 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
 |
|
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
md11strejo(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)> wrote:
[quote]Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
[b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don.curry(at)inbox.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:08 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don
--
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamey
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:26 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
| Quote: | | ===================================t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List===================================ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com===================================http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=================================== |
|
0123456789 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3 | Quote: | | =================================== |
4 | Quote: | | =================================== |
5 | Quote: | | =================================== |
6 | Quote: | | =================================== |
7 | Quote: | | =================================== |
8 | Quote: | | =================================== |
9
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:40 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out there that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas became extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression engines. Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the timing needs to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn government is going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas. So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I don't think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpoint. There is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the -B1E. It's heavier than the MT, but costs less.
From: James Courtney <jamey(at)jamescourtney.net>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
|
0123456789 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3 | Quote: | | =================================== |
4 | Quote: | | =================================== |
5 | Quote: | | =================================== |
6 | Quote: | | =================================== |
7 | Quote: | | =================================== |
8 | Quote: | | =================================== |
9
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
0
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JHOSLER(at)epri.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:53 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Maybe you guys should leave “well enough” alone. Flip Wilson 1971.
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:14 PM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
[b]The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.[/b]
[b]I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.[/b]
[b]Cliff[/b]
[quote]
---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:27 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Ken (Lycon) has done a fair amount of detonation margin testing so far. (word is, at sea level, about 12:1 in the limit) The parallel valve engine is a lot less susceptible to detonation and the Mooney guy in Colorado already got that one passed.
But, you're right. It isn't going to be easy. The sad fact is, doing a 9:1 would cost as much as a 10:1.
From: flyv35b <flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 6:13:41 PM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
DIV { MARGIN:0px;} The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Have you ever heard of Raymond Loewy? If not, you should do a little research on him. You have seen, and will continue to see, things he is responsible for for the rest of your life. He was name THE Industrialist of the 20th century.
His book: "Never Leave Well Enough Alone."
I have an original signed copy of the book. It was printed in 1951.
From: "Hosler, John" <JHOSLER(at)epri.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 7:51:38 PM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Maybe you guys should leave “well enough” alone. Flip Wilson 1971.
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:14 PM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
[b]The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.[/b]
[b]I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.[/b]
[b]Cliff[/b]
[quote]
---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamey
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
I agree that the odds are that a drop-in replacement for 100LL will be found (though I’m concerned and appalled at Continental’s lack of interest in pushing hard for that solution) but I also think that I’d be reluctant to spend the kind of time and money required to get an IO-360-B1E + CS prop + 10:1 certified with the FAA until I had a clearer answer on the fuel situation. I also think there’s a very good argument for certifying the unmodified IO engine and CS prop combo first and then following on with the high CR modification thus separating the concerns of slightly increased weight and the new fuel metering system from what amounts to a performance tweak. If some regulator at some point decides they don’t like the 10:1 CR after all then you’ll still have the 8.5:1 IO-360 + CS mod to fall back on. You also might be able to get Lycon to do the lion’s share of the STC lifting on the 10:1 as a separate modification.
Godspeed to GAMI and Swift.
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 6:14 PM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
| Quote: |
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out there that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas became extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression engines. Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the timing needs to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn government is going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas. So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I don't think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpoint. There is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the -B1E. It's heavier than the MT, but costs less.
From: James Courtney <jamey(at)jamescourtney.net>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
| Quote: | | ===================================t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List===================================ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com===================================http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=================================== |
|
012345
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
678
9 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3=================================== |
4 | Quote: | | =================================== |
5 | Quote: | | =================================== |
6 | Quote: | | =================================== |
7 | Quote: | | =================================== |
8 | Quote: | | =================================== |
9 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
0 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
1 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
2 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
3 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
4 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
5 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
6 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
7 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
8 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
9 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
23:34:00
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:40 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
I have to agree with your comments, Jamey. Do the basic installation first, which would simplify the approval process especially if the very engine model, IO-360-B1E, has already been approved with the Hartzell Scimitar prop. Most people would be satisfied with the increased performance of this combo, i.e, much improved takeoff and ROC, better fuel economy at cruise, lower noise level there and I think, increased engine durability.* A 10:1 CR STC'd mod to this original combo could be added later on possibly if there were enough demand from the purists that want the ultimate performance. Personally, I think an ignition system modification with at least a partial electronic ignition or maybe even completely electronic with a backup battery would be more beneficial in improving fuel efficiency. There still needs to be some more development work here. We both know that increasing the CR AND adding an electronic fuel injection would be even more beneficial in improving performance and reducing fuel consumption, particularly at high cruise altitudes. Putting the engine on the dyno at Ada, Oklahoma with the 10:1 CR and electronic FI would be very informative and beneficial in optimizing such a system.
BTW, Ken (Lycon) has been trying to get a 10:1 CR piston STC'd for the IO-550 Continental engine for years now and still hasn't got there.
* As a side note, Bill Marvel who owned a Tiger for 25 years had a lot of experience with rapid exhaust valve guide wear, to the point of loosing compression and replacing cylinders as low as 250 hrs on a regular basis. He felt that his particular mission of long distance flights at altitude and operation at redline most of the time aggravated this. Climbing out from a 5000 ft msl altitude airport after a fuel stop where the engine compartment heat soaks and then having to operate with a leaned out mixture places a heavy heat load on the cylinders during the subsequent climb. At any rate, he now flys an RV-8A with the same engine with a CS prop and tighter more restrictive baffling and has had NO guide or valve problems in 10 years and over a 1000 hrs. The main difference is cruise is still at full throttle but at 2300 rpm instead of 2700 rpm. And If you fly a CS prop you probably have noticed that just increasing the rpm by only100 rpm with no throttle or mixture changes will increase the EGT a significant amount. There must be some correlation here. Another point of interest, installing a single electronic ignition (one magneto retained) reduced fuel consumption about 1 gph at high altitude cruise conditions.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
| Quote: | From: Gary Vogt<teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM>
Subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would
be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's
heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited
by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000
feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
|
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes manufactured in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing, and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection. Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent flown complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) , and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for something they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance gain?
From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the higher compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher power, better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above". I'm an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a passion for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife definitely has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my desires for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106 (o)
858 573 9874 (f)
858 354 9964 (c)
Primary email: lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com
Secondary emailpay: lawrence.massaro(at)us.army.mil
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:37 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Hi Larry,
That's why I came up with those options. The IO360 B1E is roughly an $8000 add-on to the cost of an overhaul. It is the simplest and most straight forward.
Herein lies the rub. I talked to a prop expert and it looks like the B1E was never certified with a fixed pitch prop. SO? you say. Well, if I have to pay Sensenich to certify the prop to the engine/airframe, there goes the attraction. The guy I talked to said that prop certification could run $50,000. It took Fletcher 4 years to get the Sensenich approved for the Cheetah.
Crazy.
From: Lawrence Massaro <lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:37:25 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Lawrence Massaro <lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com (lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com)>
| Quote: | From: Gary Vogt<teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)>
Subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would
be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's
heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited
by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000
feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
|
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes manufactured in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing, and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection. Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent flown complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) , and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for something they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance gain?
From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the higher compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher power, better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above". I'm an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a passion for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife definitely has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my desires for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106 [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamey
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Hey Cliff.
I’ve talked to Ken a bit about his 10:1 work for the IO-550 when he was working-up a set of cylinders for my Bonanza. He was surprised by how well the TATurbo I have installed performed. I have noticed the EGT increase with RPM (more ROP than LOP obviously) but I just figure you have 5% more pulses of hot exhaust heading out the pipe with 100 more RPM thus the additional heating.
A friend is talking about building an RV-8. Drool…
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:33 AM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
I have to agree with your comments, Jamey. Do the basic installation first, which would simplify the approval process especially if the very engine model, IO-360-B1E, has already been approved with the Hartzell Scimitar prop. Most people would be satisfied with the increased performance of this combo, i.e, much improved takeoff and ROC, better fuel economy at cruise, lower noise level there and I think, increased engine durability.* A 10:1 CR STC'd mod to this original combo could be added later on possibly if there were enough demand from the purists that want the ultimate performance. Personally, I think an ignition system modification with at least a partial electronic ignition or maybe even completely electronic with a backup battery would be more beneficial in improving fuel efficiency. There still needs to be some more development work here. We both know that increasing the CR AND adding an electronic fuel injection would be even more beneficial in improving performance and reducing fuel consumption, particularly at high cruise altitudes. Putting the engine on the dyno at Ada, Oklahoma with the 10:1 CR and electronic FI would be very informative and beneficial in optimizing such a system.
BTW, Ken (Lycon) has been trying to get a 10:1 CR piston STC'd for the IO-550 Continental engine for years now and still hasn't got there.
* As a side note, Bill Marvel who owned a Tiger for 25 years had a lot of experience with rapid exhaust valve guide wear, to the point of loosing compression and replacing cylinders as low as 250 hrs on a regular basis. He felt that his particular mission of long distance flights at altitude and operation at redline most of the time aggravated this. Climbing out from a 5000 ft msl altitude airport after a fuel stop where the engine compartment heat soaks and then having to operate with a leaned out mixture places a heavy heat load on the cylinders during the subsequent climb. At any rate, he now flys an RV-8A with the same engine with a CS prop and tighter more restrictive baffling and has had NO guide or valve problems in 10 years and over a 1000 hrs. The main difference is cruise is still at full throttle but at 2300 rpm instead of 2700 rpm. And If you fly a CS prop you probably have noticed that just increasing the rpm by only100 rpm with no throttle or mixture changes will increase the EGT a significant amount. There must be some correlation here. Another point of interest, installing a single electronic ignition (one magneto retained) reduced fuel consumption about 1 gph at high altitude cruise conditions.
Cliff
| Quote: |
----- Original Message -----
From: James Courtney (jamey(at)jamescourtney.net)
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
I agree that the odds are that a drop-in replacement for 100LL will be found (though I’m concerned and appalled at Continental’s lack of interest in pushing hard for that solution) but I also think that I’d be reluctant to spend the kind of time and money required to get an IO-360-B1E + CS prop + 10:1 certified with the FAA until I had a clearer answer on the fuel situation. I also think there’s a very good argument for certifying the unmodified IO engine and CS prop combo first and then following on with the high CR modification thus separating the concerns of slightly increased weight and the new fuel metering system from what amounts to a performance tweak. If some regulator at some point decides they don’t like the 10:1 CR after all then you’ll still have the 8.5:1 IO-360 + CS mod to fall back on. You also might be able to get Lycon to do the lion’s share of the STC lifting on the 10:1 as a separate modification.
Godspeed to GAMI and Swift.
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 6:14 PM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
| Quote: |
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out there that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas became extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression engines. Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the timing needs to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn government is going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas. So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I don't think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpoint. There is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the -B1E. It's heavier than the MT, but costs less.
From: James Courtney <jamey(at)jamescourtney.net>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM (teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
| Quote: | | ===================================t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List===================================ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com===================================http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=================================== |
|
012345
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
678
9 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3=================================== |
4 | Quote: | | =================================== |
5 | Quote: | | =================================== |
6 | Quote: | | =================================== |
7 | Quote: | | =================================== |
8 | Quote: | | =================================== |
9
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
23:34:00 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
0 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
1 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
2 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
3 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
4t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
5 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
6 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
7 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
8 | Quote: | | t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List |
9 | Quote: | | =================================== |
0 | Quote: | | =================================== |
1 | Quote: | | =================================== |
2 | Quote: | | =================================== |
3 | Quote: | | =================================== |
4 | Quote: | | =================================== |
5 | Quote: | | =================================== |
6 | Quote: | | =================================== |
7 | Quote: | | =================================== |
8 | Quote: | | =================================== |
901234
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
10:56:00
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:09 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Ken gave up on the 10:1 IO550, not because of the FAA, but, because he needed to come up with the time and money ($15,000) to finish the testing.
If I got an IO360 with 10:1 installed and was able to fly it, I could fly off the hours.
Bill Scott sells his HC STC for the O320 for $500. After that, it's up to the installer.
The flight tests on the cowling cost me $15,000. Just the flight tests. Add the DER at $110/hr to that.
If I sold the first 15 STCs for $1000, how many would be willing to buy it before it's finished just so I could pay for the testing?
From: flyv35b <flyv35b(at)minetfiber.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:32:41 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
I have to agree with your comments, Jamey. Do the basic installation first, which would simplify the approval process especially if the very engine model, IO-360-B1E, has already been approved with the Hartzell Scimitar prop. Most people would be satisfied with the increased performance of this combo, i.e, much improved takeoff and ROC, better fuel economy at cruise, lower noise level there and I think, increased engine durability.* A 10:1 CR STC'd mod to this original combo could be added later on possibly if there were enough demand from the purists that want the ultimate performance. Personally, I think an ignition system modification with at least a partial electronic ignition or maybe even completely electronic with a backup battery would be more beneficial in improving fuel efficiency. There still needs to be some more development work here. We both know that increasing the CR AND adding an electronic fuel injection would be even more beneficial in improving performance and reducing fuel consumption, particularly at high cruise altitudes. Putting the engine on the dyno at Ada, Oklahoma with the 10:1 CR and electronic FI would be very informative and beneficial in optimizing such a system.
BTW, Ken (Lycon) has been trying to get a 10:1 CR piston STC'd for the IO-550 Continental engine for years now and still hasn't got there.
* As a side note, Bill Marvel who owned a Tiger for 25 years had a lot of experience with rapid exhaust valve guide wear, to the point of loosing compression and replacing cylinders as low as 250 hrs on a regular basis. He felt that his particular mission of long distance flights at altitude and operation at redline most of the time aggravated this. Climbing out from a 5000 ft msl altitude airport after a fuel stop where the engine compartment heat soaks and then having to operate with a leaned out mixture places a heavy heat load on the cylinders during the subsequent climb. At any rate, he now flys an RV-8A with the same engine with a CS prop and tighter more restrictive baffling and has had NO guide or valve problems in 10 years and over a 1000 hrs. The main difference is cruise is still at full throttle but at 2300 rpm instead of 2700 rpm. And If you fly a CS prop you probably have noticed that just increasing the rpm by only100 rpm with no throttle or mixture changes will increase the EGT a significant amount. There must be some correlation here. Another point of interest, installing a single electronic ignition (one magneto retained) reduced fuel consumption about 1 gph at high altitude cruise conditions.
Cliff
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lmassaro
Joined: 28 Sep 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Well, I guess Option 1 is a non-starter then...
So you are down to option 2 - FI engine plus CS prop
or
Option 3 - FI engine plus CS prop plus HC pistons.
Since you have to deal with the same order of magnitude in certification bullsh*t with either, looks to me that Option 3 is the only choice.
Now the question is what prop? Is there room for the prop controls/governor, etc with the Hartzell option? The MT looks nice, but damn, pretty pricey...
Forgive my ignorance but what FI IO-360 engine is used in the C-172SPs? and why isnt that engine/fixed prop a candidate?
Larry M
'92 AG-5B N9186M KRNM
'91 AG-5B N626FT KAUN (Project X)
[quote="teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM"]Hi Larry,
That's why I came up with those options. The IO360 B1E is roughly an $8000 add-on to the cost of an overhaul. It is the simplest and most straight forward.
Herein lies the rub. I talked to a prop expert and it looks like the B1E was never certified with a fixed pitch prop. SO? you say. Well, if I have to pay Sensenich to certify the prop to the engine/airframe, there goes the attraction. The guy I talked to said that prop certification could run $50,000. It took Fletcher 4 years to get the Sensenich approved for the Cheetah.
Crazy.
From: Lawrence Massaro <lmassaro>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:37:25 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Lawrence Massaro <lmassaro>
| Quote: | From: Gary Vogt<teamgrumman>
Subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would
be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's
heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited
by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000
feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
|
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes manufactured in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing, and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection. Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent flown complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) , and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for something they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance gain?
From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the higher compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher power, better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above". I'm an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a passion for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife definitely has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my desires for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
The -L2A is an updraft engine. That means the Tiger airbox would have to be exchanged for something else. The Cessna had a deeper cowling so . . . . more room. It does have a hollow crank though, so maybe the testing on a fixed pitch has already been done. The question remains whether Sensenich will bless the installation into a Tiger. Something to look into.
From: lmassaro <lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 7:00:16 PM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "lmassaro" <lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com (lmassaro(at)tac-eng.com)>
Well, I guess Option 1 is a non-starter then...
So you are down to option 2 - FI engine plus CS prop
or
Option 3 - FI engine plus CS prop plus HC pistons.
Since you have to deal with the same order of magnitude in certification bullsh*t with either, looks to me that Option 3 is the only choice.
Now the question is what prop? Is there room for the prop controls/governor, etc with the Hartzell option? The MT looks nice, but damn, pretty pricey...
Forgive my ignorance but what FI IO-360 engine is used in the C-172SPs? and why isnt that engine/fixed prop a candidate?
Larry M
'92 AG-5B N9186M KRNM
'91 AG-5B N626FT KAUN (Project X)
[quote="teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM"]Hi Larry,
That's why I came up with those options. The IO360 B1E is roughly an $8000 add-on to the cost of an overhaul. It is the simplest and most straight forward.
Herein lies the rub. I talked to a prop expert and it looks like the B1E was never certified with a fixed pitch prop. SO? you say. Well, if I have to pay Sensenich to certify the prop to the engine/airframe, there goes the attraction. The guy I talked to said that prop certification could run $50,000. It took Fletcher 4 years to get the Sensenich approved for the Cheetah.
Crazy.
From: Lawrence Massaro
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:37:25 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Lawrence Massaro
| Quote: | From: Gary Vogt
Subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would
be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's
heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited
by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000
feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit down?
|
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes manufactured in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing, and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection. Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent flown complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) , and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for something they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance gain?
From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the higher compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher power, better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above". I'm an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a passion for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife definitely has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my desires for Option 3
would not be the in
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
I just saw this.
"Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don"
The 200hp, though it sounds sexy as hell, is a terrible choice for the Tiger.
1. It's 60 lbs heavier.
2. Requires a modified engine mount
3. Requires all new baffles
4. Requires a new airbox and inlet.
5. Is an inch wider
6. Has a narrower detonation margin
7. Wouldn't be able to fit my cowling on it.
A ported and polished parallel valve engine with 8.5:1 compression ratio will make 200 hp everyday.
A stock parallel valve engine with 10:1 compression ratio will make 210 hp. Derate that to 180 hp and you have 180 hp to 5,000 + feet.
From: Don Curry <don.curry(at)inbox.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:06:11 AM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don
--
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n2_narcosis(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:36 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Hey Gary,
Why would you have to derate the power on the 10:1? What would it be, an RPM resriction?
Brock
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM> wrote:
[quote]
From: Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 10:42 PM
I just saw this.
"Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don"
The 200hp, though it sounds sexy as hell, is a terrible choice for the Tiger.
1. It's 60 lbs heavier.
2. Requires a modified engine mount
3. Requires all new baffles
4. Requires a new airbox and inlet.
5. Is an inch wider
6. Has a narrower detonation margin
7. Wouldn't be able to fit my cowling on it.
A ported and polished parallel valve engine with 8.5:1 compression ratio will make 200 hp everyday.
A stock parallel valve engine with 10:1 compression ratio will make 210 hp. Derate that to 180 hp and you have 180 hp to 5,000 + feet.
From: Don Curry <don.curry(at)inbox.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:06:11 AM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don
--
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:37 am Post subject: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
|
|
Derating the power would be foe the same reason the 160 hp HP pistons for the Cheetah was derated. Not doing so requires a complete recertification of the airframe and operating manuals.
From: Brock Windsor <n2_narcosis(at)YAHOO.COM>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 3:32:13 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Hey Gary,
Why would you have to derate the power on the 10:1? What would it be, an RPM resriction?
Brock
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM> wrote:
[quote]
From: Gary Vogt <teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 10:42 PM
I just saw this.
"Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don"
The 200hp, though it sounds sexy as hell, is a terrible choice for the Tiger.
1. It's 60 lbs heavier.
2. Requires a modified engine mount
3. Requires all new baffles
4. Requires a new airbox and inlet.
5. Is an inch wider
6. Has a narrower detonation margin
7. Wouldn't be able to fit my cowling on it.
A ported and polished parallel valve engine with 8.5:1 compression ratio will make 200 hp everyday.
A stock parallel valve engine with 10:1 compression ratio will make 210 hp. Derate that to 180 hp and you have 180 hp to 5,000 + feet.
From: Don Curry <don.curry(at)inbox.com>
To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:06:11 AM
Subject: RE: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Why isn’t a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results. No?
Don
--
| | - The Matronics TeamGrumman-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?TeamGrumman-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
