New single, vs older twin.

LJS1993 said:
So with all the technology we have in existence there is no practical fuel injected, piston, single engine equipped plane out there that is producing over the 350HP mark?
Click to expand...

The IO-720 is 400 and has turbo normalization available on STC, The GTSIO-520K is 425hp and there are lower HP variants at 385 IIRC in the 421. The TIO 541 is 380hp and TIGO 541 is 425HP then there are the radial and inline leftovers from WWII which can get up to 4000hp and the quasi modern M-14 radial which goes up to 475hp.
 
LJS1993 said:
So with all the technology we have in existence there is no practical fuel injected, piston, single engine equipped plane out there that is producing over the 350HP mark?
Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge (sans radials and old V-12 types)

There are a few planes running around with 8cylinder lycoming IO-720s on, but they are the exception at about 400hp. No such aircraft in production now.
 
Henning said:
The IO-720 is 400 and has turbo normalization available on STC, The GTSIO-520K is 425hp and there are lower HP variants at 385 IIRC in the 421. The TIO 541 is 380hp and TIGO 541 is 425HP then there are the radial and inline leftovers from WWII which can get up to 4000hp and the quasi modern M-14 radial which goes up to 475hp.
Click to expand...

Persoanlly I wish we had more economical turbine options for GA.

Once you're getting over 500hp you're entering turbine land and I'll trust a simple turbine over a 12 cylinder V or R985 or the like.
 
LJS1993 said:
So with all the technology we have in existence there is no practical fuel injected, piston, single engine equipped plane out there that is producing over the 350HP mark?
Click to expand...

The real issue is that once you pushed traditional aircraft engines past the 350 HP mark they tended to get very inefficient and unreliable quickly, or have other compromises that ultimately made the demand small, such as high weight from gear reduction (GTSIO-520). The IO-720s had other issues besides weight, such as the long crank and cooling problems.

It's not that it's not doable, it's very doable. It just hasn't proven practical, and so once you hit the 400+ HP mark you've seen aircraft typically go to turbines.
 
Skylane81E said:
The Kodiak and the Caravan I get. They give you something for giving up the speed and altitude (and you can make money with them)
Click to expand...

However they are the same "theme" of aircraft as the comp, only reason I didn't post a kodiack or C208 (what I fly everyday) is the price to play, that comp is a fraction of the price of ether of the others. And if this is just a personal plane for rich buddy, why not take advantage of the experiential realm

I'll take a low level turbine on saftey grounds way before a BRS, or airbag, or any of the other "saftey" crap rich folks get a hard on for.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The real issue is that once you pushed traditional aircraft engines past the 350 HP mark they tended to get very inefficient and unreliable quickly, or have other compromises that ultimately made the demand small, such as high weight from gear reduction (GTSIO-520). The IO-720s had other issues besides weight, such as the long crank and cooling problems.

It's not that it's not doable, it's very doable. It just hasn't proven practical, and so once you hit the 400+ HP mark you've seen aircraft typically go to turbines.
Click to expand...

So it sounds a lot like the issues with the older designs of automobile engines. By that I mean the more you bump up the HP in a traditional design the more issues you may have with reliability.
 
wabower said:
I got 19 years from it and don't think it's a bad idea. What's the beef?
Click to expand...

Call it paranoia and bias against singles for known ice. I prefer to have the extra horsepower to pull me up/through the ice with brute force. Of course there are plenty of arguments to be made against light twins in icing as well, but that's where I have my experience and comfort with good success. I also figured the Malibu's wings would be prone to building ice quickly and would definitely want extra power when dealing with ice in that. But I also have as many hours in Malibus as G-Vs.

LJS1993 said:
So it sounds a lot like the issues with the older designs of automobile engines. By that I mean the more you bump up the HP in a traditional design the more issues you may have with reliability.
Click to expand...

Correct. Obviously an engine with modern technology in it could reliably get more power, but I think you would still run into weight issues that make the compromises continue to favor turbines.

I'd had the idea for some time about building an experimental twin that would have a pair of 450 HP engines (figure 310 sized) but grossly overpowered at that with power settings similar to what I deal with in the turbine world. Basically you would typically be derated to a lower power, but have the extra power mainly for OEI situations. Of course there are various controlability issues you'd need to handle, but this is why it's a dream.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Call it paranoia and bias against singles for known ice. I prefer to have the extra horsepower to pull me up/through the ice with brute force. Of course there are plenty of arguments to be made against light twins in icing as well, but that's where I have my experience and comfort with good success. I also figured the Malibu's wings would be prone to building ice quickly and would definitely want extra power when dealing with ice in that. But I also have as many hours in Malibus as G-Vs.



Correct. Obviously an engine with modern technology in it could reliably get more power, but I think you would still run into weight issues that make the compromises continue to favor turbines.

I'd had the idea for some time about building an experimental twin that would have a pair of 450 HP engines (figure 310 sized) but grossly overpowered at that with power settings similar to what I deal with in the turbine world. Basically you would typically be derated to a lower power, but have the extra power mainly for OEI situations. Of course there are various controlability issues you'd need to handle, but this is why it's a dream.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I don't use the correct terminology as I'm a "car" guy but let me ask this. So that thing would definitely be a "torque" monster right? Naturally aspirated? That will need some cam and heads for those numbers. Not that you guys necessarily care about sound but it would sound very nice.
 
Based in KC, I found that actual boot usage in whatever we flew (pistons, turboprops, jets) was necessary only a few times per year and never in situations where power was a determining factor. When I think of our real-world situations, most were while descending. FIKI is mostly for the regs anyway, as almost any combination of boots, props and windshield will yield the same operational result and none of them presume that use will be to escape rather than to fly in icing.

Ted DuPuis said:
Call it paranoia and bias against singles for known ice. I prefer to have the extra horsepower to pull me up/through the ice with brute force. Of course there are plenty of arguments to be made against light twins in icing as well, but that's where I have my experience and comfort with good success. I also figured the Malibu's wings would be prone to building ice quickly and would definitely want extra power when dealing with ice in that. But I also have as many hours in Malibus as G-Vs.



Correct. Obviously an engine with modern technology in it could reliably get more power, but I think you would still run into weight issues that make the compromises continue to favor turbines.

I'd had the idea for some time about building an experimental twin that would have a pair of 450 HP engines (figure 310 sized) but grossly overpowered at that with power settings similar to what I deal with in the turbine world. Basically you would typically be derated to a lower power, but have the extra power mainly for OEI situations. Of course there are various controlability issues you'd need to handle, but this is why it's a dream.
Click to expand...
 
LJS1993 said:
Forgive me if I don't use the correct terminology as I'm a "car" guy but let me ask this. So that thing would definitely be a "torque" monster right? Naturally aspirated? That will need some cam and heads for those numbers. Not that you guys necessarily care about sound but it would sound very nice.
Click to expand...

Actually one of the ideas I had involved the 3.0L Twin-Turbo V6 in my Mitsubishi with a belt/gear reduction. Or a Ford small block a la Ben Haas special, also with a reduction.

wabower said:
Based in KC, I found that actual boot usage in whatever we flew (pistons, turboprops, jets) was necessary only a few times per year and never in situations where power was a determining factor. When I think of our real-world situations, most were while descending. FIKI is mostly for the regs anyway, as almost any combination of boots, props and windshield will yield the same operational result and none of them presume that use will be to escape rather than to fly in icing.
Click to expand...

Our situations were probably a bit different, mostly due to where we were based and our respective milk runs. For me it was more common to have icing either climbing through a layer on departure, or else encountering en-route when I then had to change altitude or course. I have noticed different icing tendencies in the parts of the country where I typically experienced it (PA/Applachians up through Newfoundland and northern Canada) and the midwest.

One good example was departing Newfoundland last February. It was about OVC005 and the tops were something like 5-6k. Took off, left everything firewalled until I needed to pull the props back out of the yellow for the climb. Despite the climb rates of 1500+ FPM (I think closer to 2,000, but memories of climb rates can be like fishing stories), I had to hit the boots to get big chunks of ice off twice, and then again once we broke out on top only a few minutes later. It was nice having the extra power, mainly for climb.

In either case, yes, FIKI is really for regs and the tools are just to get you out of there.
 
Last edited:
NineThreeKilo said:
Persoanlly I wish we had more economical turbine options for GA.

Once you're getting over 500hp you're entering turbine land and I'll trust a simple turbine over a 12 cylinder V or R985 or the like.
Click to expand...

Economical and turbine don't share the same sentence below 18,000'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top