 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
 |
|
Just a quick note that I think applies - FYI... this is a section from
a discussion on the Subaru list -
| Quote: | The wings are wide open. Lower wing skins are not bonded on yet. I can
|
| Quote: | run any size return line. Why float type?What's so special about that?
|
| Quote: | The fuel pick up lines are in. They should stay. They are 3/8 in size.
I hope I don't sound like an idiot.
Gary
|
Hi Gary,
The capacitance fuel level senders require re-calibration for each type
of fuel you use. So, if you use mogas most of the time, but from time
to time need to put in 100LL, then the fuel level will not read
correctly. The very simple float senders don't have this problem.
Another alternative to the fuel return lines is to install
a header tank. From what I've read on the net, this seems
to be a popular option.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
I’m going rotary, should be able to burn 87 with out a problem, I did build in a return to left main tank and have begun the overhaul process. Total overhaul should cost me less than 1600 and that is everything.
Bob K
Finish kit and engine
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:41 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Autogas for 540
Yep
do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:10 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Autogas for 540
Isn't this the Bombardier engine before they split off?
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
This looks like another interesting option, but it seems that Eggenfellner
currently has the leg up on "V" with all the users and the engine mount and
cowl aready figured out.
Who is manufacturing the "V" engine itself?
The huge company behind the Subaru engines and all their technology in the
auto industry, plus all the money they have in R+D make it seem like a
better bet.
One concern of both of these is their reduction drives and the pulse forces
placed on them according to their future competion, Wolf Aerospace.
But glad to see that the momentum is gathering which will ensure more
choices for us all.
JG. 409
Do Not Archive
[quote]From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com>
Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: RE: Autogas for 540
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:51:00 -0400
<Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>
We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've
been ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad6
1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=1&Range=NOW&FromDate=04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=04%2F2
7%2F2006&Category=%2Findex.cfm
TDT
40025
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
A question for Ray Doerr, would you buy another auto engine conversion (eg Eggenfelner)?
From someone who has been there, I am sure the list would value your opinion.
cheers,
Ron
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
Umm, err, how do I put this? 100LL is 7.0 RVP. Most summer mogas is
7.6-9.0 RVP. Adding ethanol raises the RVP about 1 point. The higher the
RVP the more hazard of vapor lock. That means mogas with ethanol has a
higher vapor pressure.
Even if you engine is fine with the fuel, how are you going to keep it
in the wet wing tanks after it softens the PRC? Are you going to want to
reseal those tanks every few years?
Eric Panning wrote:
| Quote: |
ECi Titan IO-540 kit engine (~ 2007?) is supposed to
be autofuel capable. This is partly because they are
using a fuel spider with fixed orifice and not a fuel
servo with some autogas sensitive components. Still
they rec 100LL initial for valves. Note this system
requires a return fuel line. I have built these
fittings into my tanks just in case. Part of reason
for return line is to return any vapor to tank.
Autogas and ethanol autogas in particular has lower
vapor pressure. Ethanol is also a good solvent for
lots of things....
Deltahawk claims they sold out 2005 and 2006
production runs but I have never seen a builder site
which makes me wonder if they really have that many
out there. I saw one article that 2005 run was only
two engines.
A number of builders are looking at rotary engines as
well.
Eric
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
Excellent presentation on the clear risk of Mogas rather than Avgas. It
took me two years of school to learn the narrow perspective of why it
carries risks. Here is a dissertation from the Lancair group today on
the same logic.
"Scott,
That output for the motorcycle is really not very "exciting" compared
to an aircraft engine. Correct it out for RPM and the Hp/cubic inch
is around .51.
If you take away the liquid cooling, and run the heads at 380dF
rather than 240dF, the octane requirement would increase
substantially.
George
"""
Hmmmmm.... My Honda VTX motorcycle, 110 ci (55 ci/cyl) comes close to
my
320 (80 ci/cyl). It uses a 9:1 compression ratio, 4" bore x 4.4"
stroke, 3 valves, 3d mapped fuel injection (MAP, OAT, RPM, etc.) thru
12-hole electronic injectors, 2 plugs/cyl, EI, liquid cooled (uh, well
that's quite different), etc. This engine produces 95 HP and 115
ft/lb
at the rear wheel thru a less than efficient a drive shaft at about
4500-5000 rpm. It requires 86 octane auto gas."
The above discussion was between George Braly of GAMI and a well known
Lancair driver. Comparison was the shallow logic of a water-cooled
motorcycle engine being similar to a six banger aircraft engine and the
consequence with an air-cooled engine.
The Reid Vapor Pressure index and the official position by Continental
against Mogas in aviation has been clearly documented. Price of gas
seems to bring out foolish discussion on a periodic basis. When an auto
engine fails, you just pullover. I can find the supporting documents for
the foolishness of the STC if needed.
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tdawson(at)avidyne.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:15 am Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
Well, the V aircraft engines are going to be certified aircraft engines. I don't know exactly who owns who at this point, but the V aircraft engines were developed by Bombardier, a company that knows plenty about engines (Rotax).
But the V engine guys (I forget the new name) are aiming at the OEM market first, so homebuilder will have to wait a while longer. Plus they never discuss price . . . !
A while back I also talked to the guys distributing the SMA diesel engine in the US. They have an STC for C-182s. They also were not really interested in homebuilders. They did mention a price - for the C-182 is was something like $50,000 for the engine and a total of about $75,000 or so as a package with new cowl and I think a new prop.
TDT
40025
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I don’t like what I’ve seen in terms of engineering for these firewall forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said, I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement isn’t large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free 2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I’ve found that were not addresses very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I’ve considered this time round is to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on the components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a core as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the airframe, prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out for any reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
CDNI Principal Engineer
Sprint PCS
16020 West 113th Street
Lenexa, KS 66219
Mailstop KSLNXK0101
(913) 859-1414 (Office)
(913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
(913) 859-1234 (Fax)
Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:50 am Post subject: Autogas for 540 |
|
|
One of the big considerations in an engine conversion is comparing horsepower. Most aircraft have much higher continous hoursepower rating than the auto counterpart. Auto engines tend to quote peak HP. I did a VW conversion on a dragonfly that I built and continually had problems because airplanes require much higher continous HP in cruise than autos do. A truck engine would be a better match, but they are too heavy. I too, would not do a conversion unless I converted a lot of green $$$ into a lycoming.
my $.02
Gary
[quote]
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
