| Author | Message | ||
     Hans Georg Schmid New member Username: Hgschmid Post Number: 22 Registered: 02-2001 |
Does anybody know why Express Aircraft preferred the Continental IO-550-N over a Lycoming IO-540-(K1?)? I tried to reach Allyn Roe but haven't received an answer by now. Are there advantages from one against the other? As my preferred engine (a diesel) seems too far away when I have to make a decision, it will probably be one of the two mentioned above, which ultimately will be installed. Hans Georg Schmid Switzerland | ||
| Chris M. Unregistered guest |
Hi HG... I might be able to shed some insight to help answer your question. Back in the late 90's, our original decision to go with the IO-550-N was mainly driven by acquisition costs. At the time, there was about a $10k to $15k price difference between the TCM IO-550-N and the Lyc IO-540-K series powerplants, so from a cost factor, the TCM engine was more attractive. Beyond that, everyone has personal opinions on benefits of one vs. the other. The Continentals may run a bit smoother than the Lyc's (in general), but the Lyc's tend to be a more robust engine ('bulletproof' as labeled by some). The TCM's require the installation/management of fuel return lines to the wing tanks, Lyc's don't. Operationally, they're not notably different by any means... push the throttle and go. So all in all, the decision was basically one of economics. They're both good engines. Hope that helps! - Chris | ||
| ali moghaddas New member Username: Amoghadd Post Number: 11 Registered: 09-2003 |
Having flown the company demonstrator(IO-550) for 3 hours, I noticed the cruise fuel consumption was about 17 GPH, vs Copland’s fuel data on the IO-540 of about 14-15 GPH. Also, we got about 170 Knts at fast cruise in the company demonstrator. Again it appears that Copland’s is showing higher IAS. I am not sure if this is due to the engine, or copland’s being a CT configuration. Ali | ||
| Douglas Hoff New member Username: Dhoff Post Number: 19 Registered: 05-2003 |
I think Chris is right. When I went to select an engine the Lycoming was very expensive, so Larry and I looked into the Continental, which we got a lot better deal on. We had to change the cowling since the Continental sat higher than the Lycoming, but otherwise all went well. I think Express stayed with Continental as the OEM pricing was so much better. doug | ||
| Jim Ward New member Username: Jehward Post Number: 22 Registered: 02-2000 |
HG: It may not be as far away as you think. Take a look at this site on the Diesel engine: http://info.thielert.com/centurion/main/news_start.php?newsid=264 Hope your building is going smoothly. Jim | ||
| Gary Markwardt New member Username: Gmark Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-1999 |
My stock Continental IO-550 has averaged 13.5 GPH actual over the past 50 hours. If you lean aggressively, it will burn close to 11 GPH in cruise at 9-10K ft. according to my JPI EDM-700 readings. Gary | ||
| Hans Georg Schmid New member Username: Hgschmid Post Number: 23 Registered: 02-2001 |
Jim, Thanks a lot. Of course I am aware of the Centurion 4.0 for quite some time, also I missed the actual certification date. The advantage of jet fuel (especially outside of the US), very low fuel consumption and lower noise due to reduced T/O RPM (very important in Europe) is considerable. On the other hand weight (dry 283.5 kg / 625 lbs) and size are very considerable drawbacks. There are two companies to watch, also both are very quiet at the moment, but busy nevertheless: Mistral Engines of Geneva / Switzerland (www.mistral-engines.com/): I have seen the prototype of the 230 hp engine that is flight-tested in Florida with Embry-Riddle. 300 and 360 hp versions are planned in the near future and if the necessary funding is found, certification is planned as from 2006. They are working on gasoline (automotive fuel) engines as well as on a kerosene version. Advantage of this rotary engine: small size, light weight, low noise emission, smooth running, reliability. Disadvantage: the fuel burn ist still higher (about 10%) than in a conventional engine; availability of the 3-rotor-kerosene engine (360 hp) probably earliest in 2006 or 2007. Nevertheless I feel this to become a very good alternative if the necessary funding to continue development (in progress for at least 8 years) can be found. If anyone wants to invest, send me an email - I know the CEO of Mistral and gladly provide all necessary information. Then there is Zoche of Munich / Germany (www.zoche.de/). Most believe the company to be dead but it is not. A week ago I have been in Munich and I had the possibility to talk to Joachim Zoche, the CEO, for over two hours. And then he has shown me the 300 hp radial running in the wind tunnel (larger and better equipped than the one at Zurich Technical University!) on jet fuel on its testbed. And I was very impressed. Advantages: very light weight (271 lbs!), very small dimensions, minimal vibrations, very low fuel use, low noise with 2400 RPM. The engine is technologically probably the most advanced there is in many respects, having run at present about 3000 hours on the testbench. Disadvantage: as Zoche is a small outfit and money seems to be less attractive than to bring the best, most advanced and reliable engine to market, certification is estimated to take another at least two to three years. Once on the market (and I am fairly certain it will come to the market, also nobody seems to believe it anymore), this engine should be an instant succes. As I said, time for me might become a critical factor and therefore Mistral and Zoche might be too late. And unfortunately Thielert at present seems to be at the uppermost limit for size and weight. Thanks to all for your replies! HG | ||
| Jeff Dingbaum New member Username: Aviators Post Number: 28 Registered: 12-2000 |
If you are looking at diesels you may want to take a look at Deltahawk http://www.deltahawkengines.com/ I don't think that they are shipping yet, but they are getting close. I'm kind of leaning to this engine because I don't feel confident about 100LL in the future. Jet A is easily available, overhaul costs are low, etc etc. They will probably be certified by the time I need an engine. Jeff | ||
| Jason Day New member Username: Jday Post Number: 5 Registered: 01-2003 |
Hello All; In my opinion the LS1/LS6 350-400HP Chevy Corvette engine is the best engine for the Express. Best price, fuel saving, performance, and reliability. In any scenario, the LS1 engine will burn 3 GPH less, for the equivalent HP of the IO550 or IO540 because of the liquid cooling. Thermal shock problems are also eliminated with the liquid cooled V8. Torsional vibrations of the LS1 V8 (crank to prop) are apx. five times less than the IO550 or IO540 V6. Please visit the Vesta Inc. updated web site (www.VestaV8.com). Many more pictures now!!! Also check out the FAQ. A builder can save up to $70,000.00 after the first rebuild because of low upfront cost, fuel savings, and low rebuild cost. (rebuild cost = $5200.00 for a new engine at any Chevy dealer) The weight and space envelope is the same as the IO550 and IO540. A firewall forward system, including a custom cowling and mount are ready for the Express. On the floor at Vesta, LS1 engines are also being installed in such aircraft as the Lancair IVP, Murphy Moose, Four Winds, Velocity, My Express RG, and others. Vesta has a booth at Sun & Fun and Oshkosh. Also: Supercharged 400 HP LS1/LS6 systems (18K normalized) can fit onto the original Express firewall with no belly !!!! Also Concerning 100LL: My FBO tells me that "if" 100LL is discontinued, it will be replaced by auto gas with additives. Contrary to any rumor, gasoline for aircraft will always be available in the USA. In addition, my FBO, like many small FBO "Class D" operations, have no plans for Jet A. Therefore putting a diesel in an aircraft will limit your refueling capabilities. Latest update: Vesta Inc. is on the approval list for engines at AIG. Insurance through AIG is now available for installation of the Vesta LS1 firewall forward system in approved experimental aircraft. The insurance rate is the same as the IO550 and IO540. Of course, the Express is presently off the approval list at AIG and will be considered again when someone buys the company and makes parts available. Jason Day  | ||
| Jeff Dingbaum New member Username: Aviators Post Number: 29 Registered: 12-2000 |
Jason, Good info. I see that you own Vesta, perhaps you could have mentioned that in you post. As for 100LL, I don't disagree that autogas with additives is a possibility, but they are not there yet. From what I've read on auto gas solutions you will wind up losing horsepower with this solution. Can the Corvette engine run on 100LL? There are far more FBOs that sell Jet A than autogas. As for the availability of Jet A. It's out there at the small FBOs as well. With 92 gallons I'm not too worried about availability, I can't fly that long without a break. Even the smallest of FBOs have Jet A. Don't you think that if the diesel engine market reaches a critical mass that FBOs will sell it? If they can make money on it they will. Jeff | ||
| Jason Day New member Username: Jday Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2003 |
Hi Jeff; The computer on the Vesta LS1 engine is fully redundant and holds 10 programs modes. One for 100LL and one for 92 octane. The other 8 are left in reserve for the pilot to create their own programs. Future fuels including alcohol derivatives can be addressed. Also an operator has control of the programming in the cockpit and can make a quick adjustment in the event you have a mixture of 100LL and auto gas. The power difference between 100LL and Auto gas is barley measurable. The vast majority of uncontrolled fields in the USA do not have Jet A. Why would the diesel engine market reach critical mass if you could still get gasoline? 100LL being discontinued in the USA is a scare tactic. I ain't going to happen. Also of interest: I am running an experiment on the LS1 to run on pure grain alcohol with a supercharger. I can put a 500-1000 gallon plastic tank in the ground next to my "air park" hanger and buy and store Alcohol without any permits for $1.00/gallon. The cooling properties of the alcohol allow the fuel to be compressed to high boost levels without detonation. Racing industry does this. I hope to get 90% of the HP compared to gasoline. Jason | ||
| Jeff Dingbaum New member Username: Aviators Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2000 |
Jason, Wouldn't you have problems introducing lead into the corvette engine??? Don't you have problems crossing over 100LL-unleaded (both ways)? Sure, the computer adjustment is the easy part, isn't it the mechanical parts that have the problems? Just asking here. As far as a vast majority of uncontrolled airports not carrying Jet A, that is simply not true. Numbers from Airnav bears this out: 3966 total FBOs 3866 carry 100LL (not all of them!!) 2467 carry Jet A 37 carry 80/87 235 carry autogas It looks like 64% of the FBOs carry Jet A. That is a majority that do carry it. I'll concede the point that there are probably more uncontrolled airports that don't carry it than controlled, but a vast majority that don't? nope. As far as your question about why would diesel reach a critical mass when there is still 100LL? Look at where the development is at. Is Continental or Lycoming planning on introducing any clean slate 100LL engines? I saw Honda's autogas engine at Oshkosh last year - looked good. You have a handfull of companies producing or nearly producing new design diesel engines. Look at the new Diamond twin star. It has two diesels and early sales are brisk (according to the article in the AOPA mag). Isn't that the nice thing about our airplanes? We get to choose how we want to build them. I'm guessing that the debate over autogas/jetA will not really be a debate at all. You will have some form of additive for the old engines, new engines will either use autogas, autogas with additives, or jet A. Jeff | ||
| Charles M. Robinson New member Username: F15epilot Post Number: 37 Registered: 02-2004 |
First, I'm always intrigued by new developments in engine/props, and second, if I were looking for a motor for a kit, I'd probably be looking for one I could help develop (need to use that Test Pilot diploma for something). My Auriga came with an IO-540-C4B5 in the deal, so it was a moot point. Now as that motor matures and my job duties diminish, I might be looking to swap it out for something else. Hopefully that won’t be too long, but it appears that the timing could work out for a couple of years from now. I’d like to also put together an acro experimental with capabilities similar to an Extra 300, and using the VestaV8 or another auto motor would be a nice touch. Can the Vesta be put in an acro aircraft? As for the Jet-A vs. 100LL availability, there are fields near here that have Jet-A, but not 100LL. The airport at Florala, AL, (0J4), offers Jet-A with no 100LL on the field. Of course, they cater to a host of helo's and Navy prop trainers daily, none of which burn 100LL. I bet you'll find other uncontrolled fields where Jet-A is the only fuel on the premises, especially near military training bases. Chuck | ||
| Jason Day New member Username: Jday Post Number: 7 Registered: 01-2003 |
Hi Jeff; Concerning 100LL and the LS1: No problems with lead in the LS1. The computer I use does not use the O2 sensors which would get coated. Concerning the count of airports without JetA: Have you considered that Class B,C, and D airports have multiple FBOs. Small uncontrolled airports usually only have one FBO. If you count the small uncontrolled airports without JetA my statement will probably "hold water". Anyway, we are quibbling about the numbers(too close to count!... forget the provisional ballots!). By your count 1500 FBOs without Jet A is too many for me to put a diesel in my airplane. If you come visit me at N85 Alexandria field in NJ with a diesel, you better bring your own fuel (BYOF). PS: .. I have 140 gallons in my Express wing. I have no landing gear, but I can fly a long way. Concerning the trend of diesel versus gasoline: What are those brisk sales of the Diamond Twin Star? How many is that? Cirrus sold 1400 aircraft with Continental engines and is claiming 12/week. Van's aircraft is in the many thousands using the Lycoming as the primary engine. I don't thing the Diamond Twin Star is setting the market trend. Hello Charles; Concerning acrobatics: Presently I am not doing any acrobatic installations. Presently, AIG will not insure acrobatic aircraft with the LS1(with the exception of the Legacy, which they consider more of a cruise aircraft). If you do a barrel roll "now and then" with positive Gs ... you probably can get away without any dry sumping. If you are going to do serious acrobatics then you need a 360 degree oil system. Although it is possible, it would take more engineering. Jason | ||
| Michael J. Unregistered guest |
what about reliability of water cooled aircraft engines? Because it is one more system that can fail. All those rubber hoses, pump - if they fail while you are IFR over mountains - ouch! | ||
| Jason Day New member Username: Jday Post Number: 8 Registered: 01-2003 |
Hi Michael; Anything can fail if it is not inspected, serviced, or operated correctly. Certified engines fail all the time in IFR conditions. To reduce the chance of failure in the radiator system, I used braided hoses with AN connectors, recommend changing the $28.00 belt every year at annual, and used radiators with double wall thickness and double welded tank headers. Everything is mounted with vibration dampers and isolated from the engine. In total perspective the radiator, because of it's superior way of removing heat and thermal shock, is an asset or "plus" toward reliability. The radiator, hose, and belts together as a system are not nearly as much of a risk as the number one cause of engine failure, which is the fuel system. If you want to read more about reliability please visit the Vesta web site FAQ. There is information about testing from General Motors and NASA on the LS1 engine. Jason | ||
| wayne Unregistered guest |
If you want to fly. stick with a Lyc. they are lighter than a Cont. less complicated ,more options for after market hop up, starter,alt, fuel pump, servos.They are stronger then TCMs. If you like to experiment, put in a V8. But there is a reason they are called "auto engines" One day may come but till now there hasn't been one fly 2000 trouble free hours. | ||
| Jason Day New member Username: Jday Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2003 |
Hello Wayne; I know of many aircraft that have been flying with Automotive V8s since the 1960's with over 4000 "trouble free" hours on them. They are using Geschwender HyVo chain PSRUs and one of these aircraft flew into Oshkosh 2004, this last year, and the operator claimed he was flying on the original HyVo chain. ( I recommend changing the $140.00 chain at 2000 hrs). There are many articles written about these aircraft in the EAA archives. The V8 builders I know are very technical and have one thing in common. They all hate Continental and Lycoming engines. Typically they all have had a bad experience or even a catastrophic engine failure with a Continental or Lycoming engine. I personally had an "near/almost" in- flight failure caused by undetectable "hair line" cracks in the remanufactured cylinder heads on my Bonanza A36TC. My mechanic told me there was no way he could have prevented it. You never know how much thermal stress the previous owner put on those cylinder heads. Note: It costs $2500 - $3000 for a single "remanufactured" cylinder head on a IO550 or IO540. A V8 owner can go to any Chevrolet dealer and buy a "brand new" high performance assembled LS1 liquid cooled V8 valve head and lifters for $720.00 and bolt it on in an afternoon. After all, this is the "experimental" industry, and the object is to reduce the cost of safe flying. Enjoying the sword play Jason | ||
| cbros Unregistered guest |
Jason: There are actually two main objects. Reduced cost may be one of them, but we certainly don't want to forget safety. Bill C | ||
| Jason Day New member Username: Jday Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2003 |
Hello Bill; Absolutely!!!! Number one!!! I said that!!! Safety is mostly what I talk about! Look at it this way. Saving money is a "plus" towards Safety! You can now afford to replace parts on shorter intervals. You can now buy better avionic. The cost saving is so significant.... you can now afford an aircraft parachute!!! Jason | ||
| Gary H. Wolfelt New member Username: Wolfelt Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2003 |
I have been running a liquid cooled four cylinder engine in my Rotorway helicopter for ten years now. I like the consistent, even temperatures with the factory set up. It does add a little bit of weight and complexity to the system. However, it runs so quiet that my neighbors (I fly out of my back yard) and others at the airport have told me that they can barely hear me coming and going. This is another benefit of the liquid cooled engine. I am about a year out from needing to make my decision. But the huge expense of keeping old certified technology "alive" is enough for me to want to go visit Jason and learn more about what he is doing. I will be keeping an open mind as I make my decision. GHW | ||
| Sven-Ake Eriksson New member Username: Sven Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-1999 |
Hi folks I found an interesting site on the net, www.innodyn.com. They have a range of turbines from 165-255 HP, with stated weight of around 190 lbs and fuel consumption per used HP about the same as the lyc or continentals. Initial pricing around $30K. If this is a serious company this would be something to consider for our aircrafts. Anyone having some experience from these people or knowing anything about their products from other sources. Problem is as always that the salesmen tells you that their stuff is "the best". Sven | ||
| Allyn Roe (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Sven, We had dinner with the guys at Oshkosh last year. They've made everything on the engine, including the FADEC units. I was thinking the 255hp engine would be a good choice. You last the initial take off power, however, you have greater HP at altitude compared to an IO-550/540. You will have to address the lack of weight issue. I haven't heard much about performance. When we were talking with them they were still working the "bugs" out. Last week on their website I noticed they were shipping their first ten units. They are also working on developing a dual-pak setup. 510 hp with only 400 lbs. | ||
| Mike H. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Innodyne has been around for awhile, previously as Affordable Turbine Power (ATP). A lot of hype and promises over the years, but as of yet they haven't delivered on any. Much like the diesel engine market, I fear to say. IF they can (eventually) deliver as promised, it may be worth looking at. Until then, keep your checkbook locked up. Mike | ||
| Anonymous |
mike i have 50 hours on my express io540 300hp recent trip to denver average grnd spd 182 kts, 208kts tas no problems @12gph rv76@aol.com | ||
| Kevin Dennes New member Username: Kdennes Post Number: 95 Registered: 01-2001 |
Greetings everyone. I would be most grateful to know if any other owners have achieved the sort of figures that "anonymous" (above)is quoting. i.e. 208 kts @ 12 GPH. I must have built in permanent speed brakes in our aircraft without realising it!!! Regards Kevin (from Downunder) | ||
| wayne (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
I'd like a bottle of that speed wax! In 330hrs all I see at 65%/ 15.5gph Lyc IO540 cruise or high alt full throttle is 167KTAS, but it climbs like a BoH. We just got home from Gander, St Johns New Foundland. Because it is there. Get to work on those planes, there are plenty of neat places to go see and the Express is a GREAT plane for it. | ||
| Terry Sack New member Username: Terrysack Post Number: 29 Registered: 11-2002 |
In my 100 plus hours on a CT with a Continental IO 550 I see 170 knotsTAS at 13.5 gph and 100* lean of peak. | ||
| Rob Jordan New member Username: Rob_jordan Post Number: 12 Registered: 02-2003 |
Yes I would have to agree that is one unusally fast express. compareing ours to others I personally know. I felt it was on the fast side. I have over 200 hours on the CT express since removing the supercharger and without it a hard cruise burning more like 14 Gph on an IO540 260 hp yields me around 172 Ktas. But rarely due I run it that hard. not worth the fuel when I can throttle back to 12 Gph at about 65 % and still get 163 Ktas. Along with a much quieter ride. For those of you tring to fininsh without company assistance don't give up. You are not the only ones that have had the express company go out of business on you many of us original builders have been through this a number of times and many of us still finished. Those of you who really want the express will finish those who just think you do will be the ones to let the company end your projects. There are many parts to our express that was created in our barn with much help from other builders through the information were all willing to share. unfortunately the express has change so much. we had it little easier because we were working on one model. | ||
| Anonymous |
sorry mike i had no idea my simple reply would receive such sarcastic responses, i guess i should have given more info. i am a tech counselor for the eaa, and the express is the fifth airplaqne i have built. i have done the same engine-wise with each. i buy a lyc core (first run)take the engine to lycon in ca, have cyls bored 10 over, teflon coat, ceramic coat the pistons, and flow balance the cylinders i install elect ign, and incorprate ram intake air into the airframe. the eng on my expres is rated at 340 hp. but dont be deceived by hp although the engines i have used have been very reliable and economical there is nothing that can take the place of a properly rigged airframe, a properly rigged airframe will be able to take advantage of a good eng/prop combo. the 300hp lyc not only makes more hp than the 260, but the angle valve lycs have thicker bosses which tend to reduce the cylinder head cracks, (so common in the parallel valve lycs) making the engine more reliable. my trip to co was at 13500' 2500rpm 100 rich of peak, 741.1 mi, 3.5hrs by the way it took me 2.5 years to complete the express, i gave up early on trying to get parts from express and ended up buying parts from vans, glasair, lanceair, and many of the ac parts suppliers, i used pressure recovery rv10 wheelpants from vans, and therefore have a set of express wheelpants left over if you know anyone interested they can have them for shipping costs. | ||
| bob (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Hi Anon, If you're looking for a good home for those wheel pants, we can probably provide one. Matt and I have been pulling molds of everything CT as we build, but haven't come across any wheel pants yet. Email me at bob@wheelerexpress.com if they're still available and we'll work on the details. Thanks, Bob | ||
| ali moghaddas New member Username: Amoghadd Post Number: 17 Registered: 09-2003 |
I am also short of nose wheel pant, and nose strut fairing. If you (Anonymous) or anybody else has one, I'll pay a reasonable cost plus shipping. Otherwise, if someone lets me borrow one to duplicate, I'll pay for the shipping expenses, etc, and send it back with a week time frame. Thanks, Ali ali.moghaddas@boeing.com PS Here is a photo of my project. Just finished painting. The numbers/ strips are painted (too much work!).  | ||
| Jim Hurd New member Username: Jim_hurd Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2005 |
I am in need of the wheel pants and the nose strut fairing as well. willing to pay reasonable price for finished product or use of molds. I still need the top wing fairings as well. N625J is progressing and these are the only parts required to finish project.. | ||
| wayne (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
if you have aluminum gear, the factory mains won't work with out re working the inside. so you may think about getting a set from Aircraft Spruce, I did. then used EAC nose covers. pix in the gallery sec. On brake lines, I used SS braided -3, one line from the brake pedal to the caliper. ran it up the gear leg into the fuse and under the spar, forward. the left line goes to the left capains pedal, the rt line to the FO's rt pedal. the reservor feeds the middle pedals, (capt-rt, FO-left) then run the slave lines accordingly. "What if you have to take the wings off someday" I was asked, snipping the main line to the wheels would be the least of my worries!! |