What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Titan R409 & EFii Fuel and Ignition Tests, Success...

Relentless

Well Known Member
Busy week at Titan Engines. Bart, Sue, and I are rounding third with Oshkosh preparations. I have so much to share but Ill focus this thread on status of R409 testing and experience with EFii system on R409. Over the past few weeks we have been focusing our efforts on fine tuning peak performance on R409 with AX50 cylinders. The new chamber is much more efficient than traditional cylinders so we wanted to get the most out them. One problem we where running into was lack of fuel at the top end. We tried our own ECi fuel system as well as brand B fuel injection. With these we were able to reach 229hp at 2800rpm and about 434lbs of torque at 2400, impressive but not quite what we expected. I had recently sold a X370 engine to a guy that wanted the new EFii system. So we agreed to install it for him with the assistance of Robert Paisley from Protech and run it on the dyno to break in engine. To our surprise the system was easy to install and even easier to fine tune the customers engine. After this experience I decided to order up a Dual EFii system for my RV8 and test it on the R409. Good decision, the power came up to 234hp and the torque jumped to 454lbs at 2400 rpm... Bart has been :D for the past two days and I can't wait to put this back on the RV8 this weekend, note the time of this tread:confused:.

Here are some pics installing a traditional cooling box on R409. I thought it would take massive modifications but a few carbon pieces and it went on quite nicely. That box has to be tight with this much horsepower. Stay tuned or better yet come buy Titan booth 268 in front of Building A at Oshkosh. If all goes well this week my Titan Rv8 will be center stage sporting a new R409 and all new EFii electric fuel and ignition system. Thanks Robert for pulling out all the stops to get me one of your systems in such short time!

Note total engine weight right off dyno 293.6lbs! To remind ya'll, the Lycoming angle valve 390 we tested a few months ago weighted in at 331lbs without baffling and only made 205hp :(
2hd8zrs.jpg


Efii system on dyno
fo0rxx.jpg


R409 234hp at 2780rpm and 454lbs torque at 2400rpm
2ym8so1.jpg


Fitting standard 360 Vans airbox to AX50 cylinders
25849pu.jpg


One layup required on #4 cylinder, fits nice!
2wnz9co.jpg


Carbon gap seals on bottom of cylinders works great
148bxc.jpg
 
Outstanding!

Engine development has many demons that have to be tamed, and when good results present themselves it is quite rewarding. Smile at your accomplishments, congratulations to the development TEAM. Keep up the good work, this is shaping up nicely. Very nicely.
 
Fuel system

In your pictures I can see the EFii ignition, but I do not see the EFii fuel injectors or return line. Do you have pictures of the fuel system?
 
One problem we where running into was lack of fuel at the top end. We tried our own ECi fuel system as well as brand B fuel injection.

The application would push the top of the RSA5 chart, or at least the one published in the 390 manual. Need what, 130 PPH to be safe?

If I remember correctly Robert uses 60 PPH Siemens injectors, so there's no lack of overhead...the system can reach the necessary fuel flow with just some button pushing. Definitely nice for development and racing engines.

Didn't try an Airflow Performance FM-150? Spec says good to 275 hp.

With these we were able to reach 229hp at 2800rpm and about 434lbs of torque at 2400....the power came up to 234hp and the torque jumped to 454lbs at 2400 rpm.

HP up 2%. Was that also at 2800?

Let's remember the RSA-5 is quite restrictive, in terms of manifold pressure loss. Replacing an RSA-5 (or similar) with the big BBK-brand throttle body Robert uses (http://www.bbkperformance.com) should pick up 2%. The same could be said for switching to an RSA-10, or an Airflow Performance FM-200.

Note total engine weight right off dyno 293.6lbs!

That's nice!
 
Last edited:
EFii R409 going on RV8, smooth install.

23m5zt3.jpg


This past weekend I attempted to install R409 engine and new dual EFii system along with Buss Manager. I am very impressed with the buss manager. It simplifies all electrical management of dual batteries and offers a third emergency over-ride in the SHTF scenario.

Hook up each battery to the Manager, add emergency bypass switch, moved the switches I had for Lightspeed dual ignition to the buss, added system key switch, and fire it up.

The dual fuel pump system was a bit more work, I had to remove the boost pump but luckily it was the same model as the EFii and rework the fuel lines to firewall. Hooking up relay and connection to buss manager was easy. The Buss manager actually monitors the fuel pressure and automatically switches the backup fuel pump in the event the primary pump starts to loose pressure. One light to mount in panel that indicates if the primary pump is running.

The rest of the cables are easy and supper simple to hook up in RV8. I will need to extend a few wires for the NXT system Robert is building for Relentless! Here is the custom crank trigger they made for my new GTSIO race engine in NXT. Can't wait to run that monster! Can you say 700+hp with dual electric ignition and fuel injection!:D

2zgdh7n.jpg
 
Interesting stuff.

I am with DanH that you probably are needing 130-140PPH, so perhaps you are out of the RSA range. In any case you will make the HP with less but the ICP's might be a little high.

So from a design point of view what is the designed ICP you are working to and what were you achieving while under test?
 
I notice your HP numbers are at 2400 rpm. Any reason you did not test at 2700? Looks like the engine could be close to 250hp at the higher number.
 
HP was at 2800RPM, Torque was at 2400RPM. As for the RSA5 being out of range, they use that servo on 260HP IO-540's, so that hardly seems probable.
 
I notice your HP numbers are at 2400 rpm. Any reason you did not test at 2700? Looks like the engine could be close to 250hp at the higher number.
Look closely at analysis of any engine, (auto, airplane, rocket - ok, just kidding on that one) and you will see that the RPM reported for the max HP and for the max TORQUE are not the same. The torque curve and the HP curve are not the same, and in some cases quite dramatically different from each other. Max torque is going to be at a different RPM than max HP on pretty much any engine you look at.
 
Look closely at analysis of any engine, (auto, airplane, rocket - ok, just kidding on that one) and you will see that the RPM reported for the max HP and for the max TORQUE are not the same. The torque curve and the HP curve are not the same, and in some cases quite dramatically different from each other. Max torque is going to be at a different RPM than max HP on pretty much any engine you look at.

If memory serves, HP=(torque X RPM)/5225.
 
If memory serves, HP=(torque X RPM)/5225.

Both of you are correct. You can use the above formula to find the torque at the RPM for rated HP. That torque is unlikely to be the maximum put out by the engine. At maximum torque point in the power curve, the rpm is low enough that the product is somewhat less than the rated HP.

If you run the numbers from the OP, you see the first test has a pretty flat torque curve. It only went down a few ft-lbs from 2400 to 2800 rpm but it still went down as expected. The second run had a bigger torque peak of about 20 ft-lbs over the 2800 rpm value.

If we want the thread to wander, maybe some commentary on operation of engines at torque peak and the related economy.

Mr. Lane? Lane? Beuler? :)
 
Last edited:
If memory serves, HP=(torque X RPM)/5225.

Both of you are correct. You can use the above formula to find the torque at the RPM for rated HP. That torque is unlikely to be the maximum put out by the engine. At maximum torque point in the power curve, the rpm is low enough that the product is somewhat less than the rated HP.

If you run the numbers from the OP, you see the first test has a pretty flat torque curve. It only went down a few ft-lbs from 2400 to 2800 rpm but it still went down as expected. The second run had a bigger torque peak of about 20 ft-lbs over the 2800 rpm value.

If we want the thread to wander, maybe some commentary on operation of engines at torque peak and the related economy.

Mr. Lane? Lane? Beuler? :)
Sig600, I do understand that formula. However, what I am discussing is the MAXIMUM HP and the MAXIMUM TORQUE. Those two MAXIMUM points are going to occur at different RPM points on their respective analysis curves. I have yet to see an engine who's MAX HP point corresponded exactly to its MAX TORQUE point at the exact same RPM.
 
I am building a 14, wings and emp done since February, and wonder how the 409 fits the 14? I understand it's lighter giving me weight and balance adjustments but what about size and shape? How much(if any) cowl and baffle modification will be necessary?
 
I am building a 14, wings and emp done since February, and wonder how the 409 fits the 14? I understand it's lighter giving me weight and balance adjustments but what about size and shape? How much(if any) cowl and baffle modification will be necessary?

Did you ever get an answer on this Jim?
 
Back
Top