A

AC Aero

Member
I would like to inform the wonderful members of VAF that ECI have now launched the new 409 engine, rated at 230 hp @ 2700

Kind regards

Andrew

AC KK
Tokyo
 
Andrew,

This is great news for the engine community. One question, is there a difference between the Superior XP408 AC and the ECI? Are the two companies making their own parts? The graphics on each website look identical. The only difference I saw was the Superior lists the displacement as 408 cu in and the ECI lists 408.6 cu in.

Good news either way!! Thanks for posting.
 
If nothing else, how cool would it be to have a 409 !

The Beach Boys thought it was cool, a lot of us did/do.
 
ECI is now moving forward with the kit, there are two flavors, parallel valve and angle valve kits.

Regards

Andrew
 
Dear Tobin,

To answer your question fully.
We were unable to conclude a deal Superior.
The kits are the same, for marketing purposes ECI are using the 409. The numbers have been rounded up.
There are now two flavors, parallel valve and angle valve.
For your ref, I am working at breakneck speed on the 614, a 540 upgrade kit that will come out next spring

Kind regards

Andrew
 
flyingriki said:
Meant the ECi weight.
Click to expand...

The Superior XP-408AC and the ECI XP-409AC are the exact same engine and so I'm assuming the same weight. Andrew said their deal with Superior fell through so thy're marketing it through ECI. Take a look at the component graphics on the two flyers from each company. They're exactly the same. Also, check out the numbers listed on each flyer. The displacement on both is 408.6 cu in. Andrew said ECI rounded up for marketing purposes.

http://www.eci.aero/pdf/409_Engine_IOX-409.pdf

http://www.xp-series.com/PDF/SAP0041-XP-408AC-Data-Sheet.pdf
 
disapointed

I was disapointed with both engines. I find 230 HP from 408.6 CID, I was expecting 265- 270 HP. For purpose built hot-rod engines, with 10.5-1 compression and modern technology, I expected that the power per cubic inch would exceed all certified engines. Instead it is similiar to a stock 200 HP IO-360 angle valve and much less than the 220 HP Franklin 350 or the 250 HP XP-400 SRE. For the type of engine it claims to be I would expect an SAE net horsepower greater than 257 which simply equals the 0.628 HP per CID of the very old but still undefeted Franklin. Russ
 
Unfortunately there are actually significant differences between the two flavors, cylinder head porting is different, crankcase wall thicknesses and the 409 does not use the RSA5 servo. Other than that, basically they are the same.
To answer the AK4x4 comments, the XP400 SRE (not made any more) produces max power at 3400rpm (information from unleased homepage), my 409 produces 230 @ 2700 in standard form, if we use the new racing heads with new port design, larger valves and a completely different combustion chamber designed to run on pump gas, then @ 3050rpm, may design limits, the engine power goes well North :) The Franklin 350 is a 6 cylinder engine and therfore you cannot really compare it .

Happy flying

Kind regards

Andrew
 
$0)

AK4x4 said:
I was disapointed with both engines. I find 230 HP from 408.6 CID, I was expecting 265- 270 HP. For purpose built hot-rod engines, with 10.5-1 compression and modern technology, I expected that the power per cubic inch would exceed all certified engines. Instead it is similiar to a stock 200 HP IO-360 angle valve and much less than the 220 HP Franklin 350 or the 250 HP XP-400 SRE. For the type of engine it claims to be I would expect an SAE net horsepower greater than 257 which simply equals the 0.628 HP per CID of the very old but still undefeted Franklin. Russ
Click to expand...

The 409 is not a hot rod engine. My premise in design was to increase performance, this means, increase reliability, increase durability, increase safetey and get a bit more power to boot.
Our racing only engines produce far more power than the simple 409 and these are I guess what you might call "hot rod"

Regards

Andrew
 
Any difference in HP in the angle valve?

You said ECI is doing the kits in an angle valve? Will that be more than 230hp? I had a Barrett angle valve in my Extra 230 that supposedly was 230hp.
 
To answer N355DW, the 409 comes in two flavors, parallel valve and angle valve. All testing to date has been on the pv type and currently rated at 230bhp @2700. The nine is designed to operate continuously @ 3050 rpm. The angle valve will produce +20bhp, however, please do not forget the slight weight penalty

Andrew
 
I am sorry, I do not know the price of the engine, this is something you need to discuss with ECI, however as a guide, it should be $39 ish

Regards

Andrew
 
Power?

Just wondering what, is the power output at 3050 rpm? Also is there a possabilty of an optional more aggressive cam? Russ
 
testing results?

Hey Andrew:

Have you run this engine with a suitable prop on it yet? I would like to see the results of a vibe analysis if possible. 230HP out of a 4 cyl @ 2700rpm will introduce some high amplitude stresses on the crank nose and prop flanges... There is a limit to what the crank will accept.

I remember ECI had to back off from an 0-320 they designed & tested for those exact reasons: TOO MUCH POWER! DOH!:eek:

How much does the crank flex, exactly?

This could be a wood or composite prop only engine? Questions, questions..

Carry on!
Mark
 
409 Engine

F1Boss said:
Hey Andrew:

Have you run this engine with a suitable prop on it yet? I would like to see the results of a vibe analysis if possible. 230HP out of a 4 cyl @ 2700rpm will introduce some high amplitude stresses on the crank nose and prop flanges... There is a limit to what the crank will accept.

I remember ECI had to back off from an 0-320 they designed & tested for those exact reasons: TOO MUCH POWER! DOH!:eek:

How much does the crank flex, exactly?

This could be a wood or composite prop only engine? Questions, questions..

Carry on!
Mark
Click to expand...

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your comments, they are pertinent as indeed the standard 360 crank (and various clones) do not lend themselves readily to simply "stroking". The original crank design is not strong enough. We went through almost two years of design, FE analysis and material testing to arrive at the design we now have that allows for a considerable safety margin well beyond any future programs that I have for this design.
Gas loading dominates the force vectors on the piston and rod assembly so it has been important to design light weight components, the piston 824 grams (29 ounces), pin 200 grams (7 ounces), rods 793 grams (27.9 ounces). This reduces reciprocating inertia and reduces stress loads on the bearings. The crankshaft itself is heavier than standard, this due to the tungsten heavy weights. I have uploaded some generic pics of the parts at www.ace-performance.com/vans_airforce
The valve train parts are not included with the "standard" 409, but they are part of the racing kit.
During testing of the engine, we completed a vibration survey and analyzed the expected worst case operating conditions. The peak stresses appear to be approximately one half of a 360 engine with highest resonance of 4th order followed by a 5th order. Of course the results will change depending on the type of prop. At the moment though I see little difficulty is using a metal prop.

I hope this goes someway to answering your questions.

Andrew
 
Nice work Andrew.

What's the thinking behind the circular counterweight flanges and flying webs?

Are those hex bolts the tungsten counterweights? Presumably you're using them for some internal balancing to reduce the loading on the crank?

Having 409 cubes gives a useful improvement in combustion chamber surface/volume ratio if you could get it to 8.5:1 CR. With the right cam and a CSU, it could be a very economical cruising engine (up high)
 
Andy_RR

Thanks for the compliment. The Hex bolts are tungsten counter weights and they do reduce crank loading.
There are actually several flavors of compression ratio and I match these to suit the original cam profiles we have.

Andrew
 
409

First one is in an overgrown Cub, installer said it is "turboprop smooth". Second one is headed for an RV-8 in December. Next?
 
bret said:
Seriously considering this power plant. Any new info?
Click to expand...

I just took delivery of one that was built for me by Aero Sport Power. Still in the crate and will probably be several months before I put it on the Bearhawk I'm building.

A friend of mine races sport class biplanes and is begging me to become and 'sponsor' and let him break the engine in for me...
 
Ive actually been contemplating taking the IO-540 out of my 8 for the 409. 30 less horsepower but I could take 150lbs off my plane. Thats a pretty good trade off.

Ill be installing one of ECI's new assembled 409 Titan Stroker engines on one of our teams RV-8 in just a few weeks. We look forward to the results and will report.
 
For $51K to lose 150lbs I'd run in place everywhere I went, remove everything out of the interior, strip the paint, go commando and barefoot. :)

In all seriousness I heard Superior never did a dyno pull on the 409 due to some sort of disagreement over published numbers. Please clarify Andrew why Superior chose to abandon the project.
 
Last edited:
409 kit and Superior

rocketbob
I don't usually discuss my business openly on the internet, however as there seems to be so much misinformation about, I thought it wise to put the facts in place once and for all.
1.) The performance figures quoted are accurate and were obtained under controlled conditions using a well defined protocol at ECI
2.) Superior did not abandon the project, we simply could not agree business terms. In fact I have assembled a complete 409 based on a Superior kit and it performed flawlessly.
3.) Pricing, this is a touchy subject for sure, but when you consider the performance of a 409 against the 540 it starts to make sense. If we we look at some basic engines and compare the power to weight ratio:
O-360-A3A 180hp 285lbs 0.63
ECI 409 230hp 285lbs 0.80 (with the new cylinders this goes to 0.85)
O-540-A1A5 250 396lbs 0.63
The wonderful aircraft that Vans produces will not all be suited to the 409, however I personally believe that the RV14 and the RV10 are very good potential applications.
When I designed these components, I wanted to make the lightest, strongest components I could and at the same time achieve much better fatigue characteristics. This has been realized with a very large margin, however, this comes at great cost as these parts are very expensive to manufacture, the piston alone has over 190 ops.
I am a flyer and I want to be comfortable that my parts will not only perform, but will ultimately be safe as I have the safety of others in my hands. www.ace-performance.com is my own venture as I wish to highlight my technology without putting all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak. As I release new products, I will publish in detail information about each product, this hopefully should all be in place by Osh.
I hope this answers your question.
Kind regards

Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.