 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
drwer2
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 41
Location: Squaw Valley, CA
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:39 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
 |
|
Thanks Chris,
Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s. Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
wer
[quote][b]
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
No Generality is worth a damn....including this one.
cogito ergo aero-geek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
willis robison wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks Chris,
Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.
Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the
drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
|
A good starting point might be to find a Cherokee-6/300 in a bone yard.
You'd at least have the correct engine and a mount that could be
modified. There was also a company that had an stc to put TIO-540-J2BD
350hp engines on the flat nacelle Commanders. I assume they built their
own mount and it might be closer to what's needed. Anyone know for sure
how much the firewall mount points differ between a bathtub and
streamline Commander?
chris
| | - 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 |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:50 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
Good Morning Chris,
You already know I am an unabashed lover of the Continental IO-550-B. I have always thought that the 550 would be a natural to replace the Continentals that were used in a few Commander 500-A's many years ago.
How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
I am not at all familiar with how the IO-470-M mounts. Is it the same as most 470s? If so, the 550 should be a drop in replacement. Always nice to have an engine with many users that is also in current production.
Just musing, but that IS always fun. Now, if we could just get rid of the FAA ---?---
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:55:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, cschuerm(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: | --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
willis robison wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks Chris,
Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.
Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the
drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
|
A good starting point might be to find a Cherokee-6/300 in a bone yard.
You'd at least have the correct engine and a mount that could be
modified. There was also a company that had an stc to put TIO-540-J2BD
350hp engines on the flat nacelle Commanders. I assume they built their
own mount and it might be closer to what's needed. Anyone know for sure
how much the firewall mount points differ between a bathtub and
streamline ===============================================
_-= Use the ties Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
[quote][b]
| | - 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 |
|
|
cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:09 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with
IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
|
Howdy Bob.
Actually, we're dealing with two different issues. The Commanders that
had the 470's were 500A's. There is an existing STC (Colemill) to
replace that with a 520, so the 550 should be trivial and would indeed
make a fine airplane out of the A. Some A models were converted to B
models with the 290hp 540's. They use the same mount points on the
firewall, but a different bed mount of course.
The big problem is the earlier bathtub nacelle commanders which all had
geared lycomings. Totally different firewall, mount points, etc. Since
the geared Lyc's are longer due to the gearbox, even the basic physical
fit poses a problem. Since it's pretty much a "from scratch" install,
there would be little difference in the effort required to put on either
a 540 or a 550. I concur that the 550 would be an excellent choice
although I would personally lean towards the 350hp 540-j2bd as a best
fit for the commander. That airframe needs all the power you can bolt
on it. (I bet we both agree on that 
Chris
| | - 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 |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:13 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
Good Morning Chris,
As usual, you have it all well thought through.
That j2bd had me scared for a while, but since you AND George consider it a good engine, I would certainly agree. Just gotta run it right! <G>
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 9:10:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, cschuerm(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: | --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with
IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
|
Howdy Bob.
Actually, we're dealing with two different issues. The Commanders that
had the 470's were 500A's. There is an existing STC (Colemill) to
replace that with a 520, so the 550 should be trivial and would indeed
make a fine airplane out of the A. Some A models were converted to B
models with the 290hp 540's. They use the same mount points on the
firewall, but a different bed mount of course.
The big problem is the earlier bathtub nacelle commanders which all had
geared lycomings. Totally different firewall, mount points, etc. Since
the geared Lyc's are longer due to the gearbox, even the basic physical
fit poses a problem. Since it's pretty much a "from scratch" install,
there would be little difference in the effort required to put on either
a 540 or a 550. I concur that the 550 would be an excellent choice
although I would personally lean towards the 350hp as a best 540-j2bd
fit for the commander. That airframe needs all the power you can bolt
on it. (I bet we both agree on that
Chris
|
[quote][b]
| | - 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 |
|
|
cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | That j2bd had me scared for a while, but since you AND George consider
it a good engine, I would certainly agree. Just gotta run it right! <G>
|
Yup, when they start pushing 300+hp out of a flat six, they do require a
bit more attention from the operator and are far less tolerant of
abuse. I've heard of of j2bd's run a full 2000 hours though and I think
that's pretty impressive. Maybe I should hang a pair of 'em on my
Aztruk Bet it would go almost straight up! I'd love to hear your
opinion of the TSIO-520K engines. I've had the opportunity to spend
some time behind them, but the thought of 435hp out of 520 cid just
makes me woozy....
| | - 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 |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
Good Afternoon Chris,
I have never operated a pair of those engines, but we made a point of never buying an airplane for stock that was so equipped. No good data, just a bit afraid of the whole thing.
Having said that, I keep dreaming about having a 550 cubic inch engine that was as efficient and RELIABLE as were our wonderful Turbo Compound Curtiss Wright 3350s.
We pulled a very conservative 3250 HP out of them for takeoff, but I think some military versions took out as much as 3500 HP. That is OVER one HP per cubic inch. They were geared. My recollection is that the engine RPM was not over twenty-nine hundred. The weight was just over one pound per cubic inch. About 3550 if I recall correctly.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a 550 cubic inch engine that weighed no more than 550 pounds and developed 500 HP. Seems like if those 1953 engineers could make it work, equally competent young folks should be able to do as well!
The engine has a bad reputation, but I think the reputation is undeserved. When it was a first line engine, it was very reliable. When it was taken off the long hauls and moved to short range operations, reliability went to the dogs. We who flew it when it was new had the benefit of close scrutiny, guidance, and thorough training by Curtiss Wright's top engineers. When that engine was relegated to short haul, the pilots and flight engineers only got a three bounce check out and were on their way. Not fair to the engine or the crews at all!
Heavily boosted and geared, I think we should be able to have a 550 to 600 pound engine that would deliver at least 500 HP. Unfortunately, the market does not seem big enough to attract the top line engineering talent it would require to make such an engine practical!
Way off the subject I know, but I still dream!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 10:48:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time, cschuerm(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: | --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | That j2bd had me scared for a while, but since you AND George consider
it a good engine, I would certainly agree. Just gotta run it right! <G>
|
Yup, when they start pushing 300+hp out of a flat six, they do require a
bit more attention from the operator and are far less tolerant of
abuse. I've heard of of j2bd's run a full 2000 hours though and I think
that's pretty impressive. Maybe I should hang a pair of 'em on my
Aztruk Bet it would go almost straight up! I'd love to hear your
opinion of the TSIO-520K engines. I've had the opportunity to spend
some time behind them, but the thought of 435hp out of 520 cid just
makes me ======================== Use the ties Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
[quote][b]
| | - 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 |
|
|
wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.c
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:26 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
Bob,
I know of at least one 500A where IO-520s have been dropped in to replace the IO-470Ms. The change includes a three blade prop. I have been trying to get a straight answer from Hartzell as to whether I can run the extra 30hp through my existing two blade props. Two blades might not be as sexy as three, but the fewer the blades the greater efficiency, all else being equal, as a number of early C 310 owners have found, to their great expense. Spend all that money, and the aeroplane goes slower.
Likewise, the potential for vibration couples from going to three blade props, again as some C310 owners have found out ---- in this case having to ditch the three blade props.
As far as I can see, the IO-550 will drop in, with very minor modifications to the cowl for clearance. Our experience with the 520 is that cooling is no problem, the cowl gills have enough “latitude” to accommodate the small increase in high power cooling demand. A mate of mine is about to do a turbo-prop conversion to a C340A, which will leave a pair of TSIO-520 looking for a good home, I will be easily tempted.
A ripper conversion is an IO-550 in a C-182, gives a whole meaning to “get up and go”, and the conversion was easy. These have all been done to our equivalent of a filed mod., with a DER signoff.
I note there is a AC680FPL with STC 400hp Lycomings on eBay right now.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:46 PM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: STC for IO-540 conversion
Good Morning Chris,
You already know I am an unabashed lover of the Continental IO-550-B. I have always thought that the 550 would be a natural to replace the Continentals that were used in a few Commander 500-A's many years ago.
How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
I am not at all familiar with how the IO-470-M mounts. Is it the same as most 470s? If so, the 550 should be a drop in replacement. Always nice to have an engine with many users that is also in current production.
Just musing, but that IS always fun. Now, if we could just get rid of the FAA ---?---
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:55:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, cschuerm(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
willis robison wrote:
> Thanks Chris,
>
> Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.
> Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the
> drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
>
A good starting point might be to find a Cherokee-6/300 in a bone yard.
You'd at least have the correct engine and a mount that could be
modified. There was also a company that had an stc to put TIO-540-J2BD
350hp engines on the flat nacelle Commanders. I assume they built their
own mount and it might be closer to what's needed. Anyone know for sure
how much the firewall mount points differ between a bathtub and
streamline ======================
======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; =
|
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
0123456789
[quote][b]
| | - 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 |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:51 am Post subject: STC for IO-540 conversion |
|
|
Good Morning Bill,
Totally agree about the two blade issue.
I tried to get a two blade for my Bonanza when I installed my first IO-550-B. I was told by both Hartzell and McCauley that there was plenty of room on the Bonanza to swing a two blade that could easily absorb the three hundred plus horsepower.
They didn't have any two blades approved for the installation because no one had asked for it. They told me (this was in 1996) that the minimum charge to run the certification data would be one hundred thousand dollars and that the test propellor would be junk. If something came up that had to be modified to get the approval, another one hundred thousand dollar test run would be needed. Obviously I am struggling along with three blade propellors on all our 550s.
An example of how well a two blade works at those horsepowers is the Malibu and Mirage. Piper kept testing various propellors and that relatively short, fat, two blade always made the best compromise between speed and climb performance. It wasn't until after the little German composite four blade became ubiquitous on the Malibu that Piper succumbed to getting a three blade approved. The only reason we are stuck with three blade props on the three to four hundred horsepower range is because people think they look sexy.
You are probably aware that the Bonanza that is running around the country using a Duke engine sports a two blade much like the one on an early Malibu.
That particular engine installation was done by Darryl Greenamyer with the after hour assistance of a team of Lockheed Skunk Works engineers. I think they knew what they were doing!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/20/2009 3:26:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time, wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au writes:
| Quote: |
Bob,
I know of at least one 500A where IO-520s have been dropped in to replace the IO-470Ms. The change includes a three blade prop. I have been trying to get a straight answer from Hartzell as to whether I can run the extra 30hp through my existing two blade props. Two blades might not be as sexy as three, but the fewer the blades the greater efficiency, all else being equal, as a number of early C 310 owners have found, to their great expense. Spend all that money, and the aeroplane goes slower.
Likewise, the potential for vibration couples from going to three blade props, again as some C310 owners have found out ---- in this case having to ditch the three blade props.
As far as I can see, the IO-550 will drop in, with very minor modifications to the cowl for clearance. Our experience with the 520 is that cooling is no problem, the cowl gills have enough “latitude” to accommodate the small increase in high power cooling demand. A mate of mine is about to do a turbo-prop conversion to a C340A, which will leave a pair of TSIO-520 looking for a good home, I will be easily tempted.
A ripper conversion is an IO-550 in a C-182, gives a whole meaning to “get up and go”, and the conversion was easy. These have all been done to our equivalent of a filed mod., with a DER signoff.
I note there is a AC680FPL with STC 400hp Lycomings on eBay right now.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:46 PM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: STC for IO-540 conversion
Good Morning Chris,
You already know I am an unabashed lover of the Continental IO-550-B. I have always thought that the 550 would be a natural to replace the Continentals that were used in a few Commander 500-A's many years ago.
How much difference is there between the mounts for Commanders with IO-470-M Continentals and the ones with Lycomings?
I am not at all familiar with how the IO-470-M mounts. Is it the same as most 470s? If so, the 550 should be a drop in replacement. Always nice to have an engine with many users that is also in current production.
Just musing, but that IS always fun. Now, if we could just get rid of the FAA ---?---
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:55:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, cschuerm(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
willis robison wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks Chris,
Well, we may have to consider it if we ever lose the IGO-540s.
Although I wouldnt go into producing the mounts, I would provide the
drawings, gratis for those who also needed a conversion.
|
A good starting point might be to find a Cherokee-6/300 in a bone yard.
You'd at least have the correct engine and a mount that could be
modified. There was also a company that had an stc to put TIO-540-J2BD
350hp engines on the flat nacelle Commanders. I assume they built their
own mount and it might be closer to what's needed. Anyone know for sure
how much the firewall mount points differ between a bathtub and
streamline ======================
======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; =
|
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
0123456789
0 |
[quote][b]
| | - 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
