STCs I'd like to see

Ken Ibold

Ken Ibold

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
5,889
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
The Twinkie engine conversion thread made me start thinking about what STC-type changes I'd like to see in other airplanes. For starters, I'd like to see what would happen if you retrofit a Seneca II-V with counter-rotating 250-hp Lyc IO-540s.

Or how about a Cessna 340 turboprop?
 
Ken Ibold said:
The Twinkie engine conversion thread made me start thinking about what STC-type changes I'd like to see in other airplanes. For starters, I'd like to see what would happen if you retrofit a Seneca II-V with counter-rotating 250-hp Lyc IO-540s.
Click to expand...

This would probably be a nifty little performance boost. But I think you'd need about 260-275 hp a side to make a big performance improvement vs. the TSIO-360s. The high power ones I think do 220 hp a side, and the 540s will weigh more.

Or how about a Cessna 340 turboprop?
Click to expand...

Here you go:

http://www.onaircraft.com/The-Planes/The-Silver-Eagle-340.aspx

I've seen it, I've touched it, it sure is shiny. They claim 252 gallons total (probably helped in part by the lower weight of the engines).

It seems like a nice package, don't know how it compares to something like a turbine Duke. Someone down the road a ways flew his into a thunderstorm, went from 19,000 ft upside right to 1,500 ft upside down, and decided it was better to replace the TIO-541s with PT-6s. I guess that will help him hit "the goal" next time.

I'd like to put 300 hp TIO-540s on my Aztec, and do a turbo normalizing setup on the 310 (TSIO-520 - 300 hp).

Also would like to see a turbocharged Lancair 360 with a tail that solved the flutter issues. Actually, I've seen that, someone did it in a Legacy, but the Legacy would be better fitted with a TIO-540.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've seen it, I've touched it, it sure is shiny. They claim 252 gallons total (probably helped in part by the lower weight of the engines).
Click to expand...

thats how much gas a 421 will carry with the large wing tanks, tips, and locker tanks.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This would probably be a nifty little performance boost. But I think you'd need about 260-275 hp a side to make a big performance improvement vs. the TSIO-360s. The high power ones I think do 220 hp a side, and the 540s will weigh more.
Click to expand...
300 hp IO-540s would be even better, if you could find some space for some more fuel.
 
tonycondon said:
thats how much gas a 421 will carry with the large wing tanks, tips, and locker tanks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems a little small. The Cheyenne holds about 380 gallons of Jet A, and I could stand for it to hold more.

Ken Ibold said:
300 hp IO-540s would be even better, if you could find some space for some more fuel.
Click to expand...

Agreed. More power is more better. More fuel would be the kicker. I don't know how much fuel a Seneca holds. I think roughly 140 gallons?
 
You don't need an STC, Ken. Go to Staples and get a label maker. Type out EXPERIMENTAL.

You're welcome.
 
actually i wouldn't mind getting big enough tanks in a 172 so that i could load it up to gross when i was solo and go far. ~100 gallons or so would be about right.
 
tonycondon said:
actually i wouldn't mind getting big enough tanks in a 172 so that i could load it up to gross when i was solo and go far. ~100 gallons or so would be about right.
Click to expand...

Sheesh, you'd just about have to stop and change oil before running out of gas...
 
Clark1961 said:
Sheesh, you'd just about have to stop and change oil before running out of gas...
Click to expand...

you don't have to fill it up every time. but 1100 or 1200 mile range in a 172 would be pretty awesome. you'd only want to do such trips solo anyway.
 
tonycondon said:
you don't have to fill it up every time. but 1100 or 1200 mile range in a 172 would be pretty awesome. you'd only want to do such trips solo anyway.
Click to expand...

Go up high (well, as high as a 172 will get), lean it out, see where it stops...
 
It's pretty hard to dislike more range.

I'd like it if there was an STC to increase the fuel capacity of the 310 without eating into the wing lockers.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's pretty hard to dislike more range.

I'd like it if there was an STC to increase the fuel capacity of the 310 without eating into the wing lockers.
Click to expand...

What's the old joke?

It's better to have a 3hr bladder and 5hrs of fuel than a 5hr bladder and 3hrs of fuel?

;)
 
tonycondon said:
actually i wouldn't mind getting big enough tanks in a 172 so that i could load it up to gross when i was solo and go far. ~100 gallons or so would be about right.
Click to expand...

That's what Alan Klapmeier said the Cirrus jet was designed to do. "Don't ask me what the full-fuel payload is." :rofl: (I think it was 300 pounds - But you could go approximately forever on full fuel, OR take pax and less fuel. Nice to have options.)


Ted DuPuis said:
Well gee, that's not even very good with standard engines...
Click to expand...

That's my feeling too... Although that is maybe 5.5 hours with the extended tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top