Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

o-540
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

JHearnsberger

Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 31
Location: Springhill, LA

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:23 am Post subject: o-540

I have an A&P friend whom I trust that has offered to help me rebuild an o-540.  He said he has two o-540's in his shop and that we could go with  the 235hp or we could change the pistons in one to make it a 250hp.  He mentioned that with the 235hp you would have the ability to use auto gas in case you got in a bind somewhere.  I've been planning on spending around $50,000 for a new io-540.  If I go this route with my friend, it could save me probably 35-40%.



How will using an 0-540 235hp or 250hp affect my fuel efficiency over a 260hp io-540?



What kind of extra work will be required on the firewall, cowling, etc. for using a carbureted engine instead of a non-carbureted engine?



I'm open to suggestions.

Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:10 pm Post subject: o-540

I believe there's more involved than a simple piston swap to convert it

for 250 or 260 hp use, depending on the engine model. (I assume they are

-A1A5?)  Still might not be a bad way to go, but make sure you not just

putting a heavy 8.5:1 piston in it.



Rhonda Barrett-Bewley

Barrett Precision Engines

2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.

Tulsa, OK 74115

(918) 835-1089 phone

(918) 835-1754 fax

www.barrettprecisionengines.com

--

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:46 pm Post subject: o-540

Save 35-40%?  Yes you will save but you are not comparing=.  In the one case you have a new engine with factory warranty and in the other you have something all together different. One is fuel injected the other is carbureted.  Not that going the mod route is bad, it is just that the savings you anticipated is because you changed the end result,  not because of actual savings on equal engines.

 

Extending that out to the ridiculous you could save 60 or 90%, but again you wouldn't be comparing = engines 

  

Gary Specketer

 

   

From: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 2:23:18 PM

Subject: o-540



--> RV10-List message posted by: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com>



I have an A&P friend whom I trust that has offered to help me rebuild an o-540.  He said he has two o-540's in his shop and that we could go with  the 235hp or we could change the pistons in one to make it a 250hp.  He mentioned that with the 235hp you would have the ability to use auto gas in case you got in a bind somewhere.  I've been planning on spending around $50,000 for a new io-540.  If I go this route with my friend, it could save me probably 35-40%.



How will using an 0-540 235hp or 250hp affect my fuel efficiency over a 260hp io-540?



What kind of extra work will be required on the firewall, cowling, etc. for using a carbureted engine instead of a non-carbureted engine?



I'm open to suggestions.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404218#404218



_-========================sp;                -Matt Dralle, Li-===================================





 [quote][b]

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:22 pm Post subject: o-540

I agree mostly with what others have said. The 235HP engine is 7:1 (or 7.2:1, maybe) compression pistons running at 2575 RPM max. The 250HP is 8.5:1 pistons running at 2575 RPM max. The 260HP is 8.5:1 running 2700 RPM max. Some engines have cast connecting rods and others have forged connecting rods (according to Allen Barrett). The counterweights are also different between engines. If you put 8.5:1 pistons in that engine, and run it at 2575 RPM, it will make roughly 250HP. This is what we have in N256H and have 1,350 hours on it. We may be slightly outclimbed by someone with 260HP for 1-2,000 ft, but then it would equal out, because once you pull the RPM back under 2575, the rest is equal with 8.5:1 pistons. 



The Carburetor vs Fuel Injection this is just a matter of personal preference. I would highly recommend Fuel Injection. That way you can lean much better and can tune your injectors for smoother running and overall better leaning yet. This shouldn't make any difference on HP. 



What engine would you be getting? Is it a new engine or a used engine? If you were expecting $50,000 on a new IO-540, then I would expect at least a 50% savings going with a used engine, and that should include new cylinders, new accessories, and a new fuel injection system. If it is a newly overhauled engine that he is trying to sell you, then 35-40% is reasonable, but it should also include new cylinders, new accessories (or overhauled) and a new or overhauled fuel injection system.



There shouldn't be much difference on firewall, cowling or baffles with this engine, whether with a carburetor or fuel injection system. The baffles fit slightly different on different cases, but it's not a big deal. All parallel valve 540's should fit on the -10 just about the same. Some people have had to slightly modify their engine mount for different cases, but you could run into that with any engine, as I understand. I have never run into that, and have put lots of different sub-model-number 540's on -10's. 



Again, there should be nothing wrong with running either of his engines on your plane, but the cost of the engine and what you are getting is the biggest issue. Feel free to call me at my cell number below once you have information on what he has and we can talk further. 



The lower compression pistons will let you run low octane mogas, but if you are planning to have that just so you can get out of a jam, it really won't help. If you have to lug gas cans from a gas station to your plane because the airport doesn't have gas, then you are most likely going to be hauling gas with ethanol. If so, then why have pistons that can run 87 octane when you could just get the 91-93 octane gas from the same station with high compression pistons? That is the only benefit of the low compression pistons. I have an RV-9A that I put low compression pistons in because the no-ethanol mogas that we can get here in Florida is max 89 octane, and you need 91 or better for 8.5:1. 



There is possibly another difference in the cylinders that won't allow higher compression pistons, but I don't know for sure. If you are paying that much for an engine (and airplane as a whole, for that matter), throw a new set of 8.5:1 jugs on and a fuel injection system. You will be glad you did.



By the way, most of this information I learned from Allen Barrett, and I hear he's a pretty smart guy when it comes to engines.



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694



On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:23 PM, JHearnsberger <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 I have an A&P friend whom I trust that has offered to help me rebuild an o-540.  He said he has two o-540's in his shop and that we could go with  the 235hp or we could change the pistons in one to make it a 250hp.  He mentioned that with the 235hp you would have the ability to use auto gas in case you got in a bind somewhere.  I've been planning on spending around $50,000 for a new io-540.  If I go this route with my friend, it could save me probably 35-40%.

 

 How will using an 0-540 235hp or 250hp affect my fuel efficiency over a 260hp io-540?

 

 What kind of extra work will be required on the firewall, cowling, etc. for using a carbureted engine instead of a non-carbureted engine?

 

 I'm open to suggestions.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404218#404218

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:23 pm Post subject: o-540

Some, not all 235 hp O-540s can run on 80/87 or most any grade mogas.

Most 250/260 hp (I)O-540s can run on 91+ octane mogas as they were 

certified on 91/96 avgas, and have same octane requirements as the 

O-360, 180hp engines with the same cylinders that have STC's for mogas, 

like the Cherokee 180.

As Rhonda says, you would need to be certain that the parts used were 

appropriate to the C4B% or A4D5 versions of the engine. There are a lot 

of different cranks that depend on the application and balance wts for 

the prop being considered. Then there are issues with ADs specific to 

certain models, what size/style mounting ears the engine has. While they 

can be changed, just another thing to get right from the start.If the 

mechanic is experienced, has all the needed micrometers and other 

measuring tools, to build a quality, new limits (not service limits) 

overhaul, it can be a good deal, but there are a number of pitfalls for 

someone that isn't familiar with the precise version engine you need.

The lower compression engine version of the 235 will not be as fuel 

efficient, but is very durable.



On 7/8/2013 12:23 PM, JHearnsberger wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I have an A&P friend whom I trust that has offered to help me rebuild an o-540.  He said he has two o-540's in his shop and that we could go with  the 235hp or we could change the pistons in one to make it a 250hp.  He mentioned that with the 235hp you would have the ability to use auto gas in case you got in a bind somewhere.  I've been planning on spending around $50,000 for a new io-540.  If I go this route with my friend, it could save me probably 35-40%.



 How will using an 0-540 235hp or 250hp affect my fuel efficiency over a 260hp io-540?



 What kind of extra work will be required on the firewall, cowling, etc. for using a carbureted engine instead of a non-carbureted engine?



 I'm open to suggestions.





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404218#404218

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

JHearnsberger

Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 31
Location: Springhill, LA

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: o-540

Thank you guys for your responses.  I've brought up several topics.  I should have kept my question to fuel efficiency only.  Comparing the 235 to the 260.

_________________
Jake Hearnsberger
RV-10 Wings
Springhill, LA

davidsoutpost(at)comcast.
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:04 pm Post subject: o-540

You can throttle back on the 260 hp models to get the same hp and fuel burn as the 235 hp if fuel burn is of concern.  Its nice to have those extra ponies available though for when you need them.  



David Clifford



RV-10 Builder

Howell,  MI

From: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 8:43:56 PM

Subject: Re: o-540



--> RV10-List message posted by: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com>



Thank you guys for your responses.  I've brought up several topics.  I should have kept my question to fuel efficiency only.  Comparing the 235 to the 260.



--------

Jake Hearnsberger

RV-10 Wings

Springhill, LA





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=                     &==





 [quote][b]

partner14

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:27 pm Post subject: o-540

Every  RV&#x27;er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price.  They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more fuel.  Also if you&#x27;re carbeurated you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!Don McDonald

                                                                                                                                                                                           From:                                                          davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net <davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net>;                            

                                                              To:                                                           <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>;                                                                                                     

                                                              Subject:                                                          Re: Re: o-540                            

                                                              Sent:                                                          Tue, Jul 9, 2013 2:03:45 AM                            

                                                                                                                                            You can throttle back on the 260 hp models to get the same hp and fuel burn as the 235 hp if fuel burn is of concern.  Its nice to have those extra ponies available though for when you need them.  

David Clifford

RV-10 Builder

Howell,  MI

From: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 8:43:56 PM

Subject: Re: o-540

--> RV10-List message posted by: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com>

Thank you guys for your responses.  I've brought up several topics.  I should have kept my question to fuel efficiency only.  Comparing the 235 to the 260.

--------

Jake  Hearnsberger

RV-10 Wings

Springhill, LA

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=                     &==

  	  Quote: 	

  [quote][b]

_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:34 pm Post subject: o-540

Actually, the 260 operated at 176 hp, or 75 percent for a 235, will get better economy because of the higher compression.



For example, a Mooney 201 with 200 hp Lycoming will out run a Mooney 231 with Continental turbocharged 210 hp engine below 8000 ft, simply because the turbo isn't producing any more power there than the normally aspirated engine. The Lyc is 8.7 to 1 while the Cont is 7 to 1. Lyc operates at atmospheric pressure, Cont at 39 inches to make up for the lower compression. The Lyc burns 11 gph in cruise ROP, the Cont burns 12-13 at same power. The 231 doesn't shine until it gets above 10,000 ft where it can produce more power than the normally aspirated 201. Their airframes are pretty identical outside powerplant differences.

 

Another example...Bonanza with IO-470 260hp engine will burn more fuel on all but very short flights than one with STC'd IO-550 310 hp, especially if they both operate at the same indicated airspeed, just because the bigger engine breathes more efficiently and can get up to altitude faster.

 

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM,  <davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net (davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  You can throttle back on the 260 hp models to get the same hp and fuel burn as the 235 hp if fuel burn is of concern.  Its nice to have those extra ponies available though for when you need them.  

 

David Clifford



RV-10 Builder

Howell,  MI

From: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com (jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com)>

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 8:43:56 PM

Subject: Re: o-540



--> RV10-List message posted by: "JHearnsberger" <jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com (jakehearnsberger(at)gmail.com)>

 

Thank you guys for your responses.  I've brought up several topics.  I should have kept my question to fuel efficiency only.  Comparing the 235 to the 260.



--------

Jake Hearnsberger

RV-10 Wings

Springhill, LA

 



Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=                     &==



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  



get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	


-- 



 - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm

  

  [quote][b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Albert Gardner

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 455
Location: Yuma, AZ

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:26 pm Post subject: o-540

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs)

Albert Gardner

N991RV

Yuma, AZ

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Re: o-540



 

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

Don McDonald



 



   [quote][b]

_________________
RV-9A N872RV
RV-10 N991RV

tfarrell839

Joined: 10 Nov 2012
Posts: 27
Location: Watsonville, CA

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:42 am Post subject: o-540

Since Performance Engines has been brought up in this thread . . .  Many have had great experiences with them, but the Lancair community has had some pretty serious safety issues come up.  I personally have no facts, so I will not judge, but my opinion is that it should be disclosed that past customers have brought to light some issues with Continental engines.  Below is a snippet from the Lancair Yahoo group from 2010 and more info can be found on LML (Lancair Mailing List).

 

"There's been a lot of talk lately on other sites regarding the overhauled

 engines delivered by Performance Engines of La Vern, CA. There have been

 several total failures lately and a few others have had theirs torn down for

 inspection only to find unserviceable or out of tolerance parts installed. In

 one case, the engine case was cracked. This is causing many owners a lot of

 money and putting their lives at risk. The FAA is currently paying very close

 attention to PE."



On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs) 

Albert Gardner

N991RV 

Yuma, AZ

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Subject: Re: Re: o-540



  

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

 A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

 Don McDonald



  



    	  Quote: 	
		  



get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	


-- 



 Aircrafters

 140 Aviation Way

 Watsonville CA, 95076

 KWVI

 831-722-9141

www.AircraftersLLC.com

 

  [quote][b]

_________________
Tim Farrell
Aircrafters
831-722-9141

robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:32 am Post subject: o-540

Hard to go wrong with Barrett unless you don’t like to be pushed back in your seat when you advance the throttle. J. 

  

Robin 

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Farrell

 Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:42 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

   

Since Performance Engines has been brought up in this thread . . .  Many have had great experiences with them, but the Lancair community has had some pretty serious safety issues come up.  I personally have no facts, so I will not judge,  but my opinion is that it should be disclosed that past customers have brought to light some issues with Continental engines.  Below is a snippet from the Lancair Yahoo group from 2010 and more info can be found on LML (Lancair Mailing List).

 

 "There's been a lot of talk lately on other sites regarding the overhauled

 engines delivered by Performance Engines of La Vern, CA. There have been

 several total failures lately and a few others have had theirs torn down for

 inspection only to find unserviceable or out of tolerance parts installed. In

 one case, the engine case was cracked. This is causing many owners a lot of

 money and putting their lives at risk. The FAA is currently paying very close

 attention to PE." 

  

   

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		     

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they  rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs) 

Albert Gardner 

N991RV 

Yuma, AZ 

   

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

 

       

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they  also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

 A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional  fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

 Don McDonald 

       

      

 

 

 

 

 

   	  Quote: 	
		    get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listtp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
 

 

 	
 

 



  

 -- 

 

 Aircrafters

 140 Aviation Way

 Watsonville CA, 95076

 KWVI

 831-722-9141

 www.AircraftersLLC.com 

  	  Quote: 	
		    	
 ==============[/b][/quote] V10-List Email Forum -[/b][/quote] >[/b][/quote] :p>[/b][/quote] /o:p>[/b][/quote] tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List[/b][/quote] ==============[/b][/quote] bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -[/b][/quote] :p>[/b][/quote] tp://forums.matronics.com[/b][/quote] ==============[/b][/quote] bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site -[/b][/quote] e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin.[/b][/quote] bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution[/b][/quote] ==============[/b] [/quote]   

 

No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 r> 

    [quote][b]

rleffler

Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:54 am Post subject: o-540

I concur.  I wish they were still selling new kits when I bought mine.  I did help facilitate getting a neighbor's engine overhauled by Barrett.  Quality was second to none.  You can't beat the support both Rhonda and Alan have given the RV-10 community.  

They've been known to hang out at the RV-10 hq at OSH.  Given folks their personal cell numbers and taking calls during off hours.  Help folks when there is no money in it for them.  Hang out here and on VAF.  Generally all around good people that do their best to support the experimental community.  You can't ask for better support. 

Bob



Sent from my iPhone



On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

    v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} <![endif]-->  <![endif]-->   <![endif]-->    

Hard to go wrong with Barrett unless you donâ€™t like to be pushed back in your seat when you advance the throttle. J. 

  

Robin 

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Tim Farrell

 Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:42 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

   

Since Performance Engines has been brought up in this thread . . .  Many have had great experiences with them, but the Lancair community has had some pretty serious safety issues come up.  I personally have no facts, so I will not judge,  but my opinion is that it should be disclosed that past customers have brought to light some issues with Continental engines.  Below is a snippet from the Lancair Yahoo group from 2010 and more info can be found on LML (Lancair Mailing List).

 

 "There's been a lot of talk lately on other sites regarding the overhauled

 engines delivered by Performance Engines of La Vern, CA. There have been

 several total failures lately and a few others have had theirs torn down for

 inspection only to find unserviceable or out of tolerance parts installed. In

 one case, the engine case was cracked. This is causing many owners a lot of

 money and putting their lives at risk. The FAA is currently paying very close

 attention to PE." 

  

   

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		     

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they  rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (Iâ€™m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs) 

Albert Gardner 

N991RV 

Yuma, AZ 

   

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

 

       

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they  also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

 A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional  fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

 Don McDonald 

       

      

 

 

 

 

 

   	  Quote: 	
		    get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listtp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
 

 

 	
 

 



  

 -- 

 

 Aircrafters

 140 Aviation Way

 Watsonville CA, 95076

 KWVI

 831-722-9141

 www.AircraftersLLC.com 

  	  Quote: 	
		    	
 ============== V10-List Email Forum - > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============== bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - :p> tp://forums.matronics.com ============== bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site - e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin. bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ==============  	  Quote: 	
		   	
   

 

No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 r> 

    [quote]



===================================

://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

===================================

cs.com

===================================

matronics.com/contribution

===================================



[b]

_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler

Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:40 am Post subject: o-540

We hope to see you all at the RV gathering hosted by the beer fairy on Monday night at Osh.  We’ll be there with bells on!  

     

[b]Rhonda Barrett-Bewley[/b]  

[i]Barrett Precision Engines[/i]  

2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.  

Tulsa, OK  74115  

(918) 835-1089 phone  

(918) 835-1754 fax  

www.barrettprecisionengines.com  

        

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler

 Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:54 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540  

  

     

I concur.  I wish they were still selling new kits when I bought mine.  I did help facilitate getting a neighbor's engine overhauled by Barrett.  Quality was second to none.  You can't beat the support both Rhonda and Alan have given the RV-10 community.    

    

   

    

They've been known to hang out at the RV-10 hq at OSH.  Given folks their personal cell numbers and taking calls during off hours.  Help folks when there is no money in it for them.  Hang out here and on VAF.  Generally all around good people that do their best to support the experimental community.  You can't ask for better support.   

    

   

    

Bob

 

 Sent from my iPhone  

    



 On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:  

     <![endif]-->        <![endif]-->  

Hard to go wrong with Barrett unless you don’t like to be pushed back in your seat when you advance the throttle. J.  

   

Robin  

   

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Tim Farrell

 Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:42 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540  

     

Since Performance Engines has been brought up in this thread . . .  Many have had great experiences with them, but the Lancair community has had some pretty serious safety issues come up.  I personally have no facts, so I will not judge, but my opinion is that it should be disclosed that past customers have brought to light some issues with Continental engines.  Below is a snippet from the Lancair Yahoo group from 2010 and more info can be found on LML (Lancair Mailing List).

 

 "There's been a lot of talk lately on other sites regarding the overhauled

 engines delivered by Performance Engines of La Vern, CA. There have been

 several total failures lately and a few others have had theirs torn down for

 inspection only to find unserviceable or out of tolerance parts installed. In

 one case, the engine case was cracked. This is causing many owners a lot of

 money and putting their lives at risk. The FAA is currently paying very close

 attention to PE."  

    

     

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote:   	  Quote: 	
		        

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs)  

Albert Gardner  

N991RV  

Yuma, AZ  

     

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540  

  

              

Every RV'er that   has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price.   They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of   that they also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have   more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

   A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn   between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the   math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost   you around $2,800 in additional fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO,   over $10,000!!!!!!!!

   Don McDonald   

            

           

  

  

  

  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		    get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listtp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	


  

  	
  

  



  

 -- 

 

 Aircrafters

 140 Aviation Way

 Watsonville CA, 95076

 KWVI

 831-722-9141

 www.AircraftersLLC.com  

   	  Quote: 	
		    	
  

============== V10-List Email Forum - > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============== bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - :p> tp://forums.matronics.com ============== bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site - e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin. bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ==============    	  Quote: 	
		   	
      

  

No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 r>    	  Quote: 	
		    	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8

   	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  tp://forums.matronics.com 	
8

      [quote][b]

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:46 am Post subject: o-540

I have heard others make these types of claims. There's no way 10:1 and 1 Lightspeed is going to make 260HP into 310HP. If 7:1 to 8.5:1 takes it from 235HP to 250HP, even if the comparison is not linear, you couldn't get to 310HP.



do not archive



 Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694  

  

On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs)

Albert Gardner

N991RV

Yuma, AZ

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Subject: Re: Re: o-540



 

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

Don McDonald

 





 	  Quote: 	
		  



style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com

style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


 [quote][b]

Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:55 am Post subject: o-540

Jesse:  

   

With an updraft sump, you are absolutely correct.  With cold air induction and either an RSA10 or Airflow Performance FM250/FM300A, a 10:1 parallel head engine will make right at 300 hp.    

     

[b]Rhonda Barrett-Bewley[/b]  

[i]Barrett Precision Engines[/i]  

2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.  

Tulsa, OK  74115  

(918) 835-1089 phone  

(918) 835-1754 fax  

www.barrettprecisionengines.com  

        

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint

 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:45 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540  

  

   

I have heard others make these types of claims. There's no way 10:1 and 1 Lightspeed is going to make 260HP into 310HP. If 7:1 to 8.5:1 takes it from 235HP to 250HP, even if the comparison is not linear, you couldn't get to 310HP.    

   

    

do not archive  

    

     

Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

 C: 352-427-0285

 F: 815-377-3694   

  

       

On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote:  

  



 

       

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs)  

    

Albert Gardner  

    

N991RV  

    

Yuma,  AZ  

    

   

      

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540  

  

    

   

             

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or   smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher   percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up   burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty   running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

   A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn   between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the   math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost   you around $2,800 in additional fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO,   over $10,000!!!!!!!!

   Don McDonald   

            

   

        

  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		    style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listpurple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.comstyle="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	


  

   

  

   

  

     [quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:11 am Post subject: o-540

I'd like to know what someone is going to do with the extra hp(300 or 

310). With 260 hp the aircraft is already capable of making within 10% 

of its design flutter speed in level flight. How close do you really 

want to be of having a control surface ripped from the plane? Perhaps 

achieve 2000 fpm climb instead of 1600 fpm? Burn enough fuel to cruise 

at 185kts instead of 175 or 165 kts? How much extra fuel does that take??

  IIRC  there is already enough power to cruise up into the lower flight 

levels.

What is someone going to do for fuel if 100 octane becomes scarce or 

more than double current ridiculous price?

I don't know how the 10:1 fares in a parallel valve engine, but in an 

angle valve, such as where there is an STC for 200 hp certified planes 

like the Cardinal RG and Mooney 201, the cylinders tend to wear out by 

50% TBO unless operated at very conservative settings for CHT. AFAIK 

Lycoming only used that compression in a helicopter engine with a 

different TBO and operating regime.

With 8.5:1 stock pistons you can still burn premium mogas if you can 

find it without ethanol. Not going to happen at higher compression.

Now there are other supporting reasons to run cold-air induction and/or 

electronic ignition, but higher compression seems to me to have more 

negative than positive aspects.

Of course it is EXPERIMENTAL, so everyone is free to make the choices 

that make them happy.



On 7/10/2013 5:45 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have heard others make these types of claims. There's no way 10:1 

 and 1 Lightspeed is going to make 260HP into 310HP. If 7:1 to 8.5:1 

 takes it from 235HP to 250HP, even if the comparison is not linear, 

 you couldn't get to 310HP.



 do not archive



 Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

 C: 352-427-0285

 F: 815-377-3694



 On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com 

 <mailto:ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>> wrote:



> Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 

> compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours 

> on it I have put 8003 gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH 

> average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs)

> Albert Gardner

> N991RV

> Yuma, AZ

> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

> <mailto:rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>]*On Behalf Of*Don McDonald

> *Sent:*Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

> *To:*rv10-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

> *Subject:*Re: Re: o-540

> Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, 

> always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power 

> just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more 

> fuel. Also if you're carbeurated you have more difficulty running 

> lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

> A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise 

> fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 

> 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more 

> fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional fuel 

> cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

> Don McDonald

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> *

>

> style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

> purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com

> style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

>

> *

>



 *

 *

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:50 am Post subject: o-540

Kelly:



As a general rule, we don't actively encourage our RV-10 drivers to

install 10:1 compression in their engines.  We think that 9:1 and cold

air is a nice combination and maintain a 2000 hour tbo, 8.5:1 if the

consumer wants to run mogas. 



Historically, a 10:1 compression engine lasts only about 1,000 hours

before TBO. This is the compression that Red Bull Air Race runs,

although a number of air show performers run higher (generally 11:1),

but then again they go through their engines every couple of years.



There's definitely a trade off to pumping it up that high.



Rhonda Barrett-Bewley

Barrett Precision Engines

2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.

Tulsa, OK 74115

(918) 835-1089 phone

(918) 835-1754 fax

www.barrettprecisionengines.com



--

robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:01 am Post subject: o-540

My 9:1 with Forward Facing Cold Induction & FM300 plus 2 Mags tested at 293 Hp. Still waiting for a simple EI swap out. And waiting, and waiting… 

  

Robin 

    

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda Bewley

 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:54 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: o-540 

 

 

  

Jesse: 

  

With an updraft sump, you are absolutely correct.  With cold air induction and either an RSA10 or Airflow Performance FM250/FM300A, a 10:1 parallel head engine will  make right at 300 hp.   

   

Rhonda Barrett-Bewley 

Barrett Precision Engines 

2870-B N. Sheridan Rd. 

Tulsa, OK 74115 

(918) 835-1089 phone 

(918) 835-1754 fax 

www.barrettprecisionengines.com 

    

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint

 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:45 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

 

  

I have heard others make these types of claims. There's no way 10:1 and 1 Lightspeed is going to make 260HP into 310HP. If 7:1 to 8.5:1 takes it from 235HP to 250HP, even if the comparison is not linear, you couldn't get to 310HP.  

  

  

do not archive 

  

   

Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

 C: 352-427-0285

 F: 815-377-3694  

 

    

On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote: 

 

    

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003  gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs) 

  

Albert Gardner 

  

N991RV 

  

Yuma, AZ 

  

  

   

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On  Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: o-540 

 

  

  

      

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated  you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

 A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional  fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

 Don McDonald 

       

  

    

 

 

  	  Quote: 	
		    style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listpurple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.comstyle="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
 

 

  

 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
0  	  Quote: 	
		   	
1  	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 ==============[/b][/quote] V10-List Email Forum -[/b][/quote] >[/b][/quote] :p>[/b][/quote] /o:p>[/b][/quote] tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List[/b][/quote] ==============[/b][/quote] bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -[/b][/quote] :p>[/b][/quote] tp://forums.matronics.com[/b][/quote] ==============[/b][/quote] bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site -[/b][/quote] e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin.[/b][/quote] bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution[/b][/quote] ==============[/b] [/quote]3   

 

No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 :p> 

    [quote][b]

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:13 am Post subject: o-540

One firm was just pencil whipping the Horsepower output to meet Marketing hype.  A dyno run like those available at Barrett is the only basis for quoting output.  In writing, from a reputable firm such as Barrett. Opposed piston, inducted fuel/air piston engines creating horsepower output is a mathematical formula some firms love to manipulate.  I still laugh at the RV-10 N425HP that was advertised for sale with numerically altered output.  An extended dyno run is a great way to effectively and safely break-in a brand new build. 



John



On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

 [quote]        

My 9:1 with Forward Facing Cold Induction & FM300 plus 2 Mags tested at 293 Hp. Still waiting for a simple EI swap out. And waiting, and waiting…  

  

Robin 

    

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Rhonda Bewley

 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:54 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: RE: Re: o-540 

 

 

  

Jesse: 

  

With an updraft sump, you are absolutely correct.  With cold air induction and either an RSA10 or Airflow Performance FM250/FM300A, a 10:1 parallel head engine will  make right at 300 hp.   

   

Rhonda Barrett-Bewley 

Barrett Precision Engines 

2870-B N. Sheridan Rd. 

Tulsa, OK 74115 

[url=tel:%28918%29%20835-1089](918) 835-1089[/url] phone  

[url=tel:%28918%29%20835-1754](918) 835-1754[/url] fax  

www.barrettprecisionengines.com  

    

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint

 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:45 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

 

  

I have heard others make these types of claims. There's no way 10:1 and 1 Lightspeed is going to make 260HP into 310HP. If 7:1 to 8.5:1 takes it from 235HP to 250HP, even if the comparison is not linear, you couldn't get to 310HP.   

  

  

do not archive 

  

   

Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

 C: [url=tel:352-427-0285]352-427-0285[/url]

 F: [url=tel:815-377-3694]815-377-3694[/url]  

 

    

On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Albert Gardner <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com (ibspud(at)roadrunner.com)> wrote: 

 

    

Performance Engines out of La Verne, CA built my IO-540. With 10:1 compression and 1 Lightspeed they rated it at 310 HP. With 799 hours on it I have put 8003  gallons of 100LL in, just about exactly 10 GPH average. (I’m not going to tell my wife how much 8K gallons of gas costs) 

  

Albert Gardner 

  

N991RV 

  

Yuma, AZ 

  

  

   

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner- ([email]owner-[/email])rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On  Behalf Of Don McDonald

 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:27 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: Re: o-540 

 

  

  

      

Every RV'er that has ever gone with less hp or smaller displacement, always pays the price. They have to run a higher percentage of power just to keep up, and because of that they also end up burning more fuel. Also if you're carbeurated  you have more difficulty running lean of peak, which also means you burn more fuel.

 A friend of mine with a new Mattituck, carbed 540 has an avg cruise fuel burn between 11 and 12 gph.... whereas I burn between 9.6 and 10.2.... do the math, I now have over 500 hours, at a 1+ gph more fuel burn, that would cost you around $2,800 in additional  fuel cost..... so over the life of the TBO, over $10,000!!!!!!!!

 Don McDonald 

       

  

    

 

 

  	  Quote: 	
		    style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listpurple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.comstyle="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution  	
 

 

  

 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com  	
0   	  Quote: 	
		    	
1  	  Quote: 	
		    	
2 ============== V10-List Email Forum - > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============== bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - :p> tp://forums.matronics.com ============== bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site - e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin. bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ==============  	  Quote: 	
		    	
3   

 

No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 :p> 

     	  Quote: 	
		    	
4

[b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

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