Continental Titan X320

[JAL]

The STC for gravity fed 150hp Io-320 to run Mogas only consists of of paperwork and placards, with no modifications made to the engine. The 160hp version requires using 91 or better Mogas but otherwise the same.

So the engine runs mogas no problems although Peterson's (STC holder) suggest you run a tank of 100LL once and awhile to keep some lead on the valves but is not a requirement of the STC.

The STC gets a little more complicated for engines using a fuel pump as its the fuel delivery system needs to be changed (fuel pumps mainly) I think because Mogas is more prone to vapor lock so a different type of pump is recommended.

So if you were designing a IO-320 installation you can make it Mogas compatible quite easily by designing the fuel delivery system to be in line with the STC.

 

[WaspAir]

Why use non-synthetic oil in a turbo? Or any aircraft engine, for that matter?

The TVO-435 in my Bell 47G-3B-1 churns out 280 hp running 100LL and Aeroshell 100 hour after hour, with the turbo pushing the ceiling to 20,000 feet, and it has always been as reliable as a hammer.

 

[Abid]

As for me, I do not care for heavy gyros. This engine weighs too much to fling it around like a gyro should fly below the tree tops, where I spend much of my seat time.

Flinging it around below tree tops is also what causes a lot of accidents, many fatal. In another thread about fatal stats here on the forum you can see that. So I am not going to as a manufacturer encourage people to fly that way. You increase the chances of tragic accident quite a lot doing that all the time. What's wrong with flying at 300 to 500 feet high?
Anyway, its not even true that the weight and this type of maneuvering are always directly linked especially when you have a control system based on ratios and linkages. There is a lot that can be done to counter it in a machine where there is a whole wing/disc that is being tilted to make things acceptable.

Even if I went to 320 engine BTW, the empty weight of the gyroplane will be the same as a 2-place Dominator with a Subaru and fairings.

 

[NoWingsAttached]

In my opinion synthetic oil does not manage the lead in 100LL well and getting Mogas is not practical when flying cross country in California.

I run AeroShell W15W-50 in The Predator.

We just finished her annual condition inspection with no metal in the filter and good compression with over 1,000 hours on my $6,500 Lycoming IO-320 since installation in The Predator. Things looked good with the borescope. The engine appears to have about 3,300 hours on her but I don't have an original log book so that is just speculation. It could be much higher.

The information on lead and synthetic oil is already in the thread if you are interested.

THANKS! I speed read so much of what is on these threads, just don't have the time to pick up every detail. I always ran Mobil 1 in my GT1 Porsche 930 Turbo, a 500 HP monster with electronic boost controls and lots of other track mods, and since the ONLY fuel I ran was heavy leaded 110 or 115 (more lead than LL100) I began wondering what the issue was you were talking about here, since I never had any engine problems, ever - even after running 3 complete race seasons w/o a rebuild.

After looking this topic up on the web I see that if you change the oil every 25 hours you will not experience any problems. I always changed my oil after a race weekend, which normally included about 6-10 hours of practices, heats, and main events.

On my Yamaha I always change the Mobil 1 every 25 hours, so no fear of damage using either fuel. This is what I have been telling everyone to do, so it's all good no matter what kind of fuel you burn. Full synthetic is the only oil accepted by Yamaha to keep the warrantee valid.

Since we are using YG3 and YG4 engines so much on aircraft now, and pilots are bound use 100LL at some point and natural oils are not suitable for them, this is important for us flying Yamaha power to understand and know.

Mobil 1 only costs ~$25.00 for a 5-quart jug at Walmart, so there is no concern with cost. It is comparable in price as the other oils.

I have been changing my oil filter every other oil change, and they always cut open with excellent results. I suppose if using 100LL quite often, or exclusively, one might want to do an initial filter change and cut inspection at the first 25 hours just to be sure 50 hrs is still OK. But then, the only reason NOT to use mogas in a Yamaha is availability while cross country flying.

I love this engine, it is so cheap to run, and so reliable in its doing.

 

[JEFF TIPTON]

Click this link for an article on synthetic oils in aircraft.

http://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/

 

[Vance]

I suggest you do some more research on oil Greg.

I suggest you do some more research on oil Greg.

THANKS! I speed read so much of what is on these threads, just don't have the time to pick up every detail.

I change the oil in my YG4 every 25 hours, if I were using LL100 would you consider that often enough to keep the oil relatively clean of lead so as not to cause undue wear?

What happens to the lead when using natural oils, where does it wind up since it does not stay in suspension like with the synthetics?

What exactly happens to the engine due to lead held in suspension in synthetics?

Since we are using YG3 and YG4 engines so much on aircraft now, and pilots are bound use LL100 at some point - and natural oils are not suitable for them, this is important for us flying Yamaha power to understand and know.

I don’t know much about your Yamaha YG4 and am not inclined to speculate as to the oil requirements.

I feel it is an important question and you should probably do some research.

My decision to use the oil I do is based on the opinions of people who know a lot mover about Rotax and Lycoming engines than I do.

In my opinion the lead from 100LL does not stay in suspension in synthetic oil and tends to develop sludge.

I feel that mineral based oils are better at keeping the engine clean when burning 100LL.

I prefer a clean engine.

 

[Abid]

On my Yamaha I always change the Mobil 1 every 25 hours, so no fear of damage using either fuel. This is what I have been telling everyone to do, so it's all good no matter what kind of fuel you burn. Full synthetic is the only oil accepted by Yamaha to keep the warrantee valid.

Since we are using YG3 and YG4 engines so much on aircraft now, and pilots are bound use 100LL at some point and natural oils are not suitable for them, this is important for us flying Yamaha power to understand and know.

Mobil 1 only costs ~$25.00 for a 5-quart jug at Walmart, so there is no concern with cost. It is comparable in price as the other oils.

I have been changing my oil filter every other oil change, and they always cut open with excellent results. I suppose if using 100LL quite often, or exclusively, one might want to do an initial filter change and cut inspection at the first 25 hours just to be sure 50 hrs is still OK. But then, the only reason NOT to use mogas in a Yamaha is availability while cross country flying.

I love this engine, it is so cheap to run, and so reliable in its doing.

NEVER use full synthetic oil if there is any chance of using leaded fuel (100LL) in any engine not designed and made with leaded fuel in mind. Lead will simply not suspend in fully synthetic oil and attach itself fully to parts. Also recommend using something like TCP mixed in 100LL whenever it is used. It scavenges the lead out the exhaust and keeps the engine clean.

Rotax for instance recommends semi-synthetic Sport Aero Shell oil. Semi-synthetic gives you best of both worlds as a good compromise.

 

[NoWingsAttached]

Flinging it around below tree tops is also what causes a lot of accidents, many fatal. In another thread about fatal stats here on the forum you can see that. So I am not going to as a manufacturer encourage people to fly that way. You increase the chances of tragic accident quite a lot doing that all the time. What's wrong with flying at 300 to 500 feet high?
Anyway, its not even true that the weight and this type of maneuvering are always directly linked especially when you have a control system based on ratios and linkages. There is a lot that can be done to counter it in a machine where there is a whole wing/disc that is being tilted to make things acceptable.

Even if I went to 320 engine BTW, the empty weight of the gyroplane will be the same as a 2-place Dominator with a Subaru and fairings.

Ah. And a Soob is still a brick.

 

[NoWingsAttached]

Click this link for an article on synthetic oils in aircraft.

http://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/

Thanks so much, Jeff! I am writing to Ben (referenced in the article) for his help on this topic as concerns YG3/YG4 engines. Hope he's still available, this article is 10 years old.

Sorry hijack your thread, Abid, back to topic.

I still want to see a 145 hp Yamaha engine on an AR1.

 

[NoWingsAttached]

...
I feel it is an important question and you should probably do some research...

Absolutely! Great advice.

 

[NoWingsAttached]

Click this link for an article on synthetic oils in aircraft.

http://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/

Ben Visser, the Shell Oil Co. expert cited in this article responded very quickly to my question about using synthetic oil and 100LL.

"Thank you for your question. The 100LL should work fine in your engine on occasion. the problems come form prolong use. The lead in the 100LL will build up deposits in the combustion chamber that could lead to problems. The other concern is with synthetic oil. The synthetic oil will not absorb the lead by-products of combustion and over time you will get excessive lead deposits in the ring belt area that will limit your oil ring control and also compression ring action. So, the final answer is 100LL can be used on rare occasions but not continuous. I can not say just how much you can use as I do not have any data in this type engine.

Ben Visser"

 

[Abid]

Thanks so much, Jeff! I am writing to Ben (referenced in the article) for his help on this topic as concerns YG3/YG4 engines. Hope he's still available, this article is 10 years old.

Sorry hijack your thread, Abid, back to topic.

I still want to see a 145 hp Yamaha engine on an AR1.

Hi Mr. Mills:
Please send me a personal e-mail at [email protected]

My concerns with any alternate engines are the same
1) History of use in flight hours without having to do overhaul or change the engine.
2) Parts supply
3) Is it possible to get brand new Yamaha engine instead of used ones
4) Parts for conversion
5) Manuals - Operator's manual, Line Maintenance Manual as a minimum
6) Continued Airworthiness (Do you keep tabs on issues and if problems occur, do you release service bulletins with instructions and new parts to correct the situation). These replacement parts do not have to be provided free except if the engine is still under warranty hours. Rotax warranty is a mere 150 hours and as soon as its over, they will charge you heftily for any parts and you have to pay for them. But the process is critical to safety.
7) Drawing and Spec control and continuance of product - Do you have drawings of all the conversion parts and how are they kept and managed. Is there an engineering change configuration process or can we make one that applies to certain batch of serial numbers. In case you go out of business, will you give the drawings, tooling and specs to a willing manufacturer like us to keep fleet airworthy and possibly continue business and not orphan the product so customers are left lurking or another solid plan to continue the product airworthiness in its full lifecycle.

Those would be concerns of any OEM to offer any alternate engine on their aircraft to their customers. But if these concerns can be controlled or worked on, I would not shy away from the idea.

 

[DaveJaksha]

Yamaha oil for use with 100LL

Yamaha oil for use with 100LL

Greg,

I have taken a look at the Shell oils for use in the Yamaha. I am in the process of installing a Yamaha 130 FI 3 cyl in my Sportcopter Vortex. I only have 100LL available at our local airport, and am not real interested in hauling auto pump gas to my gyro to refuel. If I could get auto fuel at the local airports, then I would not hesitate to use either Mobil1 or Royal Purple full synthetics.

Since I have to use 100LL it looks like the Shell sport plus 4 is a good solution. It is a semisynthetic that will scavage the lead, and still provide excellent lubrication. It is also approved for use the Rotax 912/914.

Here is a link to the Shell oils:

http://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell/piston-engine-oil.html

Dave

 

[JohnAJohnson]

Abid, I'm not sure I'll be buying your product because I'm still learning, researching, and determining if I want to move from fixed wing to gyroplane so I might not get a vote. But...

I personally would rather have a 150 hp O-320 or O-360 (or IO-360 parallel 180 hp) than a Rotax. I do not like high RPM engines and reduction gear boxes. I find the Lycoming engines reliable and simple to work on, and would sacrifice the extra hundred pounds. I do like the idea of fuel injection and would rather have an IO, but if the IO-320 cannot use mogas, I'd rather have the carburetor. Mogas is important to me. And like Vance, I would also want the option of procuring my own engine to reduce costs.

Cooling doesn't seem like it would be too much of a problem. A closely cowled/baffled engine with an opening on the top, and an opening on the lower back area just forward of the prop that would let the prop pull air out. Seems it should be easy to get a 1 or 2 psi differential across the cylinders using just the prop to pull air through.

 

[Abid]

Abid, I'm not sure I'll be buying your product because I'm still learning, researching, and determining if I want to move from fixed wing to gyroplane so I might not get a vote. But...

I personally would rather have a 150 hp O-320 or O-360 (or IO-360 parallel 180 hp) than a Rotax. I do not like high RPM engines and reduction gear boxes. I find the Lycoming engines reliable and simple to work on, and would sacrifice the extra hundred pounds. I do like the idea of fuel injection and would rather have an IO, but if the IO-320 cannot use mogas, I'd rather have the carburetor. Mogas is important to me. And like Vance, I would also want the option of procuring my own engine to reduce costs.

Cooling doesn't seem like it would be too much of a problem. A closely cowled/baffled engine with an opening on the top, and an opening on the lower back area just forward of the prop that would let the prop pull air out. Seems it should be easy to get a 1 or 2 psi differential across the cylinders using just the prop to pull air through.

Hi John:
We are deep in design on the side by side and its being designed after X320 (Lycoming based but lighter and up to 180 HP for same weight). We are planning to use a similar configuration as Cub Crafters for this engine. We have the whole engine including internals in SolidWorks and we will be doing a proper installation of it in design phase shortly. Although this is a global supply chain time, we are trying our best to keep as much of the machine US manufactured as possible without sacrificing quality or technology. The only thing not US manufactured in the US machine may be the rotor system if we stay with Averso rotor system that we do like a lot compared to others we have tried.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

Thanks Abid. Good luck with the side by side machine. I'm very interested in it.

 

[chrisk]

I have a Rotax 914. I really like the engine, but its got some down sides. Almost any aircraft mechanic can competently work on a X320. Not so with a Rotax. The overhaul cost of a new Rotax is relatively high too, not that I will ever fly one to TBO+.

For me, it would probably come down to price. How does the price o a X320 compare to a Rotax 914? If the difference in cost was not big, and the design of the AR1 with the X320 is proven, I'd probably go with X320

 

[Abid]

Its not the AR-1 that will get the X320. AR-1 was designed around Rotax 9 series engine. It would be the side by side machine

 

[DavePA11]

Abid,

Do you expect a reasonable cruise speed with your side by side. I flew the Magni m24 and it was rather slow compared to tandems getting close to 100mph....

Thanks

 

[Abid]

Abid,

Do you expect a reasonable cruise speed with your side by side. I flew the Magni m24 and it was rather slow compared to tandems getting close to 100mph....

Thanks

Of course. It should be faster than AR-1