Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:04 AM - Lycoming OI-360/540 (caldwell)
2. 05:21 AM - O360 Cruise Operation (Mike Thompson)
3. 10:02 AM - Re: O360 Cruise Operation (steve korney)
4. 10:40 AM - Re: O360 Cruise Operation (Fergus Kyle)
5. 10:58 AM - Re: O360 Cruise Operation (Mike Thompson)
6. 12:17 PM - Re: O360 Cruise Operation (Hal / Carol Kempthorne)
7. 02:20 PM - Re: O360 Cruise Operation (James R. Cunningham)
8. 02:44 PM - Re: O360 Cruise Operation (Scott Derrick)
9. 03:49 PM - Re: Running a TSIO520 without the turbo. (jamesbaldwin@attglobal.net)
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: | Lycoming OI-360/540 |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "caldwell" <caldwell@mswin.net>
I'm putting the tanks in the wings of a CH-801. I'm contemplating getting the
injected OI-360 or OI-540 Lycoming engine. I got the extended range option, so
I have four tanks. My question is, do I need a return to all four tanks from
the engine or do I need one at all?
Thanks, Jay
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: | O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Mike Thompson <grobdriver@yahoo.com>
I've been running my RV-6 almost 50 hours now and recently made a little trip to
Mustang Beach. Based on some recent reading, I'm wondering if my method of running
the engine during cruise is going to hurt it or put me and my passengers
at risk of a failure.
The engine is a zero-timed Aerosport rebuild, O-360-A2A (solid crank), standard
compression (rated 180 HP at 2700 RPM). The prop is a sensenich fixed pitch aluminum,
72FM, 85-inch pitch.
On a cross country, here is my process:
Cruise climb (100 KIAS) at full power to cruise altitude, usually between 4,000
and 9,000 feet, leaning as I go up but never letting the CHT rise above 220 degrees
C.
I usually climb to my target altitude plus 200 and then let it settle down to the
target altitude while accellerating - I guess I bought into the theory of "putting
it on the step" years ago.
So now we're level at, say, 6,500 feet and around 2500 RPM. I still have the throttle
all the way in, and start leaning it until I get to 2670 RPM or so.
At these settings I'm seeing around 10 GPH.
I have tried leaning it further, but that brings the RPMs above redline (2700),
so I back off the throttle to remain under 2700 RPM. This way I can lean it way
out and have gotten the fuel flow down to 9 GPH.
CHTs in this configuration are still around 220 degrees C, (last weekend I remember
200,200,220,210), EGT up around 815 degrees C, oil temp 85 degrees C, oil
pressure 75 pounds as I recall. Now, I don't have a manifold pressure gauge,
so I can't tell you what MP I'm getting.
At these settings I am running 170 KTAS - was screaming home at 188 KGPS last Sunday.
An airplane is for going fast, so why go slow?
...Unless, by running the engine this way, I am damaging it or risking catastrophic
failure. The Lycoming manual talks about reaching TBO by running at 75 precent...
but when I'm at 6,500 feet at 2700 RPM, the way I decipher the charts
I'm never going to see 100% power, always something less. In fact, using these
numbers I think I'm around 70% power - but since I don't have a MP number, I
can't really tell.
Opinions?
- Mike
Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver@yahoo.com)
Austin, TX, USA
RV-6 N140RV, FLYING!
Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
---------------------------------
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: | O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "steve korney" <s_korney@hotmail.com>
Mike...
Your doing just fine...To calculate manifold pressure, just subtract one
inch for every thousand feet of altitude MSL. (example 7500 ft msl = 22.5
inches of mp.) That's at wide open throttle. Use 30 inches mp and 2700
rpm's as a base line. Simple rule of thumb...(% of mp * % of rpm = % of
hp).
Example (22.5mp/30mp)*(2500rpm/2700rpm)=69.4% hp.
Best... Steve
Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN
House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/
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: O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Mike,
You asked for comments and I have but one. You appear to have
the principles well in hand and I am not familiar with the engine, nor the
aircraft.
The practice of climbing above the cruise altitude and
descending "onto the step" has been a martter of debate for fifty years or
more. I believe it to have been a procedure developed when aircraft were
underpowered or operated at near ceiling altitudes. The reason was that the
airspeed difference between sustainable cruise speeds and flying at high
angles of attack was small and waiting for the former with climb power at
altitude took many minutes (climb power being kept until acceleration met
crusie speed).
Diving down from above shortened the required time and saved
fuel, particularly in old or heavily-loaded transports (such as
long-distance delivery flights and some bombers). It later became a practice
in the first jets - Vampires and Sabres when flying at high altitude because
the engine inlets were starved at high angles of attack and increasing
airspeed with a dive brought better weight of air for automatic fuel
metring.
Naturally once they heard about it, air traffic restrictions
denied this maneouvre because of altitude infractions as space constricted.
I should think you could resort to climb power until cruise speed then slow
reduction to cruise parameters would do just as well without penalty, since
you probably don't demand near-ceiling conditions. I know little of any
other practices you apply as said earlier.
Happy Landings!
Ferg
Europa A064
For this reason, I don't think you need
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Thompson" <grobdriver@yahoo.com>
Subject: Engines-List: O360 Cruise Operation
| --> Engines-List message posted by: Mike Thompson <grobdriver@yahoo.com>
|
| I've been running my RV-6 almost 50 hours now and recently made a little
trip to Mustang Beach. Based on some recent reading, I'm wondering if my
method of running the engine during cruise is going to hurt it or put me and
my passengers at risk of a failure.
|
| The engine is a zero-timed Aerosport rebuild, O-360-A2A (solid crank),
standard compression (rated 180 HP at 2700 RPM). The prop is a sensenich
fixed pitch aluminum, 72FM, 85-inch pitch.
|
| On a cross country, here is my process:
| Cruise climb (100 KIAS) at full power to cruise altitude, usually between
4,000 and 9,000 feet, leaning as I go up but never letting the CHT rise
above 220 degrees C.
|
| I usually climb to my target altitude plus 200 and then let it settle down
to the target altitude while accellerating - I guess I bought into the
theory of "putting it on the step" years ago.
|
| So now we're level at, say, 6,500 feet and around 2500 RPM. I still have
the throttle all the way in, and start leaning it until I get to 2670 RPM or
so.
| At these settings I'm seeing around 10 GPH.
| I have tried leaning it further, but that brings the RPMs above redline
(2700), so I back off the throttle to remain under 2700 RPM. This way I can
lean it way out and have gotten the fuel flow down to 9 GPH.
|
| CHTs in this configuration are still around 220 degrees C, (last weekend I
remember 200,200,220,210), EGT up around 815 degrees C, oil temp 85 degrees
C, oil pressure 75 pounds as I recall. Now, I don't have a manifold pressure
gauge, so I can't tell you what MP I'm getting.
|
| At these settings I am running 170 KTAS - was screaming home at 188 KGPS
last Sunday. An airplane is for going fast, so why go slow?
|
| ...Unless, by running the engine this way, I am damaging it or risking
catastrophic failure. The Lycoming manual talks about reaching TBO by
running at 75 precent... but when I'm at 6,500 feet at 2700 RPM, the way I
decipher the charts I'm never going to see 100% power, always something
less. In fact, using these numbers I think I'm around 70% power - but since
I don't have a MP number, I can't really tell.
|
| Opinions?
|
| - Mike
|
|
| Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver@yahoo.com)
| Austin, TX, USA
| RV-6 N140RV, FLYING!
| Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
| PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
|
| ---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Mike Thompson <grobdriver@yahoo.com>
Hi Ferg,
Thanks for the note. I understand what you're saying here. I am climbing at 100-110
Knots indicated and generally cruise at 150-155 Knots indicated.
My climb rate is around 1,000 fpm, so I can stand the extra time to climb above
the cruise altitude. I've not tried leveling at cruise altitude and letting
the aircraft accelerate to cruise speed at climb power, but it would be something
to test.
Thanks.
- Mike
Fergus Kyle <VE3LVO@rac.ca> wrote:
The practice of climbing above the cruise altitude and
descending "onto the step" has been a martter of debate for fifty years or
more. I believe it to have been a procedure developed when aircraft were
underpowered or operated at near ceiling altitudes. The reason was that the
airspeed difference between sustainable cruise speeds and flying at high
angles of attack was small and waiting for the former with climb power at
altitude took many minutes (climb power being kept until acceleration met
crusie speed).
Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver@yahoo.com)
Austin, TX, USA
RV-6 N140RV, FLYING!
Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
---------------------------------
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: O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Hal / Carol Kempthorne <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 05:20 AM 6/2/2004, you wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: Mike Thompson <grobdriver@yahoo.com>
>
>I've been running my RV-6 almost 50 hours now and recently made a little
>trip to Mustang Beach. Based on some recent reading, I'm wondering if my
>method of running the engine during cruise is going to hurt it or put me
>and my passengers at risk of a failure.
>
>So now we're level at, say, 6,500 feet and around 2500 RPM. I still have
>the throttle all the way in, and start leaning it until I get to 2670 RPM
>or so. At these settings I'm seeing around 10 GPH.
Full throttle cruise at 6500 feet? Is this about 80% power?
At these settings I am running 170 KTAS - was screaming home at 188 KGPS
last Sunday. An airplane is for going fast, so why go slow?
My airplane is used in various ways, to go somewhere fast, to go slow and
enjoy the view, to get there sooner by flying slowly enough to do the trip
without a fuel stop and so on. In my opinion a fixation on going fast is
not beneficial. But whatever turns you on.
>...Unless, by running the engine this way, I am damaging it or risking
>catastrophic failure. The Lycoming manual talks about reaching TBO by
>running at 75 precent... but when I'm at 6,500 feet at 2700 RPM, the way I
>decipher the charts I'm never going to see 100% power, always something
>less. In fact, using these numbers I think I'm around 70% power - but
>since I don't have a MP number, I can't really tell.
Running WOT at 6500 is not likely 70%! You can see 100% power by flying at
sea level, WOT, on a standard day or higher on a colder day etc.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
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: O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
That's true. It may be more like 82% (the density ratio at 6500 feet on a standard
day). For our slower planes that don't create substantial ram recovery in the
induction
system, the maximum altitude at which 75% power can be maintained is usually about
7500 to
8444 feet, depending upon the the deviation from the standard day and on the efficiency
of the particular induction system. But at 6500 feet, you can generate well over
75%
power at wide-open throttle.
All the best,
JimC
Hal / Carol Kempthorne wrote:
> Running WOT at 6500 is not likely 70%! You can see 100% power by flying at
> sea level, WOT, on a standard day or higher on a colder day etc.
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: O360 Cruise Operation |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Scott Derrick" <scott@tnstaafl.net>
The rule of thumb as I was taught:
If you have full egt/cht gauges on all cyls. Run full throttle at 75 LOP
whenever possible. If thats to much power, ie.. over speed of the prop or
you want to go slower, lean it even more until you get the power setting
you want. I can lean to about 125 LOP on my IO360.
This assumes we are talking about cruise, not in the pattern or doing end
runs around mesa tops...
If you have the industry standard ice age instrumentation, maybe one egt,
maybe one cht.. Below 8000 you run 75 ROP and reduce power with the
throttle as needed. Above 8000, lean till she stumbles and enrichen to
smooth operation.
Scott
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Hal / Carol Kempthorne
> <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
>
> At 05:20 AM 6/2/2004, you wrote:
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: Mike Thompson <grobdriver@yahoo.com>
>>
>>I've been running my RV-6 almost 50 hours now and recently made a little
>>trip to Mustang Beach. Based on some recent reading, I'm wondering if my
>>method of running the engine during cruise is going to hurt it or put me
>>and my passengers at risk of a failure.
>>
>>So now we're level at, say, 6,500 feet and around 2500 RPM. I still have
>>the throttle all the way in, and start leaning it until I get to 2670 RPM
>>or so. At these settings I'm seeing around 10 GPH.
>
> Full throttle cruise at 6500 feet? Is this about 80% power?
> At these settings I am running 170 KTAS - was screaming home at 188 KGPS
> last Sunday. An airplane is for going fast, so why go slow?
>
> My airplane is used in various ways, to go somewhere fast, to go slow and
> enjoy the view, to get there sooner by flying slowly enough to do the trip
> without a fuel stop and so on. In my opinion a fixation on going fast is
> not beneficial. But whatever turns you on.
>
>>...Unless, by running the engine this way, I am damaging it or risking
>>catastrophic failure. The Lycoming manual talks about reaching TBO by
>>running at 75 precent... but when I'm at 6,500 feet at 2700 RPM, the way
>> I
>>decipher the charts I'm never going to see 100% power, always something
>>less. In fact, using these numbers I think I'm around 70% power - but
>>since I don't have a MP number, I can't really tell.
>
> Running WOT at 6500 is not likely 70%! You can see 100% power by flying
> at
> sea level, WOT, on a standard day or higher on a colder day etc.
>
>
> K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
> RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
> PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
>
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: Running a TSIO520 without the turbo. |
--> Engines-List message posted by: jamesbaldwin@attglobal.net
Scott -
This engine will run just fine without a turbo and will not use more
gas. Fuel consumption, all other variables being equal, is dependent
upon horsepower output as a ratio to BSFC (brake specific fuel
consumption). Although higher compression ratios have a minimal effect
on BSFC, your fuel consumption will vary with how much horsepower is
being delivered to the prop. If the manifold pressure is less,
horsepower to the prop will be less and so will your fuel consumption.
Also, the engine will get 30 inches at standard sea level conditions
just like any other normally aspirated engine regardless of compression
ratio. The big catch is it won't develop as much horsepower as it would
with the effective boost in compression ratio that a turbo supplies.
Look at the data plate to see what the compression ratio is. This will
determine how much power loss you will suffer. Engines that are rated
at large boost levels --i.e. over 38 inches or so -- have compression
ratios correspondingly low. Those which are only boosted slightly or
are "normalized" have ratios the same as or close to their unboosted
counterparts. This is why some turbocharged engines are not boosted
for sea level takeoffs. The wastegate, usually manual, is left wide
open, bypassing the turbo output. Turbos are installed on normally
aspirated engines to maintain sea level pressure conditions at altitude.
James Baldwin
Dan Rogers wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: Dan Rogers <drogers@maf.org>
>
>All turbo 520s that I know have lower compression than their non turbo
>counterparts, so therefore make less power and use more gas. I don't
>think you will ever get 30" in a running non turbo engine so would not
>get 285 hp. All you sure it doesn't need 32 inches for 285?
>
>All the compression difference is in the pistons so if you got the non
>turbo pistons you would be set to make full power without turbo. I
>think you would still need to get the right fuel pump and injectors and
>you would also have to make something for the intake airfilter system.
>
>Dan Rogers
>
>Scott Derrick wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Derrick <scott@tnstaafl.net>
>>
>>I am rebuilding the bottom end of a TSIO520 for installation into a Std.
>>Velocity.
>>
>>Can I run this engine without the turbo? It is rated at 285 HP at 30
>>inches, so I would assume it would operate just like a IO520?
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>"Those who sacrifice freedom to get security, deserve neither."
>>- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|