Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Aerosport Testimonial

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

Aerosport Testimonial - long
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Just had to post this after this week's experience...



About a year ago when I went to replace my spark plugs

and inspect them, I found clean oil in my #4 cylinder.

That of course got me worried at the time, but talking

to a few people they said that if the piston ring

gaps line up, the oil can bleed through and this may

be what happened as they felt it's something they've

heard of before.  At ACI time, I did my compression

test and that was also my lowest cylinder, at 74, while

my others were at 77-79 in general.  Considering

that this is still good compression and everything

was running great, I just kept my eyes and ears open

and went on. Considering how well it ran, and how low

the oil consumption was, it wasn't alarming.  That

lower plug in that cylinder also had more deposits,

that I attributed to the oil fouling.  I switched

to fine-wire plugs back then too.



One note I should add is that I probably also ran my

engine less hard during break-in than I should have,

so I've always wondered if I did a good job on the

break in or not.  Seems to be ok.



On one of my last couple flights, I was run LOP and

noticed #4 had a blip of rise and fall in EGT,

and the a subsequent drop in CHT.  Running LOP,

a rising EGT would mean a richening mixture. And,

a rising EGT can also be because of an ignition

issue where a plug isn't firing as well.  I flew 5

or 6 more hours and monitored it.  The CHT on that

cylinder stayed slightly lower than before, and

the graphs I downloaded from my Chelton showed a

difference in the curve I got when I leaned that

cylinder.  Of course, with cylinder suspicions,

ignition suspicions, and even injector suspicions,

it was time for some troubleshooting.  Adding to that,

my previously very good oil consumption was now

drastically up, to something like 1 qt in 2 hours,

as opposed to 1 qt in maybe 8-15.



I thought it best to troubleshoot the external things

first, and then the cylinder, since I knew them

a little better.  The Lightspeed was super consistent

in run-up, and wasn't a problem because a coil failure

would affect 2 cylinders.  The mag was a possibility,

but how does a mag just affect one cylinder...other than

the ignition lead.  I pulled the harness and

checked the cap inside the mag and nothing was

odd.  I also pulled the injector and cleaned it and

found nothing.  I replaced my cheap top plugs, and

cleaned the bottom.  No significant deposits except

for on #4 again. So, it was on to the cylinder.



I called Bart at Aerosport and he gave me a

troubleshooting tip to do in addition to a compression

test again.  Run the engine and make sure it's fully

warmed up and operating fine in flight.  Then land

and pull both the top and bottom plugs and look into

the cylinder.  With dual plugs you can shine a light

in one and see into the other and see a LOT.

Look for consistency among cylinders in how the

piston looks in regards to dryness.  There should be

a slightly damp ring around the outer edge of the piston,

but dry towards the center.  Bingo!  My #4 piston was

all oily damp, but the others were normal with that

faint ring.  Compression was still 74 or so.  So now

I knew where that oil was going.



Pulled the cylinder, which was very easy (total job

about 1.5 hours for that cylinder).  Upon removal,

my local A&P who came to hang out and offer advice

noted an issue with the rings.  Additionally, the

gap on the top ring was at the 6 o'clock position

and the bottom was at the 6:30 or 7 o'clock, so

indeed the rings had lined up quite a bit.

Prior to removing the cylinder, I had talked to

Bart and he assured me that he'd take care of it.

Not that he'd do it cheap, or he'd try to fit it

in, but that he'd take care of it for me, and turn

it around the same day.  I decided that with Christmas

coming and my father coming who would want to go flying,

that I'd overnight it to Aerosport.  Customs caused

me a delay, so it took 2 business days...oh well.

But, Bart got the cylinder, checked it out and found

that the top ring was bad.  It sounded to me like

there was a gouge out of it or something.  He said

that would cause more pressure differentials in the

engine and cause increased oil use, and affect the

job the other rings would do too.  He also touched up

my valves, replaced the piston, and weighed the items,

and basically reworked the cylinder to be ready for

a new break-in period.  He turned it around same-day,

as promised, and shipped it FedEx Priority overnight

right back to me, along with a 1-cylinder seal kit,

and LOTS more hardware than I asked for or needed,

including 6 new exhaust gaskets.  Not only that,

but he REFUSED to take payment for it, or for the

upcharge for quick shipping.  He just wanted to make

sure I was going to have it working good. I feel

so guilty that I'm going to try to figure out a

way to send them something they can't return.

I haven't flown with it yet, but heck, even if

something is still wrong, I know it ain't the cylinder.



So what did I learn?  LOTS!  #1, when it comes time to

overhaul my engine, it's going back to Bart.  How could

I NOT do that....I've never heard them do anyone wrong,

and they certainly did more for me than I would have

asked for.  #2, there's a beauty in the simplicity of a

Lycoming....when I had a cylinder issue, I just removed

that one cylinder.  It was easy.  And, there are places

that will be happy to overhaul things and get them

back the same week.  In fact, in my case it went to

a different country and came back within a half week.

Try doing a single-cylinder job on an auto conversion,

and having the job be this small.  #3, Don't skimp on

running your engine hard on break-in.  I'm not sure if

I ever did a good job, so I'm glad to get a 2nd chance

this time.  #4, I'm very glad that with what I have,

there's plenty of god advice out there on troubleshooting.

It's nice having a "standard" engine, because sometimes

it's that one simple tip that can save you lots of

time.   #5, I ABSOLUTELY could not have noticed the

inconsistency, as it still ran well, without a full

6-cylinder engine monitor that feeds my Chelton and allows

me to download the data and graph it with "EGview".

I was able to take some flights, and crank up the scale

on my EGT's and stretch the graph out and track down

the exact instance in time when my EGT's rose, and KNOW

with CERTAINTY that it was something that was not right.

The engine still performed really good, but without

knowing my past temperature trend history (i.e. little

things, like num 3 was usually just a few degrees cooler

than num 4, but now 3 was 5 deg to 25 deg low) I would

have never flagged the engine and decided to dig in and

diagnose something that you couldn't really feel.  The

engine logs and display were a HUGE benefit.



I just thought I'd share.  It was a whole new experience

for me.



-- 

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Try doing a single-cylinder job on an auto conversion,

 and having the job be this small.  


	


Hi Tim!

	Since you couldn't resist mentioning the auto conversion, I can't

resist offering a good natured reply and offering some of my own

personal observations.  



	In the 24 years or so that I've been driving, I've never once had to

have any cylinder, piston, or valve work done on any of the cars that

I've owned.  In the 7 years that I have been flying, both airplanes that

I have owned have had to have engine work, one with the replacement of a

cylinder, piston and rings, and the other with valve problems.



	From my perspective, it is rather dismaying that you have had to have

minor top end work done on your engine with just over 300 hours on it,

and in fact it was a year ago that it started to have issues, so you

actually had far less hours on it at the time.



	On the positive side, Aerosport definitely gave you great customer

service!  Hopefully you will be able to get everything back together and

running so you can take your Dad up flying.  One of my fondest memories

was when I took my Mom up for her first flight with me.



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill

Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

It is hard to compare airplanes and cars.  

If we all drove our cars around at full throttle, it wouldn't make it a week, maybe not even a day.  

 

Bart and Sue are two of the best in this industry.

He probably didn't want your money because the exchange rate has made the American dollar worth nothing to him.  

-Scott Schmidt 



---

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Scott Schmidt wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   If we all drove our cars around at full throttle, it wouldn't make it a

 week, maybe not even a day. 


	


Hi Scott,

	Do you have any data on this?  I keep hearing people say this but I

can't seem to find any actual data to back it up.  I'd greatly

appreciate it if you would be willing to send any information that you

have to help me in my research.  I'm trying to learn as much about this

stuff as I can.



	Since the autoconversions are not flown at full throttle but rather in

the vicinity of 4000 RPM it doesn't really apply to the aircraft

application, but I'm still interested to see if one did want to run it

full throttle in a car just how long it might last.



	I've found some useful information on this web page

http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm

but it would be great if someone had more information to share about it.



Thanks,



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill

Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Bart and Sue are two of the best in this industry.

He probably didn't  want your money because the exchange rate has made the American dollar worth  nothing to him.  

  

 That and a 3 year warranty for parts and labour he  stands by.

  

 Pascal

 [quote]   ---

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

We could have a little competition...

How about we go out and gather firsthand reports from 20 Lycoming

owners that made it 2000 hours with no work, and we go out

and find 20 of ANY single auto conversion engine owners out there

that needed no work after 2000 hours. 

I don't know, I know what you're saying...the engines may be

tough, but today I wound out my 4.3L to 3500rpm and tried to keep

it there for a short time.  It wasn't very comforting to hear that

thing winding away like that.  I know, I know, they should be

able to handle it....but man, that's why they build transmissions

on cars.

I certainly wasn't happy to have any work done.  But on the same

token, I can't blame the engine design, or the builder for it.

Perhaps it's from having looser tolerances to allow for the

expansion, but while talking about the subject with the A&P as

we pulled the jug, he told me he sees planes all the time that

have gone to TBO with no work.  Starting an engine up is kind

of a crapshoot.  I've had tough diesel engines that threw

rods, cracked pistons, and of course my least favorite stranding

I've ever had was when a timing belt blew, throwing my valves

into my pistons on a car I had.  You just never know.

I'm just glad that it ended up being so easy to work on.  I can

see now why they kept the design...it's really a piece of

maintenance simplicity from a standpoint of the jugs, which are

the part you'd have to work on more than the others anyway.

Tim

Dj Merrill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Scott Schmidt wrote:

> If we all drove our cars around at full throttle, it wouldn't make it a

> week, maybe not even a day. 

 Hi Scott,

 	Do you have any data on this?  I keep hearing people say this but I

 can't seem to find any actual data to back it up.  I'd greatly

 appreciate it if you would be willing to send any information that you

 have to help me in my research.  I'm trying to learn as much about this

 stuff as I can.

 	Since the autoconversions are not flown at full throttle but rather in

 the vicinity of 4000 RPM it doesn't really apply to the aircraft

 application, but I'm still interested to see if one did want to run it

 full throttle in a car just how long it might last.

 	I've found some useful information on this web page

 http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm

 but it would be great if someone had more information to share about it.

 Thanks,

 -Dj

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

I hate to get into this discussion, but just to throw in another point  

of view.

How many GPH does the IO-540 burn at full throttle?  About 26, give or  

take a few, right?  How many GPH does everybody burn in cruise?  I  

know Tim is usually in the 9-12 range, right?  My dad keeps it under  

10 almost always and very often it is below 8.  This is not anywhere  

near full throttle.  I remember talking to Vic and I seem to remember  

he said he was averaging about 13.  What are the recommendations for  

max continuous power for longest engine life?  I am not by any means  

an expert, and it could very well be that aircraft engines are built  

to handle a higher percentage of  continuous power.  I know in turbo  

models they often run a lot higher power, but I also seem to hear  

stories of TIO's not getting the same life as IO's.

I am definitely in the club of going with a standard engine that the  

plane was designed for from the start, but I also agree that those who  

want to experiment have every right to do so (with the usual caveats  

and disclaimers understood) in this experimental amateur-built  

category.  When someone talks to me about helping them with a plane  

with an alternative engine installation, I usually say that I am not  

interested in the R&D involved, but that's just me.

do not archive

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694

On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:56 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Scott Schmidt wrote:

> If we all drove our cars around at full throttle, it wouldn't make  

> it a

> week, maybe not even a day.

 Hi Scott,

 	Do you have any data on this?  I keep hearing people say this but I

 can't seem to find any actual data to back it up.  I'd greatly

 appreciate it if you would be willing to send any information that you

 have to help me in my research.  I'm trying to learn as much about  

 this

 stuff as I can.

 	Since the autoconversions are not flown at full throttle but rather  

 in

 the vicinity of 4000 RPM it doesn't really apply to the aircraft

 application, but I'm still interested to see if one did want to run it

 full throttle in a car just how long it might last.

 	I've found some useful information on this web page

 http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm

 but it would be great if someone had more information to share about  

 it.

 Thanks,

 -Dj

 -- 

 Dj Merrill

 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118

 http://deej.net/sportsman/

 "Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction  

 of an

 airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 We could have a little competition...

 

 How about we go out and gather firsthand reports from 20 Lycoming

 owners that made it 2000 hours with no work, and we go out

 and find 20 of ANY single auto conversion engine owners out there

 that needed no work after 2000 hours. 


	


	Okay, you do the Subaru conversions, and I'll do the Lycomings...  



	Honestly I was not (and am still not) trying to stir the pot.  It is

just that reports like yours is one of the main reasons why I started

looking at Subaru conversions.  I had two bad experiences (at 800 hours

on one engine, and about 1050 or so on the other).  My local shop often

had a Lycoming engine in for top end work.  It really started bothering me.



	You are right, there are some engines that will make it to TBO, but I

just feel like it is a crap shoot.  You had to do work at 300 hours, but

Jesse might make it all the way to TBO.  There just doesn't seem to be

any good reasoning why one engine might make it and one might  need

work.  I'm fairly certain you take good care of your airplane and

engine, and it is unlikely that it was something that you did that

caused the problem (or was it?  *grin*).



	The Subaru might have problems as well.  When it comes down to it, most

of us make decisions based on our personal experiences.  None of my cars

has ever had to have engine work, and both of my airplanes have.  It

might be irrational reasoning, but the picture in my head is tending

towards Subaru engines being more reliable than a typical Lycoming.

That's why I've been asking around for actual data and test results, if

anyone has any to share or can point me in the right direction.  My

science background is telling me that I need real data, not subjective

WAGs...  



-Dj

-- 

Dj Merrill

Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Comparing a car engine to an aircraft engine isn't a fair comparison.

If you want to compare flying auto-conversions to Lyco's, then that's

fine.



1) How many of us driving V6's or 8's have temp gauges in every

cylinder? - none



2) How many of us have temp gauges installed in every exhaust port? -

none



3) How many of us know every idiosyncrasy our car engines to recognize

when 1 cylinder is showing unusual signs of trouble? - none



My point is that we don't care about our care engines like we care about

our aircraft engines.  As long as they run, we're happy.  We really

don't give a damn if they're running absolutely perfectly.  Who cares if

they have a weak or leaky cylinder that we don't know about?  The truth

is, when it comes to cars, what you don't know doesn't hurt you.



It's a whole different ballgame when it's your life.  Or your wife's

life.  Or your kids life.  We all want to know EVERYTHING about our

aircraft engines.  We keep our eyes open for ANY trends that could tip

us off to a failing engine.  We keep them tuned meticulously, we

maintain them meticulously, we install sensors in the heads, we install

sensors in the exhaust, we know what our temps should be when things are

right - we also know when something doesn't look right.



We don't have that level of detail in our cars, so we don't do that with

our cars.  I'd bet that if we all could examine our car engines in

aircraft-level-of-detail, nearly all of us would be driving on engines

that are out of our airplane-worthy standards.



So when I hear someone try and use the 'my car hasn't broken down'

argument, I let it go in one ear an out the other. 



That's a terrible data point simply because you have no data to tell me

exactly what the health of your car engine really is.  As long as the

check engine light stays off, we're happy.



We don't watch our car engines like a hawk, but we do when they go into

the airplanes that will be carrying our family.



Phil



--

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Good valid points Phil.  Knowledge is power!  However, we live in a statistical world, and having something happen/not happen to you personally doesn't make statistical sense.  What makes more sense is knowing that something has happened to someone somewhere.  There are those that haven't had engine failure in XXX,000 miles, but I'll bet they've seen one or know someone whose car has been in the shop.  Yep, apples to oranges.  I don't care for a Lycosaurs lack of modern improvements, but they seldom fail catastrophically fail ..... or we'd have something different up front.  No, no hard data, which won't sway anyone one way or the other which isn't my intent anyway.  Our car engines have become more sophisticated ...... they're more efficient, last longer, and DO have a lot of instrumentation ....... which the computer uses.  All we get in our newer cars is an idiot light or a guage or two ..... but the computer is gathering data everywhere and making operating adjustments on the fly.  However, a Lycosaur is rock simple and anyone with a socket set, mic and a hammer and a few wrenches can rebuild one to some level of specification, and while they're at it upgrade the few wires that control it.  We wouldn't think of replacing the wiring harness or the vacuum system on a car engine 'till it's broke, and the ability (cost) of the 'mechanic' to find the fault and fix it the first time is rare.  They do have the ability (sometimes) to download engine operating parameters to their shop analyzer which can make a better educated guess than most mechanics (not knocking them, just an observation)  and lower the trips to the parts counter.  I like my rock-simple, although ancient tecknology, Lycosaur and am not contemplating an alternative engine, but I surely won't denigrate those who want to follow that path.  I applaud their ability to think outside of the box and come up with (in their mind) the rationale that justifies the time, expense, and yes, the trials and tribulations that go along with being a different drummer.  Please remember that if it wasn't for those innovators out there, we wouldn't have the neat stuff in our panels or pre-punched kits or ..... well, you get the picture.  For me, I wish them well (and longevity) and hope they share EVERYTHING that goes on in their search for an alternate power source.  Best of luck to everyone out there ..... the ones that do and the ones that don't .... have something different under the hood.

 Linn ..... sorry for the long rant .... I was on a roll!

 do not archive ....

 Perry, Phil wrote:

 [quote]   [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> (Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com)  Comparing a car engine to an aircraft engine isn't a fair comparison. If you want to compare flying auto-conversions to Lyco's, then that's fine.  1) How many of us driving V6's or 8's have temp gauges in every cylinder? - none  2) How many of us have temp gauges installed in every exhaust port? - none  3) How many of us know every idiosyncrasy our car engines to recognize when 1 cylinder is showing unusual signs of trouble? - none  My point is that we don't care about our care engines like we care about our aircraft engines.  As long as they run, we're happy.  We really don't give a damn if they're running absolutely perfectly.  Who cares if they have a weak or leaky cylinder that we don't know about?  The truth is, when it comes to cars, what you don't know doesn't hurt you.  It's a whole different ballgame when it's your life.  Or your wife's life.  Or your kids life.  We all want to know EVERYTHING about our aircraft engines.  We keep our eyes open for ANY trends that could tip us off to a failing engine.  We keep them tuned meticulously, we maintain them meticulously, we install sensors in the heads, we install sensors in the exhaust, we know what our temps should be when things are right - we also know when something doesn't look right.  We don't have that level of detail in our cars, so we don't do that with our cars.  I'd bet that if we all could examine our car engines in aircraft-level-of-detail, nearly all of us would be driving on engines that are out of our airplane-worthy standards.  So when I hear someone try and use the 'my car hasn't broken down' argument, I let it go in one ear an out the other.   That's a terrible data point simply because you have no data to tell me exactly what the health of your car engine really is.  As long as the check engine light stays off, we're happy.  We don't watch our car engines like a hawk, but we do when they go into the airplanes that will be carrying our family.  Phil        --

bhughes(at)qnsi.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Not all auto conversions have cylinders 



Sorry I just could not resist.



Bobby

 



--

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Wait, you want real data and you went with an Egg?!?  The man who refuses to do any dyno runs and estimates his power output while (re)engineering on the fly after he sold a package and then routinely delivers a year late?!? Sorry man, I still like the idea of auto conversions but I just had to point that out.  One of Eggs chief reasons for not having any resemblance to a standardize configuration is that the engine changes every year.  Yet he is usually 1-2 years behind a production run from the factory on delivery.



So something else to think about.  Comparing a 500ish engine production run to 10's of thousands doesn't really give any real sense of reliability until you do some averaging for real maint vs operational hours.  I don't believe anyone has actually done that.



  I think Eggs engine has its place but it's not in heavy 4 seat aircraft.  The Sportsman is probably as big as I would consider.



Michael



--

mritter509(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Spoken like a true rotor head. When are you bringing your 10 to the airport for final assembly?

  

 Mark

 RV-10/N410MR



<html><div></div></html>

   

 > Subject: RE: Aerosport Testimonial - long

[quote] Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:32:21 -0600

 From: bhughes(at)qnsi.net

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net>

 

 Not all auto conversions have cylinders 

 

 Sorry I just could not resist.

 

 Bobby

 

 

 --

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

In a message dated 12/6/2007 7:15:22 PM Central Standard Time,  scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  In the 24 years or so that I've been driving, I've never once had    to

have any cylinder, piston, or valve work done on any of the cars    that

I've owned.  In the 7 years that I have been flying, both    airplanes that

I have owned have had to have engine work, one with the    replacement of a

cylinder, piston and rings, and the other with valve    problems.

	


 

 DJ...

  

 How often do you accelerate your auto, from ground level to 2-4 miles above  the surface from where you started and how often does your car's engine  experience rapid temperature and pressure changes to it's block, and once  you start your car's engine do you immediately put the hammer down to max RPM to  get out of your driveway and then reduce power to 65-80% of it's maximum  power out put while giving the engine varying amounts of oxygen to react  with?

  

 There are many engines that will run for years and up to and beyond TBO's  without overhauls, but there are some that need more attention than  others.  If you want to get maximum performance from your engine, fly it as  often as possible, daily if possible; change the oil and filter frequently and  enjoy the scenery below!



Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

  [quote][b]

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

In a message dated 12/6/2007 8:16:54 PM Central Standard Time,  deej(at)deej.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Do you    have any data on this?  I keep hearing people say this but I

can't    seem to find any actual data to back it up. 	


 

 I've flown for years behind a 235hp O-540, the engine made TBO at 2,000+  was rebuilt and is now about 650 hrs, it's a tough little engine...but if one  looks at the record of the same block producing 300+hp the reliability of the  engine is not quite as likely to make TBO without a top along the way.   Talk to owners of Cherokee 235 and Cherokee 6's (300)...both have O-540's in  them.  I think we've yet to see many good auto engine conversions...the  Mooney Porsche was probably the largest "experiment" in regular GA  aircraft.

  

 P





  [quote][b]

bhughes(at)qnsi.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Hopefully after Christmas and before New Years. It  would help if I would stop finding ways to improve the radiator ducts   

  

 Bobby

 (Never, every, every build a custom  cowl)



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

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:00 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Aerosport Testimonial  - long

 

Spoken like a true rotor head. When are you bringing your 10 to the  airport for final  assembly?

 

Mark

RV-10/N410MR



<html><div></div></html>

  

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: RE: Aerosport Testimonial - long

 Date: Fri,  7 Dec 2007 08:32:21 -0600

 From: bhughes(at)qnsi.net

 To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by:  "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net>

 

 Not all auto  conversions have cylinders 

 

 Sorry I just could not  resist.

 

 Bobby

 

 

 -----Original  Message-----

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

  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill

  Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:18 PM

 To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Aerosport Testimonial -  long

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill  <deej(at)deej.net>

 

 Tim Olson wrote:

 > 

  > Try doing a single-cylinder job on an auto conversion, and having the  

 > job be this small.

 

 Hi Tim!

 Since you  couldn't resist mentioning the auto conversion, I

 can't resist offering  a good natured reply and offering some of my own

 personal observations.  

 

 In the 24 years or so that I've been driving, I've never  once

 had to have any cylinder, piston, or valve work done on any of the  cars

 that I've owned. In the 7 years that I have been flying, both  airplanes

 that I have owned have had to have engine work, one with the  replacement

 of a cylinder, piston and rings, and the other with valve  problems.

 

 From my perspective, it is rather dismaying that you  have had to

 have minor top end work done on your engine with just over  300 hours on

 it, and in fact it was a year ago that it started to have  issues, so you

 actually had far less hours on it at the time.

  

 On the positive side, Aerosport definitely gave you great

  customer service! Hopefully you will be able to get everything back

  together and running so you can take your Dad up flying. One of my

  fondest memories was when I took my Mom up for her first flight with me.

  

 -Dj

 

 --

 Dj Merrill

 Sportsman 2+2  Builder #7118

 http://deej.net/sportsman/

 

 "Many things  that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an

 airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

 

  

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

&g==============
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

  

 


	




  You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join  source=CRM_WL_joinnow' target='_new'>Join in! [quote]



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

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



[b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Dj,

I'm glad that you know me and I know you and we have no worries

that this stuff is intended to offend anyone.  I have fun with

the discussion, and any kind hearted jabs, so it's all good.

Regarding service during the lifetime, actually, this is the first

time in my life that any aircraft engine has given me issues.

So, it's new to me, but certainly the track record of Lycoming

and Continentals isn't all good.  Esp. recently, in the crank

department. But, given the fact that you can indeed run these

engines at 100% power, and run them extended at 75-85% power,

I certainly don't expect them to be like a car that you can

milk to 200,000 or more miles.  It's not living the life that

my old Nissan did.

But, looking at car histories, I've owned many cars in my

life....more than the average Joe, in fact.  But none of

them ever has been run to the power and RPM extent (for any

extended time) that the auto conversion aircraft engines have.

If you could buy a car engine and run the thing without a

PRSU...do a direct drive auto conversion, I'd think that

success would be much easier to achieve...and that's success

in both longevity, and fuel economy.  There are people with

VW engines, and corvair engines and things that run in

planes fine.

Now is where I have to be careful to not insult though...

I think a better comparison for service life for a

subaru isn't to compare it to a lycoming, but look at

some of the more equivalent situations.  For instance,

compare it to the Rotax 912, or compare it if you're

staying land-based to things like a Snowmobile.  An

aircraft engine conversion in a plane will NOT run anything

like a car engine will.  My car doesn't even hit 2000rpm

in cruise at under 65mph.  Towing my boat, I get 13mpg

in OD (not recommended) but boost that RPM over 3000

and pour on the power and I'm well under 10.  It's just

the operational characteristic.  My snowmobile doesn't

spend much time running slow...it's constantly being

pushed. (yeah, call me reckless)  But, when you look

at those kinds of heavier uses, the outlook isn't so

shiny.  I monitor the ArcticCat forum because I have

an issue with my 580 EFI sled right now.  You see many

people with pistion, head, cylinder issues, and things

like that.  I have a problem where a simple failure of

the coolant sensor caused my sled to finish spring 2007

after only 5 miles being put on it for the winter, to

end up parked in the middle of a field...because the

COMPUTER won't let it run.  This same kind of thing

happened to my Nissan...a stinkin' sensor just made

it quit firing.  Look at the Rotax service life.  I

was a bit surprised to hear that the 4-strokes typical

rebuild is under 1000 hours.  Yeah, just like the

auto conversion, it should be much cheaper, but it

does show that higher stresses put on engines don't

make for better longevity.  This doesn't mean that you

won't get good life, or even beat me on the cost of

service for a 2000 hour total runtime, but I'd think

that my engine may at least spend a lesser number of

total days out of the air due to maintenance...because

one problem and you're likely to be down a long time.

You may, or may not, be able to pick up some of those

custom parts, and PRSU's, overnight, but any engine work

is going to require pulling the whole engine or at

least much more of it.  So the task itself will be

larger.  The point is, look at 4-stroke Rotax engines,

Boat engines, snowmobile engines, and things where

power is used more fully and you'll get a MUCH more

fair comparison in longevity to what you might see.

My Mastercraft has a 351 in it, but I know for certain

that the engine isn't going to make 2000 TBO.  It runs

way too hard.  I'm just glad it doesn't have electronic

controls on my old '88 MC, because the simplicity is

less likely to leave me stranded.

Sorry to drag on, but one of my first thoughts got

lost.  Cooling.  Looking at the many cars I have driven,

and in fact, 2 out of the 3 of our current cars, I've had

a very poor track record of cooling issues.  My current

van won't hold coolant well enough to keep my heater

core filled.  It can be hard to track down. (it should

be easier on a plane) My wife's car occasionally spews

over coolant out a relief valve, but doesn't seem to have

any other leaks.  But, looking at past cars I've had

numerous issues with cooling leaks and water pump

seals and things like that.  I know it gives better

heat stability so it's a good thing to have liquid

cooling, but it isn't a total panacea either.  That's

probably the reason Lyc's need more clearances, is because

of heating and cooling.  But, snowmobiles and boats

are liquid cooled too and it doesn't add tons to

their service life.

Anyway, that's all just misc. ramblings from a crazy

person who just got older today.  I hope that people

who may be offended are using their Delete key effectively. 

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Dj Merrill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Tim Olson wrote:

> 

>

> We could have a little competition...

>

> How about we go out and gather firsthand reports from 20 Lycoming

> owners that made it 2000 hours with no work, and we go out

> and find 20 of ANY single auto conversion engine owners out there

> that needed no work after 2000 hours. 

 	Okay, you do the Subaru conversions, and I'll do the Lycomings...  

 	Honestly I was not (and am still not) trying to stir the pot.  It is

 just that reports like yours is one of the main reasons why I started

 looking at Subaru conversions.  I had two bad experiences (at 800 hours

 on one engine, and about 1050 or so on the other).  My local shop often

 had a Lycoming engine in for top end work.  It really started bothering me.

 	You are right, there are some engines that will make it to TBO, but I

 just feel like it is a crap shoot.  You had to do work at 300 hours, but

 Jesse might make it all the way to TBO.  There just doesn't seem to be

 any good reasoning why one engine might make it and one might  need

 work.  I'm fairly certain you take good care of your airplane and

 engine, and it is unlikely that it was something that you did that

 caused the problem (or was it?  *grin*).

 	The Subaru might have problems as well.  When it comes down to it, most

 of us make decisions based on our personal experiences.  None of my cars

 has ever had to have engine work, and both of my airplanes have.  It

 might be irrational reasoning, but the picture in my head is tending

 towards Subaru engines being more reliable than a typical Lycoming.

 That's why I've been asking around for actual data and test results, if

 anyone has any to share or can point me in the right direction.  My

 science background is telling me that I need real data, not subjective

 WAGs...  

 -Dj

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Because of the lack of volume in auto engine conversions vs Lycoming good hard data is very hard to come by.  Additionally the data is not all measured and reported in a consistant way as to allow a good thorough analysis.  

 I would advise anyone going down the auto conversion road to understand that we know a whole lot less about conversions than we know about Lycomings.  So as they say you are on your own. 

 The other factor is that the conversion business seems to have quite a few folks of less than stellar integrety.  So many claims have been made and so many people burned that it is not for the faint of heart to go this route.

 Good luck as you sort all this out.

 Gary

 Frozen in MN

 [quote]-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> 

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill 

 Tim Olson wrote: 

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson 

 > 

 > We could have a little competition... 

 > 

 > How about we go out and gather firsthand reports from 20 Lycoming 

 > owners that made it 2000 hours with no work, and we go out 

 > and find 20 of ANY single auto conversion engine owners out there 

 > that needed no work after 2000 hours.  

 Okay, you do the Subaru conversions, and I'll do the Lycomings...  

 Honestly I was not (and am still not) trying to stir the pot. It is 

 just that reports like yours is one of the main reasons why I started 

&  gt; lo oking at Subaru conversions. I had two bad experiences (at 800 hours 

[quote] on one engine, and about 1050 or so on the other). My local shop often 

 had a Lycoming engine in for top end work. It really started bothering me. 

 You are right, there are some engines that will make it to TBO, but I 

 just feel like it is a crap shoot. You had to do work at 300 hours, but 

 Jesse might make it all the way to TBO. There just doesn't seem to be 

 any good reasoning why one engine might make it and one might need 

 work. I'm fairly certain you take good care of your airplane and 

 engine, and it is unlikely that it was something that you did that 

 caused the problem (or was it? *grin*). 

 The Subaru might have problems as well. When it comes down to it, most 

 of us make decisions based on our personal experiences. None of my cars 

 has ever had to have engine work, and both of my airpla  nes ha  the Co  .matro  [quote][b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Dj,



 I'm glad that you know me and I know you and we have no worries

 that this stuff is intended to offend anyone.  I have fun with

 the discussion, and any kind hearted jabs, so it's all good.


	


    That's why I wasn't worried about posting.  I'm just trying to learn

as much about this as I can, and I was confident you would not take

offense at my reply.



    You should see the responses when I asked about using mogas with 10%

ethanol in it...  *grin*  Yes, believe it or not, you can design an

aircraft fuel system to use this fuel safely, but it took me several

months of research to find out how to do it (and part of that solution

involves the use of the Subaru engine), along with several e-mail

conversations with the very few people that are doing research and

experimenting with ethanol based fuels.  Actual data on this topic is

very hard to find, but opinions are as common as water in the NorthWest

right now...  



    My ultimate goal is to have my Sportsman on amphibious floats, and

have the option of refueling at a boat marina.  I also wanted to be able

to use the same fuel as an automobile, thinking along the lines of long

term availability.  At this point I am fairly confident that I can

accomplish this.



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

nyterminat(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: Aerosport Testimonial - long

I had an IO-540 in my Saratoga and at 1140 hrs it wound up being time for an overhaul due to the spalling on the camshft.

 Bob

   	  Quote: 	
		      In a message dated 12/6/2007 8:16:54 PM Central Standard Time, deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net) writes:

   	  Quote: 	
		  Do you have any data on this?  I keep hearing people say this but I

 can't seem to find any actual data to back it up. 	


   

   I've flown for years behind a 235hp O-540, the engine made TBO at 2,000+ was rebuilt and is now about 650 hrs, it's a tough little engine...but if one looks at the record of the same block producing 300+hp the reliability of the engine is not quite as likely to make TBO without a top along the way.  Talk to owners of Cherokee 235 and Cherokee 6's (300)...both have O-540's in them.  I think we've yet to see many good auto engine conversions...the Mooney Porsche was probably the largest "experiment" in regular GA aircraft.

    

   P

 	


 

 

 --

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