Any six-seat, pressurized EXPs out there?

[bigred177]

No real reason for asking this other than just curiosity. I was just curious if there are any six seaters out there. I don't know what the useful load on the Lancair IV-P is but putting a bench seat in the back for 3 small people is the only thing I could think of.

 

[tonycondon]

http://www.epicaircraft.com/LT.html

 

[bigred177]

Ah yea, forgot that one. Any others? Piston singles or twins?

 

[Ted]

I'm not aware of any twins in the experimental market.

There aren't a lot of piston singles out there that seat 6 anyway. Pretty much Cherokee 6, A36 Bonanza, and Malibu. In the experimental world, I think Tony hit the only one out there.

Of course, you could build your own.

 

[bigred177]

That would be fun. I'd love to put my aerodynamics classes to use and design a plane. One day when I have money and time together .

 

[alaskaflyer]

There aren't a lot of piston singles out there that seat 6 anyway. Pretty much Cherokee 6, A36 Bonanza, and Malibu.

I flew my 6'3" 190 lb. body in the third row of a Stationaire plenty of times. And a P210N once or twice.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

http://www.epicaircraft.com/LT.html

Ah yea, forgot that one. Any others? Piston singles or twins?

Is it possible to put a piston engine in this plane?

I'm no fan of that Trace Aviation turbo BBC because the whole thing weighs over 750 lbs and costs $250,000.

There's all aluminum drag engines out there that are over 850 ci and weigh 550 lbs or so.

I'm sure if you had the money that such an engine could be adapted to aviation use for much less than $250,000.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

That would be fun. I'd love to put my aerodynamics classes to use and design a plane. One day when I have money and time together .

Get out the chalk, draw an outline on the garage floor, and go at it...

 

[Ted]

Is it possible to put a piston engine in this plane?

I don't know why you'd want to. It'd have terrible performance in this case.

I'm no fan of that Trace Aviation turbo BBC because the whole thing weighs over 750 lbs and costs $250,000.

This, I believe, is the big reason why turbines became so popular (aside from reliability issues).

There's all aluminum drag engines out there that are over 850 ci and weigh 550 lbs or so.

Right, but then you have to factor in the mounts, propeller, cooling system, etc. You can get the weight down a lot lower than a cast iron block, though. But don't expect an 850 ci drag race engine to be particularly reliable in an aircraft.

I'm sure if you had the money that such an engine could be adapted to aviation use for much less than $250,000.

I agree that you could make an all-aluminum BBC that would probably weigh less and cost less than the other options out there, with good reliability. However, I think that at best you'd end up with the power of a smaller turbine if you want to have some semblance of reliability. I've thought about a 572 BBC with an estimated 500 HP at rated with turbos.

What would probably be better would be to put a big block in a plane designed for a piston engine, and reap the improved performance. I've always thought that a Cessna 421 with 500 hp a side would be nicer. I know, they made the Conquest. And it was very nice.

 

[Dan Thomas]

There aren't a lot of piston singles out there that seat 6 anyway. Pretty much Cherokee 6, A36 Bonanza, and Malibu.

Cessna 185, 206, 207 (7 seats), 210, Piper Saratoga...

Dan

 

[gismo]

Is it possible to put a piston engine in this plane?

I'm no fan of that Trace Aviation turbo BBC because the whole thing weighs over 750 lbs and costs $250,000.

There's all aluminum drag engines out there that are over 850 ci and weigh 550 lbs or so.

Do you have any expectation for that engine to last more than 10 seconds in your airplane?

I'm sure if you had the money that such an engine could be adapted to aviation use for much less than $250,000.

I expect it would indeed be possible to build a relatively lightweight (by automotive engine standards) engine of sufficient HP to power this airframe but I doubt you could make one with enough reliability to justify actually flying it beyond the airport pattern (if that) without spending way more than $250k. FWIW, there have been many attempts to adopt automotive engine designs to airplanes and most if not all have been wildly unsuccessful. There's also the minor issue of the huge difference in power to weight ratios for piston engines vs turbines (hint: the turbine in the Epic weighs a lot less than 550 lbs IIRC).

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I don't know why you'd want to. It'd have terrible performance in this case.

If done right, it could come very close to turbine performance @ altitude.

Right, but then you have to factor in the mounts, propeller, cooling system, etc. You can get the weight down a lot lower than a cast iron block, though.

A Trace BBC setup would suffer from the same problems.

But don't expect an 850 ci drag race engine to be particularly reliable in an aircraft.

Have to disagree with you here. Were talking about components that are designed to withstand 1500hp and over 8000rpm. You slow them down to a redline of 2700 and 500hp (natural aspirated, you could push 650hp turbocharged) you will have parts that last a long time.

I agree that you could make an all-aluminum BBC that would probably weigh less and cost less than the other options out there, with good reliability. However, I think that at best you'd end up with the power of a smaller turbine if you want to have some semblance of reliability.

I agree too. That's what I'm thinking would be possible.

I've thought about a 572 BBC with an estimated 500 HP at rated with turbos.

The problem with that setup, the way I see it, is that you're going too small. To quote Jim Fueling, "there's no replacement for displacement". A standard BBC can be punched out to at least 632 if not bigger. If you want to go really big, there's this 1005c.i. monster from Sonny's Racing.

http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/engines/sar-1005-2150-hp-new-for-2012

If you slowed that down to 2700prm, you could still get about 580hp from it, NA. Turbocharged, perhaps 700.

What would probably be better would be to put a big block in a plane designed for a piston engine, and reap the improved performance. I've always thought that a Cessna 421 with 500 hp a side would be nicer. I know, they made the Conquest. And it was very nice.

Yeah, that 1005c.i. with some turbos on it at about 700hp per side would be nicererer.

 

[bbchien]

TBO in racing engines is one minute beyond the finish line.....

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

There's also the minor issue of the huge difference in power to weight ratios for piston engines vs turbines (hint: the turbine in the Epic weighs a lot less than 550 lbs IIRC).

Yes, there's no way around the fact that an equivelent turboprop only weighs ~350lbs.

I was just thinking that the Epic LT might make a good candidate for a big 600+hp piston engine, something like a turbocharged version of this 1005c.i. Mountian Motor from Sonny's. http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/engines/sar-1005-2150-hp-new-for-2012

 

[Ted]

If done right, it could come very close to turbine performance @ altitude.

So let's say that you put in a piston engine with a lower rating, but that can hold power at altitude better than a turbine. Now what? It takes you more time to get to altitude, which therefore hurts your total segment times. Climb performance is just as important as cruise performance when you're talking about trying to get up to the flight levels.

A Trace BBC setup would suffer from the same problems.

Correct.

Have to disagree with you here. Were talking about components that are designed to withstand 1500hp and over 8000rpm. You slow them down to a redline of 2700 and 500hp (natural aspirated, you could push 650hp turbocharged) you will have parts that last a long time.

You're looking at high piston speeds and components that, while strong, are ultimately designed for a useful life measured in minutes, not thousands of hours. Plus the material you have to remove from a block to make it that large is immense. Go ahead and disagree, then try it and see.

I agree too. That's what I'm thinking would be possible.

But if you replace a turbine with a piston, your result will be poor performance and heavy weight. If you replace a piston with a bigger piston, then you'll get a bit heavier weight, but you'll get better performance.

The problem with that setup, the way I see it, is that you're going too small. To quote Jim Fueling, "there's no replacement for displacement". A standard BBC can be punched out to at least 632 if not bigger. If you want to go really big, there's this 1005c.i. monster from Sonny's Racing.

http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/engines/sar-1005-2150-hp-new-for-2012

If you slowed that down to 2700prm, you could still get about 580hp from it, NA. Turbocharged, perhaps 700.

For about 5 minutes.

The 572 is about as big as I'd want to push a BBC with current technology. With that, I'd make a conservative 500 HP, and I'd expect that I'd get good reliability out of it using some beefy components.

Yeah, that 1005c.i. with some turbos on it at about 700hp per side would be nicererer.

For the 5 minutes that it works.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

There aren't a lot of piston singles out there that seat 6 anyway. In the experimental world, I think Tony hit the only one out there.

Comp Air has a piston powered 6 place, or turbine powered 6 place and a 8 to 10 place. Lots of money but cool looking.