 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: The IO-550 Engine, Was: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... |
 |
|
Good Afternoon All,
May I interject another voice favoring the IO-550 engine?
We are currently operating three of them in Bonanzas and find it to be the best money we ever spent on those airplanes. The airplanes go faster, climb better and burn less fuel.
How can this all be true?
The engine weighs no more than, and usually less than, any of the IO-470 or IO-520 engines it is replacing.
In some versions, it is as much as nine pounds lighter.
The 250 HP version of the IO-470C is nine pounds heavier than the 300 horsepower IO-550-B.
It fits in the same space because the spacing of the cylinders on the crankcase is the same and has been the same since Continental started the flat six program with the E-165 engine.
There is no need to beef the structure because the engine weighs no more.
If the gross weight of the airplane and the limiting speeds are not changed, the only structural consideration is the additional torque and that effect is generally so small that it can be disregarded.
On the Bonanzas, there have been no structural beef ups of any kind needed when the 550 is replacing a 470 or 520 engine. If the 550 is replacing an E-series engine, beef up is required due to a sixty pound increase in the weight of the engine over the E-series one.
In most cases, there is very little need for baffling changes for any reason other than to provide better cooling. Everything fits in the same space!
Most installations will need new baffling because with more power, there will be more heat developed, but for the Beech products, providing better cooling has not been a problem, we have more trouble keeping them warm than we do keeping them cool.
It goes faster and burns less fuel because the rate of climb is so good that you will cruise two to four thousand feet higher on any representative stage length flight.
The higher altitude allows the same or slightly higher true airspeed while using slightly less power. The lower indicated airspeed places the aircraft closer to best L/D speed while using slightly less power than was needed for that same true airspeed when operated at a lower altitude.
By pushing the engine a bit harder, you can go faster, but the best way to take advantage of the more powerful engine is to get up high and take advantage of the efficiency that is then available.
The higher power available means that you will almost always be at an altitude where Lean Of Peak operations are not only practical, but very desirable.
It really is one of the few win/win engine changes available.
I know the market among the Commanders is so small that it is unlikely any convertor wants to spend the money required to convince the Federalies of the suitability of such an installation, but I think a TC500 equipped with IO-550-Bs would be a marvelous machine.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 8/14/2007 1:11:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com writes:
| Quote: |
There was a gentleman who went through the effort to get the GO480 put on the 520s type data sheet as an approved engine. It took about 3 years, but it did get done. I don’t know what the real effect of the experimental designation he had to endure for that period was. It does appear that after the initial test period (about 40 hours of flying) the plane was usable for regular flying according to the operating limitations.
Bruce
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Owens
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:25 AM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
Good idea about the 550... A guy in the hangar here has a Bonanza with one and he loves it... I guess put out a call for all 12 of the existing 500A owners left to see what interest might be shown ;
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
|
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brcamp(at)windows.microso
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: The IO-550 Engine, Was: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... |
|
|
Anybody know a good 500a with run-out engines?
     Bruce
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:49 AM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: The IO-550 Engine, Was: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
Good Afternoon All,
May I interject another voice favoring the IO-550 engine?
We are currently operating three of them in Bonanzas and find it to be the best money we ever spent on those airplanes. The airplanes go faster, climb better and burn less fuel.
How can this all be true?
The engine weighs no more than, and usually less than, any of the IO-470 or IO-520 engines it is replacing.
In some versions, it is as much as nine pounds lighter.
The 250 HP version of the IO-470C is nine pounds heavier than the 300 horsepower IO-550-B.
It fits in the same space because the spacing of the cylinders on the crankcase is the same and has been the same since Continental started the flat six program with the E-165 engine.
There is no need to beef the structure because the engine weighs no more.
If the gross weight of the airplane and the limiting speeds are not changed, the only structural consideration is the additional torque and that effect is generally so small that it can be disregarded.
On the Bonanzas, there have been no structural beef ups of any kind needed when the 550 is replacing a 470 or 520 engine. If the 550 is replacing an E-series engine, beef up is required due to a sixty pound increase in the weight of the engine over the E-series one.
In most cases, there is very little need for baffling changes for any reason other than to provide better cooling. Everything fits in the same space!
Most installations will need new baffling because with more power, there will be more heat developed, but for the Beech products, providing better cooling has not been a problem, we have more trouble keeping them warm than we do keeping them cool.
It goes faster and burns less fuel because the rate of climb is so good that you will cruise two to four thousand feet higher on any representative stage length flight.
The higher altitude allows the same or slightly higher true airspeed while using slightly less power. The lower indicated airspeed places the aircraft closer to best L/D speed while using slightly less power than was needed for that same true airspeed when operated at a lower altitude.
By pushing the engine a bit harder, you can go faster, but the best way to take advantage of the more powerful engine is to get up high and take advantage of the efficiency that is then available.
The higher power available means that you will almost always be at an altitude where Lean Of Peak operations are not only practical, but very desirable.
It really is one of the few win/win engine changes available.
I know the market among the Commanders is so small that it is unlikely any convertor wants to spend the money required to convince the Federalies of the suitability of such an installation, but I think a TC500 equipped with IO-550-Bs would be a marvelous machine.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 8/14/2007 1:11:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com writes:
| Quote: |
There was a gentleman who went through the effort to get the GO480 put on the 520s type data sheet as an approved engine. It took about 3 years, but it did get done. I don’t know what the real effect of the experimental designation he had to endure for that period was. It does appear that after the initial test period (about 40 hours of flying) the plane was usable for regular flying according to the operating limitations.
Bruce
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Owens
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:25 AM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
Good idea about the 550... A guy in the hangar here has a Bonanza with one and he loves it... I guess put out a call for all 12 of the existing 500A owners left to see what interest might be shown ;
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
|
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
| Quote: | | _-============================================================_-=Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â - The Commander-List Email Forum -_-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse_-= the many List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,_-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,_-= Photoshare, and much much more:_-=Â Â --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List_-============================================================ |
01234
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
