The No Alternative section

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Speaking of hostile.......................................

Please look again, Mike. I edited the post immediately because I didn't want it misinterpreted. Should have included the smiley before I hit 'send'.

Apologies to Sam & the list if that seemed hostile.

Charlie

[sblack]

Originally Posted by SHIPCHIEF

That's easy to explain;
Rutan was into aerodynamic advancement. It's best to make changes incrementally, so traditional power would be the way to go.
People that develop power plants want well proven airframes.

One of Rutan's failures, (his words, not mine) was the Pond Racer. it failed because they were never able to get the V6 nissan racing engines to work reliably. Getting an auto conversion to run well, be economical and deliver the power of a lyc is not easy. I would never try to discourage a technically adept experimenter from pursuing it, but I definitely would try to discourage a person new to the hobby who is not even a pilot and has never so much as changed the oil in his lawnmower from going in that direction (and I know guys like that) because they will get burned (figuratively or literally). In many cases they are driven in that direction by colorful advertising in Kitplanes and nothing else.

Just to build a stock RV with an O-320 is way more work than people realize who have never done it. To add to that an engine that the vendor himself might never have flown behind makes success that much more improbable. So people who do try to breath some reality into those dreams are not necessarily being negative. They are trying to prevent heartbreak, bankruptcy or worse. It's not necessarily malicious or disrespectful in many cases.

On the other hand there are talented, technically savy people who have accomplished great things. For you guys blasting around in a mazda in an RV my hat is off to you. You got it all to work - you have even more tenacity than us guys who just built the airplane.

One thing about rotax, they have succeeded in delivering better power to weight than the tranditional engines. That's why they are in all the LSAs. The 912 is very light for its output. But it is complex and expensive. It's hard to have it all.

[ed. I hope this doesn't cause any thread drift, Scott, but when you mentioned the Rutan Pond Racer I had to stop and reflect on just how beautiful that airplane was. In my humble opinion it was every bit as beautiful as the Bugatti 100 racer. Rest in Peace, Mr. Rick Brickert. dr]

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by sblack

One of Rutan's failures, (his words, not mine) was the Pond Racer. it failed because they were never able to get the V6 nissan racing engines to work reliably. Getting an auto conversion to run well, be economical and deliver the power of a lyc is not easy. I would never try to discourage a technically adept experimenter from pursuing it, but I definitely would try to discourage a person new to the hobby who is not even a pilot and has never so much as changed the oil in his lawnmower from going in that direction (and I know guys like that) because they will get burned (figuratively or literally). In many cases they are driven in that direction by colorful advertising in Kitplanes and nothing else.

On the other hand there are talented, technically savy people who have accomplished great things. For you guys blasting around in a mazda in an RV my hat is off to you. You got it all to work - you have even more tenacity than us guys who just built the airplane.

One thing about rotax, they have succeeded in delivering better power to weight than the tranditional engines. That's why they are in all the LSAs. The 912 is very light for its output. But it is complex and expensive. It's hard to have it all.

[ed. I hope this doesn't cause any thread drift, Scott, but when you mentioned the Rutan Pond Racer I had to stop and reflect on just how beautiful that airplane was. In my humble opinion it was every bit as beautiful as the Bugatti 100 racer. Rest in Peace, Mr. Rick Brickert. dr]

The Pond Racer's engines were initially bedeviled by EMI gremlins in the ECUs early on, the same as what Formula 1 engineers were facing in the mid '80s. Later on, when those problems were licked, I believe the oil cooling was too good and they had problems getting it up to temperature. The latter should have been easy to solve with a $50 oil thermostat like we use today.

The basic Electramotive developed VG30 engines were very reliably outputting over 800hp in the Nissan GTP cars at this time. It seems many things were lost in translation from the car to the tight aircraft cowlings however and the Pond's engines suffered many problems. They'd switched from gasoline to methanol I believe too plus had the PSRUs as well, so the package was quite different from the car.

I've never managed to talk with anyone directly involved with the engine development in the aircraft, would be a fascinating story I'm sure.

It was really leading edge technology at the time and Reno has seen nothing like it since really. I saw it fly at Reno and it sounded truly wonderful with both props in synch. It was a real shame and shock to lose both Rick and the Pond Racer there.

These days, what it takes is understood to a much higher degree and we have thousands of auto powered aircraft working very well worldwide- VW, Subaru, Chevy, Ford, Suzuki, Honda, Corvair, Mazda etc. The RV world just does not generally know much about that world. When they are done right, they are certainly cheaper to buy and operate than Lycomings- the track record is there now to prove that from a number of sources. When done wrong, they are a nightmare on a quick ticket to removal in many cases.

It hasn't been an easy journey for many, for others, they got almost everything right the first shot. My hat's off to all those who stuck with it and are now enjoying the fruits of their labor.

[sblack]

There is a guy in our RAA chapter who built a zenith 601 with a subi. He budgeted 6 months and $7k. It took 2 yrs and $14k because of all the dead ends he went down. He put a bunch of hrs on it, like 400+ and it had some interesting advantages, like lots of available cabin heat in winter. But it did not end up being cheaper than an o200 and it required a lot of maintenance. It was great to hear his objective presentation of real world results, some pro, some con, from a guy who had done it rather than just the back and forth of opinions of those who have not, like myself. Opinions are like....well...you know the rest of that saying.

Ross, what are the conversions in the 150-180 hp class that are proven and turn key and cheaper than a lycoming? I don't know of any but I have not really looked in to it. I would be curious.

I scratchbuilt an rc model of the pond racer. Back in the 90s. It looked amazing in the air and flew like it was on rails. Very sad that the real one was lost.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by sblack

There is a guy in our RAA chapter who built a zenith 601 with a subi. He budgeted 6 months and $7k. It took 2 yrs and $14k because of all the dead ends he went down. He put a bunch of hrs on it, like 400+ and it had some interesting advantages, like lots of available cabin heat in winter. But it did not end up being cheaper than an o200 and it required a lot of maintenance. It was great to hear his presentation to real world results from a guy who had done it rather than just the back and forth of opinions of those who have not, like myself.

What are the conversions that are proven and turn key and cheaper than a lyc?


I scratchbuilt an rc model of the pond racer. It looked amazing in the air and flew like it was on rails. Very sad that it was lost.

There are no current, proven reliable turn key vendor offerings of alternatives in the 150-200hp class besides Belted Air Power http://www.beltedair.com/ with the Chevy 4.3 but not sure if you can get the entire package. The site does not appear to have been updated for around 5 years. Maybe Jess will pipe in here. Most alternative engine packages are in the sub 130hp class like the VW (Aerovee/ Sonex, Great Planes, Revmaster etc.), Corvair (Azalea Aviation, WW), Suzuki (Raven Redrives, AirTrikes), Subaru (RAM Engines) and Honda (Raven Redrives, Viking).

In the higher hp area, Titan Aircraft were doing V6 Suzuki and V6 Honda engines for their own kits but seem to be concentrating on an LS based V8 now. Robinson offers LS based engines as does AutoPSRU (used to be Geared Drives) and Supermarine Aircraft.

The key to a 540 replacement is probably some lightweight LS based engine with a proven, low cost redrive like Jeff is using in the P85. Should be weight competitive with the IO-540s and offer at least 50 to 100 more hp at the same time. Looks possible to do a FF installation for about $15K if you DIY. There are a handful of RV10s flying with these engines.

[Tomcat RV4]

I think two problems I have noticed is some builders think they are better than factory that built eng.I am using stock (except clearances) Subaru 2.5 with SDS ignition/fuel injection control (as they have RV6) and have suplying racing/aircraft for 20 + years.Trying to modify auto computor for aircraft is folly at best.Other problem is mickey mouse cooling setups that cause failure of auto engine.This is my humble opinion...Tom

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by 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'.

I still find it funny to hear RV builders/owners refer to the design as "Experimental". The RV's are now about the *least* experimental amateur-built aircraft you could build. Prepunched kits, preformed fibreglass, preformed canopy... I grew up at an airport where amateur-built aircraft came in as a stack of uncut wood or sheets of aluminum. One builder hand-carved his spar out of a Douglas Fir tree.

[SHIPCHIEF]

I built a Turbo Mazda Rotary for my RV-8. I don't feel the VANSAIRFORCE forum was hostile. I received a lot of support and a few kind personal messages.
I also met an RV owner or 2 who commented on reading about some SHIPCHIEF guy who was installing a rotary. They never expressed anything but respect.
I flew that engine 16 hours. Ross Farnham was very helpful regarding turbocharger sizing, and that's one example off the top of my head.
The greatest negativity came from my son, who watched the whole thing come together, and saw me remove the cowl after nearly every flight.
He was worried about my safety.
I removed the engine because I wasn't advancing the air frame thru the Phase 1 testing, I was just flying test runs on the engine and staying close to airports. Finally, I overheated my turbocharger housing, and the whole list of small teething problems added up. It took me 7 calendar months to remove the 'power egg' and install a Lycoming. I built the RV-8 and Mazda with the clear intention to be able to do this.
The Mazda? A fantastic power plant. I'll put it to another task.

[tjo]

Lot's of things going through my mind on this one. I think one of the major issues with alternative power is that very few builders have real knowledge of what kind of development work is necessary to make an IC engine work in a given application reliably and with the desired performance. I do and I know I don't have the time or resources to do it, so I am not going that way.

That said, the thought of alternative power seems to be irresistible. I think this is for one of two (or both) reasons:

1) The desire for a lower cost powerplant
2) The desire for features

Lower cost is easy to understand and relate to. Features less so. As far as features go people can be looking for more power, lighter weight, or fancier (electronic) controls for fuel or ignition. They may be others, but I think these are the big ones. What they assume is that they will be able to achieve these goals while maintaining the reliability performance the same as a traditional AC engine based on the reliability performance of the machine the engine was designed for. It is a flawed assumption, but the promises usually overwhelm the desire to critically challenge them.

In the end, yes, you can make an auto (or other) conversion work and we all know that. What is not known is how much resource will be burned.

All THAT said it bothers me every time I look at the cost of a Lycoming. It is essentially a big Volkswagen with thrust capability built into the crank/bearing design. It should be able to be profitably sold for around $5K retail, but is 5 times that due to sales volume and legal issues. And so it goes...

Tim

[dlomheim]

Originally Posted by tjo

That said, the thought of alternative power seems to be irresistible. I think this is for one of two (or both) reasons:

1) The desire for a lower cost powerplant
2) The desire for features

I would add:

3) Desire to be different. That is one reason I've been piddling with my RV-9A w/13B for 10+ yrs. now. Once it's flying it will be a lot of fun to take it to airshows, and just be different when parked among the many RVs with Lycomings...

4) You're just a guy / gal who really finds enjoyment in "wrenching" / working on your own a/c. If you're the type of person that has to reach for your checkbook to pay an A&P every time you have an engine issue; then (IMO) you're definitely better off sticking with a Lycoming...

Doug