The No Alternative section

[rv7charlie]

I find it fascinating (euphemistically speaking) that every time someone mentions anything other than a Lyc on this *alternative engines* page, there's a flurry of activity from Lyc users relating the one instance of something they heard about that makes whatever product mentioned the very thing that will cause a rapid slow death for everyone in a 10 mile radius.

If us alt engine guys did this every time there was a Lyc failure, you wouldn't be able to find anything else on the Lyc page.

Anecdotes do not define a product. I've got my own story about Franklin, too. But the months spent trying to get it working correctly were caused by using incorrect parts in the overhaul (by an A&P); not by the engine itself.

Want to hear a few Lyc stories? Are you willing to assign the same weight (condemning the entire product line) to those stories that you assign to all the 'alternative' products? If so, you need to find a new hobby, 'cause flying a Lyc will kill you quick.

Charlie

[flightlogic]

I sure know a lot of pilots in the backcountry... being pulled along by Franklins. Been doing it for years.

[g zero]

Show me a cost effective alternative to a Lycoming or Continental that's proven itself FLYING ( not on a test cell ) for 1000 hrs .... I'm all ears .

Maybe if I was building a plane to "Tinker " with and never fly it out of the pattern I would be interested in some alternative power plant , but I'm like 99% of Vans customers who want a reliable cross country aircraft .

[rv7charlie]

And.... the saga continues.

[g zero]

Originally Posted by rv7charlie

And.... the saga continues.

What are you flying with ? Did the Franklin get many hours on it ?
If not too many why ?

[YellowJacket RV9]

I for one am glad there are people willing to experiment and push the boundaries. It's 'Experimental Amateur Built', not 'Bone stock plug-and-play Amateur Built'. As long as people are understanding of the risks and the amount of time and effort required, good on ya. Reliability statistics aren't everything, and I'd venture to say that not many advances in aviation were extremely reliable at first.

Chris

[rv7charlie]

Flying a Lyc powered -4; building a Mazda Renesis powered -7. The Franklin reference was to a liaison a/c restored by the local CAF chapter.

I've got 25 years of experience with failed mags, carbs, cylinders, etc on Lycs, with virtually zero failures in automotive engines during that time. And don't give me that bull about Lycs being designed to run at full power all the time. They just aren't. They are designed to have a power rating that's about 1/2 to 1/3 what the core could produce (at a lifespan that couldn't come close to being called 'reliable').

The point of the thread is that this is the *alternative engines section*. Most of us actually involved in alternative engines realize that they are almost always one-off projects that will require tinkering, and that they haven't had the decades of proving that Lycs have had. You aren't telling us anything we don't already know. It baffles me that so many people are so fixated on telling everyone else that they must not be different from them. What's the problem; no confidence in your position? Afraid that if someone tries something different you'll discover that you were wrong?

If we alt engine guys spent as much time running down Lycs as you Lyc guys spend calling us idiots, we'd get 'moderated' off the forum for uncivil behavior. (hint...hint) [ed. Only those not following the posting rules get 'moderated off'. By me. <g>, dr]

[rbibb]

The great thing about this sport, hobby, obsession, or affliction (depending on your personal point of view) is that we enjoy the freedom to, well, experiment should we be so inclined.

I've never understood the need apparently to convince others that a partiular path is "right" and therefore that other choices are "wrong".

C'est la vie.

I like my Lycoming because I got it for a good price and was able to overhaul it myself. Chose not to buy a new one not because it was a bad idea but because I couldn't afford it at the time.

To each his own. Personally I wish my airplane a a Merlin or a P&W engine in it. But a Lycoming or a Briggs and Stratton suite me fine as long as it flies. That is what is important.

These RVs have gotten so advanced we've run out of things to talk about wrt building them.

[hohocc]

I've noticed similar thread drifting whenever the primary topic is either "weight reduction/control" or "my alternator is less than 40 amps with no secondary alternator".

[Jordan1976]

Originally Posted by rv7charlie

And don't give me that bull about Lycs being designed to run at full power all the time. They just aren't. They are designed to have a power rating that's about 1/2 to 1/3 what the core could produce (at a lifespan that couldn't come close to being called 'reliable').

I don't think you are doing your point any favors by trying to disparage the traditional engines as poorly designed. The idea that a naturally aspirated 360 cubic inch engine (5.8L) could produce 600 HP at 2,700 RPM reliably and afford-ably is pretty aggressive. That's just over 100 HP per liter, something naturally aspirated street cars only achieved first in about the year 2000 (and at 8,000+ RPM).

At 2,700 RPM, that would be a BMEP of 490 PSI, well over 2X the BMEP that a Nascar or F1 engine runs at, and deep into the territory of never been done.

The goal of an aircraft engine is not HP per liter. It's a combination of size, weight, fuel efficiency, reliability, and of course the ability to turn a propeller at subsonic speeds.

You'll do better advancing the "alternative" engine world by finding a proving a design that can actually put out the power and reliability you state a Lyc engine doesn't have rather than just stating it doesn't.