Engine drooling

[jetdriven]

By the time you get the Subaru engine installed it's just as heavy as an airplane engine and just as costly or more per hour to run, due to its shorter TBO and higher fuel consumption.

[bonal]

I'm just pointing out an example of performance and efficiency not some thing I would ever do. I happend to like our big air cooled boxers.

[Guest]

Didn't a guy named Jan Eggenfellner try auto conversions from a Subaru engine and just piss off a bunch of owners? While the auto conversion idea is nice, I doubt we will ever have anything but a Lycoming or Continental in our planes.

Clarence

[N201MKTurbo]

That 150 HP motorcycle engine makes that power at 12000 RPM. What power does it make at 2700?

Let's look at some of the things they do to make that power. They have long straight smooth intake tubes stuffed up under the gas tank. My Lycoming has that! They have straight smooth exhaust tubes coming out of each cylinder. My Lycoming has that too. They have hemisphereical combustion chambers. Lycoming has that. What about fuel injection. Got it.

If you gave Suzuki, Yamaha or Kawasaki the requirements for a direct drive 200HP aircraft engine, and let them run wild, it would probably look very similar to what we have now and wouldn't reach the same reliability for decades.

[bonal]

That 150 HP motorcycle engine makes that power at 12000 RPM. What power does it make at 2700?

Let's look at some of the things they do to make that power. They have long straight smooth intake tubes stuffed up under the gas tank. My Lycoming has that! They have straight smooth exhaust tubes coming out of each cylinder. My Lycoming has that too. They have hemisphereical combustion chambers. Lycoming has that. What about fuel injection. Got it.

If you gave Suzuki, Yamaha or Kawasaki the requirements for a direct drive 200HP aircraft engine, and let them run wild, it would probably look very similar to what we have now and wouldn't reach the same reliability for decades.

I agree the application is what's most important and if you notice my comments show that I understand our engines are designed to produce max power using displacement so we get that power at an appropriate rpm. And actually my bike makes peak hp at around 9500 red line is 14500 still 9500 is not very practical for an airplane. And your right about how much power it takes to move a car at normal speeds. Boats and airplanes require high HP all the time something a car or bike motor would never be able to sustain for very long. Like I said I like our big air cooled boxers.

[bonal]

As for Yamaha etc I'm sure they could design something right quick and I'm sure it would be very similar to what we have now except for the cooling and I'm sure they could make it very reliable. It's easy when the work has already been done and the formula already exists.

[jetdriven]

Actually, the systems I'm aware of will only go LOP below 65% power.  How many LOPers here restrict their LOP operations to below 65%?  From what I've seen they are hardly a "set it and forget it" group.

Actually I use LOP up to 83% power, which is 11.0 GPH on a 201. And it runs remarkably cool like this. Like 330 CHT with a 80 degree OAT.

[mooniac15u]

Actually I use LOP up to 83% power, which is 11.0 GPH on a 201. And it runs remarkably cool like this. Like 330 CHT with a 80 degree OAT.

Exactly my point. The FADEC won't go LOP unless you are below 65%.

[mooniac15u]

Actually, I do. Almost all of the time. Level off, close cowl flaps, set cruise RPM, pull fuel flow back to 8 to 8.5 GPH. Done. Takes about 15 seconds. It is what I love most about flying LOP.

Jim

Are you always below 65% when you go LOP? The FADEC would require that before going LOP.

[mooniac15u]

Yes. 65% power is roughly 8.7 GPH when LOP with our engines. Keep the fuel flow under that and you will be LOP with our engines below about 9,000 feet. If you go higher than that your manifold pressure will drop to the point that some of your cylinders will go ROP unless you reduce fuel flow.

At these fuel flows no engine monitoring equipment beyond what your bird came with is required, although it is helpful just as additional instrumentation is helpful when running ROP.

It really is easier and much faster than running ROP once you understand the concepts. All the while knowing that you are making both your engine, and your mechanic when he pulls your sparkplugs, smile.

FADEC would just be another unnecessary box to have to maintain for me.

Jim

I understand LOP. I wasn't looking for an explanation. I was just asking whether you always made sure you were below 65% as that is how a FADEC would behave.

I understand that you have convinced yourself that it is better for your engine but it's really just a personal preference. I have nothing against LOP I just haven't seen any hard data that it's actually better.

[mooniac15u]

Sorry. I thought that you were new to LOP since you apparently don't know the 65% power fuel flow setting for your engine. My bad.

Re-read my post. I didn't ask if you were below 65% at that fuel flow. I asked if you always made sure you were below 65%. I didn't know if you always used that setting.

I've run LOP, I'm just not tied to it. I'd prefer to see some data before I'm convinced that it's better or worse than ROP.

[carusoam]

An intelligent fadec would be able to go above 65% hp LOP.

It would require being more LOP of the known red box for the engine.

The nice part of the red box is that it ends for N/A engines at about 65% hp. This happens somewhere below 8k' as air becomes less dense.

For me,

I climb full power maintaining EGT (blue box method)

Level off at my preferred altitude (Max glide distance, non O2, bump free) 10k-12.5k'

Set LOP

Cruise

Descend

Back to ROP for landing sequence

I don't understand how fadec is going to help unless it is going to be able to adjust ignition timing too.

As far as getting specific red box data for your particular engine... Contact APS to see what it takes to make you comfortable with your machine. I'm comfortable with their data, because they use an engine like mine in their lab.

We have an Aussie APS guy here somewhere, if that would help.

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

FWIW I ride a 2005 FJR1300

[carusoam]

For those following along...

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/272/672/Motorcycle-Article/2005-Yamaha-FJR1300-Comparison.aspx

-a-

[Wildhorsesracing]

FWIW I ride a 2005 FJR1300

 

I ride an '89 FJ1200

[bonal]

An 02 Yamaha FZ1 works for me.

[takair]

The subject of FADECs and all of the variations on the theme caught my eye and I thought I would mention a project I have been working on for a number of years. It's called Auto-Lean and it is not a FADEC, it is simply a device that sets your mixture where YOU would normally set your mixture. I know many would argue that it is not hard to do this on your own, but I do see many discussions and questions how to easilly set mixture with repeatable results. The device will hold the EGT in climb and descent, it will find and hold the selected ROP or LOP mixture. It is operating on a couple of experimental aircraft and I am now quite far along in the STC process for M20 series Mooneys. It was flight tested with FAA representatives this past fall. I hope to have final testing and paperwork complete in early 2015. I find that the repeatable EGT results under high workload (IMC, training, high traffic areas, etc) makes all of the hours and dollars spent worthwhile. The nice part vs FADEC controlled mixture is that YOU can select the EGT you prefer, ROP or LOP and you can even change your mind during phases of flight.....just like you would today. Want speed...go for best power, want to save fuel, go for best range mixture.

I know many are sensitive to advertising in the forums, so I hope this is taken as simply an advisory about another concept that fits this thread subject.

[carusoam]

Rob,

There is extra space when a Mooney guy is building new technology for other Mooney guys...

Just make it extra good or you will have to grow some really thick skin.

[scottfromiowa]

2010 ST1300