Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:05 AM - Re: IO540-D4A5 VS. IO540-V4A5D (Gary Casey)
2. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: IO540-D4A5 VS. IO540-V4A5D (Rob Kermanj)
3. 04:44 PM - Re: Re: OIL (James Baldwin)
4. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: OIL (Larry Martin)
5. 09:35 PM - Re: Re: OIL (James Baldwin)
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: IO540-D4A5 VS. IO540-V4A5D |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<I have an opportunity to purchase a new IO540-V4A5D for my RV-10 project
and
would like to know if anyone can give me a summary of the difference between
it and the IO540-D4A5 that Van's recommends.
Jack Sparling>>
As was reported before the substantive difference is that the -V engine has
a forward-facing air inlet while the -D has an downward-facing inlet. Oops,
don't forget that the -V model you can get has the Bendix "dual" mag(the "D"
at the end of the model number), which is very controversial, although the
records seem to show it has equivalent reliability of single mags if
maintained properly. If the packaging of your aircraft is set up for the
bottom inlet it will be a significant effort to change things around.
However, for ram air recovery the front inlet is usually preferred. I have
a vested interest - I have a -D engine and I am converting it to a front
inlet with an adaptor. If you get the -V engine but would like the bottom
inlet I would be interested in exchanging oil sumps.
Gary Casey
Lancair ES/IO-540-D4A5
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: IO540-D4A5 VS. IO540-V4A5D |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Rob Kermanj <rv10es@earthlink.net>
Go to Lycoming site and fined Document #SSP-204. It lists all the
differences.
Rob.
On May 8, 2005, at 8:54 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>
> <<I have an opportunity to purchase a new IO540-V4A5D for my RV-10
> project
> and
> would like to know if anyone can give me a summary of the difference
> between
> it and the IO540-D4A5 that Van's recommends.
> Jack Sparling>>
>
> As was reported before the substantive difference is that the -V
> engine has
> a forward-facing air inlet while the -D has an downward-facing inlet.
> Oops,
> don't forget that the -V model you can get has the Bendix "dual"
> mag(the "D"
> at the end of the model number), which is very controversial, although
> the
> records seem to show it has equivalent reliability of single mags if
> maintained properly. If the packaging of your aircraft is set up for
> the
> bottom inlet it will be a significant effort to change things around.
> However, for ram air recovery the front inlet is usually preferred. I
> have
> a vested interest - I have a -D engine and I am converting it to a
> front
> inlet with an adaptor. If you get the -V engine but would like the
> bottom
> inlet I would be interested in exchanging oil sumps.
>
> Gary Casey
> Lancair ES/IO-540-D4A5
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin@dc.rr.com>
Gentlemen -
This type of ridiculous claim is usually the result of very imperfect
control of the factors related to the comparison mentioned below.
Theory, and physics, seldom err and in this case the speed increase
of an aircraft is proportional to the cube root of the horsepower ratio
of the comparison, ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINING THE SAME. This is seldom
achieved as has been proven by the CAFE Foundation in Santa Rosa,
California. It got to the point where their comparisons of aircraft
performance got down to atmospheric stability variables (air rising in a
low pressure ambient or falling in a high pressure influence) which were
not only hard to define, but impossible to control.
A 5 knot speed increase from (Varieze 100 HP O-200) somewhere around 140
knots to 145 knots would represent a 3.6% gain. This equates to an
11.2% gain in horsepower. From a motor oil change? Highly doubtful
and for sure unproven on a fleet basis. This sounds like the genesis
of a conversation after too many beers.
This theory was proven empirically to me when my friend replaced his 150
HP O320 in his Grumman Cheetah with a 180 HP O360, turning it into a
Grumman Tiger. We knew the performance of the Cheetah from experience
and guess what? The 20% gain in horsepower resulted in about 5-6% gain
in IAS (the approximate cube root of the HP ratio). I knew better than
to nail it down any closer than that because of the previously mentioned
variables that are almost impossible to control. If you have further
interest go to their website and read up. By the way -- I won a beer
on that one. JBB
Joe Healy wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>
>I have some third hand input that supports the Mobile One. For what it is
>worth.
>Mobile One was recommended to me by another Vari EZ driver at my airport. He
>said he picked up 5 knots in his EZ just by switching to this oil.
>What made him try it was some advice from a drag racing buddy. He asked,
>"What is the fastest oil?" and Mobile One was the answer.
>So, apparently this oil results in less friction, less heat generated and
>more horsepower to the prop. Whether that means less engine wear or longer
>engine life remains to be seen.
>
>J. Healy
>jhealy@socal.rr.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: OIL
>
>
>
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
>>
>>For the most part it's just preference or opinion or because it's what
>>
>>
>I've
>
>
>>always used. Well here's my opinion and what I currently use in all my
>>vehicles, including ATV, aircraft and Cummins diesel. Mobil One, 15000
>>miles between oil changes, easy to find. A little more expensive, but you
>>get what you pay for. Using cheap oil is really false economy, you pay
>>
>>
>for
>
>
>>it in the long run. Why be cheap with the least expensive and most
>>important maintenance item on your engine?
>>
>>Larry, N1345L www.angelfire.com/un/ch701
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Engines-List: RE: OIL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>>
>>><<I'm always open to any body's input, so If you care to comment on
>>>
>>>
>which
>
>
>>>oil
>>>you feel is best, please do.>>
>>>
>>>I would also like to hear from experienced users. One thing I usually
>>>
>>>
>do
>
>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>evaluate the oil consumption of the engine. If it is "good" then I
>>>
>>>
>would
>
>
>>>consider semi-synthetic oil. If the consumption is on the high side I
>>>usually use a "straight-weight" detergent oil. Reason? Cost. The
>>>synthetic, because of the lower viscosity, will slightly reduce fuel
>>>consumption, maybe by 1 or 2%. If the engine burns oil, why throw the
>>>
>>>
>>extra
>>
>>
>>>money away? Also, if the engine doesn't run very often the oil that's
>>>thicker at ambient temp will take longer running off the cam lobes.
>>>However, I saw an ad for some synthetic that bragged about preventing
>>>
>>>
>>that,
>>
>>
>>>so it would be interesting to get more comments. Incidentally, I've
>>>typically used Shell, mostly because it is easier to find, but I've
>>>
>>>
>talked
>
>
>>>to some that say that the Phillips oil has some advantages. There is
>>>
>>>
>also
>
>
>>>folklore out there that says that engine rebuilders love Shell
>>>semi-synthetic because of all the extra business they get from cam wear.
>>>
>>>
>>I
>>
>>
>>>don't think I buy that.
>>>
>>>Gary Casey
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
Wow, I should leave this alone, but I just wish I was that smart. Do you
really think anyone gives a rats rear end about CAFE foundation or whatever?
If we want to think good oil makes us go faster, then let us believe it and
quit trying to confuse us with facts that we don't care about. The fact is
that reducing fiction by using a better quality oil will improve
performance, how much may not be measurable, but have not doubt, it helps.
Go have another beer.
Do not archive
.
Larry Martin, N1345L www.angelfire.com/un/ch701
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Baldwin" <jamesbaldwin@dc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: OIL
> --> Engines-List message posted by: James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin@dc.rr.com>
>
> Gentlemen -
> This type of ridiculous claim is usually the result of very imperfect
> control of the factors related to the comparison mentioned below.
> Theory, and physics, seldom err and in this case the speed increase
> of an aircraft is proportional to the cube root of the horsepower ratio
> of the comparison, ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINING THE SAME. This is seldom
> achieved as has been proven by the CAFE Foundation in Santa Rosa,
> California. It got to the point where their comparisons of aircraft
> performance got down to atmospheric stability variables (air rising in a
> low pressure ambient or falling in a high pressure influence) which were
> not only hard to define, but impossible to control.
> A 5 knot speed increase from (Varieze 100 HP O-200) somewhere around 140
> knots to 145 knots would represent a 3.6% gain. This equates to an
> 11.2% gain in horsepower. From a motor oil change? Highly doubtful
> and for sure unproven on a fleet basis. This sounds like the genesis
> of a conversation after too many beers.
> This theory was proven empirically to me when my friend replaced his 150
> HP O320 in his Grumman Cheetah with a 180 HP O360, turning it into a
> Grumman Tiger. We knew the performance of the Cheetah from experience
> and guess what? The 20% gain in horsepower resulted in about 5-6% gain
> in IAS (the approximate cube root of the HP ratio). I knew better than
> to nail it down any closer than that because of the previously mentioned
> variables that are almost impossible to control. If you have further
> interest go to their website and read up. By the way -- I won a beer
> on that one. JBB
>
>
> Joe Healy wrote:
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> >
> >I have some third hand input that supports the Mobile One. For what it is
> >worth.
> >Mobile One was recommended to me by another Vari EZ driver at my airport.
He
> >said he picked up 5 knots in his EZ just by switching to this oil.
> >What made him try it was some advice from a drag racing buddy. He asked,
> >"What is the fastest oil?" and Mobile One was the answer.
> >So, apparently this oil results in less friction, less heat generated and
> >more horsepower to the prop. Whether that means less engine wear or
longer
> >engine life remains to be seen.
> >
> >J. Healy
> >jhealy@socal.rr.com
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
> >To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: OIL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
> >>
> >>For the most part it's just preference or opinion or because it's what
> >>
> >>
> >I've
> >
> >
> >>always used. Well here's my opinion and what I currently use in all my
> >>vehicles, including ATV, aircraft and Cummins diesel. Mobil One, 15000
> >>miles between oil changes, easy to find. A little more expensive, but
you
> >>get what you pay for. Using cheap oil is really false economy, you pay
> >>
> >>
> >for
> >
> >
> >>it in the long run. Why be cheap with the least expensive and most
> >>important maintenance item on your engine?
> >>
> >>Larry, N1345L www.angelfire.com/un/ch701
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
> >>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> >>Subject: Engines-List: RE: OIL
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
> >>>
> >>><<I'm always open to any body's input, so If you care to comment on
> >>>
> >>>
> >which
> >
> >
> >>>oil
> >>>you feel is best, please do.>>
> >>>
> >>>I would also like to hear from experienced users. One thing I usually
> >>>
> >>>
> >do
> >
> >
> >>is
> >>
> >>
> >>>evaluate the oil consumption of the engine. If it is "good" then I
> >>>
> >>>
> >would
> >
> >
> >>>consider semi-synthetic oil. If the consumption is on the high side I
> >>>usually use a "straight-weight" detergent oil. Reason? Cost. The
> >>>synthetic, because of the lower viscosity, will slightly reduce fuel
> >>>consumption, maybe by 1 or 2%. If the engine burns oil, why throw the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>extra
> >>
> >>
> >>>money away? Also, if the engine doesn't run very often the oil that's
> >>>thicker at ambient temp will take longer running off the cam lobes.
> >>>However, I saw an ad for some synthetic that bragged about preventing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>that,
> >>
> >>
> >>>so it would be interesting to get more comments. Incidentally, I've
> >>>typically used Shell, mostly because it is easier to find, but I've
> >>>
> >>>
> >talked
> >
> >
> >>>to some that say that the Phillips oil has some advantages. There is
> >>>
> >>>
> >also
> >
> >
> >>>folklore out there that says that engine rebuilders love Shell
> >>>semi-synthetic because of all the extra business they get from cam
wear.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I
> >>
> >>
> >>>don't think I buy that.
> >>>
> >>>Gary Casey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
--
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin@dc.rr.com>
Larry -
Sorry, I thought maybe dispelling rumor info like this would help those
less technically informed make better decisions for product choice. I
never assumed it was your info. I'm not a CAFE member or anything but
they have done some good work. JBB
Larry Martin wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
>
>Wow, I should leave this alone, but I just wish I was that smart. Do you
>really think anyone gives a rats rear end about CAFE foundation or whatever?
>If we want to think good oil makes us go faster, then let us believe it and
>quit trying to confuse us with facts that we don't care about. The fact is
>that reducing fiction by using a better quality oil will improve
>performance, how much may not be measurable, but have not doubt, it helps.
>Go have another beer.
>
>Do not archive
>.
>Larry Martin, N1345L www.angelfire.com/un/ch701
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Baldwin" <jamesbaldwin@dc.rr.com>
>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: OIL
>
>
>
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin@dc.rr.com>
>>
>>Gentlemen -
>>This type of ridiculous claim is usually the result of very imperfect
>>control of the factors related to the comparison mentioned below.
>>Theory, and physics, seldom err and in this case the speed increase
>>of an aircraft is proportional to the cube root of the horsepower ratio
>>of the comparison, ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINING THE SAME. This is seldom
>>achieved as has been proven by the CAFE Foundation in Santa Rosa,
>>California. It got to the point where their comparisons of aircraft
>>performance got down to atmospheric stability variables (air rising in a
>>low pressure ambient or falling in a high pressure influence) which were
>>not only hard to define, but impossible to control.
>>A 5 knot speed increase from (Varieze 100 HP O-200) somewhere around 140
>>knots to 145 knots would represent a 3.6% gain. This equates to an
>>11.2% gain in horsepower. From a motor oil change? Highly doubtful
>>and for sure unproven on a fleet basis. This sounds like the genesis
>>of a conversation after too many beers.
>>This theory was proven empirically to me when my friend replaced his 150
>>HP O320 in his Grumman Cheetah with a 180 HP O360, turning it into a
>>Grumman Tiger. We knew the performance of the Cheetah from experience
>>and guess what? The 20% gain in horsepower resulted in about 5-6% gain
>>in IAS (the approximate cube root of the HP ratio). I knew better than
>>to nail it down any closer than that because of the previously mentioned
>>variables that are almost impossible to control. If you have further
>>interest go to their website and read up. By the way -- I won a beer
>>on that one. JBB
>>
>>
>>Joe Healy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>>>
>>>I have some third hand input that supports the Mobile One. For what it is
>>>worth.
>>>Mobile One was recommended to me by another Vari EZ driver at my airport.
>>>
>>>
>He
>
>
>>>said he picked up 5 knots in his EZ just by switching to this oil.
>>>What made him try it was some advice from a drag racing buddy. He asked,
>>>"What is the fastest oil?" and Mobile One was the answer.
>>>So, apparently this oil results in less friction, less heat generated and
>>>more horsepower to the prop. Whether that means less engine wear or
>>>
>>>
>longer
>
>
>>>engine life remains to be seen.
>>>
>>>J. Healy
>>>jhealy@socal.rr.com
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
>>>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: OIL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
>>>>
>>>>For the most part it's just preference or opinion or because it's what
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I've
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>always used. Well here's my opinion and what I currently use in all my
>>>>vehicles, including ATV, aircraft and Cummins diesel. Mobil One, 15000
>>>>miles between oil changes, easy to find. A little more expensive, but
>>>>
>>>>
>you
>
>
>>>>get what you pay for. Using cheap oil is really false economy, you pay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>it in the long run. Why be cheap with the least expensive and most
>>>>important maintenance item on your engine?
>>>>
>>>>Larry, N1345L www.angelfire.com/un/ch701
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>>>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>>>>Subject: Engines-List: RE: OIL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>>>>
>>>>><<I'm always open to any body's input, so If you care to comment on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>which
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>oil
>>>>>you feel is best, please do.>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I would also like to hear from experienced users. One thing I usually
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>do
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>evaluate the oil consumption of the engine. If it is "good" then I
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>consider semi-synthetic oil. If the consumption is on the high side I
>>>>>usually use a "straight-weight" detergent oil. Reason? Cost. The
>>>>>synthetic, because of the lower viscosity, will slightly reduce fuel
>>>>>consumption, maybe by 1 or 2%. If the engine burns oil, why throw the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>extra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>money away? Also, if the engine doesn't run very often the oil that's
>>>>>thicker at ambient temp will take longer running off the cam lobes.
>>>>>However, I saw an ad for some synthetic that bragged about preventing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>that,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>so it would be interesting to get more comments. Incidentally, I've
>>>>>typically used Shell, mostly because it is easier to find, but I've
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>talked
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>to some that say that the Phillips oil has some advantages. There is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>also
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>folklore out there that says that engine rebuilders love Shell
>>>>>semi-synthetic because of all the extra business they get from cam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>wear.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>don't think I buy that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gary Casey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|