Thread: How i got more power, safely for my 2013 D4 SE SDV6

Originally Posted by PeterOZ

It is worth noting the difference in thinking.

I'm ex RAAF so lets use an analogy related to that.

The Russians build some damn nice aircraft and very lethal fighters. They are powered by turbofan engines that put out by Western standards incredible amounts of thrust for a similar sized engine.

Interestingly the avionics and in particular the radar systems have been tweaked to transmit increadible amounts of peak power through rather narrow radar apetures.

All sound familar?

The GE F414 turbofan that powers our current Superbugs, that is F/A-18F Super Hornet is deliberatly de-rated from some 25,000lbs of thuust in full AB down to some 22,000lbs. This emans the core operates much cooler, engine life is much longer and MTBF is considerably better.

If a comparison was done on avaial;bility rates for modern Western aircraft like the superbug compared to say the SU-27 series the Superbug would win hands down. It is delsigned for reliability in mind and longevity. Russian thinking is to produce as many aircraft as possible and hope enough will be working for a shooting war.

Western thinking is keep cots down yet generate max number of sorties per aircraft.

So yes tweak those engines up and enjoy playing with them.

All a trade off and compromise. As one has aluded to right foot is a big de-tuner in its own right.

The engines are turned down because it's peace time,if we were in a shooting war would the tune stay the same?,no chance. Pat

I don't think you understand engines especially aircraft.

Originally Posted by PeterOZ

...

EGT I was referring to the exhaust gas temps, not the valve. If you are forcing more fuel in and obtaining more grunt it stands to reason the gasses are getting hotter which will have an adverse effect on the longevity of the donk.

...

Sorry I meant to type EGR not EGT.

On the topic of EGT, anyone who does any engine tuning or chipping without first fitting an EGT guage is insane IMHO.

I agree heartily about checking EGT.

No worries, worked out what you meant. Can't do it on mine, well not without fitting an old one to fool the ECU which is very naughty to do so.

Nope havent done it, still have the valves fitted. Toying with idea of pulling them out and the throttle body to give them all a clean out but not sure it would be worth the hassle?

Originally Posted by PeterOZ

I don't think you understand engines especially aircraft.

I read that straight from an RAAF article about prolonging in service aircraft engine life,can't believe anything these days. Pat

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Sorry I meant to type EGR not EGT.

On the topic of EGT, anyone who does any engine tuning or chipping without first fitting an EGT guage is insane IMHO.

I wonder how many chip manufacturers and back yard tuners bother?,I bet excessive EGT's is a leading contender in engine failures. Pat

Originally Posted by PeterOZ

I don't think you understand engines especially aircraft.

As an ex RAAFie myself .... a pilot is quite capable of burning the hot end out of a jet engine, over-boosting the old Caribou or over-speeding a prop in a C130J .... over-torqueing, stalling, breaking lifting surfaces off the aircraft ...


A whole myriad of things can go wrong and can be induced.


And if you knew anything about modern multi-engine jet aircraft you'd know that degradation or loss of one engine will allow you to run the other to exceed it's "safe" limits.


So Pat's comment about tuning may not be technically correct ... but ... no need for the Dis!


You've waded into a pool of so many variables with no way of measuring ...


The old L13 Lycoming engine in the H model Huey (1300SHP) was (once all the peripherals were taken off) quite a bit larger than the GE T700 that the Australian Blackhawk is running. As in, the turning and burning parts in the newer T700 are smaller but produce a lot more power ... in normal flight mode. They also have the ability in several levels of contingency to exceed 2000SHP. A Rolls Royce version of the same engine running in a civil Westland variant of the Blackhawk exceeded 3000 SHP.... same size engine.


So the RR engine was not designed for boy racers, nor was it down or over-tuned .... it was just designed.... possibly like the JLR Engines .


So did you get the other part? ... contingency power ..... I think it's common on all platforms! That was Pat's point I think.


What's the physical size difference of a Super or Classic Hornet's engine Vs the F111? I think they produce far more power for their size Vs the older engine, don't they? ... all from the same conservative US engine industry...

Panavia Tornados were capable of running on far more AB time than any American equivalent at the time. Doesn't actually make the engine any better (unless you are flying the thing and wanting to be somewhere else... for whatever reason) but it's just a case of engineering.

Is it possible ... has it crossed your mind, that the Yanks design under their limits to stop failures versus longevity. They design phenomenal stuff but their maintenance regimes and people are sub-standard (that sounds nasty ... but If you've worked in the ADF and have ever seen how the US AF, Marines or Army maintain their aircraft, you'd know exactly what I mean)....so they have to compensate. As an Ex-RAAF'ie you would know that to be true.

Mean Time Between Failure is stated but often not quantified or qualified in a true measurable sense .... and if you dug into the root cause of that analysis it's a Pandora's Box of politics, etc. When have you ever seen anything designed using the LSAR data? It's a BS methodology, yet the industry hangs on to it. It is useful as a CM tool but all the things about engineering being based on reliability engineering data, functional maintenance, etc, is generally BS. Geeks design and the Logis figure out (or not) how to support.


So getting back on track, is there actually anything to suggest a 3.0 TTD in a D4 is stressed? Never read that!

Originally Posted by Celtoid

As an ex RAAFie myself .... a pilot is quite capable of burning the hot end out of a jet engine, over-boosting the old Caribou or over-speeding a prop in a C130J .... over-torqueing, stalling, breaking lifting surfaces off the aircraft ...


A whole myriad of things can go wrong and can be induced.


And if you knew anything about modern multi-engine jet aircraft you'd know that degradation or loss of one engine will allow you to run the other to exceed it's "safe" limits.


So Pat's comment about tuning may not be technically correct ... but ... no need for the Dis!


You've waded into a pool of so many variables with no way of measuring ...


The old L13 Lycoming engine in the H model Huey (1300SHP) was (once all the peripherals were taken off) quite a bit larger than the GE T700 that the Australian Blackhawk is running. As in, the turning and burning parts in the newer T700 are smaller but produce a lot more power ... in normal flight mode. They also have the ability in several levels of contingency to exceed 2000SHP. A Rolls Royce version of the same engine running in a civil Westland variant of the Blackhawk exceeded 3000 SHP.... same size engine.


So the RR engine was not designed for boy racers, nor was it down or over-tuned .... it was just designed.... possibly like the JLR Engines .


So did you get the other part? ... contingency power ..... I think it's common on all platforms! That was Pat's point I think.


What's the physical size difference of a Super or Classic Hornet's engine Vs the F111? I think they produce far more power for their size Vs the older engine, don't they? ... all from the same conservative US engine industry...

Panavia Tornados were capable of running on far more AB time than any American equivalent at the time. Doesn't actually make the engine any better (unless you are flying the thing and wanting to be somewhere else... for whatever reason) but it's just a case of engineering.

Is it possible ... has it crossed your mind, that the Yanks design under their limits to stop failures versus longevity. They design phenomenal stuff but their maintenance regimes and people are sub-standard (that sounds nasty ... but If you've worked in the ADF and have ever seen how the US AF, Marines or Army maintain their aircraft, you'd know exactly what I mean)....so they have to compensate. As an Ex-RAAF'ie you would know that to be true.

Mean Time Between Failure is stated but often not quantified or qualified in a true measurable sense .... and if you dug into the root cause of that analysis it's a Pandora's Box of politics, etc. When have you ever seen anything designed using the LSAR data? It's a BS methodology, yet the industry hangs on to it. It is useful as a CM tool but all the things about engineering being based on reliability engineering data, functional maintenance, etc, is generally BS. Geeks design and the Logis figure out (or not) how to support.


So getting back on track, is there actually anything to suggest a 3.0 TTD in a D4 is stressed? Never read that!

I won't comment on the 2.7L AND 3.0L TDV6, as I'm not qualified to do so, but I would imagine the SDV6 would not be stressed, being the de-tuned version of the TDV6.

What I really don't understand, why would you get a power upgrade on the 3.0l, I mean really, how much power do you need.

Having the 2.7l, I would like a touch more, but a lot more, a mild tune would suffice, something that's not going to increase EGTs a lot, and I would be definately getting a gauge to monitor them also, something that I think tuners should include with the tune.

Baz.