Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:38 AM - Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (jkreidler)
2. 09:49 AM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Dj Merrill)
3. 10:03 AM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Robin Marks)
4. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Don McDonald)
5. 10:58 AM - Re: Why do (I)O-540s cost so much? (Carl Froehlich)
6. 11:01 AM - Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (jkreidler)
7. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Dj Merrill)
8. 12:20 PM - Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (jkreidler)
9. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Kelly McMullen)
10. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Chris Colohan)
11. 04:40 PM - Re: Why do (I)O-540s cost so much? (Bob Turner)
12. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (n801bh@netzero.com)
13. 07:00 PM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (John Cox)
14. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? (Deems Davis)
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
The difference is continuous power versus intermittent power. Operating auto engines
at anything close to 100% power for any length of time will result in 'less
than desirable' results.
It is kind of like buying a 5 HP vacuum cleaner or air compressor which plugs into
a standard 120V 15A wall outlet, good advertising, but just not reality when
we use physics. Well,that is not quite fair I am sure the Porsche engine will
actually make 280HP for a period of time.
So the real difference is the heft the Lycoming is built with. Speaking of heft,
aluminum is right around $1.00 per pound (raw material for casting), so that
Porsche at ~$13k versus that Lycoming at ~$48k,buys you an extra 35,000 lbs
of heft -or - wait....
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364496#364496
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
On 1/22/2012 8:35 AM, jkreidler wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler"<jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
>
> The difference is continuous power versus intermittent power. Operating auto
engines at anything close to 100% power for any length of time will result in
'less than desirable' results.
>
Hi Jason,
Do you have any proof of this, or is this merely a guess on your part?
-Dj
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
Jason,
I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the other
naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like starting an engine
and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop & go traffic Phoenix
in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI in January would be harder on an engine
than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp reaches 100 etc... The Porsche
engine looks more complicated and sophisticated to me. And the volume argument
is difficult to understand since every 6 years or so the engine is updated
while the IO-540 seems basically static. One would think basic economics would
come into play and over time a static design would come down in price with
competitive pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering
anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540
will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further
reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great sport further damaging GA.
Robin
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jkreidler
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:35 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?
--> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
The difference is continuous power versus intermittent power. Operating auto engines
at anything close to 100% power for any length of time will result in 'less
than desirable' results.
It is kind of like buying a 5 HP vacuum cleaner or air compressor which plugs into
a standard 120V 15A wall outlet, good advertising, but just not reality when
we use physics. Well,that is not quite fair I am sure the Porsche engine will
actually make 280HP for a period of time.
So the real difference is the heft the Lycoming is built with. Speaking of heft,
aluminum is right around $1.00 per pound (raw material for casting), so that
Porsche at ~$13k versus that Lycoming at ~$48k,buys you an extra 35,000 lbs
of heft -or - wait....
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364496#364496
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
Totally agree Robin... it was really hard for me to understand when looking
at a kit built Superior Perfromance Cobra, with a Jack Rousch prepared eng
ine, sitting next to my partially complete (at that time-currently 367 hour
s) RV10, cost less than the engine in my RV10.... and to clarify, that's th
e car and engine!!!!!=0ADon McDonald=0A =0A=0A_____________________________
___=0A From: Robin Marks <robin@PaintTheWeb.com>=0ATo: "rv10-list@matronics
.com" <rv10-list@matronics.com> =0ASent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:59 AM
=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s
m>=0A=0AJason,=0AI understand the differences but do the operating paramete
rs of one vs. the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It
seems like starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway goin
g 70, stop & go traffic Phoenix- in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI- in Jan
uary would be harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till t
he oil temp reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated an
d sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand s
ince every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems basic
ally static. One would think basic economics would come into play and over
time a static design would come down in price with competitive pressure. Oh
wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering anything new here
it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540 will pierce the $50,
000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further reduce the number
of people
able to enjoy our great !=0Asport further damaging GA. =0A=0ARobin=0ADo No
t Archive=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server
@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of j
kreidler=0ASent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:35 AM=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics
.com=0ASubject: RV10-List: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s
regalbeloit.com>=0A=0AThe difference is continuous power versus intermitten
t power.- Operating auto engines at anything close to 100% power for any
length of time will result in 'less than desirable' results.=0A=0AIt is kin
d of like buying a 5 HP vacuum cleaner or air compressor which plugs into a
standard 120V 15A wall outlet, good advertising, but just not reality when
we use physics.- Well,that is not quite fair I am sure the Porsche engin
e will actually make 280HP for a period of time.=0A=0ASo the real differenc
e is the heft the Lycoming is built with.- Speaking of heft, aluminum is
right around $1.00 per pound (raw material for casting), so that Porsche at
~$13k versus that Lycoming at ~$48k,buys you an extra 35,000 lbs of heft -
or - wait....=0A=0A--------=0AJason Kreidler=0A4 Partner Build - Sheboygan
Falls, WI=0ATony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler N44YH - Fly
ing - #40617=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.
matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364496#364496=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
===============
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: | Why do (I)O-540s cost so much? |
I suspect Porsche does not have to fund the liability burden that Lycoming
does. Some time ago I heard (not verified) that up to 60% of the cost of a
new Lycoming goes to cover liability. Considering the failure of all tort
reform efforts in Congress, Lycoming can only look to more liability claims.
Now look at the drivers for Lycoming to not modernize the engine. A 20 year
old plane crashes and kills the pilot and passenger because they ran out of
fuel. A new Lycoming that gets better fuel efficiency would tell the
lawyers that "if the old engine was updated, then the old engine contributed
to the plane running out of fuel - so Lycoming is liable". Pick your
scenario - any change implies the previous engine model had a defect and
opens the doors for them to pay more claims, no matter how farfetched.
One reason to build an experimental plane is that an old man Cessna is
running a paltry $350K, a Mooney or Cirrus pushing $500K. They have even
more liability risk than Lycoming.
And no, I am not a lawyer.....
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?
Jason,
I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs. the
other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like starting
an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop & go
traffic Phoenix in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI in January would be harder
on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp reaches
100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and sophisticated to
me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand since every 6 years
or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems basically static. One
would think basic economics would come into play and over time a static
design would come down in price with competitive pressure. Oh wait
competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering anything new here it's
just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540 will pierce the $50,000.00
mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will further reduce the number of
people able to enjoy our great !
sport further damaging GA.
Robin
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jkreidler
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:35 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?
--> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
The difference is continuous power versus intermittent power. Operating
auto engines at anything close to 100% power for any length of time will
result in 'less than desirable' results.
It is kind of like buying a 5 HP vacuum cleaner or air compressor which
plugs into a standard 120V 15A wall outlet, good advertising, but just not
reality when we use physics. Well,that is not quite fair I am sure the
Porsche engine will actually make 280HP for a period of time.
So the real difference is the heft the Lycoming is built with. Speaking of
heft, aluminum is right around $1.00 per pound (raw material for casting),
so that Porsche at ~$13k versus that Lycoming at ~$48k,buys you an extra
35,000 lbs of heft -or - wait....
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364496#364496
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
DJ, when I visited Lycoming we had a conversation around how they test and certify.
It is very common for auto manufacturers to list peak HP instead of listing
continuous HP. It looks more impressive and in reality doesn't matter for
99% of operation. Aside from the autobahn and a super speedway it is very difficult
to run a car at continuous power. This topic is a bit near and dear to
me as my day job is to engineer electric motors, understanding how the HP numbers
were come by is important to me. With that said I don't think Lycoming
wants to see us run at 100% power continuously either, but they have been tested
that way, or so I was told.
Robin, I really don't understand where they get their pricing from, it is amazing!
You are right the parameters do not make for an engine that costs three times
as much. That is kind of why I made the reference to the cost per pound,
ultimately that is what we are buying is processed raw material. On the other
hand if they were making money hand over fist there would naturally be competition
right? The real problem is that overall GA is shrinking meaning Lycoming
needs to make their money off from a smaller pool of people, it is a downward
spiral that if left unchecked will be fatal to what we do.
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364514#364514
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
On 1/22/2012 1:59 PM, jkreidler wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler"<jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
>
> DJ, when I visited Lycoming we had a conversation around how they test and certify.
It is very common for auto manufacturers to list peak HP instead of listing
continuous HP. It looks more impressive and in reality doesn't matter for
99% of operation. Aside from the autobahn and a super speedway it is very
difficult to run a car at continuous power. This topic is a bit near and dear
to me as my day job is to engineer electric motors, understanding how the HP
numbers were come by is important to me. With that said I don't think Lycoming
wants to see us run at 100% power continuously either, but they have been tested
that way, or so I was told.
I'm pretty sure I would not take a Lycoming rep's word on using
automotive engines in an airplane... *grin*
There are lots of automotive engines in airplanes that are running
fine, and have not "blown up" from high RPMs. That is one of the
biggest myth's surrounding the use of these engines.
If you really want to familiarize yourself, I'd recommend starting
with Ross Farnham's web site. He has been doing the automotive thing
for years and probably knows more than you and I put together about
using an automotive engine in an aircraft.
I'd start here: http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html
and then go here: http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm
and more general info here: http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
Of note:
"Auto engines today are designed and routinely tested to higher
standards than certified aircraft engine requirements. The FAA only
requires 100 hours of full throttle, full rpm for certified engines and
another 50 hours at 75-100% power, 50 hours of which are required to be
at redline oil and cylinder head temperatures. Most auto engine
manufacturers today do a minimum validation of 200 hours of WOT at rated
hp rpm and some as much as 1200 hours. In addition to this test, they
perform cold weather testing to the tune of 1000+ cycles of cold soaking
the engine to 0F and immediately taking the engine to WOT and high rpm
until coolant reaches 240F. While the engine is still hot, 0F coolant is
pumped into the engine until the block achieves 0F and the test is
repeated- over 1000 times. Additional tests often include idle testing
to 2000 hours with oil temperatures of 260F+ and transmission validation
where the engine is cycled from low rpm to shift point rpm at WOT while
the transmission is shifted up and down for up to 1600 hours. Not just
one engine is put through these tests- dozens are. Wear rates are noted
and obviously failures are not acceptable before release of the design."
To date, I've not heard of an auto engine blowing itself up due to
running at high RPMs. However, I have heard of Lycoming engines blowing
cylinders out the sides of cowlings, breaking cranks, etc, and I have
heard of auto engines having other kinds of problems, but nothing in
relation to high RPMS.
-Dj
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
DJ, point taken... A few add on comments, my information came from the individual
running the test cell (hand on the controls) at Lycoming. High RPM's are
not an issue, high power settings are. Getting full torque at 2700 RPM is a whole
different world than at 6000 RPM. I understand many folks are happy with
auto conversions, great, we all have our own thresholds for risk. I have no
doubt auto engines are tested as stated above, but an important distinction in
terms needs to be kept in mind. They are at full power for 200 hours, that is
the continuous HP rating, what is usually advertised is max or peak HP, all
I am asking is that we compare the same numbers.
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364524#364524
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
I have yet to see an automotive engine with main bearings that support the
forces of a 60 lb prop hanging off it. Porsche thought they knew a thing or
two about engines, and made an aircraft engine in the 210hp range. They
persuaded Mooney to hang it off the front of one of there planes. It flew
very nicely, smooth and all. But it didn't climb as well and was slower
than the 200hp Lycoming powered Mooney, and cost a bunch more. Porsche
stopped supporting the engine and turned in the type certificate less than
20 yrs after it was introduced.
If you look at all the versions of Lyc 540s you will see a fair amount of
evolution in the first 20 years it was available, then things went stagnant
by the late 70s, and not much has happened since.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com> wrote:
>
> Jason,
> I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs.
> the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like
> starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop
> & go traffic Phoenix in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI in January would be
> harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp
> reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and
> sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand
> since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems
> basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and
> over time a static design would come down in price with competitive
> pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering
> anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540
> will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will
> further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !
> sport further damaging GA.
>
> Robin
> Do Not Archive
>
>
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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com> wrote:
> I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs.
> the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly?
>
There is a mistaken assumption in this thread that the price Lycoming
charges is directly related to their cost. Other than it being unlikely
they would sell engines under cost, there isn't (and shouldn't be) a strong
relationship.
Lycoming will charge as much as they think people will pay, raising the
price until either people don't buy enough engines to make the business
worthwhile, or a viable price competitor emerges. Given that:
a) the number of engines sold per year is quite low;
b) the cost barrier to entry in this market is quite high; and
c) many (not all!) purchasers are quite price insensitive
this means that prices will remain high, and it would not be surprising if
they went higher yet.
Chris
Message 11
| 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: Why do (I)O-540s cost so much? |
yes, liability is part of the story. If you die in a plane crash your life is somehow
worth a whole lot more than if you die in a Porche crash. Juries are supposed
to be our peers. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
But there are other issues. Porche doesn't have a large share of the car market,
but I'll bet they make 10 times, or maybe 100 times, more engines than Lycoming
does. That means a $100 million investment in a modern mass-production factory
makes sense for them, and brings the average cost down. It doesn't make sense
for Lycoming. It's almost like every part comes out of a custom machine shop.
Finally, there's the lack of competition. Porche raises its prices until it's afraid
drivers will buy a different car. Lycoming raises its prices until it's
afraid people will drop out of aviation.
Lycoming and TCM have a virtual monopoly. Due in part to the tight regulation of
the industry. I remember when Superior first introduced PMA cylinders. Over
night, prices of all cylinders (including Lycoming) dropped in half. Of course
prices of everything else with no competition remained high, leading to nonsensical
things like a simple steel pushrod (no competition) costing nearly as much
as a complete cylinder assembly!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364544#364544
Message 12
| 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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
That is not a correct statement on the HP output of auto engines........
And the testing of V-8 auto engines are ALOT more demanding then what L
ycoming and Continental are required to show the FAA for certification..
......
For example.... Taket a marine application... It is the same Chevy or F
ord basic engine used by Mercruiser, or Volvo, or lots of other boat e
ngine suppliers... The 'less then smart' owners of those boats powered b
y that motor do minimal maintenance on them, put um in the water at the
beginning of the season. hoop in, start the motor , don't let is warm u
p and run full throttle all day,,, day after day, week after week, year
after year... The motor lives through all that abuse.........
You really want to see a motor tortured... Rent a U Haul or Ryder or an
y other brand that rents
box trucks...... The idiots who rent them stuff them to the gills and mo
st often the box is overweight, they then fill it up with gas... hit the
interstate and hold it to the floor all day and night, turn the truck
in and the next idiot rents it...... Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat
..... Those motors consistantly make 200,000 miles of extreme abuse.....
Just try that with a Lycoming or Continental..... IMHO...
Ben
do not archive.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s?
.com>
DJ, when I visited Lycoming we had a conversation around how they test a
nd certify. It is very common for auto manufacturers to list peak HP in
stead of listing continuous HP. It looks more impressive and in reality
doesn't matter for 99% of operation. Aside from the autobahn and a sup
er speedway it is very difficult to run a car at continuous power. This
topic is a bit near and dear to me as my day job is to engineer electri
c motors, understanding how the HP numbers were come by is important to
me. With that said I don't think Lycoming wants to see us run at 100% p
ower continuously either, but they have been tested that way, or so I wa
s told.
Robin, I really don't understand where they get their pricing from, it i
s amazing! You are right the parameters do not make for an engine that
costs three times as much. That is kind of why I made the reference to
the cost per pound, ultimately that is what we are buying is processed r
aw material. On the other hand if they were making money hand over fist
there would naturally be competition right? The real problem is that o
verall GA is shrinking meaning Lycoming needs to make their money off fr
om a smaller pool of people, it is a downward spiral that if left unchec
ked will be fatal to what we do.
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364514#364514
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4f1caee51ddf329e9c6st05vuc
Message 13
| 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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
Touche! Kelly. I remember the Mooney Porsche as a "Pretty" but
under-performer with a most un-orthodox engine mount.
On Jan 22, 2012 2:11 PM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have yet to see an automotive engine with main bearings that support the
> forces of a 60 lb prop hanging off it. Porsche thought they knew a thing or
> two about engines, and made an aircraft engine in the 210hp range. They
> persuaded Mooney to hang it off the front of one of there planes. It flew
> very nicely, smooth and all. But it didn't climb as well and was slower
> than the 200hp Lycoming powered Mooney, and cost a bunch more. Porsche
> stopped supporting the engine and turned in the type certificate less than
> 20 yrs after it was introduced.
> If you look at all the versions of Lyc 540s you will see a fair amount of
> evolution in the first 20 years it was available, then things went stagnant
> by the late 70s, and not much has happened since.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Jason,
>> I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs.
>> the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like
>> starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop
>> & go traffic Phoenix in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI in January would be
>> harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp
>> reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and
>> sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand
>> since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems
>> basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and
>> over time a static design would come down in price with competitive
>> pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering
>> anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540
>> will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will
>> further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !
>> sport further damaging GA.
>>
>> Robin
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 14
| 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: Aero Sport Power no longer selling (I)O-540s? |
Well,....... IMHO, the difference in a/c engines and auto engines as they
relate to aircraft installations is more about the various components that
surround them, than about the engines themselves. From where I sit the
problems that plague the auto engine installations arise from attempting to
combine, props, reduction/controllingsystems, fuel systems, cooling
systems, electrical systems, exhaust systems, engine mounting. cowling,
instrumentation ...... etc. No doubt individually most of these components
could be argued to satisfy the requirements of an a/c installation,
However, taken as a whole, and how well they integrate & operate TOGETHER.
they represent the true experieince of EXPERIMENTAL, and should be
attempted only by those who possess the capacity to see the integration all
of the way through. I admire those that feel they qualify. I don't believe
there is such a thing as a 'bolt-on' auto conversion for an aircraft.
Additionally, IMO (not so humble) the next 'generation' of aircraft
engines, will be either electric or hybrid. I've been amazed at what has
been accomplished within the last 5 years wrt electric propulsion. There
are definately a number of challenges to be solved, but I'm planning on
replacing my 100LL burner with some version of electron flux gate when I
can't buy avgas any more. [?]
Deems
www.deemsrv10.com
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:56 PM, John Cox <rv10pro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Touche! Kelly. I remember the Mooney Porsche as a "Pretty" but
> under-performer with a most un-orthodox engine mount.
> On Jan 22, 2012 2:11 PM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have yet to see an automotive engine with main bearings that support
>> the forces of a 60 lb prop hanging off it. Porsche thought they knew a
>> thing or two about engines, and made an aircraft engine in the 210hp range.
>> They persuaded Mooney to hang it off the front of one of there planes. It
>> flew very nicely, smooth and all. But it didn't climb as well and was
>> slower than the 200hp Lycoming powered Mooney, and cost a bunch more.
>> Porsche stopped supporting the engine and turned in the type certificate
>> less than 20 yrs after it was introduced.
>> If you look at all the versions of Lyc 540s you will see a fair amount of
>> evolution in the first 20 years it was available, then things went stagnant
>> by the late 70s, and not much has happened since.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>> I understand the differences but do the operating parameters of one vs.
>>> the other naturally make one design 3+ times more costly? It seems like
>>> starting an engine and within 2 minutes hitting the freeway going 70, stop
>>> & go traffic Phoenix in July or Sheboygan Falls, WI in January would be
>>> harder on an engine than our gentle slow taxi and hold till the oil temp
>>> reaches 100 etc... The Porsche engine looks more complicated and
>>> sophisticated to me. And the volume argument is difficult to understand
>>> since every 6 years or so the engine is updated while the IO-540 seems
>>> basically static. One would think basic economics would come into play and
>>> over time a static design would come down in price with competitive
>>> pressure. Oh wait competition.. Never mind. I know I am not covering
>>> anything new here it's just that it looks like soon enough a base IO-540
>>> will pierce the $50,000.00 mark (zeros added for emphasis) which will
>>> further reduce the number of people able to enjoy our great !
>>> sport further damaging GA.
>>>
>>> Robin
>>> Do Not Archive
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
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! --
|