Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:39 AM - STC for IO-540 conversion (willis robison)
2. 05:55 AM - Re: STC for IO-540 conversion (Chris)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: wet pump vs. dry (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 06:48 AM - Re: STC's for IO-540 (Barry Collman)
5. 06:50 AM - Re: STC for IO-540 conversion (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 06:54 AM - Re: wet pump vs. dry (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 07:09 AM - Re: STC for IO-540 conversion (Chris)
8. 08:13 AM - Re: STC for IO-540 conversion (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 08:47 AM - Re: STC for IO-540 conversion (Chris)
10. 12:12 PM - Re: STC for IO-540 conversion (BobsV35B@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | STC for IO-540 conversion |
Thanks Chris,
-
Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.- Although
I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the drawings, grati
s for those who also needed a conversion.
-
wer=0A=0A=0A
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC for IO-540 conversion |
willis robison wrote:
> Thanks Chris,
>
> Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.
> Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the
> drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
>
A good starting point might be to find a Cherokee-6/300 in a bone yard.
You'd at least have the correct engine and a mount that could be
modified. There was also a company that had an stc to put TIO-540-J2BD
350hp engines on the flat nacelle Commanders. I assume they built their
own mount and it might be closer to what's needed. Anyone know for sure
how much the firewall mount points differ between a bathtub and
streamline Commander?
chris
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wet pump vs. dry |
Good Morning John,
Thank you for the very kind words.
I have tried to fit a Commander meeting into my schedule. So far, other
commitments have kept me away. Haven't flown a Commander for over forty
years, but I really enjoyed the early ones.
Being a Beech dealer in the sixties and seventies cut into my Commander
flying, but the memories have always held tight to my heart.
Thanks again and I am sure you will have a blast.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 12:17:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
A very interesting conversation. I would love to go all electric, althoug
h
I have boots on my 500B. They're shot, and I need new ones. I will get
them, as I consider them valuable emergency equipment. I don't have much
problem with oil on the nacelles etc. and would keep my wet pumps anyway
since
they rarely (and almost never catastrophically) fail.
Actually, though, what this tells me is that I REALLY need to meet Old Bo
b
& Bill Hamilton sometime soon and really keep my ears open. At 41, I will
certainly be finished flying before I learn all the things that you two
have forgotten already. It would be quite a treat to listen to the two of
you
having a conversation. Any chance you can make it to Reno, CA USA for the
Commander fly-in? I'll have cold beer waiting! Ilinois is close
enough....Bill, you're in Australia, right? Perhaps Russell or Richard can
pack you
with them when they come?
Cheers,
/John
____________________________________
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Hami
lton
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Hello, Bob,
I certainly agree about dirty bellies (free corrosion proofing) and if it
was a one very careful owner/operator, maybe, but our stats. are pretty
conclusive. At least with any Commander, not too much of a problem gettin
g at
the underside of the engine cowls. I have oil/air separators, and the
modified breathers, because of the Cleveland brakes.
As for your other comments, more than a grain of truth, and on my 500A,
I
have done serious surgery on the instruments, so that I have a split
between electric and vacuum instruments.
The main AI is 115/400 from a large inverter, with a standby inverter jus
t
big enough to run the AI only, there is a 2.5 inch standby AI on 28v dc
from a hot battery bus (only a cb, not through the electrical master) and
a
28v DC turn and slip, off a main bus. The CDI is a Collins PN 101, also
running the RMI and the A/P heading. On the right side, the vacuum AI is
connected to the Century 111, so I=99m not normally looking at the
same attitude
indication as the auto-pilot, and there is a vacuum DG for anybody flying
from the right seat --- which has full panel except for the bat and ball
.
Bottom line, I have to lose both alternators, both vacuum pumps and run
the batteries (Hawker Power Cells) flat to not have at least one AI.
I am really looking forward to getting the old girl back in the air.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
PS: I am hoping to be able to mount the main inverter, a big sod, weights
about 28 lbs., far enough back that I can fly two up without ballast in
the baggage locker, they all go better if you can keep close to the aft
CG. I
am also looking at a field mod to use auto HID lights for the landing
lights, then I can have real flamethrowers, without temperature/overheati
ng
worries ------ you never know what wildlife =93 two or four legs --
- you are
likely to find, some of the place I go.
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@
aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Good Evening Bill,
Interesting conversation concerning vacuum pumps. Personally, I like the
dry pumps. They are lighter cheaper, and do not throw oil all over the be
lly
or nacelle as the case may be.
Properly set up wet pumps with a good oil separator can run reasonably
clean, but most are rather dirty. The dry pumps can be monitored and, if
changed when they start to throw carbon, can have quite high reliability
numbers. When mounted on a twin, the reliability is excellent. If you nee
d a
pneumatic system to operate boots, that is another story, but I really li
ke
being all electric!
On my own airplane, I have eliminated all of the pneumatic instruments an
d
gone all electric. Vacuum instruments are, very truthfully, World War One
technology. They were bordering on antiquity by WWII.
I do not have any knowledge about certification problems with Commanders,
but, for most aircraft, going all electric is easy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/18/2009 10:14:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes:
Garry,
I can only echo Moe=99s recommendation 110%, stay as far away from
carbon
vane dry pumps as you can, not only a high propensity to failure, but the
y =9C
fail hard=9D, seemingly at random, no gradual loss of vacuum.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe-rossp
istons
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Gary,
Please stay with the wet pump. The dry pumps have a very high failure
rate, whereas the wet pumps seem to last almost indefinitely. With the
dry
pumps you should never turn the prop backward (which sometimes happens whe
n
shutting the engine down) whereas, with the wet pumps it makes no
difference.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680Fp
Proud Holder of The Golden Pedal Award
From: _Gary Moshluk_ (mailto:gmosh@charter.net)
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Has anyone switched from wet vacuum pumps to the dry variety. A rebuild
of my recently failed wet pump was quoted at $800.00. Relatively speakin
g,
a brand new dry pump looks to be a bargain @ $500.00
My vac unit for the left engine is mounted on the bottom end of a "T"
which also drives the hydraulic pump. I'm considering swapping the wet
pump
off the right engine -which is mounted directly to the accessory case -
and
replace that pump with the dry unit. By mounting the dry pump on the rig
ht
engine it would attach to the back of the engine in the conventional
manner.
Comments? Recommendations...My Commander is a straight 560 with GO-480B
engines
Gary
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matr
onic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
========================
===========
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
========================
===========
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
____________________________________
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC's for IO-540 |
I found no STC'd examples of a 560 series or 680 series Commanders with
IO-540's.
I did find that the factory tested a fuel-injected GSO-480 on a 680 and
an IGSO-540 on it after conversion to a 680E.
Later, on another 680E, STC SA439WE was granted for installation of
IGSO-480's.
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: willis robison
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:13 AM
Subject: Commander-List: STC's for IO-540
Has anyone STC'd IO-540's onto a 560 or 680? Are there any
companies capable?
thanks
bud
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC for IO-540 conversion |
Good Morning Chris,
You already know I am an unabashed lover of the Continental IO-550-B. I
have always thought that the 550 would be a natural to replace the
Continentals that were used in a few Commander 500-A's many years ago.
How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with
IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
I am not at all familiar with how the IO-470-M mounts. Is it the same as
most 470s? If so, the 550 should be a drop in replacement. Always nice to
have an engine with many users that is also in current production.
Just musing, but that IS always fun. Now, if we could just get rid of the
FAA ---?---
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:55:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
cschuerm@cox.net writes:
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
willis robison wrote:
> Thanks Chris,
>
> Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.
> Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the
> drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
>
A good starting point might be to find a Cherokee-6/300 in a bone yard.
You'd at least have the correct engine and a mount that could be
modified. There was also a company that had an stc to put TIO-540-J2BD
350hp engines on the flat nacelle Commanders. I assume they built their
own mount and it might be closer to what's needed. Anyone know for sure
how much the firewall mount points differ between a bathtub and
streamline Commander?
chris
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wet pump vs. dry |
Good Morning John,
Another thought!
Where are you located?
You might consider flying your Commander to the Beech Party held each fall
at Tullahoma, Tennessee. This year it is between the seventh and the
eleventh of October. It is the yearly gathering of the flock for the Beech
craft
Heritage Museum. One of the prime movers of our group flys a Turbo Command
er
so you would not be all alone!
Love to see you there.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 12:17:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
A very interesting conversation. I would love to go all electric, althoug
h
I have boots on my 500B. They're shot, and I need new ones. I will get
them, as I consider them valuable emergency equipment. I don't have much
problem with oil on the nacelles etc. and would keep my wet pumps anyway
since
they rarely (and almost never catastrophically) fail.
Actually, though, what this tells me is that I REALLY need to meet Old Bo
b
& Bill Hamilton sometime soon and really keep my ears open. At 41, I will
certainly be finished flying before I learn all the things that you two
have forgotten already. It would be quite a treat to listen to the two of
you
having a conversation. Any chance you can make it to Reno, CA USA for the
Commander fly-in? I'll have cold beer waiting! Ilinois is close
enough....Bill, you're in Australia, right? Perhaps Russell or Richard can
pack you
with them when they come?
Cheers,
/John
____________________________________
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Hami
lton
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Hello, Bob,
I certainly agree about dirty bellies (free corrosion proofing) and if it
was a one very careful owner/operator, maybe, but our stats. are pretty
conclusive. At least with any Commander, not too much of a problem gettin
g at
the underside of the engine cowls. I have oil/air separators, and the
modified breathers, because of the Cleveland brakes.
As for your other comments, more than a grain of truth, and on my 500A,
I
have done serious surgery on the instruments, so that I have a split
between electric and vacuum instruments.
The main AI is 115/400 from a large inverter, with a standby inverter jus
t
big enough to run the AI only, there is a 2.5 inch standby AI on 28v dc
from a hot battery bus (only a cb, not through the electrical master) and
a
28v DC turn and slip, off a main bus. The CDI is a Collins PN 101, also
running the RMI and the A/P heading. On the right side, the vacuum AI is
connected to the Century 111, so I=99m not normally looking at the
same attitude
indication as the auto-pilot, and there is a vacuum DG for anybody flying
from the right seat --- which has full panel except for the bat and ball
.
Bottom line, I have to lose both alternators, both vacuum pumps and run
the batteries (Hawker Power Cells) flat to not have at least one AI.
I am really looking forward to getting the old girl back in the air.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
PS: I am hoping to be able to mount the main inverter, a big sod, weights
about 28 lbs., far enough back that I can fly two up without ballast in
the baggage locker, they all go better if you can keep close to the aft
CG. I
am also looking at a field mod to use auto HID lights for the landing
lights, then I can have real flamethrowers, without temperature/overheati
ng
worries ------ you never know what wildlife =93 two or four legs --
- you are
likely to find, some of the place I go.
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@
aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Good Evening Bill,
Interesting conversation concerning vacuum pumps. Personally, I like the
dry pumps. They are lighter cheaper, and do not throw oil all over the be
lly
or nacelle as the case may be.
Properly set up wet pumps with a good oil separator can run reasonably
clean, but most are rather dirty. The dry pumps can be monitored and, if
changed when they start to throw carbon, can have quite high reliability
numbers. When mounted on a twin, the reliability is excellent. If you nee
d a
pneumatic system to operate boots, that is another story, but I really li
ke
being all electric!
On my own airplane, I have eliminated all of the pneumatic instruments an
d
gone all electric. Vacuum instruments are, very truthfully, World War One
technology. They were bordering on antiquity by WWII.
I do not have any knowledge about certification problems with Commanders,
but, for most aircraft, going all electric is easy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/18/2009 10:14:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes:
Garry,
I can only echo Moe=99s recommendation 110%, stay as far away from
carbon
vane dry pumps as you can, not only a high propensity to failure, but the
y =9C
fail hard=9D, seemingly at random, no gradual loss of vacuum.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe-rossp
istons
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Gary,
Please stay with the wet pump. The dry pumps have a very high failure
rate, whereas the wet pumps seem to last almost indefinitely. With the
dry
pumps you should never turn the prop backward (which sometimes happens whe
n
shutting the engine down) whereas, with the wet pumps it makes no
difference.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680Fp
Proud Holder of The Golden Pedal Award
From: _Gary Moshluk_ (mailto:gmosh@charter.net)
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Commander-List: wet pump vs. dry
Has anyone switched from wet vacuum pumps to the dry variety. A rebuild
of my recently failed wet pump was quoted at $800.00. Relatively speakin
g,
a brand new dry pump looks to be a bargain @ $500.00
My vac unit for the left engine is mounted on the bottom end of a "T"
which also drives the hydraulic pump. I'm considering swapping the wet
pump
off the right engine -which is mounted directly to the accessory case -
and
replace that pump with the dry unit. By mounting the dry pump on the rig
ht
engine it would attach to the back of the engine in the conventional
manner.
Comments? Recommendations...My Commander is a straight 560 with GO-480B
engines
Gary
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matr
onic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
========================
===========
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
========================
===========
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
____________________________________
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC for IO-540 conversion |
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with
> IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
Howdy Bob.
Actually, we're dealing with two different issues. The Commanders that
had the 470's were 500A's. There is an existing STC (Colemill) to
replace that with a 520, so the 550 should be trivial and would indeed
make a fine airplane out of the A. Some A models were converted to B
models with the 290hp 540's. They use the same mount points on the
firewall, but a different bed mount of course.
The big problem is the earlier bathtub nacelle commanders which all had
geared lycomings. Totally different firewall, mount points, etc. Since
the geared Lyc's are longer due to the gearbox, even the basic physical
fit poses a problem. Since it's pretty much a "from scratch" install,
there would be little difference in the effort required to put on either
a 540 or a 550. I concur that the 550 would be an excellent choice
although I would personally lean towards the 350hp 540-j2bd as a best
fit for the commander. That airframe needs all the power you can bolt
on it. (I bet we both agree on that :-)
Chris
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC for IO-540 conversion |
Good Morning Chris,
As usual, you have it all well thought through.
That j2bd had me scared for a while, but since you AND George consider it
a good engine, I would certainly agree. Just gotta run it right! <G>
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 9:10:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
cschuerm@cox.net writes:
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with
> IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
Howdy Bob.
Actually, we're dealing with two different issues. The Commanders that
had the 470's were 500A's. There is an existing STC (Colemill) to
replace that with a 520, so the 550 should be trivial and would indeed
make a fine airplane out of the A. Some A models were converted to B
models with the 290hp 540's. They use the same mount points on the
firewall, but a different bed mount of course.
The big problem is the earlier bathtub nacelle commanders which all had
geared lycomings. Totally different firewall, mount points, etc. Since
the geared Lyc's are longer due to the gearbox, even the basic physical
fit poses a problem. Since it's pretty much a "from scratch" install,
there would be little difference in the effort required to put on either
a 540 or a 550. I concur that the 550 would be an excellent choice
although I would personally lean towards the 350hp as a best 540-j2bd
fit for the commander. That airframe needs all the power you can bolt
on it. (I bet we both agree on that :-)
Chris
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC for IO-540 conversion |
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> That j2bd had me scared for a while, but since you AND George consider
> it a good engine, I would certainly agree. Just gotta run it right! <G>
Yup, when they start pushing 300+hp out of a flat six, they do require a
bit more attention from the operator and are far less tolerant of
abuse. I've heard of of j2bd's run a full 2000 hours though and I think
that's pretty impressive. Maybe I should hang a pair of 'em on my
Aztruk :-) Bet it would go almost straight up! I'd love to hear your
opinion of the TSIO-520K engines. I've had the opportunity to spend
some time behind them, but the thought of 435hp out of 520 cid just
makes me woozy....
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STC for IO-540 conversion |
Good Afternoon Chris,
I have never operated a pair of those engines, but we made a point of never
buying an airplane for stock that was so equipped. No good data, just a
bit afraid of the whole thing.
Having said that, I keep dreaming about having a 550 cubic inch engine that
was as efficient and RELIABLE as were our wonderful Turbo Compound Curtiss
Wright 3350s.
We pulled a very conservative 3250 HP out of them for takeoff, but I think
some military versions took out as much as 3500 HP. That is OVER one HP per
cubic inch. They were geared. My recollection is that the engine RPM was
not over twenty-nine hundred. The weight was just over one pound per cubic
inch. About 3550 if I recall correctly.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a 550 cubic inch engine that weighed no more
than 550 pounds and developed 500 HP. Seems like if those 1953 engineers
could make it work, equally competent young folks should be able to do as well!
The engine has a bad reputation, but I think the reputation is undeserved.
When it was a first line engine, it was very reliable. When it was taken
off the long hauls and moved to short range operations, reliability went to
the dogs. We who flew it when it was new had the benefit of close scrutiny,
guidance, and thorough training by Curtiss Wright's top engineers. When
that engine was relegated to short haul, the pilots and flight engineers only
got a three bounce check out and were on their way. Not fair to the engine
or the crews at all!
Heavily boosted and geared, I think we should be able to have a 550 to 600
pound engine that would deliver at least 500 HP. Unfortunately, the market
does not seem big enough to attract the top line engineering talent it
would require to make such an engine practical!
Way off the subject I know, but I still dream!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 10:48:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
cschuerm@cox.net writes:
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> That j2bd had me scared for a while, but since you AND George consider
> it a good engine, I would certainly agree. Just gotta run it right! <G>
Yup, when they start pushing 300+hp out of a flat six, they do require a
bit more attention from the operator and are far less tolerant of
abuse. I've heard of of j2bd's run a full 2000 hours though and I think
that's pretty impressive. Maybe I should hang a pair of 'em on my
Aztruk :-) Bet it would go almost straight up! I'd love to hear your
opinion of the TSIO-520K engines. I've had the opportunity to spend
some time behind them, but the thought of 435hp out of 520 cid just
makes me woozy....
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|