O360.... Squeeze out more power?

Ted DuPuis said:
The LASAR wasn't a very good example. It worked, but not very well.

The newer setups that are now certified I'm much more interested in. On my list the funds come in.



Angle valve or parallel valve?

That is high compression. And on 100LL when operated normally, I'd expect it to be ok. Plus I recall you saying you flew your Midget Mustang highish altitude and longish trips, which will also lessen the burden on the crank.

12.5:1, egh... I wouldn't do it. But 10:1 would be my normal limit.
Click to expand...


Angle valve IO-360 out of an Arrow, I took it as payment in a trade deal with an insurance company for hauling off three planes that got totaled on a ramp by storm damage. I never really intended to put it in anything at the time, did it more as an experiment in what I could make a 360 do, and when I went to store it in a guy's hangar I came across the partially completed airframe and told the guy if he ever finished it, hang that engine on and I'd buy it off him.

12.5:1 with a SB Chevy was common, I don't know many people racing them back then with less unless they had a blower.
 
Henning said:
12.5:1 with a SB Chevy was common, I don't know many people racing them back then with less unless they had a blower.
Click to expand...

I'd do it in a SBC, I was referring to a LyContisaur.

If I lived out west and wanted max altitude performance I'd consider it and limit manifold pressure down low.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd do it in a SBC, I was referring to a LyContisaur.

If I lived out west and wanted max altitude performance I'd consider it and limit manifold pressure down low.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's always ways around the problems that compression ratios provide, but only a supercharger will buy you the same benefits.;)

My next experimental engine I want to try is a reciprocating rocket engine to see how high I can make a prop climb. If you spray in Nitromethane and Nitrous Oxide 1:1 by weight, you don't need air, and the Nitrous systems these days are capable of being 'throttled' to add back the horsepower you start losing at high altitude when the turbo can no longer keep up.
 
Last edited:
A supercharger would obviously be ideal, but lacking ideal, high compression ratios would give you some of the benefit without the weight and complexity. I'm finding myself liking forced induction on planes less and less because of weight, complexity, and failure modes.

For that matter, I'm ready to get rid of it on my car!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A supercharger would obviously be ideal, but lacking ideal, high compression ratios would give you some of the benefit without the weight and complexity. I'm finding myself liking forced induction on planes less and less because of weight, complexity, and failure modes.

For that matter, I'm ready to get rid of it on my car!
Click to expand...


After having my turbo Travelair I've concluded that unless I'm living in the mountains, turbos don't have that great of a benefit without cabin pressurization.
 
Every time I read these threads or look at the products available, it makes me realize that 130mph is fast enough for my wallet.
 
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
Every time I read these threads or look at the products available, it makes me realize that 130mph is fast enough for me wallet.
Click to expand...


Actually 180-200 kts is not that expensive if you don't mind a small two seater, (Lancair 360 for example) and can be downright cheap if all you want is a single seat (Midget Mustang or Cassuette for examples).
 
Let me rephrase. Moving 3-4 people at 130mph is fast enough for my wallet. :yes:

Though I do with I had enough disposable income to make it faster for fun.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Let me rephrase. Moving 3-4 people at 130mph is fast enough for my wallet. :yes:

Though I do with I had enough disposable income to make it faster for fun.
Click to expand...


All you have to do is fly between the trees and 130 mph seems really fast on the fun scale.;)
 
Henning said:
Hell no:lol:, 350 Chevy done my way instead of Chevrolet's, 4-1/8 (400)bore block and 3-1/4 (327) stroke crank using 6.3" rods (rather than 5.7 to decrease the rod angle).
Click to expand...
can we say 383? :D We used to do the same with the 327/283, to come up with a "homebrew" 302. Minus the long rods. Problem with the long rods is the piston is "parked" at TDC and BDC for an extended time, which is ok for torque, on a de-stroked engine such as that, but for good HP through out the range the 5.7 is desired. Both the 383, and the 302 are good short track engines, with good power, and highest torque up in the higher RPMs.
The IO-360 I did that ended up in my Midget Mustang was 11.7:1 though with a custom cam Ed Iskendarian did for me himself. It never had a problem on 100LL and I ran it at 2900 rpm almost exclusively.
Click to expand...
So you had an "Iskey" cam in yer 0360?! How long ago was this? (bet it was in th' 70's ;) )
 
Henning said:
Yeah, there's always ways around the problems that compression ratios provide, but only a supercharger will buy you the same benefits.;)

My next experimental engine I want to try is a reciprocating rocket engine to see how high I can make a prop climb. If you spray in Nitromethane and Nitrous Oxide 1:1 by weight, you don't need air, and the Nitrous systems these days are capable of being 'throttled' to add back the horsepower you start losing at high altitude when the turbo can no longer keep up.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe it's closer to 14:1 at least it is with Nitro and air. So i would think it could be closer to 18:1 with NOs, or mabe even more.
But that stuff is more expensive than 100LL by a wide margin. :yes:
 
bluerooster said:
Actually I believe it's closer to 14:1 at least it is with Nitro and air. So i would think it could be closer to 18:1 with NOs, or mabe even more.
But that stuff is more expensive than 100LL by a wide margin. :yes:
Click to expand...

Nitromethane is good to 1.7:1 by weight with air. With NOx you spray one to one by weight. Gasoline is 13.7:1 with air. Nitromethane carries its own oxygen.
 
Well, I figured out how to get more speed. It was 24 deg out and she was giving me 135 kts and climbing 1300 fpm at take off too. So I'll just fly when it's really effin cold!!!
 
Unit74 said:
Well, I figured out how to get more speed. It was 24 deg out and she was giving me 135 kts and climbing 1300 fpm at take off too. So I'll just fly when it's really effin cold!!!
Click to expand...

That will work too....;);)
 
Henning said:
Nitromethane is good to 1.7:1 by weight with air. With NOx you spray one to one by weight. Gasoline is 13.7:1 with air.
Click to expand...
yeah I'm dyslexic. Anyway it boils down to; for a given quantity of air, twice the quantity of nitro can be burned than that of gasoline. (or very nearly so). Now when you look at the BTUs involved Nitro has way fewer of them. So it takes more to make the same power. However, you can burn almost double for the same quantity of air, thus making more power/lb of air, than with gas. Add an oxidizing agent and burn even more! But it has such a slow burn,(high octane rating) that you could get away with comps. in the 14:1 range. (I personally would not get over 12:1, but i've heard of 16:1 with no troubles) Just remember to run it rich, (teach it to drink from a firehose) and advance the spark. (40* inital is a good start)
Nitromethane carries its own oxygen.
Click to expand...
Yes Nitromethane carries almost 53% by weight oxygen.
 
"Well honey, we can't go to the Bahamas"
"Why the **** not? You promised."
"No can do, I only fly when it's really ****ing cold out so my plane will go over 130 kts."
"You'll be hearing from my lawyer. I want a divorce. I'm going to go marry a man with a real airplane. One with two engines!"
 
The fun thing with nitrous oxide and nitromethane is you can make a reciprocating rocket engine pretty dang cheap for a recip climb record.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
"Well honey, we can't go to the Bahamas"
"Why the **** not? You promised."
"No can do, I only fly when it's really ****ing cold out so my plane will go over 130 kts."
"You'll be hearing from my lawyer. I want a divorce. I'm going to go marry a man with a real airplane. One with two engines!"
Click to expand...


Tried that.....

Me: uhhg......I can't figure out how to get us all in the Archer

Wife: ok.....why do you have it then?

Me: well, we flew all over when it was just 4 of us, but with a car seat now we won't fit.

Wife: well, we won't all fit now so that thing is just your toy now. I knew you should not have bought it.

Me: well, I want to sell it and buy a Bonanza which will hold us all . But, my insurance is going to be around $4000 and my payments will end up doubling as well.

Wife: we can't afford that. Are you high or just stupid? You just spend 5 grand on some stupid box you said you needed and are now wanting to sell ? I don't want to talk to you.

Me: .............. Hmph....... uh.....but the new plane can get us to mom's house in a day.

Wife: whatever..... you need to buy me a new car first before all that. My van is a piece of sht.

Me: you'd just trash it like you did the van.....

Wife: have fun flying your toy then.
 
Unit74 said:
Tried that.....

Me: uhhg......I can't figure out how to get us all in the Archer

Wife: ok.....why do you have it then?

Me: well, we flew all over when it was just 4 of us, but with a car seat now we won't fit.

Wife: well, we won't all fit now so that thing is just your toy now. I knew you should not have bought it.

Me: well, I want to sell it and buy a Bonanza which will hold us all . But, my insurance is going to be around $4000 and my payments will end up doubling as well.

Wife: we can't afford that. Are you high or just stupid? You just spend 5 grand on some stupid box you said you needed and are now wanting to sell ? I don't want to talk to you.

Me: .............. Hmph....... uh.....but the new plane can get us to mom's house in a day.

Wife: whatever..... you need to buy me a new car first before all that. My van is a piece of sht.

Me: you'd just trash it like you did the van.....

Wife: have fun flying your toy then.
Click to expand...

:yikes:

Have you thought about ( accidentely) dropping the electric blow dryer into the bath tub with her in it...:dunno:........:rolleyes:
 
The growing family is always a concern. Now with the 5 of us I even question the 310. We'll see how that goes.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The growing family is always a concern. Now with the 5 of us I even question the 310. We'll see how that goes.
Click to expand...

Crossing over from four to five (I know you skipped four) really changes the world. Tables for four - everywhere. Tables for more than four? Much rarer. In many mom & pop restaurants, nonexistent. Cars that easily seat four, common. Cars that seat 5 (and no middle seats, trust me-when the kids are older no middle seats!)? Mini vans or SUVs.

It's a whole different place.

John
 
Yeah, right now our BMW 740iL is doing fine as a family car and will fit the 5 of us with 3 car seats across the back just fine, but I don't expect that will be a permanent arrangement. Similarly, the 310 may technically be a 6 seater (and with 3 rows, no less), but we'll see how well that pans out in reality since it's harder to pull over on the nearest cloud, and simply putting a kid up front isn't always that good of an idea.

Thing is, we have a pickup truck that we like and that fits our needs fine, so I don't particularly want to sell it for an SUV (although we could then upgrade to a 3/4-ton, which would be better truthfully) and the 310 is also very good, with any upgrading not actually being significantly faster, but costing 2x to operate.
 
You an manage very nicely with one mini-van/SUV that carries everyone as long as your other vehicle can carry enough. My wife and I had a succession of mini-vans and I had cars to commute in that were smaller. If I needed to carry more than 3 we traded vehicles for the trip. I had: an '84 Honda Civic wagon, a '90 Acura Integra, a '98 Nissan Maxima and now an '05 Mini Cooper S convertible. All with standard transmission. She had: '96 Mazda MPV, '99 Dodge 2500 (never again!), '00 Mazda MPV, 06 Honda Odyssey and now a 2015.5 Volvo V60 (no more mini vans! Woo hoo!).

The pickup truck is likely a problem for you because that's how you get the boat to water, right? So you have a need to tow and carry everybody. I think you're going to be in an SUV pretty soon. But maybe the other car can be more fun. Although a 740iL is pretty sweet!

John
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, right now our BMW 740iL is doing fine as a family car and will fit the 5 of us with 3 car seats across the back just fine, but I don't expect that will be a permanent arrangement. Similarly, the 310 may technically be a 6 seater (and with 3 rows, no less), but we'll see how well that pans out in reality since it's harder to pull over on the nearest cloud, and simply putting a kid up front isn't always that good of an idea.

Thing is, we have a pickup truck that we like and that fits our needs fine, so I don't particularly want to sell it for an SUV (although we could then upgrade to a 3/4-ton, which would be better truthfully) and the 310 is also very good, with any upgrading not actually being significantly faster, but costing 2x to operate.
Click to expand...

Ted, you'll be fine for a while, but when the girls are teenagers and need to pack the whole house to go on a trip... Well, I hope you're saving for a King Air. ;)
 
Unit74 said:
Tried that.....

Me: uhhg......I can't figure out how to get us all in the Archer

Wife: ok.....why do you have it then?

Me: well, we flew all over when it was just 4 of us, but with a car seat now we won't fit.

Wife: well, we won't all fit now so that thing is just your toy now. I knew you should not have bought it.

Me: well, I want to sell it and buy a Bonanza which will hold us all . But, my insurance is going to be around $4000 and my payments will end up doubling as well.

Wife: we can't afford that. Are you high or just stupid? You just spend 5 grand on some stupid box you said you needed and are now wanting to sell ? I don't want to talk to you.

Me: .............. Hmph....... uh.....but the new plane can get us to mom's house in a day.

Wife: whatever..... you need to buy me a new car first before all that. My van is a piece of sht.

Me: you'd just trash it like you did the van.....

Wife: have fun flying your toy then.
Click to expand...


Another reason to buy your last plane first.:lol:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, right now our BMW 740iL is doing fine as a family car and will fit the 5 of us with 3 car seats across the back just fine, but I don't expect that will be a permanent arrangement. Similarly, the 310 may technically be a 6 seater (and with 3 rows, no less), but we'll see how well that pans out in reality since it's harder to pull over on the nearest cloud, and simply putting a kid up front isn't always that good of an idea.

Thing is, we have a pickup truck that we like and that fits our needs fine, so I don't particularly want to sell it for an SUV (although we could then upgrade to a 3/4-ton, which would be better truthfully) and the 310 is also very good, with any upgrading not actually being significantly faster, but costing 2x to operate.
Click to expand...

Just get an old Diesel Expedition to haul the boat and family to the water. Probably the best vehicle that exists for the job. A Diesel motorhome is another good option.
 
John, I think your points are pretty much spot on. The pickup (Avalanche - so 5 seats and 4 real doors) is needed for getting the boat to the lake. Plus Laurie bought it basically new 10 years ago and loves it, so doesn't want to get rid of it. We won't buy a minivan because we hate minivans, and also because we need to tow the boat. The BMW is really supposed to be Laurie's car for hauling the kids around - that was the intent when we bought it. So far, it's been a good family hauler, albeit less reliable than the 310. Comfortable, good power, quiet, good handling, lots of room. Not much to complain about. With 3 rear-facing seats, having a long wheelbase is important for me to get any legroom driving. The Avalanche is not comfortable for me to drive with 3 in back, but the BMW is. It won't surprise me if we end up trading the Avalanche for a Suburban 2500 or Excursion at some point in the future. I put 80k miles or so on my V10 Excursion, needed nothing but brakes when I sold it at 170k.

Kent, simple: Tell the girls "No". ;)

Henning, I agree with you on the Excursion, but not on the diesel part. They cost way more to buy and with diesel at an extra $1/gallon, just doesn't make financial sense. I miss my V10 gasser Excursion I used to have and probably shouldn't have sold it, but oh well. I also don't particularly want a 421. They crack the cases far too frequently and have other weird **** on them that gets too expensive. I am seeing a lot of people doing double overhauls because of major case cracks, issues with vibrations, losing oil prime and the far higher instance of losing one right on takeoff. That failure mode wrecked the 421C of the Twin Cessna Flyer president after he sold it and killed the pilot. I'll go 414 if I need that size and pressurized - the major problem those have is needing cylinders. Wouldn't be opposed to a Navajo or 340, either.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ted, you'll be fine for a while, but when the girls are teenagers and need to pack the whole house to go on a trip... Well, I hope you're saving for a King Air. ;)
Click to expand...
I can negotiate a heck of a deal for you on one with -20 engines. Yes, there's nobody making vanes for them anymore but you can just keep putting in used engines. Heck I'll even hose some of the sheep poo out of the wheel wells for you. On the one hand you'll average ~70 gph but the good news is you won't really go any faster than your 310 so you get to enjoy it longer.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The part where you get that sexy turbine whine, the nice cabin, and the way you can hang on to the props during start for fun. ;)
Click to expand...

Turbines are like whores. They're easy.

Piston twins are where the romance of aviation exists.

Oh, and don't hang on the props of a King Air B100.
 
Kent's point (I think) was that with PT-6 planes you can hold the prop during start because the power turbine is separate from the high pressure/compressor turbine. The King Air B100 has Garret TPE-331s which are single-shaft, and holding the prop during start will lead to a hospital (or morgue) visit.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Kent's point (I think) was that with PT-6 planes you can hold the prop during start because the power turbine is separate from the high pressure/compressor turbine. The King Air B100 has Garret TPE-331s which are single-shaft, and holding the prop during start will lead to a hospital (or morgue) visit.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Must be why the King Air 100 didn't sell nearly as well as the others. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Bingo.

Must be why the King Air 100 didn't sell nearly as well as the others. ;)
Click to expand...

Only the B100 had Garrets. A100s had PT-6s.

The KA100 offered the cabin of a 200 with the performance of a 90. The Garrets were an improvement.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Only the B100 had Garrets. A100s had PT-6s.

The KA100 offered the cabin of a 200 with the performance of a 90. The Garrets were an improvement.
Click to expand...
Only an improvement if you were already deaf to start with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top