown initially. The initially flight hours for a new airplane should be flown with very little concern for the engine, other than making sure the temps are all in the normal range.
When I first flew my -6, it was with a first run O-320 with over 2500 hrs on the clock. It had a good history and run sheet. I flew it for over 3 years without issues. When I did overhaul it (at over 2800 hrs), all parts more than met serviceable limits and it was still running great. The only reason I overhauled was to increase the hp.

[N62XS]

Originally Posted by rgbewley

The weight penalty on the engine side alone is 85-90 lbs depending on accessory configuration. What would the weight offset be with fp prop?

Rhonda:

Depending on the FP, metal or composite, maybe 30 pound savings over a Hartzell/prop gov combo. If the comparison is to a plane using an experimental composite CS may only see a 15 to 20 pound savings using a FP. Not trying to start a FP/CS Flame, but for some of us weight is only part of the equation in choosing to fly behind a FP prop.

FWIW

[Bill Wightman]

Originally Posted by rgbewley

Even if you go 11:1 on a parallel head 360, you won't get more than 200 hp out of it. The engine just won't produce that much power with the existing cylinder head.

Rhonda, back in about 1988, Monty built up an O-360 for me. It had 9:1, you flowed the cylinders, and added Bendix fuel injection to it.

On your dyno, once we got it up to 2700 RPM, I saw just over 200 HP. I took a picture of the dyno readout; its in a box somewhere... but the engine DID make 200HP.

Monty told me it might make 205 with a few more hours on it, and the cross-over exhaust. So, NICE job BPA, and the parallel valve O360 did crank out 200HP after all.

[DanH]

Bang for the buck? Custom M14 and carve your own fixed pitch; 315 hp @2400. If I told you how little money I have in it you would march on Williamsport and burn the building



Hey, bolting it to your RV wouldn't be a bit more experimental than V8's or rotaries. Weighs about the same as a 540.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Returning to reality.....I find it interesting to see new 390's compared to used engines, overhauled or not, hand grenades or not. Looks like the benchmark.

Now consider long term cost. It's a new, heavy case engine with pendulum absorbers and low compression. Easy on props, easy on starters, likely to accept any future av fuel, doesn't require any airframe mods to hang on a 7 or 8, and will probably make TBO.

[N62XS]

All the car engine guys and Todd will be happy, its looks similar to an airplane engine, its simple technology, its air cooled and can be built for under $40 per HP.

Most of all, Ralph Nader HATES it!

CORVAIR!!!!

http://www.corvaircraft.com/

Todd could strap three of these on his RV-10 for under 10K.

Just having some fun! Keepin it fun!

[ajay]

Originally Posted by DanH

Bang for the buck? Custom M14 and carve your own fixed pitch; 315 hp @2400. If I told you how little money I have in it you would march on Williamsport and burn the building



Hey, bolting it to your RV wouldn't be a bit more experimental than V8's or rotaries. Weighs about the same as a 540.

which is why i'm surprised someone hasn't tried to bolt one on an rv10?
If they have an engine mouint and cowling for a rocket, how hard would it be to put one on an rv10? Now we're talking $$/wt/hp that makes sense.

ajay

[TSwezey]

Originally Posted by Hard Knox

All the car engine guys and Todd will be happy, its looks similar to an airplane engine, its simple technology, its air cooled and can be built for under $40 per HP.

Most of all, Ralph Nader HATES it!

CORVAIR!!!!

http://www.corvaircraft.com/

Todd could strap three of these on his RV-10 for under 10K.

Just having some fun! Keepin it fun!

I could make a Tri-motor RV-10 and get my multi-engine rating.

[rvpilot]

[N62XS]

Originally Posted by rvpilot

I can't wait for the Corsair to arrive! I think we will take out that noisy radial and install a LS9. It is the best HP for the buck and is SUUUPPPERRRcharged!