From: Epijk@aol.com
Message-ID: <37.21656a75.297b8c1a@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:57:30 EST
Subject: Re: What if?
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
In a message dated 1/17/2002 8:44:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
rickschrameck@LVCM.com writes:

<<<...If I had a technology that could produce an additional 100 to 150 HP 
for
a TIO-550 or IO-540 and 50 to 70 HP for 360's with a price tag of under
$10K for the 6 cyl and $7K for the 360's would you all be interested?...>>>

Assuming that you really mean IO-550 instead of TIO-550, then:

NO, unless you could convincingly demonstrate that your "technology" 
included:

 (a) the means to increase the steady-state heat rejection capability
     of the heads and cylinders by 33% (100 HP) to 50% (150 HP);
 (b) the means to reduce the resulting torsional amplitudes of 
      crankshaft vibration (and resulting crankshaft fatigue stress 
      levels) to well within the demonstrated limits of the existing 
      hardware;
 (c) the hardware to increase the load-carrying capacity
      of the bottom end by an appropriate amount;
 (d) AND, if your "technology" includes spinning the engine faster,
       then all of the above, as well as a convincing demonstration 
       that the valve train has been sufficiently re-engineered to provided
       established levels of reliability (already not too impressive in 
       some of the subject engines), including demonstrations that
       the valve springs do not, within the expected operating range,
       resonate at any significant harmonic of the cam lobe lift
       or acceleration profiles, and that the pushrods are sufficiently stiff 

       (euler column analysis) and strong to withstand the potentially
       significant increase in compression loading they would
       experience at the proposed crankshaft speeds.

There's more, but that's a good start.

Oh, and does the $10k include a new prop which is able to 
convert the new power levels into thrust with similar efficiency
(to Eric Ahlstrom: divide by 100 to get the numbers you
can understand) as the old one, and which has sufficiently
strong blade roots to survive the new levels of excitation??

If you're contemplating nitrous, check with Jon Sharp or 
Bruce Bohannon to see just how many engines they 
grenaded with nitrous while seeking the BIG INCREASE.

In a message dated 1/19/2002 8:31:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
rsmiley@tscnet.com writes:

<<<...The speed gained would be significant....>>>

Yeah, that's the kind of speed increases everyone wants: 
14% faster (assuming a real 150 HP increase on a 
300 HP engine) for 50% more fuel burn (unless 
we have here another of the many incarnations of the 
EXPERIMENTAL AVIATION PERPETUAL 
MOTION MACHINE). 

Jack Kane
EPI, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore
assist with the management of the LML.

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>