wannaRV said: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.
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.
No one in their right mind is going to cruise in an 8A at full power in the "levels". 55-65% would be more like it. VANs strongly recommneds against any turbocharging of his airplanes, citing Vne & flutter concerns. He then goes on to publish a scary little chart that uses as its model engine a 275HP machine that no one was talking about anyway.
Richard
I went back and re-read the article and I don't understand how you missed it. The italicized text under the Vne chart clearly states that the 260 HP engine is 260 HP from the ground up. And that's the engine no one in their right mind would install in an RV-A.
Richard
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.
Turbocharging is an easy way to pick up 10-25 knots without using as much fuel as you would down low.
I am considering the purchase of a used RV-8A or an RV-3B which I will strip to bare bones and rebuild to my specifications. I'm not sure yet about the engine; ergo, this question: If I pop in one of those hot rebuilt IO-360s or IO-390s, how high will I be able to fly before performance falls-off noticeably?
OR, lets say I go with the new Lycoming TIO-390-EXP with integral turbo-normalizer. Do you think I will have trouble keeping the ship straight and level up in the Class A levels? Are you able to fly through any weather at all? It's the awfully light wing loading I'm concerned with.
Thanks,
Richard Vidaurri
You know, I've asked this question on three different threads and you're the only pilot who's answered it. I can't thank you enough.
Best,
Richard Vidaurri
I was speaking to a tech at Lancair yesterday and asked him about the Vne of the Legacy RG with the IO-540: "It's 274," he said.
"274? But that's less than the cruise speed."
"Yeah, so what? They take them up to 400 MPH at Reno."
"Oh.'
Now that concerns me about the RVs; I'll have to do more research before I decide one way or another.
Thanks for the help...and the laughs.
Ciao forever,
Richard Vidaurri
Hey Richard,
Why the difference? For whatever reason, the aluminum construction used on the Van's models is reputedly more susceptible to flutter -
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.
You know, RVguy, you pretty well hit that nail right where it belongs. 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 all the way down through the Sierra Nevadas of California and then the Sierra Madre ranges of Mexico.
A good example of Mexico 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 (or 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, where the spectacular beauty is found, 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 think I'll take one of those TIO 390-EXP Lycomings in an RV-7A or -8A. They are the latest and the best.
But just the same and once again, I would like to thank you all for your comments;
Richard Vidaurri
Alhambra, California
"There Ain't no replacement for Displacement"
Turbo or compression you need Cubes
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.
Nope, just trying to put this cubic inch myth to rest. Technology trumps displacement every time in racing ..... blaa
George, you really should fly up to Reno and take this in. I think you'd love it.
Nope, just trying to put this cubic inch myth to rest. Technology trumps displacement every time in racing ..... blaa
George, you really should fly up to Reno and take this in. I think you'd love it.
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.
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.
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.