Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:52 AM - Re: Re: Trace Engines LP (kitepilot@kitepilot.com)
2. 06:22 AM - Space Station (nico css)
3. 02:44 PM - Re: Trace Engines LP (TRACE)
4. 05:39 PM - Re: Re: Trace Engines LP (nico css)
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: | Re: Trace Engines LP |
And now that the controversy is flying... :)
What'bout:
http://www.mistral-engines.com/
I would DROOL over a twincommander with those engines.
If they work...
ET
PS: I DROOL over twincommanders period...
BillLeff1@aol.com writes:
> Yes that was me!
>
> Bill leff
>
>
> In a message dated 4/8/2010 11:48:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tylorhall@mac.com writes:
>
> Bill,
> I would hope it would keep running?
> :)
> Did I see a video of you landing on a road in Wi?
>
>
> David,
> Thank you for joining our merry group. You have a lot more detailed
> information than I could relate.
> I have always enjoyed listening to Dick talk about the engine development.
> I know total weight was a big thing with make it all work.
> The Thunder engine was just a start. The Orinda took it to the next step
> that was Certified . It appears that the Trace is a whole another higher
> level. I do not know or totally understand all the changes, but it sounds
> like real progress.
> We love hearing about any new developments.
>
>
> Bill, what would 750HP Trace do to your T-6? Would it become a T-7.5?
>
>
>
>
>
> Tylor Hall
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:29 PM, _BillLeff1@aol.com_ (mailto:BillLeff1@aol.com)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey guys, I flew the first test flights of the Orenda 685, yea that is me
> in the video. I thought is was extremely smooth. There was a problem at
> idle but I understand that was fixed. It was a problem in fuel metering. The
> biggest problem on the first flight was it had too much cooling!
>
> Best of luck to Trace Engines. Anything can stand improvement but, I thing
> they had a great engine to start with. By the way, my 600HP Pratt &
> Whiteny weighs 885 lbs. Think what a light weight Trace "Orenda" would do on
my
> T-6!
>
> Bill Leff
>
>
> In a message dated 4/8/2010 1:50:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> _david@traceengines.com_ (mailto:david@traceengines.com) writes:
>
> (mailto:david@traceengines.com) >
>
> I have enjoyed reading you forum. I have some input to add to clear up
> some inaccuracies I have read. This is not only from TRACEs point of
> view but as an engine guy as well.
>
> 1.)TRACE builds an FAA fully certified 600HP, water cooled engine. We
> have a 750HP engine that that is in validation testing with electronic fuel
> injection and ignition. We are not really competing with X-Cat products,
> though we can build custom engines to the right application.
>
> 2.)Specs on the 685 Commander that was converted to Orenda engines can be
> found at _www.mrrpm.com_ (http://www.mrrpm.com/) There is rate of climb
> and true air speed information that shows excellent performance. I know
> Dick very well and these are actual numbers.
>
> 3.) Profound vibration issues are unfounded. The engine has been
> designed with a unique firing order to reduce torsional vibration as much as
> possible. The firing order is not similar to any automotive firing
> order. The balance spec for the entire rotating system (crank, con rods and
> pistons) is far more precise than an automotive application to again minimize
> any vibration.
>
> 4.)Higher engine RPM is not ideal as it effect propeller selection. The
> TRACE engine runs 4400rpm at the crank at full power, which translates into
> 2057rpm at the prop flange on the reduction gearbox. This allows large
> range of propeller usage. The largest prop we use a 106 three bladed
> McCauley.
>
> 5.)Weight on any system is of concern. TRACE has several programs in
> development and weight is always a consideration along with proper balance.
> One is the use of MT composite pros which weigh in at 45lbs compared to a
> standard prop at 120lbs. Positioning of the accessories is also crucial.
>
> 6.)Cylinder liners are not an issue. The key is the installation and
> making sure the steel cylinder liners are set in the aluminum block all the
> way. TRACE has a robust process that verifies that is done prior to final
> deck height machining. The steel sleeves are cooled in liquid nitrogen and
> installed into the aluminum block which is heated in a furnace. The sleeves
> are then retained in position while they cool to prevent any movement.
> The end result is an interference fit that does not allow movement. These
> liners can be bored to 0.010, 0.020 or 0.030 at overhauls if
> required.
>
> 7.) it was never going to be cheap, compared to a good old Lycoming
> or Continental New technology is never cheaper especially when it
> is a vast improvement over air cooled engines. The performance isnt
> even comparable with TRACE building 600hp engines and developing a same cubic
> inch engine that produces 750hp. There are great advantages in new
> technology such as the accessory gear box and reduction gear box which are
> serious advancements in engineering specifically for aviation. Essentially
you
> get piston powered operating costs with turbine performance. You dont
> get that with either Lycoming or Continental.
>
> 8.) A 350 Chevy is a robust engine for a hot rod but not for an aircraft.
> The reasoning for this is simple. The duty or load cycle of the engine
> is what drives how robust the engine design has to be. A 350 Chevy
> operates typically at about 30% of max horsepower its capable of producing when
> driving around town or the highway. In aviation, an engine typically runs
> 75% to 100%, which creates more horsepower and corresponds directly to lead
> generation for example. The cooling capability (volumetric flowrate) of a
> typical 350 is tripled with the TRACE engine. The cooling scheme is also
> much different with the coolant coming into each cylinder head and flowing
> evenly through the block, ultimately being pumped out at the center of the
> engine on both sides. This cooling scheme on a TRACE engine is unique to
> our engine and the high output nature of aviation use. It is a far superior
> thermally balanced system that automotive use. As I stated before, TRACE
> has an intensely tighter balance specification on all rotating components
> and unique firing order, so torsional vibration wont be an issue. The
> high loading on the engine also results in higher stress on engine
> components. TRACE has six bolt main caps, where the best automotive engines
> typically has four bolt main caps. Overall the precision of machined components
> for aviation use is also more tightly tolerance and controlled which
> produces a better overall system as a whole. Considering all of these factors
it
> s not really a surprise that all of this innovation and detail to
> quality results in a higher price than automotive engines when there is so much
> more that goes into a TRACE engine. We wont even mention the liability
> insurance related to aviation component and aviation production.
> I think I covered most the issues brought up in these postings. If you
> have any questions, feel free to contact me with any specific issues or
> interest you. TRACE is interested in closing an STC for Commanders. I can
be
> reached at _david@traceengines.com_ (mailto:david@traceengines.com)
>
> Thanks,
> David Czarnecki
> Chief Operating Officer
> TRACE Engines, L.P.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> _http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=293524#293524========== Use
> the ties Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; =
>
> _
> (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=293524#293524======================)
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
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 |
|
Incredible video (to me, at least)
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=H8rHarp1GEE
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: Trace Engines LP |
> There is something that still doesn't click well, which is the firing order thing.
The older V8's had a firing order of 1 5 4 8 6 3 7 2, which, if you look
closely, fires on alternate banks except 8 and 6. If, and that's the gray area
which you may be able to fill in, firing 6 and 8 successively on the same bank
is the culprit causing torsional vibration, how did Trace solve the problem
without creating a new crank with different crank (throw) angles, which would
involve new counterweight technology, and perhaps cause a whole host of other
problems?
>
> Wouldn't a dynamic coupler, like Diamond is using with the new Mercedes diesels,
fitted between the crank and the reduction box have been a more effective
solution? Or is the new firing order also causing a longer TBO?
To address this question, I sat down with my Director of Engineering. First if
you look at the engines from the same perspective our firing order would be 1-8-7-5-4-3-6-2.
That isn't hugely significant in itself. What is is the degrees
apart of firing on the same journal. An old Chevy for example fires 270 degrees
apart on the same journal. The TRACE fires at 90 degrees on the same journal,
which dampens out torsionals. That is the case for 3 of the four journals,
which is the best you are going to get no matter what. We have found you
can get more vibration from the prop than the engine. That is why every pairing
of engine and prop has vibe surveys done before installation into an aircraft.
Thanks,
David Czarnecki
Chief Operating Officer
TRACE Engines L.P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294015#294015
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: Trace Engines LP |
Thank you for the trouble you took to explain that, David.
It's interesting that the cylinders firing successively on the same bank
doesn't appear to be that big of a problem, then. The TRACE FO seems to hit
the banks LRRRLLRL, which appears to lack the rhythm of regular V8's such as
LRLLRLRR or LRLRRLRL, where you have a RL splitting the LL and the RR; and a
LR splitting them on the other side or vice versa.
Oh, well, I wouldn't know for sure.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the "at 90 degrees on the same journal"
statement. Does that mean the V-angle was changed and/or the crank was
changed from cross-plane to flat-plane? Wouldn't the latter be lighter? I'd
love to pack that into a simulator and see how a journal would be able to
fire at 90 degrees hanging two cylinders off of it at an angle. My gut-feel,
which is nothing to go by, would suggest that it would be almost a boxer
(HO) engine.
Thanks
Nico
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of TRACE
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 2:42 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Trace Engines LP
> There is something that still doesn't click well, which is the firing
order thing. The older V8's had a firing order of 1 5 4 8 6 3 7 2, which, if
you look closely, fires on alternate banks except 8 and 6. If, and that's
the gray area which you may be able to fill in, firing 6 and 8 successively
on the same bank is the culprit causing torsional vibration, how did Trace
solve the problem without creating a new crank with different crank (throw)
angles, which would involve new counterweight technology, and perhaps cause
a whole host of other problems?
>
> Wouldn't a dynamic coupler, like Diamond is using with the new Mercedes
diesels, fitted between the crank and the reduction box have been a more
effective solution? Or is the new firing order also causing a longer TBO?
To address this question, I sat down with my Director of Engineering. First
if you look at the engines from the same perspective our firing order would
be 1-8-7-5-4-3-6-2. That isn't hugely significant in itself. What is is
the degrees apart of firing on the same journal. An old Chevy for example
fires 270 degrees apart on the same journal. The TRACE fires at 90 degrees
on the same journal, which dampens out torsionals. That is the case for 3 of
the four journals, which is the best you are going to get no matter what.
We have found you can get more vibration from the prop than the engine.
That is why every pairing of engine and prop has vibe surveys done before
installation into an aircraft.
Thanks,
David Czarnecki
Chief Operating Officer
TRACE Engines L.P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294015#294015
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! --
|