Originally posted by LRJet Guy
View Post

A major factor is the distance the flame front has to travel across a combustion chamber. The larger the diameter of a combustion chamber the lower the compression ratio for a given octane.
An example is the 235 HP version of the O-540 Lycoming used in the Piper Cherokee 235 and the 300 HP version of the IO-540 engine used in various high performance aircraft The 235 HP version burns 80/87 octane while the 300 HP version uses 100LL octane. Other than the better fuel metering available using fuel injection (the "I" in IO-540) the major difference in power out put is the 100/130 octane fuel allowing a higher compression ratio.
The same basic engine (GSIO-540) can be boosted to 350 HP by adding a gearbox, a supercharger and increasing the basic engine red line to 3,500 vs 2600 RPM on the non geared engine.
Another reason for the low power output per unit of displacement is the difficulty (read cost) in getting modern engine control systems certified. Where an auto manufacturer may produce a couple million engines during any given year, an aircraft engine manufacturer may only produce about a thousand new engines. Even if the cost of approving the control system of an aircraft engine was the same as the aircraft engine (it isn't, the cost is 8 to 10 times more) the number of units over which the engineering / certification costs are much lower. The development of a modern computer controlled fuel delivery system has only recently started to materialize. The first generation of this system will reduce fuel consumption 10 to 15%. HP increases are also possible but will most likely not be that apparent in the first generation systems.
Leave a comment: