Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
argoldman

Engine choices

Recommended Posts

Without meaning to start a new war on old things----What are the general (or specific) feelings about the Franklin IO-350 (6 cyl >200 hp).

 

Is the American distributor still in business? Any ideas on engine mounts, exhaust systems, intake systems and props?

 

Based on reviewing old posts in various places, Nat deep sixed it because of weight, gave little other data, but it appears as if the performance was superior to IO360.

 

Coming in late for the Cozy banquet at OSH, I think that I heard a couple of people planning to use this engine.

 

What say Y'all???

__________________

I Canardly contain myself!

 

Rich


I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

 

I'm not an expert, but there are several flying, and some pretty recent additions, Velocity SEs with the Franklin. From listening to those guys talk it sounds like a pretty good little motor, but parts and support can be a bit sketchy to obtain (though it seems like they always get what they need). I think one of our guys is a distributor or some such and can help get bits too. If you get real serious about the Franklin mention it here and I'll dig out some more info for you.

 

Here are some Velocity builder list posts that might be of interest

http://www.velocityxl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6357&highlight=franklin

http://www.velocityxl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6296&highlight=franklin

http://www.velocityxl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6148&highlight=franklin

http://www.velocityxl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6137&highlight=franklin

http://www.velocityxl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6125&highlight=franklin

http://www.velocityxl.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5363&highlight=franklin

 

Brett


---

Brett Ferrell

Velocity XL/FG

Cincinnati, OH

http://www.velocityxl.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brett,

 

Thanks for the info.

 

I am still agonizing over engine choices (about 1 year and countless $ away) Current choices are 1)renesis, 2 Franklin,3) lycosaur.

 

If you can find the name you mentioned, it would be helpful.

 

I am thinking of converting it to a fuel injected, (either Air Performance or electronic) with one mag and one electronic ignition (probably Savier's)

 

Thanks again


I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

Are there higher compression pistons that can go in those cyls?

Is it the smoother 6 cyls engine that you are looking for for the 200hp?

Its gotta be a bit lighter than the angle valve 200hp Lyco.


Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

Are there higher compression pistons that can go in those cyls?

Is it the smoother 6 cyls engine that you are looking for for the 200hp?

Its gotta be a bit lighter than the angle valve 200hp Lyco.

 

Mainly looking for the in excess of the 200 HP, lighter than the angle valve. I like the idea of the smoothness both for comfort and for the ability to use a IvoProp. Don't know if I want higher compression, however the stock engine is supposed to produce 225 hp, I believe. I also like the fact that you can remove a panel on the top of the case and view all of the innards. The considerably lower price is also a plus.


I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My typo for the 200hp. I meant to have two 2's side by side.

That was 220hp...and if I remember right, that is at like 2800rpm.

I thought about the Franklin at one time. The engine makes sense from a specs POV, especially if it can be pumped up up a bit compression-wise. With it being light weight though, maybe not advisable. Good luck with your investigation.

A 6 cyl at 220hp vs. a adrenalin pumped up 4 banger Lyco Thunderbolt, sure would be schmoother. You like those IVO props? Look kinda wimpy to me. Are they robust?

With the added hp, you probably wont be lacking as much as a stock engine on DA days. If you put the CSP on it, you just negated your weight savings. Who does the mounts for a Cozy on those Franklins? Maybe Nats old one is sitting in his hanger somewhere looking for a home- worth an ask?

Post your findings, as I bet others are going to find your info interesting.:)


Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those IO360Conti's are all rated at 210hp at 2800, unless you put the high comp pistons in them. That engine has the 11:1's. Wow what a beasty! I wonder what it weighs?


Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly looking for the in excess of the 200 HP, lighter than the angle valve. I like the idea of the smoothness both for comfort and for the ability to use a IvoProp. Don't know if I want higher compression, however the stock engine is supposed to produce 225 hp, I believe. I also like the fact that you can remove a panel on the top of the case and view all of the innards. The considerably lower price is also a plus.

Hi Rich

I believe Nat installed the Franklin is his Cozy 4 and was not pleased with the weight and performance, reinstalled the Lyc 0360 back in about a year. The Continental 360 is about 75 lbs heavier than the Lyc 360 also. There is a fellow at ARR with a Franklin in his velocity, if you would like I can give you his name and phone , if I can find it, and see how he likes it. I know he has had some problems but not what they were. IVO is out with Lyc engines.

 

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

........... You like those IVO props? Look kinda wimpy to me. Are they robust?

With the added hp, you probably wont be lacking as much as a stock engine on DA days. If you put the CSP on it, you just negated your weight savings.

 

Greetings Edge.

 

My thoughts about the IVO:

 

Originally, I too thought that they were quite wimpy, but the Magnum (high HP) is rather stout. The hub, although seemingly weak (holding the blades crushed between two aluminum disks with two bolts through each blade seemed, originally, like a bad idea, however, with the exception of early problems with blade separation (some say due to improper installation) and a redesign, as well as a prohibition of use in 4 cylinder engines, I have not heard of any blade separations or other problems. (the operative phrase here is "I have not heard".)

 

There are some deficiencies in that the pilot controls the pitch, not the RPM as in a true C/S prop. IVO does have a small accessory which is supposed to make it a RPM selectable control situation. I have heard that that is not worth the real estate on the panel.

 

John Slade seems to be happy with his on his rotary, albeit it not having huge time in front of it.

 

The hub of the IVO and the prop itself, is not terribly heavy, compared to the C/S props of more conventional construction (MT etc. whether electric or oil controlled.)

 

 

C/S is a great feature, independent of any power source or size.

 

1) it allows the engine to produce rated max HP on take off rather than needing to accelerate (distance) to allow max RPM. This means shorter T.O runway usage.

 

2) On approach, flattening the pitch creates dumpable drag which shortens the landing roll considerably. (occasionally I fantasize about Beta pitch to really shorten the landing roll, but then I have to think about getting out of the place that I have landed.

 

3) It's neat.

 

The aviation industry, perhaps recognizing these traits of the C/S makes them standard on virtually all high performance aircraft.

 

This is not to say that a good fixed pitch prop is not adequate.

 

Semi-constant speed props (semitaur-- or however you spell it--) also have some of the same, but limited, advantages of these plus are not controllable, but are dependent only on physics.

 

In my dragonfly I had an Airmaster electric C/S/ prop which utilized Warp blades. A great prop despite the blades. Too bad there is not a higher HP version available at this time.

 

Both the engine and prop type are still "up in the air", so to speak.:rolleyes:


I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...as well as a prohibition of use in 4 cylinder engines...

I have an email saying they will not supply for any DIRECT DRIVE engine. I was enquiring about the Jabiru 8 cyl, so I imagine 6 cyl would be no good too. I believe Larry Hill is flying with the jab and a magnum though.

Mark Spedding - Spodman
Darraweit Guim - Australia
Cozy IV #1331 -  Chapter 09
www.mykitlog.com/Spodman
www.sites.google.com/site/thespodplane/the-spodplane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an email saying they will not supply for any DIRECT DRIVE engine. I was enquiring about the Jabiru 8 cyl, so I imagine 6 cyl would be no good too. I believe Larry Hill is flying with the jab and a magnum though.

Very interesting,

 

Prior to this it was just 4 bangers.

 

Souring on the franklin due to parts availability. Main source needs a minimum quantity of pistons before ordering, and that may take 6 months.

 

 

Perhaps with IVO, the rotary is the best match Hummmmmmmm? no boink boink boink!


I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come over to the dark side, Rich. :cool:

 

Posted Image


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come over to the dark side, Rich. :cool:

 

Posted Image

I have always been a fan of the rotary, also like the idea of the v8 like Gary Spencers but the fact that almost every one of these project adds abut two years to the project is what keep me from doing the experimental thing on the engine. most have found that even after they spend the added time that they also need more testing time. and then there is the time required to make changes on all the things that you thought would work, that did not. this seems to be the reason that most conversion engine aircraft log so few hours. that and the fact that many have been scared out of the sky by problems encountered by engine experiments gone wrong.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always been a fan of the rotary, also like the idea of the v8 like Gary Spencers but the fact that almost every one of these project adds abut two years to the project is what keep me from doing the experimental thing on the engine. most have found that even after they spend the added time that they also need more testing time. and then there is the time required to make changes on all the things that you thought would work, that did not. this seems to be the reason that most conversion engine aircraft log so few hours. that and the fact that many have been scared out of the sky by problems encountered by engine experiments gone wrong.

..... and that is why you pattern your efforts after a proven application. If you don't think the rotary will work or if you think that planes with rotaries don't stray far from the home airport, then you need to get out more.

 

Fly into the rotary roundup held in Texas if you think it's not being done (and done well) .

 

How many hours does Perry have on his?


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... and that is why you pattern your efforts after a proven application. If you don't think the rotary will work or if you think that planes with rotaries don't stray far from the home airport, then you need to get out more.

 

Fly into the rotary roundup held in Texas if you think it's not being done (and done well) .

 

How many hours does Perry have on his?

I never said it won't work or or that some do not fly far with a rotary. The point here is the extra time it takes to get a rotary to be that good flying machine. it takes a lot more work and time to build the engine with its support systems then a conventional aircraft engine. the aircraft engine comes with all the systems designed and installed by bolting them on. the rotary requires you to fabricate the systems and then install and test them. even if the parts are patterned after someone elses design they still have to be fabricated and that takes time. and then there is the testing time, how do you know what the TBO will be for the newly designed parts, the only way to know is to fly until it fails. I was not at the round up in Texas. how many planes did show up? how many were rear engine aircraft?

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Long EZ is absolutely the wrong platform for experimental automotive engine development. I say that due to it's high approach and landing speeds, and the fact that the engine is not in view. Some have been 'successful', but very few.

 

Plenty of builders over the years have nominated the rotary as a possibility and there are many on this list that are in the process of developing their installations. I wish them well, because I too am a proud experimenter. However, the difference between a builder and a flyer of a rotary conversion is that one has his/her backside firmly planted in the ground. They have yet to experience the reality; Trust me, when you strap your aeroplane on for the first time, or anytime after, and fly with a person or over a person, you don't wnat to be worried about your engine.

 

Might be worth a chat to Joe Hull who was absoltuely committed to putting a Rotary in his Cozy, flew it, and then pulled it out for an O-360.


Cheers,

 

Wayne Blackler

IO-360 Long EZ

VH-WEZ (N360WZ)

Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

http://v2.ez.org/feature/F0411-1/F0411-1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth a chat to Joe Hull who was absoltuely committed to putting a Rotary in his Cozy, flew it, and then pulled it out for an O-360.

I can refer you to a few folks who managed to screw up a Lycoming installation. Personnally, I don't seek the company of losers but to each his own.

 

Don't be looking at posts like this one.


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Long EZ is absolutely the wrong platform for experimental automotive engine development. I say that due to it's high approach and landing speeds, and the fact that the engine is not in view. Some have been 'successful', but very few.

 

Plenty of builders over the years have nominated the rotary as a possibility and there are many on this list that are in the process of developing their installations. I wish them well, because I too am a proud experimenter. However, the difference between a builder and a flyer of a rotary conversion is that one has his/her backside firmly planted in the ground. They have yet to experience the reality; Trust me, when you strap your aeroplane on for the first time, or anytime after, and fly with a person or over a person, you don't wnat to be worried about your engine.

 

Might be worth a chat to Joe Hull who was absoltuely committed to putting a Rotary in his Cozy, flew it, and then pulled it out for an O-360.

well said. that is the same thing I tell people. don't like to discourage people from experimenting but would like them to know just what they are really getting into.

the problem is that most want to do the experimenting with a different engine right off the bat and do not have any experience flying the plane they are putting it in. You are right, they have not experienced the reality. flying along and all the time wondering what will fail next is not much fun but it is part of the reality of experimental engines.

Buly, also removed his rotary and went for a Lycoming


Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynn,

I had a long post response but knowing the way things go, you won't be happy until everyone is wet.

 

You have zip experience with a rotary. I can get FACTUAL information from those who fly them. www.FlyRotary.com

 

No Pistons!


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have considered using a rotary very seriously. About four years ago I bought an RX 7 and overhauled the engine to learn more about it. It was dead simple to work on compared to a piston engine. I sold the car about a month ago after driving it about 25 thousand miles with no problem. No problem except keeping the gas tank full, it never got more than 24 miles per gallon, and usualy about 20 around town.

 

I've decided against using a rotary for the following reasons:

 

1. The mechanics of the engine are very simple but the systems necessary to use it in an aircraft are not. Cooling, induction, ignition and exhaust are all systems that would need to be developed for a particular installation. It seems that someone has done each of them well but very few have them all well done in a flying aircraft. Something as simple as a muffler isn't simple on a rotary. Add a PSRU, even a good one like that of Tracy Crook, and it seems to me you have negated the value of mechanical simplicity compared to a Lycoming.

 

2. Most don't seem to produce the horsepower they are expecting. The nature of the rotary requires that the induction and exhaust system be tuned to narrow limits to get the performance the engine is capable of. I'm not aware of off the shelf products that provide that and I'm not interested in spending a couple of years trying to develop them myself.

 

3. It would take a lot longer to build and tweek the rotary to a usable level, probably cost as much as a used Lyc with 1500 hours on it and even longer (and more money) to feel comfortable going over the horizon. That's not where I want to spend my time or money. With the Lyc I have 500 hours before overhaul (if I want to do it at TBO) which will last me about 7 years. In that time I can save for the overhaul and enjoy a lot of flying.

 

I could go on. I'm sure there are those who will argue with each of my observations, but for me the Lycoming is the better choice. I'm currently flying my second project, a Wittman Tailwind with an O-360. It had 1300 hours on it when I bought it ($6000.) so I considered it 'well proven'. Add gas, a little oil now and then and fly, its that simple. With any luck it'll still have a few hours left when I finish the Cozy. Works for me.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me the Lycoming is the better choice.

No argument there Mike.

 

I've researched rotaries since the mid-80s.

For me the Rotary is the best choice.


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TMann,

 

With all due respect, Perry is as successful with his rotary as Lynn is with his Evolution EZ because of their attitude to development. It was a careful and considered approach that has not been shared by others. Both are experienced EZ operators - I note you are still building, but you probably have more than "zip" experience behind a steering wheel of a mazda which will go about "zip" far in experience for flying a rotary or an EZ, or a combination thereof.

 

Clearly more people have installed rotaries and removed them than those that have actually been 'succesful'. No arguement there. I wont post the tens of thousands of posts reporting success with a Lycoming or Continental in all manner of ameteur built aircraft.


Cheers,

 

Wayne Blackler

IO-360 Long EZ

VH-WEZ (N360WZ)

Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

http://v2.ez.org/feature/F0411-1/F0411-1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TMann,

 

With all due respect, Perry is as successful with his rotary as Lynn is with his Evolution EZ because of their attitude to development. It was a careful and considered approach that has not been shared by others. Both are experienced EZ operators - I note you are still building, but you probably have more than "zip" experience behind a steering wheel of a mazda which will go about "zip" far in experience for flying a rotary or an EZ, or a combination thereof.

 

Clearly more people have installed rotaries and removed them than those that have actually been 'succesful'. No arguement there. I wont post the tens of thousands of posts reporting success with a Lycoming or Continental in all manner of ameteur built aircraft.

Okay. I'm convinced.

 

I'm scrapping the rotary in favor of a Lycoming.

Thanks for setting me straight.


T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information