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

"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

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

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

)
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

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

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

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.

("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

"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

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