What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What do You Want in An Engine

dbuds2

Well Known Member
I'm researching what alternative engine qualities, performance, and cost the average RV builder (or ~200 HP experimental builder) would require to switch from the standard Lycoming. I am an RV builder, RV8, and an engineer at a major aerospace jet and rocket engine manufacture. I am very disappointed at the cost of powerplants available. I have a passion to do for the experimental engine business what Van's (and all the other successful kit companies) has done for the experimental plane business.

What would it take in cost, weight, performance, ease of installation, completeness of package, technology, economy, reliability, customer support, etc, to make you and most everyone else switch?

I'm putting together a team of designers and analytical engineers to solve this problem if the market demand is there.

PLease let me know what you want.
 
The Sky!

While the question what do you want, is as old as Santa, the proper questions are what will the market bear in the way of R & D time, does a developer have sufficient financial resoureces to sustain the R & D effort to market and can a reliable, cost effective engine be delivered that can be repaired at any local airport in the world, by a local mechanic, in a reasonable period of time? Past attempts have proven that the cost of purchase is not necessarily the same final cost of ownership. Of all of the alternitive engines in the market, only two, Egg and Rotax, enjoy an install base the hundreds.

While I agree with your premise that engines are too expensive, the cost of ownership of a lycontinental is often, if not always, less expensive than the installation R & D ownership of an alternitive engine.

FFT: What is the actual production cost of a 4 banger lycontinental? I'll bet the profit margin will not beat the S & P 500.
 
I like the idea.

Give me 220HP in under 300 Pounds and around $15,000 or less. The dependability is a must and it will have to be able to accomodate both fixed and constant speed props. Car gas would be a benefit. A complete firewall forward package will be needed. Good luck and hope to see something soon. I will be ready in about a year and a half. Good luck.
 
Well, the key market to hit would aim between 180 and 220HP. You want to make it simple to install (aircooled has an advantage here) and very fuel efficient, running on the new 91-98 Lead-free avgas standard is probably going to be a requirement. A good engine to look for would be a redesign of a lycoming O-320 type engine with a completely different inductions and cylinder head setup. Fully electronic FI and Ignition, basically FADEC, ability to run a Hydraulic Constant speed prop. Crossflow/angle valve type head designs would probably be optimal, and I'd safely say that if enough engineering work was put into this engine, you could blow the auto conversions out of the water as far as efficiency and cost/complexity is concerned, as well as having the advantage that a FWF kit is already for the most part provided by Van's.

Honda/Continentals engine is an example of what I'm talking about, although I believe they tried to use water cooling:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030304_tcm_honda.html

That is what I'm looking for to come down the pipe. I think that is really what everyone wants, an aviation specific engine that is truely more effcient. As everyone has proved with the Egg Subie, price isn't as big a factor to some people in the market.
 
ww2planes said:
Give me 220HP in under 300 Pounds and around $15,000 or less. The dependability is a must and it will have to be able to accomodate both fixed and constant speed props. Car gas would be a benefit. A complete firewall forward package will be needed.

Make it so you can fly it upside down too! Subaru's and deltahawks don't allow negative G's.

Chuck
 
Kiss

You can't beat a monopoly. Honda and others looked at this industry and couldn't figure out how to do it, what makes you think you can? Look at Franklin and all these diesels that have been promised for years.

Alot of this isn't the engineering to build the great new engine. It's about engine mounts, firewall packages - heck, even cowling issues. Packaging and user experience. Even more is marketing.

I'd suggest a more open-software type solution. How about putting all these brains in with Egg (or the engine of your choice) and making it _THE_ perfect solution for all RV models? And 10 prop combinations. How much time does the average Egg builder spend fiddling versus an Lycosaur? The install base and testers are probably already out there for you.

Make it simple, prove it's reliable, and they will come. Volume will then fix your price problem.
 
srv said:
You can't beat a monopoly. Honda and others looked at this industry and couldn't figure out how to do it, what makes you think you can? Look at Franklin and all these diesels that have been promised for years.

Alot of this isn't the engineering to build the great new engine. It's about engine mounts, firewall packages - heck, even cowling issues. Packaging and user experience. Even more is marketing.

I'd suggest a more open-software type solution. How about putting all these brains in with Egg (or the engine of your choice) and making it _THE_ perfect solution for all RV models? And 10 prop combinations. How much time does the average Egg builder spend fiddling versus an Lycosaur? The install base and testers are probably already out there for you.

Make it simple, prove it's reliable, and they will come. Volume will then fix your price problem.

That is what APPLE before IBM thought. That is how the rail roads before the trucking industry and shipping before airlines thought. Heck Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were actually better than Word and Excel initially.

I don't disagree with perfecting what has begun [assuming whomever 'holds' that technology invites you to the table] but great innovation is often a leap-frog process then a seemingly serendipitous event pole vaults it into use.

I can't remember which great golfer quipted to someone who snidely commented at his just well placed 'lucky shot' - "yep, and the more I practice and the harder I work the luckier I get"...

Everything is replaced by the market [we don't burn whale oil at night anymore] and I think this guy doing market research is excellent. We need more not less innovators.

Oh, btw, I'd like to [and someday will] see a diesel 160-200 hp fwf package [I also believe there is a market for a diesel 1/2 that hp but I personally don't have an interest in it].

In addition to this thread I'd recommend you go and look at the engine forums here and read what has been discussed in the past and research other forums as well [there are several engine forums on Yahoo, notably Subies]. There is a rotary/wankle formum somewhere in cyber but I don't know much about it. Also look at some of the home grown experimental work being discussed at canardaviation.com

All the best,

John
 
Last edited:
My opinion: While the Sub's have a lot of promise because the engine's are so simple to run (computer controlled, yada yada....), in terms of suitability to aircraft use the Lyconentials and their clones are actually quite good and are difficult to beat in terms of simplicity, performance and weight. My only gripe with them is they are astronomically priced. Honestly, there's not more than $10,000 worth of engine there, if that.

Wanna take over the market and beat the monopoly's? Use the Japanese model...copy the technology and sell it for 1/2 price. When you do, sign me up for one.

my $.02
 
jcoloccia said:
...copy the technology and sell it for 1/2 price. When you do, sign me up for one.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I want exactly what I'm running (IO-360-A1B6) except cheaper to buy, cheaper to overhaul. In the meantime I'm sticking with what I have.
 
monopolies

Deuskid said:
That is what APPLE before IBM thought. That is how the rail roads before the trucking industry and shipping before airlines thought. Heck Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were actually better than Word and Excel initially.

... We need more not less innovators.

trucking and airlines needed huge subsidies (roads, airports and military AC R&D/orders) before they could become competitive with rail. For the most part, that's the only thing that can beat a monopoly. Gov't intervention or subsidy of your competitors.

Re WP and Lotus. Absolutely, I remember them well. And where are they now? The monopoly crushed them. Perhaps the kitplane crowd can be likened to the Apple crowd (as much a religion as anything else), but in the beginning there weren't any real competitors (IBM) in that market. Apple was a public company before IBM jumped in, but there is no doubt the true-believers kept that company afloat thru the hard parts.

Re innovators. I think I've seen a dozen on engine innovators in the last decade. What we really need are businessmen who know how to build and manage a manufacturing and services company and attract VC.

1000 kitplanes builders x Avg cost of Lyc = $25M.

Get that money going, and the engineering will take care of itself.
 
If I came up with a suitable replacement for the current engine I can't imagine selling it for $10,000. Folks would gladly gobble them up at $18000 as fast as I could produce them. The Japanese analogy is a little off. Does a honda cost half of a Ford? If the quality and performance are comparable, the price will be too. IMHO, of course.
 
My alternative engine requirements

For me to switch from a Lycom to an alternative engine it would take:
-Safety (I'm not willing to gamble on reliability. This really isn't that hard to prove. Just give the engine to Rosie and wait a few weeks!)
-Equivalent weight and HP (I'm not willing to give up payload and want RV performance)
-Complete firewall forward package (alternative engines without firewall forward kits already exist)
-Financial stability (I don't like the thought of losing a deposit to a company that goes under. Using an escrow service would be good. But long-term financial stability is more important. I'm sure I'll have some problems sometime in the future with even the best-engineered engine.)
-Price. (For me, I think it would take about a 20% discount off the Lycon. price to interest me. There is an inherent risk to using an alternative engine. You can't predict future success of the engine or the company, so there must be a financial reward to the additional risk.)

Additional decision factors:
-Ability to use any propeller. I'd like to be able to use a Harzell CS blended airfoil if I wanted to.
-Additional HP. I wouldn't mind a few extra HP if it didn't compromise payload or W & B.
 
Innovation

I love to see innovation. I wanted the subaru to work for me, but it appears to me to be too heavy for my vision of an RV-8. I would love to see a reliable diesel between 180 to 210 hp, with low weight. So far, I have seen few better options than an 0-360, or, perhaps, the new ECI IO-340X. I will be interested when you can provide an option to these two choices with equal or superior weight, cost, FWF, fuel usage, and electronic ignition, preferably carbureted, with a highly compatible constant speed, lightweight propeller. You'll need to look into a cowl design, as well.

Right now, I'm just working on the tail for my RV-8, so I'll have plenty of time to make that choice. I'm leaning to the 340 for its low weight and 185 hp, but I'd like to see some reliability data on that engine.

I wish you luck, because you are doing precisely what needs to be done. There ought to be a better way, and only the kind of work you are planning to do can let us know.
 
szicree said:
If I came up with a suitable replacement for the current engine I can't imagine selling it for $10,000. Folks would gladly gobble them up at $18000 as fast as I could produce them. The Japanese analogy is a little off. Does a honda cost half of a Ford? If the quality and performance are comparable, the price will be too. IMHO, of course.

Agreed. Actually, I meant $10,000 before the "aviation premium". $18,000 for an IO-360 angle valve is just a touch more than the 1/2 price I suggested. Show me a new IO-360 A1B6 clone for $18,000, and I'll show you at least one very satisfied customer :D
 
I was thinking of ditching the whole gas thing all together. Maybe a nuclear powered engine? Could fly years without refueling and as a bonus you could sell the spent fuel to North Korea. Either that or a big rubberband.
 
jcoloccia said:
Agreed. Actually, I meant $10,000 before the "aviation premium". $18,000 for an IO-360 angle valve is just a touch more than the 1/2 price I suggested. Show me a new IO-360 A1B6 clone for $18,000, and I'll show you at least one very satisfied customer :D
My thoughts are that of all the issues you are hearing come out in this thread that are revolving around performance characteristics of particular engine setups they are only secondary to the overwhelming issue that everyone wants. The underlying real issues I hear from everyone's posts and that I focus on is the issue of the all mighty $$$$. The "Aviation premium" has got to go.

Safety is an issue that all of us want from our airplane designs. This goes for engines also. That does not mean that I want my desire for a safe engine to cost me everything else if I want to fly. This is something that I call the "For the children syndrom". Whenever someone wants to charge a premium for something they bring out the notion that we have to "do it for the children". In the aviation world we have to pay that premium price "For the Safety". Well, I say No we don't!

I have had numourous automobiles that I have run 1,000's of hours on the engines without them breaking and quitting on me. I don't think that my paying more money for an engine is going to give me any more assurance that the engine will not quit on me someday. I would like to see a statistic that shows the percentage of Lyclones compared to the total number produced that have broken down during operation and whether the percentage is higher or lower than the percentage of automobile engines compared to the total number produced that have broken down during operation. I don't think any amount of Safety $$$ premium we would ever pay to the FAA regulators or Lyclone manufacturers or Santa himself would make an ounce of difference in the safety of one engine over the next.

So, in my opinion, the overwhelming thing you can do to jumpstart production of a new engine is

1.) Make a reliable engine (We all have different ideas of what this means. Some want carbs, mags and air cooled, others want Fuel Injection, EI and water cooled. What we all want is for it to not cough several times, spit once and die on climb out.)

2.) Make it flexible enough to meet the needs of several operating environments

3.) Make it easy to install

4.) Most importantly, make it avaiable at a purchase price that doesn't require mortgaging a house to purchase it(if a factory new Chevrolet 350 engine can cost $2000 there is no reason a factory new <Your Name Here> 350 should cost much more).

RVBYSDI
Steve
 
There is more to it than just material cost

Chevy can make/sell a 350 for a couple grand or less for a number of reasons----the design has been arround for 50 years, with only minor tweeking, so engineering costs have been recovered, the volume of production is in the millions of units annualy-----really big impact on cost here, --and very little libality costs per unit.

The available, and potential market for a new avaition engine is NOTHING compared to the Chevy's market.

Even though prices would come down for an a/c engine manufacturer who produces large volumes of engines, and consiquently gets bigger discounts from suppliers on parts and sub assemblies, and amatorizes costs over more units, etc., there is not enough market to drive the production numbers REQUIRED for a real signifiant $$$ savings.

If I were to invent/develop/produce a new "Super Whiz Bang 360", and through large production numbers-------say 25,000 units a year, that I could sell to the homebuilder market for $10,000, I would flood the market in the first two or three months, then be left holding onto millions of dollars in unsold inventory, with no forseeable market in sight.

The rate of sales drives the production volume from the output side, and that also effects the cost of production.

With all that said, I would like the same as everyone here, a safe, reliable modern, efficent engine that fits the airframe as it currently is with little to no modification, low cost, and oh yes, 260 hp for my -10.

Mike
 
Last edited:
dbuds2 said:
What would it take in cost, weight, performance, ease of installation, completeness of package, technology, economy, reliability, customer support, etc, to make you and most everyone else switch?

I'm putting together a team of designers and analytical engineers to solve this problem if the market demand is there.

PLease let me know what you want.

Jabiru seems to have taken the most realistic approach toward providing a new aircraft engine. Do you think you could be so much more succesful then them that you could have a new $15,000 200hp engine that weights no more than a current O-360? Not saying you couldn't but it does seem they had realistic goals and put out a pretty good product in a short period of time.

Overall the requirments for an airplane engine haven't changed in 100 years. There is no reason we need a huge change just because we want to use new technology. I work as an engineer in the auto industry and have to deal with engine calibration. The changes in car engines happen because the requirements for the engines change over time not just because the auto makers think it's a great idea to keep changing things. Nothing happens in the auto industry unless it's to meet a requirement or save money. Point is, auto technology doesn't always relate to valid aviation technology.

As far as a dream engine, I have to agree with some of the other people here, design your own O360. Make a few changes and use some car technology where appropriate. Pistons, con rods, valves, fuel injection, that sort of thing. Possibly make it modular so you can make a 6 cylinder. Remember to start with an AIPLANE engine design not a car engine when working on a new design.

And remember that first thing they teach you in engineering school. It's not science, it's classical solutions to new problems. The wheel has already been invented, just look for small improvements and not a totally new design.

Good Luck, I'd like to see something else out there as much as the next guy.
 
Last edited:
Your Comments are Right On the $$$$

I love the input from all experienced aviators and lovers of experimental planes. Your suggestions are all very good and as many have suggested, quite obvious. My intent for this posting is to find out which of the many engine characteristics are the most important. I will continue to collect your suggestions as long as you keep posting them. I plan to use your input to brainstorm the design with our team. This isn't a hard technical problem, it IS a tough problem to accomplish the fundamental objectives and also target the nice to haves.

I will start compiling the inputs and share on this site. :)
 
I am in the very early stages of an RV-10. I will probably buy what Van suggests, BUT, I would love a diesel. My dream engine would be a diesel that sips JetA, has a FADEC, and can stay close to the IO540 weight. I'll pay a premium above the cost of a new IO540, but not a lot.
John
 
No gear reduction

Self contained redundant electronic ignition

O2 sensor controlled fuel injection

Hydraulic and fixed prop control - automagical a plus but not absolute

180-220 HP

5-8 gph

Same weight and size as comparable Lycoming

Under $20k for firewall forward assembly

Sid Lambert
RV-7 - Wings
 
I assume you know the risks you are taking with this venture so I won?t preach about all the failed engines, fickle engine buyers, etc. that came before.

What I want is:

1. Auto engine pricing, $5K or less. Unlikely you will get there because of production volumes.
2. Fuel burns proportional or better than current automotive reciprocating engines.
3. New technology. Give me a turbine and its inherent reliability.
4. 160 to 350 Shaft HP range of engines or ECU power limited based on the application. (RV-9?s to Bonanza?s)
5. Smaller and lighter than existing recips.
6. 3000+ hour TBO
7. Hourly maintenance costs in line with auto engines.
8. Burn auto fuel, Jet A, or anything else that will burn.
9. Use common parts: alternators, starters, etc. If possible.
10. 12 and 24 Volt options
11. Top Shelf customer service. I can understand a new engine having teething problems. What I can?t understand is the manufacture disowning those customers who supported them in their early days. Dynon and Emag are great examples of companies taking care of their customers.

Nice to haves:
1. Constant speed or fixed pitch prop. Gotta keep the price down with a PF option to get as many engines in service as you can to reduce per unit pricing.
2. Local service centers. Not likely to happen with new engines and doesn?t seem to have stopped the auto conversion guys. Although they can get parts locally.

Not required:
1. Complete FWF packages will come, no need for you to develop them.

Your biggest issue will be word of mouth support. One person with a bad experience who knows how to use a computer can destroy a great product in short order.

Best of luck!
 
N941WR said:
What I want is:

1. Auto engine pricing, $5K or less. Unlikely you will get there because of production volumes.
2. Fuel burns proportional or better than current automotive reciprocating engines.
3. New technology. Give me a turbine and its inherent reliability.
4. 160 to 350 Shaft HP range of engines or ECU power limited based on the application. (RV-9?s to Bonanza?s)
5. Smaller and lighter than existing recips.
6. 3000+ hour TBO
7. Hourly maintenance costs in line with auto engines.
8. Burn auto fuel, Jet A, or anything else that will burn.
9. Use common parts: alternators, starters, etc. If possible.
10. 12 and 24 Volt options
11. Top Shelf customer service. I can understand a new engine having teething problems. What I can?t understand is the manufacture disowning those customers who supported them in their early days. Dynon and Emag are great examples of companies taking care of their customers.

Nice to haves:
1. Constant speed or fixed pitch prop. Gotta keep the price down with a PF option to get as many engines in service as you can to reduce per unit pricing.
2. Local service centers. Not likely to happen with new engines and doesn?t seem to have stopped the auto conversion guys. Although they can get parts locally.

Not required:
1. Complete FWF packages will come, no need for you to develop them.

Your biggest issue will be word of mouth support. One person with a bad experience who knows how to use a computer can destroy a great product in short order.

Best of luck!
I believe Bill has just created the "Holy Grail" list for aviation engine production. I am in total agreement with his wish list. It is a tall order but IMHO I believe this is a list that every one of us wishes he could have in his engine choice. We want to be able to do what the hot rodders all over the globe do everyday when they want to build or rebuild a street machine with some character and performance. Like them, we want to be able to do it on a normal working man's salary.

My thoughts are that the "better mousetrap" is not just in the creation of a new engine design (which, if could be done, would be quite a breakthrough) but rather it is also in the development of a new pricing structure that would allow for a drastic reduction in the cost of the engine product (it goes without saying that this would be as big a breakthrough as would be a new engine design).

I join with Bill in wishing you Best of Luck,
RVBYSDI
Steve
 
re: monopolies, pricing and busting into the market

Something occured to me last night while I was looking at all the new glass panel stuff out there. Anyone who thinks it's not a viable business model to market high quality aviation "stuff" cheaply needs to have a look at the revolution in glass panel/autopilot technology. Today, you can buy a Dynon for $2,000, a dual screen GRT for < $10,000, a 2 axis autopilot for <$4,000 etc etc etc.

People have recognized the market for cost effective avioncs and competition takes care of the rest and maintains the low pricing. Someone will eventually do the same for engines.
 
vanplane said:
These might well be adapted to basic aircraft engines -- which do the job so well that 50 years of new designs have not dethroned them --and improve them.
Oh I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that the existing "basic aircraft engines" have not been dethroned because they "do the job so well". I think they have not been dethroned because there are so many government regulations and fearmonging amongst the manufacturers and supporters of old technology. These entities and individuals have done everything in their powers to deny a level playing field for new technologies to take hold in the market.

RVBYSDI
Steve
 
I want a cost effective turbine (oxymoron??) that burns no more than 10-12gph in cruise, delivers 200mph cruise, loooooooooong TBO (>3000), easy to operate, and simple to maintain. Innodyn is working on this, but they aren't there yet... :D Sorry, had to throw this in. I still listen to that start sequence video frequently... :rolleyes:
 
Drop the prop!

One additional thought.

Why does a new engine have to have a prop? Why not just make a turbojet engine?

I suspect we could ask Van's to design the RV-13 as a single engine two place jet?

Think about it, no more shock cooling, prop strikes, spinners, etc.

The only worry would be FOD.
 
Build it your self

Do you guys believe that many kit builders would tackle the job of assembling their engine? If there was a complete kit of Lyclone parts, with some of the newer accessories (FI, Pmag, etc), would you put it together?
 
dbuds2 said:
Do you guys believe that many kit builders would tackle the job of assembling their engine? If there was a complete kit of Lyclone parts, with some of the newer accessories (FI, Pmag, etc), would you put it together?
This is a hard question to answer. IMHO I think it depends on the EAA chapter.

When I lived in NJ 11 years ago it was a badge of honor to rebuild your own engine.

Here in NC my chapter looks at me like I'm crazy when I tell them about the work I have done on my engine. All I keep hearing is, "Buy an Lyclone from so and so!"

That said, Heck yes, I'll put together a kit engine, if the price is right but 17,000 bucks isn't right.

You get it down to the $10,000 range w/o accessories and I think you will be so busy selling them that you won't be able to build them fast enough.
 
Last edited:
U-build it motor...

dbuds2 said:
Do you guys believe that many kit builders would tackle the job of assembling their engine? If there was a complete kit of Lyclone parts, with some of the newer accessories (FI, Pmag, etc), would you put it together?

I say yes... why not? You are already building the plane... why not the motor? Look at the Aero-Vee's that so many folks are putting in their Sonex'. If they can do a basic 80 hp for $5,995... why not a 125hp for 7 - 8K and maybe a 160 - 180 hp. for 9 - 10K?

Clear instructions - preferably a detailed builders video will help even a novice.

Just remember the KISS principle. I don't need to be on the cutting edge. Those that want to spend big buck for high tech can do so elsewhere or as an option.
 
Build it myself? You bet.

Make a semi-Lyclone kit and use some already existing and robust tractor/auto parts in it. Make it modular with parts commonality (cylinders, rods, pistons...), offer a little four banger (80hp) a big four banger (150-180hp) and a six banger (200-260hp), as a box of parts, with a video, manual and incrementally priced to not exceed $12k and you'd be in business. Fuel it via off-the-shelf automotive black box magic, cool it by air (hey, it's all I know), spark it ala Lasar with redundant failover to magneto, let it flow oil and gas inverted and march thusly forth into aviation nirvana.

It should NOT cost $20+K to power a homebuilt airplane of any make or model. It's downright painful to finish the airframe and know that the financial impact has only just barely begun.
 
Making money in aviation

dbuds2 said:
I'm researching what alternative engine qualities, performance, and cost the average RV builder (or ~200 HP experimental builder) would require to switch from the standard Lycoming. I am an RV builder, RV8, and an engineer at a major aerospace jet and rocket engine manufacture.
Great idea, every one knows you always usually can make lots of money in aviation businesses. :rolleyes:

Seriously, to change, as good of a value, better performance, efficency, lighter weight, with the simplicity of a Lycoming; than you would have something. It has to bolt into the RV airframe with no major change in the airframe or systems. Van's airframe kit is designed around an AIR COOLED Lycoming engine.

Also there's a huge amount of accessories and parts available for the Lyc. Will your new engine use standard accessories for the Lyc, like a hydraulic constant speed prop. The Lyc has electronic ignition, exhaust and props from at least 4 or more independant sources available.

Physics gets into the way.

I disagree with your premise that a Lycoming is too expensive. I think the Lycoming is a bargain. Once you research this you'll find it's a bargain. I have been in aviation for 20+ years; nothing is cheap in aviation and never has been.

Pilots tend to be cheapskates in somethings and Donald Trump in others, e.g. the $14,000 EFIS display is OK but a $20K engine is too much. A new engine will last at least 2,000 hours. What's the most you fly in a year? 100 hours, may be. That's 20 years of flying! Lets say it's half, 10 years. That is a long time. Lets say in 10 years the core is worth $5k. So $15k/2000 hours = $7.50 / hr. $7.50 and HOUR! What a good deal. Also the resale of your RV will be higher with a Lyc (or clone) than a superskyscooter3000 engine.

Unless you invent a new technology there's nothing new under the sun in fossil fuel engines.

If you're a bargain hunter get your hands greasy; hunt for a good core and rebuild it yourself, which is a great learning experience. There are O320H2D's and O320A's out there at a bargain prices. This is what you'll have to compete with if you make an new alternative.

It's a huge investment to come up with a new engine, unlikely to ever be recouped. There's an army of past and present alternative engine makers taking on Lycoming that resulted in nothing. You should research the failures and current crop of want to be's. None of the latest, greatest, best engines ever have come to market. All cost more than a Lyc, for the same or less performance and efficency. (they all weight more)

Current experimental "alternatives" involve auto engine cores with adaptation and compromises to make it work in a plane. Most popular are the Mazda and Subaru conversions and some V6 conversions. As an engineer you can understand "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

Yes water cooling is better, but fitting radiators into the airframe is problematic and draggy. An aircraft has an abundance of cooling air, therefore air cooled engines make engineering sense. The fastest Reno racer, P-51 water cooled? Nope it's an air cooled Hawker Sea Fury.

Bottom line there's nothing you could offer that would make me change from my Lyc based aircraft. I personally don't think there will ever be a superior engine in our life time for a little GA plane.

(From your last post you are leaning to making a Lyc clone kit. I agree with that. However ECI offers a kit for mid teens. Although popular perception is a Lyc engine is crude, in fact the manufacturing and quality tolerance are quite high requiring advanced casting, machining and metallurgy. Per my fist paragraph you will not make lots of money. In fact Lycoming, ECI and Superior are not getting rich. The profit margin on aviaion is not huge. I would sooner start a eBay business than aerospace one.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your continued opinions

I can't dissagree with many of the postings. There are no free lunches and you can't get something for nothing. The Lycoming engine is proven, old technology. My intuitions says there has to be an equal or better and less expensive solution. I'll keep thinking about it.
 
Obviously, a 200 hp turbine with perfect reliability, 150 lbs and a $200 price tag would be peachy.

More realistically, I want something that is no more expensive than a Lycoming, no more heavy than a Lycoming, more mechanically reliable than a Lycoming, easier to operate than a Lycoming (single-lever) and more fuel efficient than a Lycoming.

That's got to be doable in the 21st century. Maybe somebody will get around to actually doing it. Mistral isn't quite there in the fuel economy category.
 
Alternate Engines

dbuds2 said:
I can't dissagree with many of the postings. There are no free lunches and you can't get something for nothing. The Lycoming engine is proven, old technology. My intuitions says there has to be an equal or better and less expensive solution. I'll keep thinking about it.
undefinedundefined

I know it will be a shock to the list but we have been flying V series engines for over 24 years, In the beginning it was a different story, but now we refer to them as Liquid cooled V series with an elastomeric coupling to the prop. Ok so it's belts. The only belt failures were self induced in the early days. We fly out of Las Vegas, so the temps are just about as warm as you can get with the exception of Lancaster. Our single radiator works just fine because it was engineered for the total system. Thanks for letting me get this out.
Jess
 
dbuds2 said:
I can't dissagree with many of the postings. There are no free lunches and you can't get something for nothing. The Lycoming engine is proven, old technology. My intuitions says there has to be an equal or better and less expensive solution. I'll keep thinking about it.
There have been many responses that I agree with here. The real trick is to make a profit on a product that will cost the consumer half of what it currently costs him now to put an engine in his plane. If you can come up with a business plan that will allow you to make money on an engine that is as reliable as. . ., or better than. . .; performs as well as. . ., or better than. . .; does all things as well as. . ., or better than. . . the Lyclones everyone uses now, then you will do well. Of course the real problem is being able to produce such an engine at half the cost and still make enough money to keep doing it over a long enough period of time to allow you to make a living doing it.

Jess Meyers said:
undefinedundefined
I know it will be a shock to the list but we have been flying V series engines for over 24 years, In the beginning it was a different story, but now we refer to them as Liquid cooled V series with an elastomeric coupling to the prop. Ok so it's belts. The only belt failures were self induced in the early days. We fly out of Las Vegas, so the temps are just about as warm as you can get with the exception of Lancaster. Our single radiator works just fine because it was engineered for the total system. Thanks for letting me get this out.
Jess
Jess, tell us more details about this engine. Have any websites to look at? Pics to view? Details, Details Details. Always welcome exploring numbers. Do you have any to offer this forum on this engine?
 
Alternate Engines

RVbySDI said:
There have been many responses that I agree with here. The real trick is to make a profit on a product that will cost the consumer half of what it currently costs him now to put an engine in his plane. If you can come up with a business plan that will allow you to make money on an engine that is as reliable as. . ., or better than. . .; performs as well as. . ., or better than. . .; does all things as well as. . ., or better than. . . the Lyclones everyone uses now, then you will do well. Of course the real problem is being able to produce such an engine at half the cost and still make enough money to keep doing it over a long enough period of time to allow you to make a living doing it.

Jess, tell us more details about this engine. Have any websites to look at? Pics to view? Details, Details Details. Always welcome exploring numbers. Do you have any to offer this forum on this engine?
Yes but it would be commercial. Our site is http://www.beltedair.com/ We have been using the V series Buick V-8 from Dec. 1982 in the Swift then in 1996 We installed the V-6 Chevrolet in the RV and have been flying it since. We are now running tests for Vari-Prop which is a self contained electro hydraulic prop adaptable even to other engines that don't have a hollow shaft. The numbers are quite impressive, we will be out in the am tomorrow flying more flights. We can get the DA of 8500 in the pattern after 9am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dreaming

WE all have our opinions, but something I find interesting is that most all the previous entries here were still opting for avgas or unleaded autofuel spark ignited engines. Why? These types of fuel cost more to refine, and are less thermodynamically efficient than a diesel/avtur compression ignition engine. The heavier fuels are also less volatile, thus safer, and denser so you get more calories per volume of tank, meaning less space required for tanks or more energy available in your current tank. Avtur/diesel is available in huge volumes for the industrial and jet aviation markets, so economies of scale are there. The refining of the heavier fuels, as I understand it, is also less energy intensive, so less fuel is burnt to make the product in the first place. The high octane fuels were developed for the demands of the military and huge volumes were made in refineries built to service the military and civil aviation markets (without regard for cost), but they have moved on, we must to, and the sooner the better.

A diesel engine doesn't need spark plugs at $20 each, or magnetos/electronic iginitions to fail. They like to run slow, so no reduction gearbox like most auto conversions need.

I'd like a two stroke ~200hp turbo diesel air cooled direct drive with mechanical fuel injection running at 2500rpm all day. Make it a horizontally opposed 4 or 6 cylinders, using a proprietary supercharger (Whipple?) so it will fit in a similar space to the current engines. Add standard spec accessory drive pads to accept vac pumps/alternators/governors as desired.

I know the diesels have been coming for years without much of an arrival, but I do think they are the future of GA. And so does Lyc and Cont I think, thus the burst of activity in the Lyclone market in the last few years. Why didn't people build Experimental clones before recently? Threat of lawsuits for stolen intellectual property or patent infringements from the monopoly holders. Now the writing is on the wall for avgas and the big manufacturers are happy to cash in whatever they can with the established technology. It is standard marketing in practice - sell the product for a premium on High Street one day, and then sell volume at Walmart the next when the technology or newness has had its day.

Don't get me wrong, I like my Lycoming for its "Elegant Simplicity' (??), but a diesel could be more elegant and simple.
 
johngoodman said:
Unless you invent a new technology there's nothing new under the sun in fossil fuel engines.



You are probably right, but this engine by Axial Vector sure looks interesting: http://www.axialvectorengine.com/


I went ahead and contacted the Axial Vector folks and got a quick response. Not what I wanted to hear but honest:

"Dear John:

Our plan calls to license to major companies only

Thank you for your interest in our company" :(
 
Sounds to me like what most people want is a simple, cheap, reliable
~200hp engine. This is clearly possible, because from a complexity standpoint, there isn't anything terribly complex about the O-360.

I think the major hurdle would be design and prototyping costs. 3D CAD design and simulation will take you a long way in this arena, but when it's time to manufacture, you need to go where it's cheapest. This may rub some people the wrong way, but you could do your production in China or India for a lot less than you could here in the USA.

Here's a question, without meaning to hijack the thread: If you could buy a Lyclone made in China/India/Indonesia for $5k that had a 2000hr TBO, would you?

One of the reasons you can't right now is because those countries aren't known for their encouragement of civilian experimental aviation, but if one was available I certainly would, if it met the requirements below:

1. Weight and form-factor similar to the (I)O-360. If liquid-cooled,
less the coolant, rads and plumbing required to ditch the heat of
200hp, and capable of fitting in the same space. Nobody wants
to cut up their cowling or engine mount if they don't have to,
and not everyone can even if they wanted to.

2. 2000hr TBO. As an early adopter, I'd settle for 1200hrs with a
vendor-supported teardown and inspection with discounted
upgrades or repairs.

3. Cheap. There is no reason an engine has to cost 30,000 dollars.
There just isn't that much metal in it and manufacturing capacity
is becoming a global commodity. With all the bells and whistles,
it should cost less than 10k. GM's LS6 can be had for less than 6k,
and it's certainly not their highest volume engine product. Of
course, this is just for the long-block. but you don't need much more
than that in an aircraft application.

4. Uses a Lycoming-style dynafocal mount, for easy installation with
existing kit parts. See #1.

5. Solid-state distributorless electronic ignition. There are enough
aftermarket ECU's on the shelf to choose from without having to expend
a ton of money developing one, and if I don't like the one you bundle
with the engine, I can delete it and buy the one I want.

6. Aerobatic capability as part of the standard design. Don't split your
design/prototyping efforts for two different markets. Make it up in
volume.

7. Vendor support. Hopefully you never need it, but there needs to be
someone around to pick up the phone when you have technical questions
or you need to send something back.

8. User-servicable, Soviet style. You want people to be able to tear this
engine down and put it back together with Wal Mart and Pep-Boys tools
without fear of upsetting some finicky nano-tolerance, and you want
the service manual to be concise, accurate, complete, and very well-
illustrated.

9. No PSRU. This engine should be able to employ a fixed-pitch wood
prop just as easily and safely as a typical certificated constant-speed
prop.

10. Option for Constant-speed prop. By option, I mean It's ready for it,
but you don't have to use it. Add it later without needing a new
crankshaft and case. Use off-the-shelf C/S governors and other
hardware.

Maybe this is a bit much to ask, but if I could carve this from a solid block of unobtanium, I would.
 
import lycomings

John Courte said:
... This may rub some people the wrong way, but you could do your production in China or India for a lot less than you could here in the USA.

Here's a question, without meaning to hijack the thread: If you could buy a Lyclone made in China/India/Indonesia for $5k that had a 2000hr TBO, would you?
I guess if you have to ask this question, you have not been looking at the "made in china" tags on all the other things you have bought lately! :)

People will buy the cheapest thing that they perceive will do the job for them, no matter who makes it, or where it is made.
 
you're right, Mickey. I guess what I was feeling out was whether or not the experimental community has any qualms about flying behind developing-world-manufactured equipment, which is often regarded as cheap and poorly made. Tools, of course.. Everything in my shop was manufactured in the US 30 years ago or China 2 years ago.

If there's some quantifiable way to measure manufacturing and materials quality before it gets released into the wild, I'd have no problem with it. But multiple thousands of hours of documented run-time are the only thing that matter to some folks, and that's fine.. It helps us all get taken a little more seriously when we say we're building airplanes in our garages.

With auto conversions, especially the Subarus, the manufacturing process is stable and a lot of the R&D is already done, it's just not purpose-built for our app, like the Lycs, so we work around that. Until something better AND cheaper comes along, I'll be flying behind the H6.

Seriously, though, what would be a ballpark figure for prototyping a 4- or 6- cylinder engine of any stripe, not just aircraft?
 
John Courte said:
Seriously, though, what would be a ballpark figure for prototyping a 4- or 6- cylinder engine of any stripe, not just aircraft?

Actually, if someone was going to be doing the 'China engine thing.' I think the best way to go would be to clone a Lycoming. A good idea - I just don't know how the volumes work out.
 
John Courte said:
Here's a question, without meaning to hijack the thread: If you could buy a Lyclone made in China/India/Indonesia for $5k that had a 2000hr TBO, would you?

Yes, absolutely. If there are two more or less equal products, and the USA made product is competetively priced (it's allowed to be more...just not orders of magnitude more) I'll buy American.

In general, though, if some other country had a blow out product that had the same performance and was significantly less expensive, I'd certainly buy that product instead. It's capitalism at work. Eventually, our own industry would play catchup and resolve the imbalance, just like our auto industry did. I'm a "Buy American" man through and through, but I'm not into coporate welfare. If it was China specifically, I'd have to think about it for reasons which I won't get into here.

I fear it won't ever happen with GA, though. There's just such a ridiculously low volume that it's just not worth it. Also, aircraft engines are one trick ponies. They're totally unusable in anything else unless you happen to have a 100+ MPH breeze handy. This is sorta' the alternative engine problem in reverse (trying to use auto conversions in aircraft....possible, but the environment is completely different than anything these engines were ever designed to see).

Maybe someone will come up with a modular engine that can do things like swap back and forth between air cooled/liquid cooled, etc, but the components themselves are designed to mount interchangebly. I don't even know how that could be made to work and it's probably a ridiculous concept anyhow. Point is, there might be some hope of being able to design one engine that could be used in aircraft and boats, for example. That would be significantly more volume and may make it worth it for someone to pursue.
 
What if you built a new case and just used pistons, cylinders and heads from an existing, high-volume engine like many of the air-cooled motorcycle engine still out there? You'd only really to develop the stuff between the cylinders then, and you'd still have the simplicity of an air-cooled engine.
 
Back
Top