VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:15 PM
sailvi767 sailvi767 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,166
Default Setting max RPM

I am going to have my prop dynamically balanced soon. I want to also double check my rpm accuracy at that time and reset the maximum rpm on the CS prop. The engine is a IO540-A1D5 with the crankshaft weights moved to the C4B5 configuration. Lycoming lists 2575 as the rated RPM but others tell me that?s for the HP rating in the specific application for the original engine and that 2700 is the correct max RPM. Various configurations of the IO540 use 2400 to 2800 as the rated max. Where should this engine be set? I am also curious about the rated HP. The A1D5 appears to be rated at 290Hp and the C4B5 at 250. Both at 2575 RPM.
George
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:09 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,027
Default

Some engine models rated at lower HP were rated that way because they were built to also be slightly lighter in net weight. This was done by using lighter weight internal components. I don't know much about the specifics but I think there is sometimes a difference in crankshaft and connecting rods.
These lighter engines have been operated at the higher HP RPMs in many aerobatic airplanes (they wanted as light as possible with as much HP as possible).
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:39 PM
RONSIM's Avatar
RONSIM RONSIM is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Largo, FL
Posts: 1,027
Default Our C4B5 was out of an Aztec and rated

at 250hp at 2600 and 260hp at 2700 --

Ron
__________________
RV-10 Co-built, maintained, flown (sold)
RV-8A Maintained and flown (Sold)
RV-6A Bought and Flying (N177RV), upgrades $$$
IO360, 180HP/CS, AFS 5600T, D10A, G650, G430, G327, ADS-B, VIZ385 AP
Very Happy Contributor
Comm, SMEL, CFII, A&P
Based at KCLW (Clearwater, FL)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-20-2019, 07:37 PM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,283
Default

It's experimental you can set what you want, with a big caveat. 2700 or 2775 rpm is not a big deal. If you want to be conservative 2700. You did your research well.

You make more horsepower and higher RPM. +75 rpm is a few HP, not a big difference. Prop efficiency? Swinging a big two blade prop you might actually lose efficiency at higher RPM. Smaller diameter 3 bladed prop might actually benefit from the higher RPM?

On the general topic of revving your engine to redline or over a lot of experimental airplane builders and operators over rev all the time without a lot of thought. Reno air race paticipants over Rev their engines by several 100's Rpm over red line. However in Lycoming overhaul manual it has hard limits with mandatory inspections for over-revving, up to and including overhaul. I forgot what that RPM limits are. I recall 5% over is the point they recommend teardown? Someone know. 5% would be 2970 rpm. I know folks that do that all the time. I'm sure Lyc is conservative as they should be.

Will you hurt your engine at 2775 or reduce its longevity or reliability? No

On the smaller 4 bangers with the Hartzell constant speed props there's an issue of RPMs and harmonic's at given RPMs. I don't think that's an issue on the 6 cylinder with the counterweight crank.

On my O-360 I set slightly above 2700 rpm and often manually dial it back to 2700 for take off or climb. If I want a little extra I can push the RPM up a bit. It actually is smoother at the higher RPM.

You mention instrument accuracy. With more modern electronic engine monitoring I'm sure it's a lot better than the old days with the mechanical tachometers. However that's a good thing to check.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767

2020 Dues Paid

Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 07-20-2019 at 07:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-20-2019, 07:46 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 5,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
Some engine models rated at lower HP were rated that way because they were built to also be slightly lighter in net weight. This was done by using lighter weight internal components. I don't know much about the specifics but I think there is sometimes a difference in crankshaft and connecting rods.
These lighter engines have been operated at the higher HP RPMs in many aerobatic airplanes (they wanted as light as possible with as much HP as possible).
Just went through this converting a C1B5 to C4B5. Lyv parts manual shows all key parts to be identical beteween the C4B5 (250 hp) and the D4A5 (260 hp)

Whoever set the spec just used the same engne, but derated the max hp by limiting the max rpm. It was clear that this was not due to parts limitations

Larry
__________________
N64LR - RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
N11LR - RV-10, Flying as of 12/2019

Last edited by lr172 : 07-20-2019 at 07:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-20-2019, 08:02 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lr172 View Post
Just went through this converting a C1B5 to C4B5. Lyv parts manual shows all key parts to be identical beteween the C4B5 (250 hp) and the D4A5 (260 hp)

Whoever set the spec just used the same engne, but derated the max hp by limiting the max rpm. It was clear that this was not due to parts limitations

Larry
Absolutely correct, both from my research and from the folks at BPE.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:59 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lr172 View Post
Just went through this converting a C1B5 to C4B5. Lyv parts manual shows all key parts to be identical beteween the C4B5 (250 hp) and the D4A5 (260 hp)

Whoever set the spec just used the same engne, but derated the max hp by limiting the max rpm. It was clear that this was not due to parts limitations

Larry
Yea, I should have read the original post a bit more carefully.
There are lighter versions of parallel valve 540 but I think they are all the carburetored 235 HP versions.
It is these parts that I was thinking about and know have been used to build custom lightweight engines in the past.
I agree that if it is known that it is internally a totally standard IO engine version then the only difference is the RPM adjustment.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-21-2019, 07:25 AM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 5,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
Yea, I should have read the original post a bit more carefully.
There are lighter versions of parallel valve 540 but I think they are all the carburetored 235 HP versions.
It is these parts that I was thinking about and know have been used to build custom lightweight engines in the past.
I agree that if it is known that it is internally a totally standard IO engine version then the only difference is the RPM adjustment.
I thought that was what you ment and almost mentioned that. While I haven't researched them, I would suspect that there are differences, including lower compression.

Larry
__________________
N64LR - RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
N11LR - RV-10, Flying as of 12/2019
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 11:26 PM.


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.