If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Altitude ceiling engine choices
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
)
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/Air.../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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
PACKARD MOTOR CORP BOUGHT A DETROITER AND INSTALLED THEIR "NEW" DIESEL
That hardly looks like "latest technology" so its nor really a good reference. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
("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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
ROP masking of engine problems | Roger Long | Piloting | 1 | September 25th 04 07:13 PM |
Engines and Reliability | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 13 | June 30th 04 03:27 PM |
Diesel engine | Bryan | Home Built | 41 | May 1st 04 07:23 PM |
Motorgliders and gliders in US contests | Brian Case | Soaring | 22 | September 24th 03 12:42 AM |