Pireps on firewall forward HP + STC

[RLCarter]

20 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You know if you normally cruise at say 2400 RPM and WOT, you can get more power from just cranking your RPMs up to 2700 then you will from any set of headers or an MSD ignition setup!

Aircraft piston engines are decades behind on technology, my 3.5L (213 c.i.) produces 365 HP vs my IO-360 with 200 HP, your money would be better spent on mods that reduce drag and fuel and just twist it a little tighter

[gsxrpilot]

12 minutes ago, RLCarter said:

Aircraft piston engines are decades behind on technology, my 3.5L (213 c.i.) produces 365 HP vs my IO-360 with 200 HP, your money would be better spent on mods that reduce drag and fuel and just twist it a little tighter

It's not making 365 HP at 2500 or even 2700 RPM though.

[RLCarter]

6 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

It's not making 365 HP at 2500 or even 2700 RPM though.

true,  at 2700 its only about 175hp, my point being our aircraft engines could be smaller, lighter, more efficient and produce the same HP and still be just as reliable 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, RLCarter said:

Aircraft piston engines are decades behind on technology, my 3.5L (213 c.i.) produces 365 HP vs my IO-360 with 200 HP, your money would be better spent on mods that reduce drag and fuel and just twist it a little tighter

Your car engine cannot do that for hours on end.

[Sandman993]

Moot point... we can’t even have electronic ignition in our certified aircraft...much less a car engine. Yet.

My point was simple, it doesn’t matter how much gas is onboard... that won’t make the propeller gov tell the prop to come off it’s stops in a takeoff run in order to take a bigger bite of molecules, unless you have the ponies to pull harder. That old fwf was still able to load the prop off the stops. That 201 was pulling 1300fpm within 30 seconds after we rotated. In pattern work, he can achieve 1,000ft agl at or before midfield downwind. We were operating at near sea level field... And no, that’s not a jumbo jet size pattern. Suffice it to say, I was impressed that a 2100 hr engine could go along like that.

earlier, someone commented that our engines are inherently vibrating... my stock engine runs quite smoothly, but I’m in tune and my prop is balanced...I get comments regularly from other pilots that ride with me with just the occasional blood curdling screams.

 

i do hope to see some other comments from folks that have the hp mod with a proper break in... you cannot manage our engine temps properly without a jpi or equivalent in my view.

[RLCarter]

43 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Your car engine cannot do that for hours on end.

really? I've gone from Victoria TX to Windsor Ontario and back, that was like 62 hrs of driving (speed limit was 55 then), we just stopped for fuel which wasn't very often (over 80 gallons), got to Windsor loaded 2 motorcycles and head back, the longest the engine was off was just over an hour clearing customs other than that 4 fuel stops at less than 30 minutes each

[Mark89114]

1 minute ago, RLCarter said:

really? I've gone from Victoria TX to Windsor Ontario and back, that was like 62 hrs of driving (speed limit was 55 then), we just stopped for fuel which wasn't very often (over 80 gallons), got to Windsor loaded 2 motorcycles and head back, the longest the engine was off was just over an hour clearing customs other than that 4 fuel stops at less than 30 minutes each

Yes, but a car engine on the highway is maybe 35%?  Or about half of what an airplane does for hours on end.

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, RLCarter said:

really? I've gone from Victoria TX to Windsor Ontario and back, that was like 62 hrs of driving (speed limit was 55 then), we just stopped for fuel which wasn't very often (over 80 gallons), got to Windsor loaded 2 motorcycles and head back, the longest the engine was off was just over an hour clearing customs other than that 4 fuel stops at less than 30 minutes each

You cannot run your engine at 375HP for hours on end.  It would over heat.  That peak horsepower is for advertising purposes - and for bragging about the 0-60 pace - which if that takes what 5 seconds?  10 seconds? is not like even a take off 5 min power on an airplane.

In fact, super car engines have fared very poorly in aviation settings - including the beloved Subaru 4 cylinder turbo (as in my own car the Subaru WRX STI rated at 300hp but some people uptick their cars to 600hp!)  or many other car engines in experimental that have lead to major problems including over heating.  At best to run these car engines in an airplane requires significant down rating to say 30-40% of the car version since 100% in aviation means you can run it for like 5 or 10 minutes continuous and you can run 85% of that for hours on end.  

[Dream to fly]

....   nevermind

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, Mark89114 said:

Yes, but a car engine on the highway is maybe 35%?  Or about half of what an airplane does for hours on end.

Although it varies by aerodynamic considerations, the studies I have seen indicate that to maintain 60 mph, the typical car requires about 20 hp.

[RLCarter]

you all are missing the point, an aircraft engine produces very little horse power per cubic inch. The O-360 family of engines was certified over 60yrs ago, there are a ton of advancements that have been made over the past 6 decades, Could Lycoming or Conti build a 360 C.I. motor in the 275 ~ 300 HP range that would stay together and go well past the now 2000 hr TBO?. Sure they could, but it would cost a large fortune and take years to certify and decades to get their investment back. 

[carusoam]

Me and a few of my IO550 flying friends like to quote big daddy Don Garlits for his brilliance in motor selection....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Garlits

I think his line for fame was something like ‘no replacement for displacement’ with respect to tech twerks like turbos and superchargers...

High compression automotive engines have been coming on strong since the LT1 reappeared in the Corvette In 1992.  Using 10:1 pistons delivering 300hp... and gobs of torque.

Now we know where the automotive engine has been in the aviation world... stymied by heat and power transmission issues...

The last opportunity for a car engine in the Mooney world lasted about one cycle, with no rebuilding of it ever again...  search Porsche powered Mooney.  

the next opportunity for a car engine that has showed tremendous capability... search for an Audi engine being placed in an experimental plane around here...

Nice idea, but hasn’t happened yet...

The key thing for technical comparisons like these is collecting actual performance data.  And sharing openly...  it may cost a few dollars, or you may already have the equipment on board...

I use a portable WAAS gps and IPad app called CloudAhoy... the WAAS delivers the data in feet and seconds, the app records the data for display....

I love 10:1 compression pistons.  I suspect there is more to the success of making them work in aviation.  The Corvette’s LT1 engine changed the flow of the water cooling to get 300hp, but still only delivers that much power momementarily... 14 seconds the quarter mile has gone by, and 100mph is being passed.... at the same time the WRX in the lane next to me had topped out and faded back...

The next years version of the LT1 got independently controlled fuel injectors. Eight that fired individually, not all at once...

Don’t spend your unearned money, until you see the whites of their eyes....

Don’t expect a simple idea to work magically, without making a lot of adjustments to support it.

Then realize how much it costs to swap out a set of pistons.

Show me that it works, with real data, in my application... then i’ll Be really interested...

In other world news... The IO550 gained 10 real% hp just by turning up the rpm... going from 2500 to 2700...  T/O run for a Mooney went from 1200’ to 1800’ and climb rate soared as well....

So instead of getting excited about high compression cylinders, go with an IO550... everyone with a Missile has one... those are happy STC owners on record around here...

Compare FWF and MooneyMart, to Rocket engineering.  It’s a fun comparison of various levels of technical performance and customer relationships.

 

Joe,

What was on your mind?

Best regards,

-a-

 

[ArtVandelay]

The question is how long can you run an automotive engine at 75% power, I don’t run my airplane engine at 100% for very long.

[Sandman993]

The Porsche engine was pretty good... single lever and smooth as silk... one of the main issues was this crazy up and down economy... they came into a bad time. The Porsche option was expensive too, but it wasn’t because they made junk.

[carusoam]

TJ,

I gave my example as 100% output for 14 seconds before going totally illegal or out of room at the end of the track...

To go with that would be an astronomical FF, with so much heat the radiator would need to be upsized....

Similar 100% Power for a NA IO550 lasts a few minutes, but climbing at 2000 fpm the MAP begins to fall off quickly.  Before long you are at the cruising altitude with the map settled in below 65%bhp.

Now Compare the small bits and pieces available to us for the IO360...

• roller cam lifters... Lycoming
• 10:1 CR... FWF
• 25° BTDC timing... Mooney
• IO550... Rocket engineering

What is the availability of these gems for the plane you have?

[Dream to fly]

3 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

The question is how long can you run an automotive engine at 75% power, I don’t run my airplane engine at 100% for very long.

An automotive engine that is run at 75% power for an extended period of time will not hold up If it is a production built design. It will fail period.  The engines are built for a purpose of occasional WOT and load factored over a given time and if I remember correctly that time limit is 3 min at 85%+ then it needs time to cool down.  The bearing surfaces and water jackets can't handle the load.  Now before getting crazy a Corvette, Mustang or whatever fast toy you think you have that is bad ass if it is STOCK from the factory it has limits.  Racing a quarter mile is 10 - 15 seconds at best just to give you perspective. 

Using an automotive engine design for the power plant of a plane is silly.  Unless it has been built and designed for that purpose, only one company has done so.  It is a great design but still years away from certification.   

Now if you want to use the technology from the auto/diesel world and incorporate it into the aviation world that is totally doable and needs to happen.  We have the technology that would put to bed issues of mismatched cylinder heating and exhaust temps that rise or fall because of improper A/F ratios. 

We have metals that are far superior than the 60 plus year old metal we are flying around.  It can be done but it would cost!

[carusoam]

Sandman,

Porsche made a great underpowered engine that couldn’t be rebuilt.  Certain parts became unavailable...

Around 240hp. For the Long Body, that currently enjoys 310 hp.

There are always going to be tough economic cycles.

But that doesn’t excuse the disaster of a hurricane crushing M20Ls days after the winds died down... for anyone remembering the details...

Maybe if they had finished the 10:1 compression pistons, and the cross-current water cooling...  

Best regards,

-a-

[Dream to fly]

8 minutes ago, Sandman993 said:

The Porsche engine was pretty good... single lever and smooth as silk... one of the main issues was this crazy up and down economy... they came into a bad time. The Porsche option was expensive too, but it wasn’t because they made junk.

It was an over glorified VW engine that they revamped, and used electro/mechanical Lamda injection to meet the FAA requirements.  Very expensive and if you weren't constantly tuning you had issues.  

The engines that are out today just need to be modernized with electrons and metallurgy.

[carusoam]

Speaking of costs...  

does anyone look forward to the cost of an engine OH?  You get to do it every once in a while. Who wants to be the first, second or third to try new bits and pieces in their OH?

 

Sandman,

I’m still trying to find the status of the high compression piston STC...

Is this the same firewallforward company...  http://firewall.ca/index.php/28-2/ The web automatically redirected my search... looks somewhat familiar, but i’m Not seeing the pistons...

 

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

The question is how long can you run an automotive engine at 75% power, I don’t run my airplane engine at 100% for very long.

Also the point is / 100% of what 

the car the corvair engine has been a successful aircraft engine downrated to 100-120hp at “100%” as its aviation application 

https://flywithspa.com/product/corvair-flight-engines/

as far as up and coming modern aviation engines / I love the eps diesel 8 cylinder.  Currently testing on a sr22.

the rotax 915 is a modern engine isn’t it?  With modern tooling and tight specs but designed appropriately for aviation.

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, Dream to fly said:

It was an over glorified VW engine that they revamped, and used electro/mechanical Lamda injection to meet the FAA requirements.  Very expensive and if you weren't constantly tuning you had issues.  

The engines that are out today just need to be modernized with electrons and metallurgy.

And tighter specs for the build process 

[Dream to fly]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

And tighter specs for the build process 

And that too.....  I'm going back to my cage now.

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, Dream to fly said:

And that too.....  I'm going back to my cage now.

Yup / tooling/robotics Cnc for modern car builds are very very expensive but benefit from economy of scales of the auto industry.

 

i want an eps engine.

[N201MKTurbo]

Back in the 90s a rich guy, Bob Pond had the same idea. He thought that applying modern technology could kick the crap out of those old fashioned airplanes. He spent many millions developing a high tech racing plane using the latest automotive technology. He hired the best people available and spared no expense. 

He tried for three years to win at Reno. I don't think he ever finished a race and the plane was finally destroyed because of engine failure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Pond_Racer

[EricJ]

FWIW, there are racing applications where people beat on automotive engines for far longer than a quarter mile.    I'm on race car #5 (road racing, sometimes endurance racing), and every one has had a 100% stock motor for reliability.   Stock engines have a lot more design margin (even when run wide open for long periods) than tuned engines, which make more power but usually at the cost of reliability.   If you want every bit of power the rules allow, you may want a built motor, but if you can squeeze the performance from somewhere else you can save engine building budget and get more reliability (which is the tradeoff direction I prefer).   I've never had a problem running a (carefully selected) stock automotive engine extremely hard for long periods as long as the oil and water temps are managed, and that can be done without making changes to the engine.   

If an engine overheats in a race car it's a cooling system problem, not an engine problem.   A little better aero to the rad or a little bigger radiator or both usually fixes it, or sometimes just removing stuff that's in the way like the air conditioner. 

An airplane engine only makes rated power at sea level (or at equivalent manifold pressure), and lives a pretty tame life at altitude (or lower MPs) even at full throttle.   Flogging an auto engine hard at low altitudes runs it much closer to design limits for potentially long periods.   From my perspective an aircraft engine lives a pretty tame life compared to many racing applications with auto engines.   Both hold up well with careful attention to just a few things;   oil pressure and temp, head or coolant temps, and not exceeding rev limits.   If you manage those most reciprocating engines will live long lives, even if run hard.

Auto engines often suffer in aviation applications because they're out of their design envelope, and often the cooling system is compromised for reduced weight and improved aerodynamics.   OTOH, VW Beetle engines were popular in homebuilts for a long time, but they're pretty much a shrunken O-360.

Just another perspective, FWIW.