Altitude ceiling engine choices

[abripl]

Builders who plan to fly in mountains needing higher altitude should
consider their engine choices. Typical Lycoming low compression engines
have a limit of about 13,500 feet. You need higher compression engines
or turbocharging for higher altitudes. I tested my high compression
(10.5) Franklin 6A-350 to 18,000 legal VFR limit and quit - still was
doing about 200ft/min. A friend of mine with a 0-320 maxed out at
13,300.

-----------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[Bill Daniels]

"abripl" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Builders who plan to fly in mountains needing higher altitude should
> consider their engine choices. Typical Lycoming low compression engines
> have a limit of about 13,500 feet. You need higher compression engines
> or turbocharging for higher altitudes. I tested my high compression
> (10.5) Franklin 6A-350 to 18,000 legal VFR limit and quit - still was
> doing about 200ft/min. A friend of mine with a 0-320 maxed out at
> 13,300.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000
>

Yes, and consider the ignition source. The loss of one magneto, like the
loss of one engine in a twin, will decrease altitude performance
dramatically. In many cases, the remaining performance won't keep you above
terrain. Been there, done that, have the new seat cushion to prove it.

Bill Daniels

[John Ammeter]

I can attest to the lowered ceiling with a low compression engine. My
RV-6 had the E2A engine which is the 150 hp version, low compression.
On a trip coming home from Canada, with two of us in the plane and
baggage, we topped out at 13,200 density altitude. Couldn't go any
higher.

John

karel wrote:
> "abripl" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Builders who plan to fly in mountains needing higher altitude should
>>consider their engine choices. Typical Lycoming low compression engines
>>have a limit of about 13,500 feet. You need higher compression engines
>>or turbocharging for higher altitudes. I tested my high compression
>>(10.5) Franklin 6A-350 to 18,000 legal VFR limit and quit - still was
>>doing about 200ft/min. A friend of mine with a 0-320 maxed out at
>>13,300.
>
>
> To my understanding turbocharging OR diesel is the way to go high up.
> Yes yes one more reason to go diesel!
> But isn't there a pressurizing issue also, above 10k or so ft?
> It's just a different game, high up there, or so I'm told.
> KA
>
>

[[email protected]]

The currently available diesels will typically already be turbocharged.


I was wondering if you could refer me to any documentation on naturally
aspirated diesels being superior high performers? I have heard
conflicting data about this and would be interested in getting better
information.

-Thanks!
-Matt

[Montblack]

)
> I was wondering if you could refer me to any documentation on naturally
> aspirated diesels being superior high performers? I have heard
> conflicting data about this and would be interested in getting better
> information.


http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Stin-Det.html

"PACKARD MOTOR CORP BOUGHT A DETROITER AND INSTALLED THEIR "NEW" DIESEL
RADIAL AIRCRAFT ENGINE FOR FLIGHT TESTING. ALTHOUGH IT PERFORMED REASONABLY
WELL AT LOWER ALTITUDES, IT DID NOT DO WELL AT HIGHER ALTITUDES, AND WAS
EVENTUALLY ABANDONED."


Montblack

[abripl]

> PACKARD MOTOR CORP BOUGHT A DETROITER AND INSTALLED THEIR "NEW" DIESEL

That hardly looks like "latest technology" so its nor really a good
reference.

[Cy Galley]

May be but Packard was a good engineering company and they produced one of
two commercially viable United States radial Diesels. There were other
economic forces at work during its development (depression).


"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> PACKARD MOTOR CORP BOUGHT A DETROITER AND INSTALLED THEIR "NEW" DIESEL
>
> That hardly looks like "latest technology" so its nor really a good
> reference.
>

[Montblack]

("abripl" wrote)
> That hardly looks like "latest technology" so its nor really a good
> reference.


For "naturally aspirated" diesel engines (that have ACTUALLY FLOWN) it
almost counts as "latest technology" ....thus making it a great reference.
<g>

<http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Stin-Det.html>
Look at the first (top) picture - five feet off the starboard wing is the
"latest technology" in flying cars ...(that have ACTUALLY FLOWN)


<http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Aero%20Car.html>
Here is the flying car. Red Tri-Motor in background was at OSH this year.


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> <http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Aero%20Car.html>
> Here is the flying car. Red Tri-Motor in background was at OSH this year.

The flying car was at OSH, and flying, what, 3 years ago?

Pretty cool, I thought!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Some of the LOM engines are supercharged in their stock form. I
suspect they would provide good high altitude performance, but don't
have any data to back that up.

Anybody fly one of their boosted engines up high yet?

-Matt

[[email protected]]

You guys are giving bad advice. I fly a Glastar with an O-320 E2A in
it. I have flown dozens of hours at density altitudes above 15000 ft.
And that is with the plane loaded to GW. With the plane loaded lightly
I have had it above 21000 density altitude (which was right at 18000 ft
MSL) using autogas, just to see how high I could go. I have flown
across the Rockies half a dozen times at VFR altitudes of 13500, 14500
and 15500, depending on which way I'm going. Those flights were at
density altitudes typically 2000 to 3000 higher than the MSL altitudes.
The Slick mags never misfired even at 21000 ft, but the plane was at
it's service ceiling of 100 fpm there and I'm sure any misfiring would
have resulted in a descent. I enjoy high altitude XC flights using O2
and a pulse oximeter, the air is smooth, cool and the plane runs great.
Don't blame your engine for limits imposed by your airframes.
Justaguy

[Jerry Springer]

wrote:
> You guys are giving bad advice. I fly a Glastar with an O-320 E2A in
> it. I have flown dozens of hours at density altitudes above 15000 ft.
> And that is with the plane loaded to GW.


I agree, I have flown my RV-6 at 15000 ft several times when I had a
O-320 E2D on it and it was still climbing with no problem. I used to fly
across the mtns. in my Tripacer at altitudes of 14,500. John Ammeter
something does not sound right that you could not get your RV-6 above
13,500.

Jerry

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> You guys are giving bad advice. I fly a Glastar with an O-320 E2A in
>> it. I have flown dozens of hours at density altitudes above 15000 ft.
>> And that is with the plane loaded to GW.
>
>
> I agree, I have flown my RV-6 at 15000 ft several times when I had a O-320
> E2D on it and it was still climbing with no problem. I used to fly across
> the mtns. in my Tripacer at altitudes of 14,500. John Ammeter something
> does not sound right that you could not get your RV-6 above 13,500.
>
> Jerry

Someone with 150 hp and a cruise prop might not be able to generate a whole
lot of rpm and therefore power at that altitude. It goes back to the
compromises you make with a fixed pitch prop. Also, it depends on how
heavily loaded the RV-6 was. I list my 160 hp, fixed pitch RV-6's gross
weight at 1675 lb, and the climb and altitude performance really suffer with
the last 50 lbs or so.

KB

[John Ammeter]

It might have been the payload.... I know we were at or slightly over
gross... The stick had a very light "feel" to it, like we were close to
the stall..

John

Jerry Springer wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> You guys are giving bad advice. I fly a Glastar with an O-320 E2A in
>> it. I have flown dozens of hours at density altitudes above 15000 ft.
>> And that is with the plane loaded to GW.
>
>
>
> I agree, I have flown my RV-6 at 15000 ft several times when I had a
> O-320 E2D on it and it was still climbing with no problem. I used to fly
> across the mtns. in my Tripacer at altitudes of 14,500. John Ammeter
> something does not sound right that you could not get your RV-6 above
> 13,500.
>
> Jerry

[John Ammeter]

that sounds like my situation...

John

Kyle Boatright wrote:

>
> Someone with 150 hp and a cruise prop might not be able to generate a whole
> lot of rpm and therefore power at that altitude. It goes back to the
> compromises you make with a fixed pitch prop. Also, it depends on how
> heavily loaded the RV-6 was. I list my 160 hp, fixed pitch RV-6's gross
> weight at 1675 lb, and the climb and altitude performance really suffer with
> the last 50 lbs or so.
>
> KB
>
>

[Cy Galley]

Plane is telling you to skip desert!


"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> that sounds like my situation...
>
> John
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>>
>> Someone with 150 hp and a cruise prop might not be able to generate a
>> whole lot of rpm and therefore power at that altitude. It goes back to
>> the compromises you make with a fixed pitch prop. Also, it depends on
>> how heavily loaded the RV-6 was. I list my 160 hp, fixed pitch RV-6's
>> gross weight at 1675 lb, and the climb and altitude performance really
>> suffer with the last 50 lbs or so.
>>
>> KB