Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
V220 / V300T stillborn?
- Thread starter Andy_RR
- Start date
Extra, Extra...
...read all about it
http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm
It's dead...
deceased....
no longer with us....
won't be down for breakfast...
doing the mahogany mumbo...
pushing up daisys...
doin' the dirt nap...
Too bad...would have been cool.
...read all about it
http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm
It's dead...
deceased....
no longer with us....
won't be down for breakfast...
doing the mahogany mumbo...
pushing up daisys...
doin' the dirt nap...
Too bad...would have been cool.
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Good by
No loss, these where LARGE engines, heavy and very expensive. Not for an RV for sure. Added to the list:
BRP
Honda
Orenda
Crossflow
Powersport
to come?
Mistral (rotary)
Diesels (yes I know the $0.25 Mil Diesel Cessna Skyhawk, hahahehe)
Hard to beat the Lycoming for weight, power, efficiency and cost. All these engines cost way more money for questionable gain.
No loss, these where LARGE engines, heavy and very expensive. Not for an RV for sure. Added to the list:
BRP
Honda
Orenda
Crossflow
Powersport
to come?
Mistral (rotary)
Diesels (yes I know the $0.25 Mil Diesel Cessna Skyhawk, hahahehe
)Hard to beat the Lycoming for weight, power, efficiency and cost. All these engines cost way more money for questionable gain.
Last edited:
It makes sense for Rotax to gear up for higher production of the 912/914 engines with the upsurge in the LSA market. We are also focusing our business activities with this in mind as well. Go where the market is.
The Orenda is maybe not dead, yet. As posted earlier, the tooling and rights have been bought with plans to produce again. Engineering and certification costs have already been paid so a new life at some reasonable cost is possible. There is a fair demand for engines in this class with the price of turbocharged 550/ 540 Contis and Lycomings exceeding $60K. The altitude performance on these was impressive. 30-40 knots faster than a PT6-28 powered King Air at 25,000 feet and 35% lower fuel burn. TBO would have been somewhat shorter though. The Lancair IV and IV-P would really move with one of these at a lower cost than the Walter turbines. Let's hope that the new owners can do better.
Power to weight ratio was competitive with air cooled engines and it was nicely packaged.
Someone posted a couple months ago that PowerSport was still around but currently not shipping anything. Any more news on them?
Any time one of the alternatives bows out of the market, we are left with one less choice.
The Orenda is maybe not dead, yet. As posted earlier, the tooling and rights have been bought with plans to produce again. Engineering and certification costs have already been paid so a new life at some reasonable cost is possible. There is a fair demand for engines in this class with the price of turbocharged 550/ 540 Contis and Lycomings exceeding $60K. The altitude performance on these was impressive. 30-40 knots faster than a PT6-28 powered King Air at 25,000 feet and 35% lower fuel burn. TBO would have been somewhat shorter though. The Lancair IV and IV-P would really move with one of these at a lower cost than the Walter turbines. Let's hope that the new owners can do better.
Power to weight ratio was competitive with air cooled engines and it was nicely packaged.
Someone posted a couple months ago that PowerSport was still around but currently not shipping anything. Any more news on them?
Any time one of the alternatives bows out of the market, we are left with one less choice.
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
I doubt that Rotax needs to increase production much to satisfy the US LSA market. The 912 series is popular worldwide already.rv6ejguy said:
The demand for more engines to power all the new airframes will require higher production rates from Rotax. Agreed Rotax has a large chunk of the 80-115hp market already but the LSA production numbers are now huge. The US market dwarfs everything else we currently see.
Continental is seeing high demand for their new O-200 from the LSA airframers as well.
I know all this because we've been approached to provide FADECS for these and several other lightweight engines.
I got an hour flight in a 912 CT as a birthday present. I'll report on what the Rotax is like soon.
Continental is seeing high demand for their new O-200 from the LSA airframers as well.
I know all this because we've been approached to provide FADECS for these and several other lightweight engines.
I got an hour flight in a 912 CT as a birthday present. I'll report on what the Rotax is like soon.
Last edited:
SweetJellyDonut
Active Member
Re-allocate those funds...
I would like to see Rotax reallocate that V-6 R&D money to improving or introducing manufacturing processes that will help bring down the prices of their 9-series engines. (~$15k for a 912S ). I think the engines are made in Europe and shipped over to the U.S. Maybe if they built a state-of-the-art plant in the U.S. that would help cut down some of the costs.
If someone could come out with a competing product for $5k-$7k less, they would corner the market. (makes me wish took a few more Mech. Eng. classes )
I would like to see Rotax reallocate that V-6 R&D money to improving or introducing manufacturing processes that will help bring down the prices of their 9-series engines. (~$15k for a 912S
). I think the engines are made in Europe and shipped over to the U.S. Maybe if they built a state-of-the-art plant in the U.S. that would help cut down some of the costs. If someone could come out with a competing product for $5k-$7k less, they would corner the market. (makes me wish took a few more Mech. Eng. classes
)the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
FlightDesign CT? I'd be interested in your comments. Personally, I enjoy the 912S / CT combination (actually, I enjoy it as often as I can find time to flyrv6ejguy said:I got an hour flight in a 912 CT as a birthday present. I'll report on what the Rotax is like soon.
)RV7Guy said:
This won't make your day but they are setting up a bigger facility in Ontario with new backing (where did that come from) and ...wait for it... they plan to CERTIFY their Sube based engines. ahh... sure. Not sure where the market will be for those engines??? Sorry that I'm so skeptical on this one.
On the CT, yes Flight Design CT. Any tips? They are supposed to be weird to land.
Last edited:
jcoloccia said:...read all about it
http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm
It's dead...
deceased....
no longer with us....
Oooh, I do look a bit silly now, don't I?
Never mind! Thanks for the link John.
It's a sad day when any project like that is cancelled, but it does tend to suggest that it's very hard to make a reasonable return on a new aero engine, even at the high power, presumably high profit margin end. We'll be seeing Lycosauri for some time to come then... Not a bad thing, though, at all!
A
G-force
Well Known Member
SweetJellyDonut said:If someone could come out with a competing product for $5k-$7k less, they would corner the market. (makes me wish took a few more Mech. Eng. classes
But thats the fly in the ointment...the cost of manufacturing these engines is not going up. With technological advances, volume now to a point that the tooling, r&d are paid off, etc the only equation that is going up is the amount Rotax (and other engine buillders) have to put in the bank to pay for future legal fees. I wouldnt wager they have figured out the estimated volume of future lawsuits and settelements over the next decade or so as their engines find their way behind thousands of new small planes, flowen by low time pilots, or pilots that can't get a medical. Risk assesment at its finest, and we get to pay the $$$ because your right, the Rotax IS an $8-10k motor, with the lawyer surcharge tacked on top
G-force said:But thats the fly in the ointment...the cost of manufacturing these engines is not going up. With technological advances, volume now to a point that the tooling, r&d are paid off, etc the only equation that is going up is the amount Rotax (and other engine buillders) have to put in the bank to pay for future legal fees. I wouldnt wager they have figured out the estimated volume of future lawsuits and settelements over the next decade or so as their engines find their way behind thousands of new small planes, flowen by low time pilots, or pilots that can't get a medical. Risk assesment at its finest, and we get to pay the $$$ because your right, the Rotax IS an $8-10k motor, with the lawyer surcharge tacked on top
Pretty accurate assessment. The non certified Rotax engines are quite a bit less money. I guess this reflects the lower perceived liability possibilities.
It actually is not really expensive these days to buy the CAD package, design the engine, do FEA on it, CNC machine it and test it for the experimental market. These days you can model airflow, heat flow etc. before it leaves the PC. Should be way cheaper to produce prototypes than in the old days. Even doing the certification trials are not that bad if you read the requirements. (would take a lot of fuel though). The biggy is when you release it for use in certified aircraft, you have to tack on the liability tag and this is the killer.
Textron has been hit with hundreds of millions of dollars in judgements over the last 6 years. Factor that in over only a few thousand engines produced in that time and it is clear that the price will not be dropping any time soon on Lycomings. I'm sure other companies have watched this and just said- why bother?
If Thielert and Mistral can actually last for 5-10 years in the certified market, I'll be impressed. I wish them well and compliment them for doing what they are doing. I do wonder why they don't offer FF packages for experimentals, great, low liability, testing ground to prove/ improve their products while keeping the money rolling in.
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Scary
This is very scary. I wonder who the Rocket Scientists are who invested money in this company. The king scammer strikes again. It just gets better.
If their business practices continue as they have they thankfully won't last long.
rv6ejguy said:This won't make your day but they are setting up a bigger facility in Ontario with new backing (where did that come from) and ...wait for it... they plan to CERTIFY their Sube based engines. ahh... sure. Not sure where the market will be for those engines??? Sorry that I'm so skeptical on this one.
.
This is very scary. I wonder who the Rocket Scientists are who invested money in this company. The king scammer strikes again. It just gets better.
If their business practices continue as they have they thankfully won't last long.
bumblebee
Active Member
Basically correct.rv6ejguy said:
It's a funny thing....The CAD/FEA tools definitely provide the ability to get a lot closer to final design before the chips fly. And the "tools" are indeed amazingly inexpensive compared to the CATIA-type systems of 20 yrs ago. However, the amount of metal that STILL gets cut, burnt, baked, blown up and thrown out is astounding. For a clean-sheet design, it WILL take double the time and money originally budgeted.rv6ejguy said:
If only it were so!! Certification of the ENGINE is relatively easy; it's getting the PMA certificate for manufacturing that causes many hairs to go gray and many bank accounts to go barren. Been through a few of these; it ain't fun.rv6ejguy said:
The liability premium is a total guess based on market, and it never comes close to covering the real liability. Without a major parent company, no engine mfr can afford to be certificated b/c the first crash WILL bankrupt the company. Thielert paid a miniscule 2.5 million for Superior; about the cost of a few CNC machines. Once they started selling Vantage (certified) engines, Superior had no shelter against liability. It's no accident that they sold to a non-US company.rv6ejguy said:
For certified engines, yes.rv6ejguy said:
This is the single greatest mystery. With the single exception of Thielert, none of the companies we work with are interested in working on FWF. We've had shouting matches over this, to no avail. It baffles my mind to no end because any profit is in the FWF, not the engine.rv6ejguy said:
bumblebee said:
I always amazes me that people can throw so much money into this stuff. The projects always seem undermanaged, out of control and wasteful in resources and funds. You need the right group of people and not too many to get this done quickly and cheaply. I've done engine development programs for a small fraction of the cost of what other bigger organizations have done and beaten them at the racetrack year after year.
Get the thing running, flog it, see what breaks and fix it. We had very few failures in testing and experience showed the way in fixing any of these problems next time around. Took a 70hp design and got it to 360 reliable hp in just 2 seasons. Total spent was under $20K including all the flow bench and dyno studies.
Today you can get a custom billet crank made for under $3K, 4 alloy steel custom rods for $500 and pistons for about $75 each. My CNC guy could turn out cylinders for $500 each and a case for $4-$6K I would guess. This would be first run cost. Higher production would bring this down considerably. Use off the shelf stuff in the design and many of these prices could be cut in half or more. You'd certainly use existing valve springs, valves etc.
I'd stick to the experimental market exclusively. It would appear at a glance that this market is bigger than the new certified market anyway. Why go down the liability path?
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
800 lb Gorilla in the corner of the room
You guys miss the one 800 lb gorilla in the corner of the room, snort snort. The Lycoming or clone is relatively cheap (Yes! cheap), light and efficient; I say relatively because unless the NEW BETTER engine is lighter, cheaper and more efficient, than its going to be a hard sell.
The economics to get a new design engine with Lycoming performance for less money would be a real breakthrough. Lycoming set the bar high, and you can also blame inertia. There are so many airframes and engines out there, the GA world revolves around Lycoming and TCM, good, bad or ugly, its life. I know you guys hate that, but its true. No one cares if it was designed on a computer or drafting board or if the part was cut with a CNC or cast, if its more expensive, heavier and no more or less efficient.
If there was a void and no competition in the 125hp - 350hp class of aircraft engine, that would be different, but every want-to-be new engine maker has to go up against the air-cooled Lyc Gorilla, spacifically in the 115-350 hp range. Less than 100 hp or more than 400 hp the "paradigm" shifts. Low HP engines is a great place for Rotax, 1.8L Subaru's, VW and so on. Above 400 hp you're getting into turbines/turboprop land or very old out of production radial engines. That's probably why Rotax/BRP and Orenda where going for that high HP +350HP market, less competition.
If you are shooting at the new 125-250 HP aircraft engine market, its going to have to be better than a Lycoming. Modern HOG IT OUT of forged blocks does not make better engines. With my engineering background I can appreciate that many things where designed with slide rulers and can't be improved and still appreciate CATIA and "sold digital product definitions" with "parametric elements", which are great but actually take longer. I can tell you computers do not make it cheaper, but follow on modification and changes become so much easier after the product is digitized. Trust me I know and would not lie to you.
Lycoming uses precision high grade A1 castings on things like heads and cases, which is lighter and cheaper to mass produce then CNC for complex part like these. In fact Boeing is encouraging their designers to use more structural castings for many parts now made by CNC or built up part assemblies. Castings lost favor in recent years, but are making a come back. Boeing and designers recognized its still a great way to manufacture complicated structural metal parts. The loss of recent popularity was just that in the CNC age many designers had no experience w/ castings or understood the capabilities, which are even better today. The down side is tooling cost of castings. Lycoming castings may look crude comparied to smooth CNC parts, with their rough surfaces, but they are awfully refined light and structurally efficient designs. They where designed by smart people.
A computer is no substitute for a brain. Just because it comes out of a computer does not make it better. The man is the creative element. You can make pretty CNC parts but Ho-Hum so what. It'll not be automatically better or cheaper.
Sorry, the value is in the design. Its hard to beat air cooling in an air plane.
You guys miss the one 800 lb gorilla in the corner of the room, snort snort. The Lycoming or clone is relatively cheap (Yes! cheap), light and efficient; I say relatively because unless the NEW BETTER engine is lighter, cheaper and more efficient, than its going to be a hard sell.
The economics to get a new design engine with Lycoming performance for less money would be a real breakthrough. Lycoming set the bar high, and you can also blame inertia. There are so many airframes and engines out there, the GA world revolves around Lycoming and TCM, good, bad or ugly, its life. I know you guys hate that, but its true. No one cares if it was designed on a computer or drafting board or if the part was cut with a CNC or cast, if its more expensive, heavier and no more or less efficient.
If there was a void and no competition in the 125hp - 350hp class of aircraft engine, that would be different, but every want-to-be new engine maker has to go up against the air-cooled Lyc Gorilla, spacifically in the 115-350 hp range. Less than 100 hp or more than 400 hp the "paradigm" shifts. Low HP engines is a great place for Rotax, 1.8L Subaru's, VW and so on. Above 400 hp you're getting into turbines/turboprop land or very old out of production radial engines. That's probably why Rotax/BRP and Orenda where going for that high HP +350HP market, less competition.
If you are shooting at the new 125-250 HP aircraft engine market, its going to have to be better than a Lycoming. Modern HOG IT OUT of forged blocks does not make better engines. With my engineering background I can appreciate that many things where designed with slide rulers and can't be improved and still appreciate CATIA and "sold digital product definitions" with "parametric elements", which are great but actually take longer. I can tell you computers do not make it cheaper, but follow on modification and changes become so much easier after the product is digitized. Trust me I know and would not lie to you.
Lycoming uses precision high grade A1 castings on things like heads and cases, which is lighter and cheaper to mass produce then CNC for complex part like these. In fact Boeing is encouraging their designers to use more structural castings for many parts now made by CNC or built up part assemblies. Castings lost favor in recent years, but are making a come back. Boeing and designers recognized its still a great way to manufacture complicated structural metal parts. The loss of recent popularity was just that in the CNC age many designers had no experience w/ castings or understood the capabilities, which are even better today. The down side is tooling cost of castings. Lycoming castings may look crude comparied to smooth CNC parts, with their rough surfaces, but they are awfully refined light and structurally efficient designs. They where designed by smart people.
A computer is no substitute for a brain. Just because it comes out of a computer does not make it better. The man is the creative element. You can make pretty CNC parts but Ho-Hum so what. It'll not be automatically better or cheaper.
Sorry, the value is in the design. Its hard to beat air cooling in an air plane.
Last edited:
Ross,
I agree that there's a lot of percieved waste in production engine development programs, but much of it is unavoidable without 'perfect' project planning and management.
Now I've seen and done bad project management, attempted good project managment, occasionally experienced great project management, but never seen anywhere near perfect!
If you wait for everything to be spot on before you order any parts, you'll never get anything done, so it becomes time and cost-effective to order/manufacture your prototypes at risk in many cases. Some of these decisions will fail, but you won't know which ones up front.
Also, you have experienced taking a current engine and making it different, but have you ever done a clean-sheet design? If your ambition is to make a Lycosauri-beating design, I'll bet you'll be overwhelmed by the permutations that a blank sheet of paper presents. All the things that can be changed to give 'improvements' but always have a down-side and must be managed. A clean-sheet design will always be compromised, but with careful management, it can be less so that the benchmark engines you select. Whether this is enough to convince the market is a moot point.
Also, you have to design with your production volumes in mind. If you start out with billet cranks and 'cases you will make design decisions to optimise them for their strengths and weaknesses, but you have no chance of cost-effectively winding the volumes up to large numbers needed to recoup the development costs. If you design for a high-volume production method, then not only are you making different design decisions and having to pay for the development costs, you will eventually saddle yourself with a huge tooling bill that has to be amortised somehow.
And the right group of people? That's such a tall order! Unless you've got yourself some financial sound backing, then the creme-de-la-creme that you'll be wanting will generally stick to their day jobs that guarantee the mortgage payments and school fees. Not every high-calibre engineer is also entrepreneurial!
Existing parts? You'll have a **** of a time convincing most non-aerospace suppliers to give you anything for your aero engine. The volumes will always be too small and they just don't want the risk that's attached. This is one of the reasons that engine management is so fantastic in the automotive world, but FADECs are a bit of an expensive damp squib.
Anyway, Rotax, Honda et al have been through this mill and decided they want out. They are all successful at doing engine-y things in many areas, but choose not to in the aero engine world. That must ring some alarm bells. And as for the experimental market, you could do worse than use Jabiru as a case study. They do exactly what you are describing and are relatively successful. They aren't putting a major dent in Lycosaurus sales though.
I agree with most of what bumblebee and George M say above, with the exception that FWF kits, whilst maybe areas with high profit margins, are also areas requiring the most customer support, which could rapidly eat your profit margins if you don't get it right. In the experimental market, many builders won't 'leave well alone', so chances are one engine sale to an experimenter will result in dozens of phone calls - which the purchaser won't want to pay an hourly rate for!
A
I agree that there's a lot of percieved waste in production engine development programs, but much of it is unavoidable without 'perfect' project planning and management.
Now I've seen and done bad project management, attempted good project managment, occasionally experienced great project management, but never seen anywhere near perfect!
If you wait for everything to be spot on before you order any parts, you'll never get anything done, so it becomes time and cost-effective to order/manufacture your prototypes at risk in many cases. Some of these decisions will fail, but you won't know which ones up front.
Also, you have experienced taking a current engine and making it different, but have you ever done a clean-sheet design? If your ambition is to make a Lycosauri-beating design, I'll bet you'll be overwhelmed by the permutations that a blank sheet of paper presents. All the things that can be changed to give 'improvements' but always have a down-side and must be managed. A clean-sheet design will always be compromised, but with careful management, it can be less so that the benchmark engines you select. Whether this is enough to convince the market is a moot point.
Also, you have to design with your production volumes in mind. If you start out with billet cranks and 'cases you will make design decisions to optimise them for their strengths and weaknesses, but you have no chance of cost-effectively winding the volumes up to large numbers needed to recoup the development costs. If you design for a high-volume production method, then not only are you making different design decisions and having to pay for the development costs, you will eventually saddle yourself with a huge tooling bill that has to be amortised somehow.
And the right group of people? That's such a tall order! Unless you've got yourself some financial sound backing, then the creme-de-la-creme that you'll be wanting will generally stick to their day jobs that guarantee the mortgage payments and school fees. Not every high-calibre engineer is also entrepreneurial!
Existing parts? You'll have a **** of a time convincing most non-aerospace suppliers to give you anything for your aero engine. The volumes will always be too small and they just don't want the risk that's attached. This is one of the reasons that engine management is so fantastic in the automotive world, but FADECs are a bit of an expensive damp squib.
Anyway, Rotax, Honda et al have been through this mill and decided they want out. They are all successful at doing engine-y things in many areas, but choose not to in the aero engine world. That must ring some alarm bells. And as for the experimental market, you could do worse than use Jabiru as a case study. They do exactly what you are describing and are relatively successful. They aren't putting a major dent in Lycosaurus sales though.
I agree with most of what bumblebee and George M say above, with the exception that FWF kits, whilst maybe areas with high profit margins, are also areas requiring the most customer support, which could rapidly eat your profit margins if you don't get it right. In the experimental market, many builders won't 'leave well alone', so chances are one engine sale to an experimenter will result in dozens of phone calls - which the purchaser won't want to pay an hourly rate for!
A
You lads are missing what I wrote. I would never bother with the cert market period. Let Lycoming have that nightmare in our litigation happy world.
No, never done a clean sheet design but I already know what this would look like. A lot like a Rotax, geared with air cooled cylinders, water cooled heads, pushrods, integral redrive, twin cams and 4 valves.
The FADECs are easy. That is what we build here every day and we already supply these to the experimental market. Have been for over a decade.
The right people, I already have 3 in mind who are longtime friends in this field.
Off the shelf parts, we go aftermarket as have some new experimental engines already have. CIMA cylinders with Mahle forged pistons for a VW. These are excellent quality and dirt cheap plus race proven in my turbo engines at extreme power levels.
I'd use many of the race vendors that I have dealt with over the last 28 years to supply some of the other bits.
You'd never, ever use castings to prototype a design these days with RP, CAD and CNC available. You would use castings once the design is validated to lower cost in production.
I've had some dealings with the Jabiru design over the last few years. This was a classic example of inadequate validation before release which rapidly showed many design problems and quickly instilled a bad reputation. The idea was great. We are now working with an engineer who is addressing some of the design problems with new hardware and again on a FADEC for this engine eventually. You must put thousands of hours on a design at full power and rpm, not only on the dyno to quantify performance but also in an airframe to duplicate real world conditions. Jabiru clearly never did this as problems were cropping up initially on production engines in less than 40 hours. Jabiru's support to fix the problems was poor.
FF packages are certainly the way to go to avoid the avalanche of tech calls but I'd still expect many. In the FADEC industry we expect this and deal with it by offering the best tech support in the industry. We spend as much time as required with each client to get problems ironed out. Result is many happy customers who spread the word. Good, accessible tech may cost money but saves in the advertising budget. We've seen the rapid demise of many companies in our industry due to their dreadful tech support. In the era of the internet, bad word spreads like the plague.
Improving on the Lycoming design? Well what I hear from most people is that they are sick of the ADs and they want some of the new technology available today on other engines. Whether this is what others think they should have is irrelevant. The market is there. They'd like to have something other than a Lycoming available.
I really would not expect to be able to make big improvements in SFC or weight reduction over the standard O-360 type engine but equaling these benchmarks with the technology available today would not be a problem based on my 28 years of experience with engines of all types. People would mainly have another choice for their engine. Something which would run smoother, quieter, with lower oil consumption, lower maintenance and much lower overhaul costs. Price wise in these small quantities, I think these engines would not be sold for less than $15K US because if you look at the design and development costs, testing, tooling, building and support costs, you would not make enough to make it worthwhile charging less than that.
BTW, I have no plans at this time to start down this path. Too many irons in the fire presently.
To all the naysayers, my uncle who started BRC Engineering, now produces one of the fastest and most powerful 2 stroke kart engines in the world. Faster than any of the big manufacturers. It took 15 years on a shoestring budget (relatively speaking) but has been done by a small company with a small group of smart people. This is a VERY competitive market. You stand still here and you are swept behind right away. Others like Hart, Judd and Falconer have done similar things on a fraction of the budget of the big boys. With size, comes waste as we say.
http://www.brceng.com/news.php
Interestingly as the BRC engines began to win and dominate races, the inevitable whining dogs come to the forefront. Multiple teardowns, visits by FIA officials, ridiculous penalties and treatment at races. The big boys never like to be shown up by the small fry!
With my involvement in Reno racing programs, I see worry from the Lyconental camp about the Falconer powered Thunder Mustang. It showed blazing speed this year and it won't be long before this race bred engine wins the Sport Class at Reno against engines which were never designed for racing. Unless it is outlawed of course. Racing politics surface everywhere it seems. It qualified on the pole this year and set fastest race lap. The design inadequacies of the air cooled engines and supporting systems are the big wall now to further hp increases of any significant magnitude. The Falconer has proven itself reliable in offshore boat racing at 1000+ hp. "Technology on a Fast Track" was Toyota's moto during their rise and domination of IMSA racing. Technology marches on and can make engines better than they are today. It has been proven many, many times before.
http://www.precision-aircraft.net/supercharger.htm
No, never done a clean sheet design but I already know what this would look like. A lot like a Rotax, geared with air cooled cylinders, water cooled heads, pushrods, integral redrive, twin cams and 4 valves.
The FADECs are easy. That is what we build here every day and we already supply these to the experimental market. Have been for over a decade.
The right people, I already have 3 in mind who are longtime friends in this field.
Off the shelf parts, we go aftermarket as have some new experimental engines already have. CIMA cylinders with Mahle forged pistons for a VW. These are excellent quality and dirt cheap plus race proven in my turbo engines at extreme power levels.
I'd use many of the race vendors that I have dealt with over the last 28 years to supply some of the other bits.
You'd never, ever use castings to prototype a design these days with RP, CAD and CNC available. You would use castings once the design is validated to lower cost in production.
I've had some dealings with the Jabiru design over the last few years. This was a classic example of inadequate validation before release which rapidly showed many design problems and quickly instilled a bad reputation. The idea was great. We are now working with an engineer who is addressing some of the design problems with new hardware and again on a FADEC for this engine eventually. You must put thousands of hours on a design at full power and rpm, not only on the dyno to quantify performance but also in an airframe to duplicate real world conditions. Jabiru clearly never did this as problems were cropping up initially on production engines in less than 40 hours. Jabiru's support to fix the problems was poor.
FF packages are certainly the way to go to avoid the avalanche of tech calls but I'd still expect many. In the FADEC industry we expect this and deal with it by offering the best tech support in the industry. We spend as much time as required with each client to get problems ironed out. Result is many happy customers who spread the word. Good, accessible tech may cost money but saves in the advertising budget. We've seen the rapid demise of many companies in our industry due to their dreadful tech support. In the era of the internet, bad word spreads like the plague.
Improving on the Lycoming design? Well what I hear from most people is that they are sick of the ADs and they want some of the new technology available today on other engines. Whether this is what others think they should have is irrelevant. The market is there. They'd like to have something other than a Lycoming available.
I really would not expect to be able to make big improvements in SFC or weight reduction over the standard O-360 type engine but equaling these benchmarks with the technology available today would not be a problem based on my 28 years of experience with engines of all types. People would mainly have another choice for their engine. Something which would run smoother, quieter, with lower oil consumption, lower maintenance and much lower overhaul costs. Price wise in these small quantities, I think these engines would not be sold for less than $15K US because if you look at the design and development costs, testing, tooling, building and support costs, you would not make enough to make it worthwhile charging less than that.
BTW, I have no plans at this time to start down this path. Too many irons in the fire presently.
To all the naysayers, my uncle who started BRC Engineering, now produces one of the fastest and most powerful 2 stroke kart engines in the world. Faster than any of the big manufacturers. It took 15 years on a shoestring budget (relatively speaking) but has been done by a small company with a small group of smart people. This is a VERY competitive market. You stand still here and you are swept behind right away. Others like Hart, Judd and Falconer have done similar things on a fraction of the budget of the big boys. With size, comes waste as we say.
http://www.brceng.com/news.php
Interestingly as the BRC engines began to win and dominate races, the inevitable whining dogs come to the forefront. Multiple teardowns, visits by FIA officials, ridiculous penalties and treatment at races. The big boys never like to be shown up by the small fry!
With my involvement in Reno racing programs, I see worry from the Lyconental camp about the Falconer powered Thunder Mustang. It showed blazing speed this year and it won't be long before this race bred engine wins the Sport Class at Reno against engines which were never designed for racing. Unless it is outlawed of course. Racing politics surface everywhere it seems. It qualified on the pole this year and set fastest race lap. The design inadequacies of the air cooled engines and supporting systems are the big wall now to further hp increases of any significant magnitude. The Falconer has proven itself reliable in offshore boat racing at 1000+ hp. "Technology on a Fast Track" was Toyota's moto during their rise and domination of IMSA racing. Technology marches on and can make engines better than they are today. It has been proven many, many times before.
http://www.precision-aircraft.net/supercharger.htm
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Clean sheet engine
I'd start at the propeller, say something that will turn that prop at about 2,800 to 2,100 RPM and produce about (fill in a HP that turns you on).
The engine has to be light, compact, efficient and "relatively" inexpensive, and oh yes SUPER SUPER reliable.
Of course compatibility "plug-n-play" with existing airframes and props would be nice.
I say to all future aircraft engine designers:
"FORM, FIT, FUNCTION"
&
"I just want to tell you both good luck, we're all
counting on you.", Dr. Rumack to Ted Striker and Elaine, "Airplane"
Kart Race engines are cool and guru's brilliant, who can make good engines great, but aircraft power plants are a special bread. Kart racing is fine, but a new AIRCRAFT engine design needs specialized engineering. Besides a Go Kart BRC two cylinder two stroke is $18,500. (exit two crank engine very cool but very expensive)
Computers, CNC, Variable valve timing, 16 valves per cylinder, FADEC, Four-Double-Overhead-Cam's are all good stuff, which makes race engines cool, no doubt, but is that what's needed in an aircraft engine?
The quandary, technology vs. simplicity. How much better fuel efficiency can we get? lighter? cheaper? more reliable? That is the question. We can get over 26 mpg at three times the speed of a car, that ain't bad. How much better can it get, just from the engine?
The Falconer V12 engine in the Thunder Mustang is great. I think its made by a company Rayn involved in off shore boat engines. Any way, the Thunder Mustang is still just a "show" at Reno and it's a dedicated race engine which is not cheap. That speaks well of the good Old Lycoming and Continental. However none of these Reno engine's are really every-day, every-man engine's. I don't think we're all going to be flying behind V8 or V12 engines anytime soon. Sure we can do better, but how much?
PS: I agree AD's suck, but my O360 was made in the 70's and it has no AD's. None! Well yes I had to do inspections and replace the oil pump at overhaul and a few other minor things (Carb, prop gov oil line and fittings to steel). Still it has been fairly trouble free. I hear how some have fear and loathing for the old air-cooled engines and complain about AD's, but I've been lucky with the AD lottery I guess.
Traditional aircraft engines have had issues, sure, and an aircraft engine with pure turn key Lexus/Acura qualities (smooth, reliable, powerful) would be wonderful. I don't know if its possible to do and still keep it light and inexpensive? Regardless we can dream, but for now I want to fly.Bottom line, if you want to fly, get a Lycoming; You want to tinker and dream, build an alternative engine. Both are good fun choices depending on your definition of fun.
I'd start at the propeller, say something that will turn that prop at about 2,800 to 2,100 RPM and produce about (fill in a HP that turns you on).
The engine has to be light, compact, efficient and "relatively" inexpensive, and oh yes SUPER SUPER reliable.
Of course compatibility "plug-n-play" with existing airframes and props would be nice.
I say to all future aircraft engine designers:
"FORM, FIT, FUNCTION"
&
"I just want to tell you both good luck, we're all
counting on you.", Dr. Rumack to Ted Striker and Elaine, "Airplane"
Kart Race engines are cool and guru's brilliant, who can make good engines great, but aircraft power plants are a special bread. Kart racing is fine, but a new AIRCRAFT engine design needs specialized engineering. Besides a Go Kart BRC two cylinder two stroke is $18,500.
(exit two crank engine very cool but very expensive)Computers, CNC, Variable valve timing, 16 valves per cylinder, FADEC, Four-Double-Overhead-Cam's are all good stuff, which makes race engines cool, no doubt, but is that what's needed in an aircraft engine?
The quandary, technology vs. simplicity. How much better fuel efficiency can we get? lighter? cheaper? more reliable? That is the question. We can get over 26 mpg at three times the speed of a car, that ain't bad. How much better can it get, just from the engine?
The Falconer V12 engine in the Thunder Mustang is great. I think its made by a company Rayn involved in off shore boat engines. Any way, the Thunder Mustang is still just a "show" at Reno and it's a dedicated race engine which is not cheap. That speaks well of the good Old Lycoming and Continental. However none of these Reno engine's are really every-day, every-man engine's. I don't think we're all going to be flying behind V8 or V12 engines anytime soon. Sure we can do better, but how much?
PS: I agree AD's suck, but my O360 was made in the 70's and it has no AD's. None! Well yes I had to do inspections and replace the oil pump at overhaul and a few other minor things (Carb, prop gov oil line and fittings to steel). Still it has been fairly trouble free. I hear how some have fear and loathing for the old air-cooled engines and complain about AD's, but I've been lucky with the AD lottery I guess.
Traditional aircraft engines have had issues, sure, and an aircraft engine with pure turn key Lexus/Acura qualities (smooth, reliable, powerful) would be wonderful. I don't know if its possible to do and still keep it light and inexpensive? Regardless we can dream, but for now I want to fly.Bottom line, if you want to fly, get a Lycoming; You want to tinker and dream, build an alternative engine. Both are good fun choices depending on your definition of fun.
Last edited:
Jconard
Well Known Member
BRC is a cool company.
When I was younger, and raced the sprint 125 class, in a factory Pavesi/PCR backed deal, BRC was the sprocket of choice for us...excellent machine quality.
But, these engines produce extremely high power levels...like 55 HP from 125 CC. And they only do it for a short period. The competitive teams put in a top end at least every race weekend, and just before the final "sealing" of the engine.
I would love to see a SFC/Weight/Power equal to the Lyc/Clone, especially if it could be had for less overall system weight and complexity, but sadly haven't see it yet.
I am not sure if the racing paradigm really fits aircraft use...parts are replaced well before failure, and budgets are extreme. Super high outputs are expected, within the rules (mostly), and any sense of long term reliability is simply not an object.
I would never use the same approach in a high wing loaded airplane.
Ross, Have you really had good luck with CIMA cylinders? I always usd to hunt for Mahle, and the last HO VW engine I built (Type 4) had "Nickies", a billet aluminium, Nicasil cylinder. I always thought of the CIMA as in the same general group as Cofap....generally to be avoided.
When I was younger, and raced the sprint 125 class, in a factory Pavesi/PCR backed deal, BRC was the sprocket of choice for us...excellent machine quality.
But, these engines produce extremely high power levels...like 55 HP from 125 CC. And they only do it for a short period. The competitive teams put in a top end at least every race weekend, and just before the final "sealing" of the engine.
I would love to see a SFC/Weight/Power equal to the Lyc/Clone, especially if it could be had for less overall system weight and complexity, but sadly haven't see it yet.
I am not sure if the racing paradigm really fits aircraft use...parts are replaced well before failure, and budgets are extreme. Super high outputs are expected, within the rules (mostly), and any sense of long term reliability is simply not an object.
I would never use the same approach in a high wing loaded airplane.
Ross, Have you really had good luck with CIMA cylinders? I always usd to hunt for Mahle, and the last HO VW engine I built (Type 4) had "Nickies", a billet aluminium, Nicasil cylinder. I always thought of the CIMA as in the same general group as Cofap....generally to be avoided.
Jconard said:
My point with all the race parallels is that we can take something proven to last at extreme outputs and rpm levels and derate the design for long life and reliability. Keep the core design and fit milder cams, springs etc., close up the bearing clearances but retain the strong quality, proven pieces.
My other point with the example small race engine companies is that you don't need a huge company with 30 engineers to design top of the class engines. I'd argue that designing winning race engines is a much taller task than designing something to run at low specific power outputs and rpm for many hours.
I agree that you don't need many of the high tech devices on today's auto engines for the aircraft task but to have the view that the basic 40 year old technology, QC and manufacturing methods of the Lycoming can't be improved on today is completely narrow minded. There are new materials and processes used today which are superior to those used in current Lycoming engines.
The big stumbling block in the cert world is the litigation angle as previously mentioned. I am frankly surprised that Textron keeps Lycoming going. With the massive judgements against them in the last few years, I don't see how that division remains profitable. Perhaps as a Legacy company and with new management and QC procedures in place, Textron sees a brighter future. I hope so. Continental has taken massive steps in the QC direction in the last 2 years (tagged crank billets is a good example with EVERY tag tested in house), I'm sure Lycoming must follow step to stay alive and keep the shareholders support. They cannot continue with any more big problems and lawsuits.
For our RV world, we don't need a certified engine, just a good one.
Had good luck with CIMA stuff, always within .0002-.0003, surface finish good. Cofap was hit and miss, QC obviously spotty. The Mahle pistons inside were always spot on. We'd often fit the pistons to liquid cooled Toyota race engines with minor mods as these were the lightest, best piston available and even when buying the entire barrel, piston kit, they were way cheaper than custom aftermarket Arias, Venolia, JE pistons. One of the small radial experimental engines uses these VW barrels and pistons. Today, we have so many suppliers of top quality custom pistons, rods, valves, springs etc. for so many different engines, you could choose popular off the shelf race parts for a clean sheet design and save huge money in development and machining costs. In many cases, these vendors have ISO certification which is probably at least as good as what Lycoming has today.
Despite what others have said here regarding CNC, CAD etc., these technologies along with RP and modelling software are HUGE leaps in cost saving during the design, prototyping and ultimate production of new engine designs. These have revolutionized industries like this. To suggest otherwise, shows a lack of currency and understanding in the state of the art today.
I think engines like the 912 Rotax have shown that Lycoming power to weight ratios can be equalled or bettered with a small geared engine. The TBO is now up to 1500 hours on these. The fact that Rotax and others have decided not to pursue the 150-200hp engine range maybe just shows that they don't think they can be profitable here with the litigation worries. If we look at the Rotax 912 certified and uncertified versions and pricing, I doubt if too many parts are different inside, the price difference is a litigation surcharge essentially.
Last edited:
Jconard
Well Known Member
I guess I always thought that the BRC Engine was originally a copy of the rotax 256 GP engine, and that they have evolved the design over the years. I always thought that original rotax jugs and gear box compnents were used, as well as cranks, rods, etc. I see that they are now manufacturing many parts to their own improved design.
When they started, I thought they were an alternate case option for those who had an investment in the rotax products.
Was it a clean sheet design?
Oh yeah its like $18-19 THOUSAND dollars for an engine package. This is without the multiple exhausts and other sundries necessary.
You would have to change alot more than tuning. For example, most racing two cycles use a single ring piston...fine for 1 hour of use, innaplicable to a 2,000 hour engine. Just an example.
The other thing to think about is maintenance. I know as an independant and later on some substantial teams, even in Kart racing, the vehicle is dissassembled and rebuilt stem to stern evr 5 hours or less.
My experience with GA is that most pilots get the oil changed, and check it once in a while, but there is no where near the scrutiny and pro active maintenance that racing involves.
The other thing is that pilots are generally not as mechanically sensitive as even the most ham fisted driver. Few drivers who lasted any length of time do the stupid destructive things to the workings that pilots do every day.
Finally the mindset of racing is weight reduction. Every rod, every fastener, right down to minimal for the limited life of the part. On the other hand a benefit of low RPM design is that parts can be super robust without much penalty.
Having torn down a few lycs, and countless Honda, TM, Pavesi, Vortex, Rotax, Porsche, Toyota and VW race engines, the result of this difference in design philosophy is very very clear.
The one area I am surprised about with Lycs is that there is no aluminum barrel, with straight Nicasil cooling. The heat transfer is great, but I suspect it would require a different stud arangment. It may shave of some weight and make it easier to cool with less air....still a high delta T direct to air, but the aluminum would sink more of the heat out of the head, and to the barrel in a quicker fashion. But, you would want full length studs from case to head, as the bottom flange would be enormous if made from aluminum.
Just a thought.
When they started, I thought they were an alternate case option for those who had an investment in the rotax products.
Was it a clean sheet design?
Oh yeah its like $18-19 THOUSAND dollars for an engine package. This is without the multiple exhausts and other sundries necessary.
You would have to change alot more than tuning. For example, most racing two cycles use a single ring piston...fine for 1 hour of use, innaplicable to a 2,000 hour engine. Just an example.
The other thing to think about is maintenance. I know as an independant and later on some substantial teams, even in Kart racing, the vehicle is dissassembled and rebuilt stem to stern evr 5 hours or less.
My experience with GA is that most pilots get the oil changed, and check it once in a while, but there is no where near the scrutiny and pro active maintenance that racing involves.
The other thing is that pilots are generally not as mechanically sensitive as even the most ham fisted driver. Few drivers who lasted any length of time do the stupid destructive things to the workings that pilots do every day.
Finally the mindset of racing is weight reduction. Every rod, every fastener, right down to minimal for the limited life of the part. On the other hand a benefit of low RPM design is that parts can be super robust without much penalty.
Having torn down a few lycs, and countless Honda, TM, Pavesi, Vortex, Rotax, Porsche, Toyota and VW race engines, the result of this difference in design philosophy is very very clear.
The one area I am surprised about with Lycs is that there is no aluminum barrel, with straight Nicasil cooling. The heat transfer is great, but I suspect it would require a different stud arangment. It may shave of some weight and make it easier to cool with less air....still a high delta T direct to air, but the aluminum would sink more of the heat out of the head, and to the barrel in a quicker fashion. But, you would want full length studs from case to head, as the bottom flange would be enormous if made from aluminum.
Just a thought.
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
AD's, Tolerance, Cost, Power to Weight ratio
What are the new process?
(There have been new processes used by Continental and Lycoming over
the years, especially the Crank forging. Ironically the new steel forging
processes caused problems? Hummm if it ain't broke......)
There's no doubt a new design will use all these tools and it will aid in accuracy and speed of development. Cost? BRC charges $18,500 for a Go-Kart ENGINE!
POWER TO WEIGHT?
At 1.5 lbs/HP for the Lyc 360, it is better than a 80hp Rotax 912UL @ 1.74 lbs/HP. The 100HP/115HP Rotax are about 1.41 lbs/HP, slightly better by 6%, but than they are only 100/115HP, not 180 HP. Also I don't want to listen to 5,800 RPM and deal with a gear box and a turbo.
GEARED ENGINES
Gearing has nothing to do with technology. Gearing is LIKE MAGIC, more RPM = more power while keeping the prop RPM down, but like everything there are tradeoffs. Aircraft engine designers have used gearing from the beginning of time; most radials are geared. A freight outfit had a twin with geared engines. You had to be very careful how you moved the throttle and not to back-drive the engine with the prop. Of course an overhaul was more money.
The debate about low RPM speed direct drive or high RPM geared is a valid one a designer can make. Besides radials, Lycoming and Continental have many geared horizontal opposed flat engine models. The Continental GO-300 turned 3,200rpm, prop 2,400 rpm @ 175 HP, used on Cessna 175's. The GSO-480 Lyc made 340 HP.
Lets say they made that V220 or 300T. It was going to weigh ridiculous heavy and cost crazy money, and they where not going to sell to individuals. Liability reason is only part of the story. The main reason they dropped out was because they could not make a better engine than a Lycoming or Continental? May be they realized an air cooled direct drive engine is a better design? Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.
DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCE
There is nothing wrong with the dimensional tolerances of a Lycoming. For some reason people think Lycs are crude, made on an anvil with a hammer by a blacksmith. Case flatness tolerances are ridiculously tight. Other tolerances are "triple ball 2" or "double ball 1" (0.0002 or 0.001). I'm sorry, I don't buy that Rotax or RBC makes better parts or hold tighter tolerances. Tolerance cost money and why a Go-Kart engine cost almost $20,000. If you think CAD/CNC alone makes engine magic and the Lycoming obsolete, it will not. It will take a better design, the tools (CNC/CAD) are incidental.
I hear complaints "Lycoming pistons are out of tolerance by 15 grams". Well I think they are matched closer than that and besides, its a 2,700 RPM red line engine, its just not critical, but from parts I have bought, granted limited experience, the piston pairs have been with in a few grams out the box. I think there's a rumor mill that makes this stuff up. The last time I heard it was from a guy who makes and sells custom Lycoming pistons. I know race guys are perfectionist and look down on regular old engines, but race tolerances in a regalar old engine is a waste.
AD's
A brand new Lycoming or ECI/Superior clone bought today will have no AD's on it and probably will not have any significant AD's in its service life. My 1970's Lyc O360 has lived a fairly limited AD life, including the crank. Yes there was the bad batch of cranks in the 90's and a recall AD/SB. It's a bummer for the few affected, but this is small blip on the radar screen of 50 years. A 50 year old crank is still fine. The only life limit is the journals dimensions. It's probably one of the most critical things in the engine, along with the rods and exhaust valves. That is why they are built like battle axes. The critical limits of a Lyc are CHT's and flying regularly.
TWO STROKE NEITHER RELIABLE OR EFFICIENT
Two stroke BRC twin crank, two cylinder race Go-Kart or Rotax two stoke engines have good power to weight ratio, but how's their reliability and efficency? No so great. I'd never fly two-stroke powered aircraft. They may be safe? Too many of my airport buddies who flew ultra lights had two strokes die on them. I don't think the two stroke Rotax models are going 1,500 hours.
WEIGHT
The weight for the Rotax 914/912 is listed at 162/141 lbs. That is great. A Lyc O235 is listed at 218 lbs, about 56 lbs more than a 914UL. However when you get to a 320/360 Lycoming the power to weight is as good or better. The down side of the Rotax is the screaming 5,800 rpms, gear box, turbo and radiator. They are maxed out little engines. Would the V220 or V300T be way better than a IO360 or 540? Who knows, we will never know, at least for the time being.
I think the V220 and V300R dropped out because they could not compete with Lycoming and Continental.
What are the new materials?rv6ejguy said:
What are the new process?
(There have been new processes used by Continental and Lycoming over
the years, especially the Crank forging. Ironically the new steel forging
processes caused problems? Hummm if it ain't broke......)
100% agree, but the design is from the brain of the designer. CNC and CAD does not mean it's good, they are just tools of the designer. CNC, CAD is state of the art, about two decades old. This is not new. I am familiar with CATIA and SOLID elements and CNC. Still its the designer not the computer. Also for example aluminum rods would be too big to fit in the case of a Lycoming, therefore they are steel. Many parts on a Lyc are Forged, which provides fatigue life. Besides aluminum on a 2,700 engines is not needed.rv6ejguy said:
There's no doubt a new design will use all these tools and it will aid in accuracy and speed of development. Cost? BRC charges $18,500 for a Go-Kart ENGINE!
What is this thing about cost and people think the Lycoming is expensive with the following prices.rv6ejguy said:
A Rotax 914UL Geared Turbo 115 hp engine COST, $26,800 (fixed prop) or $33,600 (c/s prop). Where do they get off asking those prices?
A Rotax 912 UL, 100 hp is $17,600 to $23,600!
BRC two stoke Go-Kart engines are $18,500. Are they not CAD/CNC? Why so much money? They should cost almost nothing on your theory.
The TCM IO240 (125HP) cost $19,175 and an O200 (100HP) $17,100. HP per dollar is not better. A Lycoming O235 (118HP) is $22,500 (which is more than a 160/180HP, 320/360 clone $21,300).
So much for cheaper engines. If its just a matter of a click of the mouse with some CAD program and a CNC to make chips, than why don't we have a cheap engine that does it better than a Lyc? (Hard to beat $21,000, 180HP, 2000 hour TBO and 270 lbs)
A Rotax 912 UL, 100 hp is $17,600 to $23,600!
BRC two stoke Go-Kart engines are $18,500. Are they not CAD/CNC? Why so much money? They should cost almost nothing on your theory.
The TCM IO240 (125HP) cost $19,175 and an O200 (100HP) $17,100. HP per dollar is not better. A Lycoming O235 (118HP) is $22,500 (which is more than a 160/180HP, 320/360 clone $21,300).
So much for cheaper engines. If its just a matter of a click of the mouse with some CAD program and a CNC to make chips, than why don't we have a cheap engine that does it better than a Lyc? (Hard to beat $21,000, 180HP, 2000 hour TBO and 270 lbs)
POWER TO WEIGHT?
At 1.5 lbs/HP for the Lyc 360, it is better than a 80hp Rotax 912UL @ 1.74 lbs/HP. The 100HP/115HP Rotax are about 1.41 lbs/HP, slightly better by 6%, but than they are only 100/115HP, not 180 HP. Also I don't want to listen to 5,800 RPM and deal with a gear box and a turbo.
GEARED ENGINES
Gearing has nothing to do with technology. Gearing is LIKE MAGIC, more RPM = more power while keeping the prop RPM down, but like everything there are tradeoffs. Aircraft engine designers have used gearing from the beginning of time; most radials are geared. A freight outfit had a twin with geared engines. You had to be very careful how you moved the throttle and not to back-drive the engine with the prop. Of course an overhaul was more money.
The debate about low RPM speed direct drive or high RPM geared is a valid one a designer can make. Besides radials, Lycoming and Continental have many geared horizontal opposed flat engine models. The Continental GO-300 turned 3,200rpm, prop 2,400 rpm @ 175 HP, used on Cessna 175's. The GSO-480 Lyc made 340 HP.
Lets say they made that V220 or 300T. It was going to weigh ridiculous heavy and cost crazy money, and they where not going to sell to individuals. Liability reason is only part of the story. The main reason they dropped out was because they could not make a better engine than a Lycoming or Continental? May be they realized an air cooled direct drive engine is a better design? Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.
DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCE
There is nothing wrong with the dimensional tolerances of a Lycoming. For some reason people think Lycs are crude, made on an anvil with a hammer by a blacksmith. Case flatness tolerances are ridiculously tight. Other tolerances are "triple ball 2" or "double ball 1" (0.0002 or 0.001). I'm sorry, I don't buy that Rotax or RBC makes better parts or hold tighter tolerances. Tolerance cost money and why a Go-Kart engine cost almost $20,000. If you think CAD/CNC alone makes engine magic and the Lycoming obsolete, it will not. It will take a better design, the tools (CNC/CAD) are incidental.
I hear complaints "Lycoming pistons are out of tolerance by 15 grams". Well I think they are matched closer than that and besides, its a 2,700 RPM red line engine, its just not critical, but from parts I have bought, granted limited experience, the piston pairs have been with in a few grams out the box. I think there's a rumor mill that makes this stuff up. The last time I heard it was from a guy who makes and sells custom Lycoming pistons. I know race guys are perfectionist and look down on regular old engines, but race tolerances in a regalar old engine is a waste.
AD's
A brand new Lycoming or ECI/Superior clone bought today will have no AD's on it and probably will not have any significant AD's in its service life. My 1970's Lyc O360 has lived a fairly limited AD life, including the crank. Yes there was the bad batch of cranks in the 90's and a recall AD/SB. It's a bummer for the few affected, but this is small blip on the radar screen of 50 years. A 50 year old crank is still fine. The only life limit is the journals dimensions. It's probably one of the most critical things in the engine, along with the rods and exhaust valves. That is why they are built like battle axes. The critical limits of a Lyc are CHT's and flying regularly.
TWO STROKE NEITHER RELIABLE OR EFFICIENT
Two stroke BRC twin crank, two cylinder race Go-Kart or Rotax two stoke engines have good power to weight ratio, but how's their reliability and efficency? No so great. I'd never fly two-stroke powered aircraft. They may be safe? Too many of my airport buddies who flew ultra lights had two strokes die on them. I don't think the two stroke Rotax models are going 1,500 hours.
WEIGHT
The weight for the Rotax 914/912 is listed at 162/141 lbs. That is great. A Lyc O235 is listed at 218 lbs, about 56 lbs more than a 914UL. However when you get to a 320/360 Lycoming the power to weight is as good or better. The down side of the Rotax is the screaming 5,800 rpms, gear box, turbo and radiator. They are maxed out little engines. Would the V220 or V300T be way better than a IO360 or 540? Who knows, we will never know, at least for the time being.
I think the V220 and V300R dropped out because they could not compete with Lycoming and Continental.
Last edited:
Jconard said:
The BRC engine is completely built in house now and bears little resemblance to any one else's engine. I think the original work started with Rotax components. The only point I was trying to make was that a small group of smart people could take on the might of the best big companies and beat them. Cheap? No. The fastest? Yes. The other leading engines are not cheap either. How fast do you want to go? How much money do you have? For kart racing, which was originally intended as entry level racing, I agree the price seems crazy. Where there is a market...
The Lycoming method of cylinder hold down at the base is simply made for easy replacement of individual cylinders. Not a bad idea given that cylinders sometimes go bad on them. Probably the reason why the steel cylinder. It is inferior to a through stud under tension, anchored into the main bearing saddles. It works, but is heavier and less stiff than through stud designs, making more vibration.
The Nikasil thing is interesting. European manufacturers frequently use this. (Rotax and Porsche like it) Japanese and American designers typically shun it, preferring cast in , iron liners. Certainly both work well. I could go either way on that one, cost advantage to iron along with more ring materials choices, Nikasil, like you say, offering better heat transfer with an aluminum barrel and lower weight possibly. Tension studs would be a must then.
This would be a very interesting project to be involved in. Examining the pros and cons of materials like MMC for the case, titanium rods, 2618, WMS-75 or 4032 for the pistons. Explore EN30B vs. 4340 vs. 5140 vs. nodular iron crank materials as have been so successful for GM with rolled fillets and nitrided surfaces. Plastics for the intake system, VCs etc. as used by most OEMs today, SPS type fasteners, sputtered anti friction and thermal coatings. Cryogenic stress relief vs. traditional methods. Carbon fiber gear housings. CFD modeling of the intake and exhaust flow and thermal loadings and flow. Tuned intake and exhaust systems. The list goes on.
I'd be like a kid in a candy store sorting through these details and cost vs. weight benefits.
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
The 912ULS 100Hp, fixed pitch is currently $14k, + or -. If you need the 912S certified version, it's about $4k more, but who needs that? Not us.gmcjetpilot said:
Where are you getting $23,600? Is that for a gold-plated version?
Max continuous power is 5500 RPM. Prop RPM in cruise is about 2200 RPM. It doesn't seem to me to be any worse than a O-320/360 at 2500 RPM. It will depend on the muffler used in the specific airframe.gmcjetpilot said:POWER TO WEIGHT?
At 1.5 lbs/HP for the Lyc 360, it is better than a 80hp Rotax 912UL @ 1.74 lbs/HP. The 100HP/115HP Rotax are about 1.41 lbs/HP, slightly better by 6%, but than they are only 100/115HP, not 180 HP. Also I don't want to listen to 5,800 RPM and deal with a gear box and a turbo.
Ross,
Even after throwing all your technology at the engine, you are not going to make massive (i.e. convincing) inroads into weight, power, SFC, durability or cost. It's undeniable you will acheive some headline benefits in some areas and possibly even at least a small, but hard to measure benefit in all areas, but is it enough to create a quantum shift in the industry?
Maybe, but remember that the technically best product doesn't always win. There's a huge amount of inertia in the current industry which would present a challenge even if you get everything else right.
Take a look at the current Lycosaurus users. Not a huge proportion of pilots out there world-wide know how to get the best out of them, even with the knobs they already have to turn. An even smaller, albeit growing proportion are investing in FADEC technology that can yield useful FC, range and durability benefits, but the pace if very slow.
In my opinion, you need to offer a paradigm shift in capability - range, fuel consumption, altitude performance, maintenance costs and possibly purchase price. The V300T was possibly heading in that direction and with a good FADEC delivering decent unleaded AVGAS capability it is undoubtedly the future at some time. But Rotax obviously can't make a razoo out of it - if they could, then it certainly would be in the business.
I take your point about targeting the non-certified market only, but whilst it keeps some costs under control, it doesn't eliminate liability in the US maket and it absolutely doesn't give you the volumes that viable amortization will need. Which ever way you crunch the numbers, you'll have to do it for the love of it rather than for profit - not a good way to start/run a business.
A
Even after throwing all your technology at the engine, you are not going to make massive (i.e. convincing) inroads into weight, power, SFC, durability or cost. It's undeniable you will acheive some headline benefits in some areas and possibly even at least a small, but hard to measure benefit in all areas, but is it enough to create a quantum shift in the industry?
Maybe, but remember that the technically best product doesn't always win. There's a huge amount of inertia in the current industry which would present a challenge even if you get everything else right.
Take a look at the current Lycosaurus users. Not a huge proportion of pilots out there world-wide know how to get the best out of them, even with the knobs they already have to turn. An even smaller, albeit growing proportion are investing in FADEC technology that can yield useful FC, range and durability benefits, but the pace if very slow.
In my opinion, you need to offer a paradigm shift in capability - range, fuel consumption, altitude performance, maintenance costs and possibly purchase price. The V300T was possibly heading in that direction and with a good FADEC delivering decent unleaded AVGAS capability it is undoubtedly the future at some time. But Rotax obviously can't make a razoo out of it - if they could, then it certainly would be in the business.
I take your point about targeting the non-certified market only, but whilst it keeps some costs under control, it doesn't eliminate liability in the US maket and it absolutely doesn't give you the volumes that viable amortization will need. Which ever way you crunch the numbers, you'll have to do it for the love of it rather than for profit - not a good way to start/run a business.
A
Jconard
Well Known Member
The idea I threw out was aimed slightly at weight, and more importantly at improvement in heat transfer.
In aircraft, cooling drag is a major component of speed, so the thought was to increase the rate of heat transfer, thus reducing the necessary volume of air, and increasing speed through reduced drag.
I personally am a big fan of the nickasil/aluminum option. I have seen numerous pavesi and honda 125 shifter kart engines "Stick" (55 HP from 125 cc..go figure). With that combo we could burn the aluminum chunks off of the nikasil with muriatic acid and a long q-tip...hone with a ball hone for a few strokes, and make it through the race weekend. Tough stuff.
In aircraft, cooling drag is a major component of speed, so the thought was to increase the rate of heat transfer, thus reducing the necessary volume of air, and increasing speed through reduced drag.
I personally am a big fan of the nickasil/aluminum option. I have seen numerous pavesi and honda 125 shifter kart engines "Stick" (55 HP from 125 cc..go figure). With that combo we could burn the aluminum chunks off of the nikasil with muriatic acid and a long q-tip...hone with a ball hone for a few strokes, and make it through the race weekend. Tough stuff.
Andy_RR said:
I already admitted in an earlier post that I didn't expect to make huge strides in SFC or weight over a Lycoming.
I think you underestimate the experimental market in North America. If you look at the numbers of kits being sold just from the big 5 or so, it is in the thousands per year. They all need engines.
Power to weight ratios on existing engines- remember the weight of accessories. Rotax installed weights are listed with all accessories. I figure an average O-360 with lightweight starter and alternator, mags, carb and harness is pushing close to 300 lbs. The 100 hp 912 has a slightly better power to weight ratio than a O-360. The O-235 is way heavier than a 912 or 914, Van's would have just used the O-235 in the RV12 if it was even close in power to weight ratio.
All this fear about integrated redrives seems unfounded. There have been hundreds of thousands of geared engines built over the last 60 years. Not a big deal in 2006.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Yes I agree, turbo is like free lunch
Is weight a big deal? Depends on who you talk to and if your engine is heavier. I know the alternative engine guys down play that aspect of their installations weight. I think lighter is better and the Rotax lb for lb can more claimed power per lb on PAPER. Now it would be interesting to see what the real world performance is.
I know the "Kit Fox" guys have the Rotax 912/Continental option and they find the 100HP Continental O200 climbs better than the 100HP Rotax? I don't have the weight for the Continental, but the pwr/wt ratio for the 912 Rotax is about 0.71 hp/lb, exactly what I est for Lyc O235. Clearly the tubro on the rotax 914 increases efficiency.
I always said auto engine conversions (Subaru and Mazda) should be turbo-ed. It's as close to free lunch as you get, using wasted exhaust gas pressure and heat to get more work out of your fuel. The Mazda gets the most advantage from turbo charging because it waste energy out the pipes is high. The high velocity, high EGT waste is converted into work. I THINK the rotax 914 turbo owes most of its efficiency and pwr/wt ratio to the turbo, not super design. The gearing also does not hurt.
Again "gearing" and turbo charging are both magic when it comes to increasing power to weight. I also agree gears and turbos are not to be feared, but it is something else to go wrong or maintain (may be no big deal depending on the design). It's a design phylosopy. Clearly the engine should be designed with gearing and turbo charging in mind.
What does a O200 or IO240 Continental weigh?
I agree. The 118 hp, O235 is 218 lbs (best est. dry) and the 115 hp 914 is 162 lbs (installed dry?). The ratios 0.54 and 0.71 hp/lb. That is definitely better by 24% and why the light weight LSA's almost have to use the Rotax. However in the higher HP Lycs the wt/hp ratio is more favorable. Assuming Rotax could be scaled up the power to weight advantage would be 6%. The IO340 ECI stroker has a 0.66 pwr/wt ratio.rv6ejguy said:
Is weight a big deal? Depends on who you talk to and if your engine is heavier.
I know the alternative engine guys down play that aspect of their installations weight. I think lighter is better and the Rotax lb for lb can more claimed power per lb on PAPER. Now it would be interesting to see what the real world performance is. I know the "Kit Fox" guys have the Rotax 912/Continental option and they find the 100HP Continental O200 climbs better than the 100HP Rotax? I don't have the weight for the Continental, but the pwr/wt ratio for the 912 Rotax is about 0.71 hp/lb, exactly what I est for Lyc O235. Clearly the tubro on the rotax 914 increases efficiency.
I always said auto engine conversions (Subaru and Mazda) should be turbo-ed. It's as close to free lunch as you get, using wasted exhaust gas pressure and heat to get more work out of your fuel. The Mazda gets the most advantage from turbo charging because it waste energy out the pipes is high. The high velocity, high EGT waste is converted into work. I THINK the rotax 914 turbo owes most of its efficiency and pwr/wt ratio to the turbo, not super design. The gearing also does not hurt.
Again "gearing" and turbo charging are both magic when it comes to increasing power to weight. I also agree gears and turbos are not to be feared, but it is something else to go wrong or maintain (may be no big deal depending on the design). It's a design phylosopy. Clearly the engine should be designed with gearing and turbo charging in mind.
What does a O200 or IO240 Continental weigh?
Last edited:
bumblebee
Active Member
At the risk of pulling back the curtain too far:
Auto-engine format is not necessarily the answer. VT220 was doomed from the start. Far too large/complex/heavy/costly. VT220 won't be the last one to RIP.
If it weren't for professional confidences (and binding NDA's), I could recite the status, engineering specs and likely future of every engine ever mentioned on this forum....including test results, tear-downs and props where applicable.
It's safe to say there will be a few surprises coming our way in the near future. Someone on the forum (not Ross) got lucky a while back and guessed an engine correctly without realizing it. (George will be frantically searching the archives to see if he can solve the riddle.....no clues from me).
FEA, CAD, RP, etc. are wonderful indespensible tools but in our experience, they serve mainly to produce more duds faster rather than the opposite--not necessarily a bad thing. Unless the design context is immensely sophisticated (modeling, testing, flow algorithms, probability matrices, etc.) a CAD/FEA engine stands only a slightly better chance than one designed on a slide rule. The TIME to failure is shorter, for sure .
Ross, George and Andy will appreciate this:
We use every SOTA (state of the art) tool available, yet I have 2 words for engineers who come to my office singing the praises of modern design tools as the holy grail:
Kelly Johnson.
His picture is on the wall right next to George Patton's. They are the only pictures up on the wall in the "chamber of horrors" aka Design Review.
Ross has the correct philosophy: small teams with good tools and open minds. However, when discussing entire platforms (i.e. entire engines) one needs enormous resources to bring those "small-team" designs successfully life in the shortest possible timeframe. Hyundai shipyard is a great example.
Requirements -> Design -> Build -> Test -> Lather -> Rinse -> Repeat as necessary.
Ross has come surprisingly close, with some minor exceptions, to describing a purpose-built aeroengine that is flying at this very moment. 100% designed from scratch from the crank on up. Recip. Air/liquid/oil cooled. No gearbox. No steel exc crank. No cockpit. RV powerband and size. several 000 hours w/o failure of any kind. 99%chance it'll never see commercial.rv6ejguy said:
Auto-engine format is not necessarily the answer. VT220 was doomed from the start. Far too large/complex/heavy/costly. VT220 won't be the last one to RIP.
If it weren't for professional confidences (and binding NDA's), I could recite the status, engineering specs and likely future of every engine ever mentioned on this forum....including test results, tear-downs and props where applicable.
It's safe to say there will be a few surprises coming our way in the near future. Someone on the forum (not Ross) got lucky a while back and guessed an engine correctly without realizing it. (George will be frantically searching the archives to see if he can solve the riddle.....no clues from me).
FEA, CAD, RP, etc. are wonderful indespensible tools but in our experience, they serve mainly to produce more duds faster rather than the opposite--not necessarily a bad thing. Unless the design context is immensely sophisticated (modeling, testing, flow algorithms, probability matrices, etc.) a CAD/FEA engine stands only a slightly better chance than one designed on a slide rule. The TIME to failure is shorter, for sure
.Ross, George and Andy will appreciate this:
We use every SOTA (state of the art) tool available, yet I have 2 words for engineers who come to my office singing the praises of modern design tools as the holy grail:
Kelly Johnson.
His picture is on the wall right next to George Patton's. They are the only pictures up on the wall in the "chamber of horrors" aka Design Review.
Ross has the correct philosophy: small teams with good tools and open minds. However, when discussing entire platforms (i.e. entire engines) one needs enormous resources to bring those "small-team" designs successfully life in the shortest possible timeframe. Hyundai shipyard is a great example.
Requirements -> Design -> Build -> Test -> Lather -> Rinse -> Repeat as necessary.
Last edited:
bumblebee said:FEA, CAD, RP, etc. are wonderful indespensible tools but in our experience, they serve mainly to produce more duds faster rather than the opposite--not necessarily a bad thing. Unless the design context is immensely sophisticated (modeling, testing, flow algorithms, probability matrices, etc.) a CAD/FEA engine stands only a slightly better chance than one designed on a slide rule. The TIME to failure is shorter, for sure
Well you certainly made me laugh!
Not to sound too negative but sounds like whoever you are working for is spinning its wheels in the formative stages of the concept not to mention the execution of the working design. Isn't engineering something supposed to lead to a successful conclusion? This sounds like what I was saying about waste.
Not to put a bend on the engineering profession as a whole but I have seen plenty of reasonable designs by non-engineers work and make it to the market, albeit with some flaws, while some big expensive projects with many engineers and too many micro managers at work, well awash in red ink before anything is even market ready. These die a quick death in most cases. I've seen stupid designs by both layman and engineers and I've certainly had my share of brain farts. Nobody has a corner on choosing the wrong solution path sometimes no matter how much formal education and money they might have.
We are involved with several projects from the FADEC side with the people behind them so worried that someone will steal their great ideas, the NDAs are almost the first topic of discussion. I hope a couple of these actually fly and stay in the market for people because they are pretty cool. Our experience in the past though is similar- less than half make it to market and less than half of those are a commercial, lasting success. I still cheer for all of them. Life is built on dreams, not doing the same old thing over and over.
Yep, my theoretical small team has one engineer to crunch the numbers and pick up what is not obvious. The rest are engine builders and machinists who get things done and work from vast past experiences with similar problems. They've probably seen it and solved it before. Then again, we might end up with something using the tried and proven- like the old Lycoming! The meeting room is the shop floor, not an office and no official beancounters are allowed in. Problem- poll for best solution- build it.
Do you enjoy your work? I couldn't work on projects that flop or are canceled on a regular basis, even for good money. Bad for brain health.
I like to see my ideas fly- literally.
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
I see the 914 for use in a very different mission than the O-235 / O-240. The beauty of the 914 is its ability to provide full power at altitude, where the O-235/240 are much simpler and much less high-strung. I see the 914 a great engine for use in a light airplane that will be used in / near the mountains. The RANS S-7 taildragger is such an example.gmcjetpilot said:
The 914 / RV-9 combo would be interesting, but since the cost of the O-320 is lower then the 914, it's a non-starter.
Per Mattituck, their TMX O-200 is 215 lb and the O-240 is 240 lb.gmcjetpilot said:
The cost comparisons are interesting. While we are all shocked by a $18K kart engine built in quantities of hundreds per year, many people accept a $40K Lyco 540 price built probably in the hundreds per year and with tooling and development costs theoretically paid for decades ago over many thousands of engines. Granted there are more parts and materials in the Lyco but costs should have been amortized over the last 40 years.
The quantity of scale extends to something like a GM LS-2 engine which is more sophisticated than either in terms of technology and number of parts, built by the tens to hundreds of thousands per year at $5500 in crate form, about 10+ times cheaper than anything close in the aircraft world in this hp range.
This is the main reason for auto engine core bases for aircraft use, someone else has paid for the design, development, validation and production in mass quantities. It is impossible for a clean sheet design built in quantities of hundreds to thousands per year to come close to this price point. If the package weights can come down, a well executed package would be quite attractive for many.
Aircraft engines are like putting gas in your car for most people.They don't like the price but that is the price to having and airplane and using it. People will pay, even if pricing seems high. The price of an O-360 or clone would appear to be not all that unreasonable today considering what else is available and with liability costs tacked on. It is unfortunate that much of the liability costs incurred by Lycoming in the last few years has been due to poor management/ QC and outsourcing parts in a failed attempt to reduce pricing. They were producing pretty good engines up to the late '90s or so and should have left production processes intact. Lessons learned hopefully and to get back on track soon.
I agree with the views that the V220/ V300T engines were probably too complicated but the target market was probably wrong if costs were going to be spread out over larger quantities. This hp range market is far smaller than the 150-200hp range even though there is already competition there. You are totally dependent of picking up an OEM contract to make it a go and those are elusive for most new engine manufacturers.
The quantity of scale extends to something like a GM LS-2 engine which is more sophisticated than either in terms of technology and number of parts, built by the tens to hundreds of thousands per year at $5500 in crate form, about 10+ times cheaper than anything close in the aircraft world in this hp range.
This is the main reason for auto engine core bases for aircraft use, someone else has paid for the design, development, validation and production in mass quantities. It is impossible for a clean sheet design built in quantities of hundreds to thousands per year to come close to this price point. If the package weights can come down, a well executed package would be quite attractive for many.
Aircraft engines are like putting gas in your car for most people.They don't like the price but that is the price to having and airplane and using it. People will pay, even if pricing seems high. The price of an O-360 or clone would appear to be not all that unreasonable today considering what else is available and with liability costs tacked on. It is unfortunate that much of the liability costs incurred by Lycoming in the last few years has been due to poor management/ QC and outsourcing parts in a failed attempt to reduce pricing. They were producing pretty good engines up to the late '90s or so and should have left production processes intact. Lessons learned hopefully and to get back on track soon.
I agree with the views that the V220/ V300T engines were probably too complicated but the target market was probably wrong if costs were going to be spread out over larger quantities. This hp range market is far smaller than the 150-200hp range even though there is already competition there. You are totally dependent of picking up an OEM contract to make it a go and those are elusive for most new engine manufacturers.
