I've been reading about the UL520T engine and had a crazy idea. Curious to hear folks' thoughts...
The UL520T engine generates 220hp from sea level to 15,000 feet. At typical RV10 cruising altitudes of 6,500-10,500 ft, this engine would theoretically perform better than an IO-540-D4A5. I'm guessing we would see about 5-7 kts improvement in KTAS going from D4A5 to the 520T at the aforementioned cruise altitudes with comparable fuel flow settings. Also, the 520T might allow for a more aerodynamic cowl because of its better cooling properties. I imagine that a 520T-powered RV-10 could cruise at ~180 kts at 9,500ft on less than 15 gph. Interestingly, the 520T is around 120-150lbs lighter than the IO-540. This means that the 520T would need to hang farther forward on a modified engine mount in order to compensate for the W&B effects. If this mount were to be engineered/installed far enough forward, it could potentially create enough room for a BRS parachute to be mounted in the front of the aircraft, with the weight penalty of the chute offset by the reduced engine weight. This would also solve the current issue with RV-10s where installation of a parachute consumes nearly half of the baggage area.
If the above ideas were possible, one could imagine a 180kt+ RV-10 with FADEC controls, a BRS chute, increased useful load, extra baggage space, and expanded fuel optionality. That would be one heck of an airplane with virtually no compromises (in my opinion)!
Alright, now someone please tell me how crazy I am...
The UL520T engine generates 220hp from sea level to 15,000 feet. At typical RV10 cruising altitudes of 6,500-10,500 ft, this engine would theoretically perform better than an IO-540-D4A5. I'm guessing we would see about 5-7 kts improvement in KTAS going from D4A5 to the 520T at the aforementioned cruise altitudes with comparable fuel flow settings. Also, the 520T might allow for a more aerodynamic cowl because of its better cooling properties. I imagine that a 520T-powered RV-10 could cruise at ~180 kts at 9,500ft on less than 15 gph. Interestingly, the 520T is around 120-150lbs lighter than the IO-540. This means that the 520T would need to hang farther forward on a modified engine mount in order to compensate for the W&B effects. If this mount were to be engineered/installed far enough forward, it could potentially create enough room for a BRS parachute to be mounted in the front of the aircraft, with the weight penalty of the chute offset by the reduced engine weight. This would also solve the current issue with RV-10s where installation of a parachute consumes nearly half of the baggage area.
If the above ideas were possible, one could imagine a 180kt+ RV-10 with FADEC controls, a BRS chute, increased useful load, extra baggage space, and expanded fuel optionality. That would be one heck of an airplane with virtually no compromises (in my opinion)!
Alright, now someone please tell me how crazy I am...