aviatoreb Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, PaulM said: Been done.. https://www.soloy.com/dual-pac.htmlhttp://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pt6t http://www.epi-eng.com/gearbox_products/mark-14_gearbox.htm I suspect you might see electric propulsion systems with either dual coaxial props, or dual motors, Geared motors loose power in the gear system, aviation is all about tradeoffs, nobody seems to want that one. Oh you already did post a helicopter twin shaft twin pt6. Hey do you think my Mooney would be faster with twin pt6s on the nose. How fast would she go with 2000hp on the nose? Answer / it would get up to 250 or 300 knots and then the wings would fall off. Edited April 8, 2018 by aviatoreb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 (edited) Yah know with that epi gear box you found I bet it and two rotax engines could be fitted inside a Mooney cowling. or an rv10. Hmmm if I were industrious stubborn enough to go experimental.... Edited April 8, 2018 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 1 hour ago, mike_elliott said: Ron Dubin put in a Factory Reman TIO-540A1FB he bought off Lycoming exchange for 55K at OSH 2 years ago. They are not that bad unless you want a new one without a core for your airboat. The TSIO 360 LB engine is 75K list price new and has cylinders you need to send off to get machined correctly I've always wanted a Bravo, but have been concerned about the engine cost. If I though I could get a deal like Ron's, I'd put a Bravo on my list, especially if it was FIKI. For engine cost reference, I used Air Power, with the assumption that the costs are relative. The IO360 in the 201 is certainly the least expensive, but in the large scheme, not that big a difference for a guy like me that flys 100 or 120 hours a year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 But the Bravo engine costs has to be considered when buying, if you can’t afford to overhaul, you can’t afford the plane. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, teejayevans said: But the Bravo engine costs has to be considered when buying, if you can’t afford to overhaul, you can’t afford the plane. I agree 100% if you can't afford the overhaul, you can't afford the plane. It's precisely why I don't own a M20L. The question becomes, what does an overhaul cost? Finding that info is harder than it should be. For the IO360 and TSIO360, Airpower is a good starting point. For the Bravo engine, it wasn't listed and I selected a similar engine. The Bravo with the "wet head" is unique enough that I have some concern with pricing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted April 8, 2018 Report Share Posted April 8, 2018 2 hours ago, chrisk said: I agree 100% if you can't afford the overhaul, you can't afford the plane. It's precisely why I don't own a M20L. The question becomes, what does an overhaul cost? Finding that info is harder than it should be. For the IO360 and TSIO360, Airpower is a good starting point. For the Bravo engine, it wasn't listed and I selected a similar engine. The Bravo with the "wet head" is unique enough that I have some concern with pricing. It looks like Ron paid about 9K less than what the Rebuilt is currently listing for on Airpower. He also got a "deal" at Osh talking directly to Lycoming. It also looks like a Bravo engine rebuilt is about 14.5 AMU's more than the smaller Continental rebuilt price for the K. That would be your exposure, keeping in mind, the Bravo mod makes this engine's cylinders very robust compared to the continentals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 Ok guys, have completed the horsepower + stc and the cam stc. Flew it back to victoria Texas from Loveland Colorado and it’s smoother than it was before and I haven’t had the prop balanced to this engine yet. It was expensive, but the rigging looks great and the whole engine looks awesome. Have been flying the pants off it now and have about 17hrs. This engine is starting to come in and every time I fly it gets more powerful! So for all those nay sayers that weighed in on how lousy this company is... I want to lay in a vote 180 degrees from that notion. The 201 will almost throw you back in the seat on takeoff run... the prop comes off the stops at 2700 and back to 2600 as she bites down on the air and pulls right back up to 2700 and it’s time to rotate. This 201 will get it! at break in cruise power (65%) at around 6,000’ 2400rpm and 21.5”- 22... she’s doing the speed numbers I used to get at wide open. The reason for that, I think is because of the new torque and how much you can honk on the prop now before the prop can load the engine enough to bring rpms back. Oh, and the climb! Even in this hot air here... I see 1,000 fpm thru 5,000 at 120. Two of the cylinders are running nice and cool (335) and the other two are still 360 and 370. Hopefully they will continue to improve. Anyone wanna race? I’ll be ready soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 How much more speed does this mod give you? It’s only listed at 210hp right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 225 hp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 Most nay sayers have no data to share... no first hand experience to show... 10% more horse power is a significant amount. Do you have any before and after data.... T/O distance... Climb rate... Max speed... level at 7k’ or so. FF on T/O... Are your break-in flights completed? An interesting way to collect actual data is to use the Cloudahoy app with a portable waas gps source... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLCarter Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 15 hours ago, Sandman993 said: Flew it back to victoria Texas Lived in Victoria 10+ years (80's), use to fly out of Ball Airport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 17 hours ago, Sandman993 said: Ok guys, have completed the horsepower + stc and the cam stc. Flew it back to victoria Texas from Loveland Colorado and it’s smoother than it was before and I haven’t had the prop balanced to this engine yet. It was expensive, but the rigging looks great and the whole engine looks awesome. Have been flying the pants off it now and have about 17hrs. This engine is starting to come in and every time I fly it gets more powerful! So for all those nay sayers that weighed in on how lousy this company is... I want to lay in a vote 180 degrees from that notion. The 201 will almost throw you back in the seat on takeoff run... the prop comes off the stops at 2700 and back to 2600 as she bites down on the air and pulls right back up to 2700 and it’s time to rotate. This 201 will get it! at break in cruise power (65%) at around 6,000’ 2400rpm and 21.5”- 22... she’s doing the speed numbers I used to get at wide open. The reason for that, I think is because of the new torque and how much you can honk on the prop now before the prop can load the engine enough to bring rpms back. Oh, and the climb! Even in this hot air here... I see 1,000 fpm thru 5,000 at 120. Two of the cylinders are running nice and cool (335) and the other two are still 360 and 370. Hopefully they will continue to improve. Anyone wanna race? I’ll be ready soon. Sooooo... this is best thing since sliced bread eh?! There must be a ton of airplanes out there with it? How many are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tspear Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 Ask Lycoming on the experimental side what more horsepower means. Going from 8.5 to 10.5 reduced TBO by 15 to 20%.Adding power always has a tradeoff. Question is if it worth it.Besides capturing flight data, you also need an engineer to be able to analyze and determine if the prop can leverage the additional power. There is no point to the additional power if it is the equivalent of spinning tires.TimSent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 I don't know how many of these are out there...think they said around 50. All I know is the RV guys do this mod on a regular basis along with ignition systems for their engines. Yeah, the engine is probably a little more high strung, but it can be managed. The ship is already a complex platform...if we want simple and easy, better get a 150. Imagine what those twin engine turbo piston guys have to watch for. Not seeing any heating issues that can't be managed so far...in fact, the flight manners haven't really changed that much except for the new lease on performance. Just my opinion, but if we aren't flying 75 or more is better hrs per year in the little Mooney... calling it "well handled" might be a stretch. Recognizing trends, having good flight control and cockpit rhythms along with good sight pictures are perishable skills. Don't need a bunch of flight data history to break it down in minute details...I can see and feel the difference...put it another way...it used to be a camaro and now it's a Z28. Time will tell on the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 4 hours ago, tspear said: Besides capturing flight data, you also need an engineer to be able to analyze and determine if the prop can leverage the additional power. Tim Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk Have no fear.... you share the data... MS has the engineers! 10% more HP is a seat of the pants measurable event... Back to the Camaro vs Z28/IROCZ analogy... 180hp V6 vs 220hp V8 and delivering all the extra ft-LBs of torque through 245/50 VR 16” Gatorback radials... 1987 numbers... from old fuzz memory. As far as unusable hp goes... the prop and governor does the job of converting the HP to motion.... if it didn’t you would recognize exceeding redline on the tach... Sure.... a mis-match of prop and HP can lose some efficiency. There are prop selections that will improve on that as well... got another 10amu for improved efficiency? Recognize some people don’t want to share some data... Others aren’t able to share data... Some are afraid of the data... because it might tell them something they don’t want to know... Comparisons to experimental planes and leaving out the details isn’t very helpful. Some people build experimental planes for all kinds of reasons like shortest T/O and spot landings... In the end... MS is a place to share data, experience, and ask questions and get answers... The longer you hang out here, the more you learn... The more you learn, the more you have to offer... Expect that some people are not skilled at asking questions or leaving advice. Some are challenged by the key board... Also know that there is always going to be a bigger fish... I thought 180hp was pretty good. 200 was even better. 280 is pretty spectacular.... 10% more, 310hp cuts your T/O distance down from 1200’ to 800’ and initial climb rate rises to 2kfpm... By sharing data you quickly find the cost of the power shows up in the CHTs... Fortunately, somebody had this challenge already and shared their solution... There is a FF that needs to be set properly, not in the middle of the range.... The sharing of real data and real documents is great at keeping the costs down..... Everybody has something to share. That’s what makes MS a community. Armed with an idea... I asked a question on MS... I was shared a ride in a 310hp Screemin’ Eagle.... documents and contacts... Enough info to comfortably Check the proper boxes when buying my next engine and prop. So... If you have info to share.... don’t be afraid to share it. Like bigger fish... there is always going to be nay sayers.... At MS some nay sayers don’t know they are nay sayers... Wait until you have a really good idea to share that is really unfamiliar to the community... like an AOAi... If you get bogged down because a few accidental nay sayers come out, you will miss out on what the greater community has to offer. Being part of a community takes some effort. It is worth it. Go MS! Best regards, -a- 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tspear Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 Have no fear.... you share the data... MS has the engineers! 10% more HP is a seat of the pants measurable event... Back to the Camaro vs Z28/IROCZ analogy... 180hp V6 vs 220hp V8 and delivering all the extra ft-LBs of torque through 245/50 VR 16” Gatorback radials... 1987 numbers... from old fuzz memory. As far as unusable hp goes... the prop and governor does the job of converting the HP to motion.... if it didn’t you would recognize exceeding redline on the tach... Sure.... a mis-match of prop and HP can lose some efficiency. There are prop selections that will improve on that as well... got another 10amu for improved efficiency? Recognize some people don’t want to share some data... Others aren’t able to share data... Some are afraid of the data... because it might tell them something they don’t want to know... Comparisons to experimental planes and leaving out the details isn’t very helpful. Some people build experimental planes for all kinds of reasons like shortest T/O and spot landings... In the end... MS is a place to share data, experience, and ask questions and get answers... The longer you hang out here, the more you learn... The more you learn, the more you have to offer... Expect that some people are not skilled at asking questions or leaving advice. Some are challenged by the key board... Also know that there is always going to be a bigger fish... I thought 180hp was pretty good. 200 was even better. 280 is pretty spectacular.... 10% more, 310hp cuts your T/O distance down from 1200’ to 800’ and initial climb rate rises to 2kfpm... By sharing data you quickly find the cost of the power shows up in the CHTs... Fortunately, somebody had this challenge already and shared their solution... There is a FF that needs to be set properly, not in the middle of the range.... The sharing of real data and real documents is great at keeping the costs down..... Everybody has something to share. That’s what makes MS a community. Armed with an idea... I asked a question on MS... I was shared a ride in a 310hp Screemin’ Eagle.... documents and contacts... Enough info to comfortably Check the proper boxes when buying my next engine and prop. So... If you have info to share.... don’t be afraid to share it. Like bigger fish... there is always going to be nay sayers.... At MS some nay sayers don’t know they are nay sayers... Wait until you have a really good idea to share that is really unfamiliar to the community... like an AOAi... If you get bogged down because a few accidental nay sayers come out, you will miss out on what the greater community has to offer. Being part of a community takes some effort. It is worth it. Go MS! Best regards, -a- I thought I covered it pretty well.Before I ran into liability limitations I was planning to go with an experimental. As part of this I contacted Lycoming for an experimental engine. Covered the options with them, as you increase the compression they decrease the TBO. 10.5 is the highest they go, depending on the case it will decrease the TBO by 15% to 20%.In terms of the prop, again as part of experimental I considered a used plane and was just going to replace the engine. Lycoming, MT and Hartzell all said the same thing, props are optimized for a horsepower range, indicated and true speed. If you increase power and do not adjust the prop, you likely are getting minimal gain because the prop is unable to transfer the additional power to thrust.TimSent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 Great points, Tim. We have learned a lot about matching engines, props and airframes over the years.... Everything from performance and tach limitations, to noise and harmonic vibrations, require looking at all three as a single system... One MSer is looking at adding TCs into the mix of engine, prop, and Mooney airframe systems... TomGo2... Of course, he is in the business of supplying TC parts to the world... Sharing data is the next best thing available to setting up an engineering study to get a more specific answer... Seeing some of these things in action at a Mooney fly-in is also pretty amazing.... I learned about MT props by seeing one in action at a Mooney fly-in... the sound of a composite four blade MT on a Rocket is really different during the T/O run... Unfortunately, the MT’s paperwork (STC) wasn’t available at the time I was buying a new prop... Looking back on my decision... a composite version of the TopProp may have been slightly better for my mission.... A few people have increased hp from 280 to 310hp without changing the prop... on their LBs... The change in HP is seat of the pants different... changing the prop’s efficiency is more of an instrumentation needed to see the difference.... One interesting thing is TBO... Some people have had some real success in extending their TBO well beyond 2k hours... it takes a fair amount of luck to get that far... keep all your stars aligned, all the time.... More stuff I learned as a PP reading and participating in MS.... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmyfm20s Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 I the keyboard challenged of the group:) I was of the understanding that this is a factory configuration for the IO-360 for the helicopters? or are they running those on STC's as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 58 minutes ago, kmyfm20s said: I the keyboard challenged of the group:) I was of the understanding that this is a factory configuration for the IO-360 for the helicopters? or are they running those on STC's as well? Not to get too technical, but I think helicopter engines are de rated... not real sure the purpose of the high compression pistons for roto wing ships... possible high altitude operation maybe the answer, but that’s a question for the scholars here. I’m the guy that would much rather fly em than work on em albeit I can’t seem to have one without the other. Many things about logic and aviation in the same sentence along with FAA continues to mystify this pilot. As far as I know, the STC for horsepower plus doesn’t over tax the prop and doesn’t change the TBO. Time before overhaul is just a manufacturer recommendation in our world... badly managed engines don’t make it to TBO while well managed engines may exceed those hours substantially...and sometimes, only luck will do. Some mysterious old pilot once said, the two main rules of continuous flight are; 1) Don’t hit nuttin. 2) Don’t do nuttin dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
320KPH Posted June 15, 2018 Report Share Posted June 15, 2018 as far as TBO goes, from FF website: This Horsepower Plus STC delivers a substantial performance increase that you can see and feel! All without any sacrifices in economy or reliability. Whether you are looking for greater performance, increase in fuel economy, or extended range. The Horsepower Plus conversion can exceed factory specifications in areas such as: 9mph Increase in T.A.S.@8000′ Rate of climb increase 220 fpm at Vy 12% Reduction in fuel consumption 13% Increase in both range & endurance No decrease in TBO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted June 15, 2018 Report Share Posted June 15, 2018 Previously, I mentioned there was a hanger mate with same year 201 as mine. Just before I left for Loveland engine gettin place, we went up and paced the airplanes... they were dead even at cruise settings albeit his climb was substantially better (he runs a 3 blade). This week, we took that same flight.... I’m still on the tail end of break-in, so we lightened things up by setting him up at 25/25 and I was at 24” and 2450... the new engine had 10 knots on the other ship at a slightly lower power setting. I believe it’s because of the increase torque. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted June 15, 2018 Report Share Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) The only way to really compare speed is to run them at 1000’ all three knobs full forward. Between the accuracy of tachs and MP gauges etc. and the effect of leaning , the test with both airplanes setting some sort of MP and RPM is meaningless. Each 100 RPm is around 3 knots and similarly wirh an inch of MP. Also, you do realize the formula for Torque = HP x 5252 / RPM. Your mod likely added some Hp but the torque is proportional to that. Edited June 15, 2018 by jetdriven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted June 15, 2018 Report Share Posted June 15, 2018 Digital tachs and analog mp gauges... it wasn’t a science project... only took a few seconds to see the difference and that it was not going to be a contest. trust me, everything some have been writing about the firewall forward co is pretty much inaccurate across the board. They did a pretty good job and the engine is making power and torque like crazy. The rigging looks as good as I’ve ever seen under a cowl. One point to make clear is, I’m twisting the prop knob more than ever before to bring rpms back. Bigger bite, more speed. Come on by and I’ll show you. No tears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted June 15, 2018 Report Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 hour ago, jetdriven said: Also, you do realize the formula for Torque = HP x 5252 / RPM. Your mod likely added some Hp but the torque is proportional to that. Byron, if you turn this into a discussion of the amount of torque a 747 has, I may have to block you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 15, 2018 Report Share Posted June 15, 2018 Interesting thing related to torque.... And what generates torque... Torque is a measurement of Force X Distance. (?) Increasing the distance traveled by the piston increases torque.... but that requires a different connecting rod and crankshaft to accommodate the change... and uses a bunch more fuel too... Changing the force comes with the new CR. A magic equation of thermodynamics.... What other changes were involved with the change of CR? Was there a change to the.... Cylinder Head? piston? connecting rod? Crank shaft? Did you use or keep the ignition timing that you started with? What was it? Often between 20 an 25 °BTDC... Did you use the same cylinder? If yes, did you hone out the interior rough edges from the old piston travel limits? I am thinking the only change was technically the length of the connecting rod. Compressing the piston closer to the cylinder head... Some changes could be for the what-If scenarios... What-if the valve timing and the cylinder timing get out of synch... my O360 knew the answer... bent valve stem and matching mark on the piston.... some pistons are shaped to the form of the cylinder head to improve CR... Sandman, Take this line of questions as if I am interested in what you have done. Not as an attack on the technology or the supplier you went with... It is really interesting if you show as much tech detail as possible so somebody else can copy your success... There is only so much fuel being used, getting 100% available power out of it will always be a challenge.... In combustion engines we are using a small amount of what is chemically available... lots of room for improvement when it happens. Early on... Try to not confuse other people’s concerns for your wallet... with nay-sayers... they are different. After a while... the concerned people will recognize you are bragging... (try to Avoid lettig things get messy after that...) It looks like changes in CR and timing, are valuable thermodynamic methods of getting more power out of the same gasoline being used... After that, increasing the rpm has been shown to work in the experimental world... Where TBO is less of a concern... Decreasing rpm has a tendency to lower the number of opportunities for fuel to convert to power.... fewer ignition cycles per minute... (how are you lowering rpm and producing more power?) It would help to share FF, MP and RPM with performance numbers like IAS, VS, and climb rate... and T/O distance... If only bragging... know the TC’d IO360s with intercooler and MP controllers are pretty cool.... or the.... There is always going to be a bigger fish... Keep sharing the news. best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.