automobile engines for the RV-10 - Page 3

TSwezey · #21 11-16-2011, 06:16 AM

I flew my LS2 powered RV-10 to both Oshkosh and Sun-n-Fun. It met an untimely death (150 hours) due to a freak non-flying non-engine related issue. The next RV-10 I build will have an LS engine on it also. The fun and the lower cost to fly blows the other RV-10s away. But you will always be a test pilot. I am envious of those who still have theirs.

RV10inOz · #22 11-16-2011, 06:30 AM

So exactly what did happen?

And what is the real cost Vs just bolting in an IO540?

How is your insurance looking for another?

David-aviator · #23 11-16-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSwezey

I flew my LS2 powered RV-10 to both Oshkosh and Sun-n-Fun. It met an untimely death (150 hours) due to a freak non-flying non-engine related issue. The next RV-10 I build will have an LS engine on it also. The fun and the lower cost to fly blows the other RV-10s away. But you will always be a test pilot. I am envious of those who still have theirs.

Good to hear you are still thinking positive, Ted. An experience such as yours sometimes completely negates life for a person.

My Hobbs read 96.3 the first time Subby quit due to the super charger belt wiping out the timing belt and 326.6 when I hung it up with the H6. There came a time when flying was more important than wondering if the engine would keep running the entire flight and 326.6 was it.

The challenge was interesting at first but after some 5 years with problems that simply would not going away, it got old.

I don't miss it.

rv6ejguy · #24 11-16-2011, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSwezey

I flew my LS2 powered RV-10 to both Oshkosh and Sun-n-Fun. It met an untimely death (150 hours) due to a freak non-flying non-engine related issue. The next RV-10 I build will have an LS engine on it also. The fun and the lower cost to fly blows the other RV-10s away. But you will always be a test pilot. I am envious of those who still have theirs.

I've always been interested to see fuel burn vs. TAS results from an LS powered -10 but never see anyone publishing them. What kind of numbers did yours deliver? Speed and climb numbers? I'd expect speed and ROC to be somewhat better than with the 540.

Bill, if you are reading this, maybe you could give us an update on empty weight, C of G, any ballast required, performance and fuel burn too.

pierre smith · #25 11-16-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV10inOz

.....So exactly what did happen?

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ght=rv-10+fire

Best,

Toobuilder · #26 11-16-2011, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

I totally agree with the first statement. Many lay people are suckered into the advertising hype and have their checkbooks open in a heartbeat.

Most of the successful conversions though have indeed been done by gearheads, machinists, fabricators and engineers who love a challenge and have some inkling of the challenges that lie ahead. The people who disregard good advice from experienced folks are the ones who really scare me.

I'm a "gearhead" and I agree. I'm currently looking at an adaptation of the LS V8 as a suitable replacement for the IO-540. That said, this is being done only with the expectation that it will at best match the performance of the Lyc. I am taking a significantly different (much more conservative) approach than past LS conversions, and I am undertaking the project mainly to satisfy my own burning curiosity (because I'm a gearhead). It may never even move from the test cell to an aircraft, and even if it performs exactly as planned, I can't in my wildest imagination consider selling FWF packages to the public.

So in summary, I'm both a huge fan and a major skeptic of auto conversions.

Radomir · #27 11-16-2011, 10:06 AM

Not as good as Lyc powered RV-10 flying side-by-side... nowhere near, actually..

Quote:

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

I've always been interested to see fuel burn vs. TAS results from an LS powered -10 but never see anyone publishing them. What kind of numbers did yours deliver? Speed and climb numbers? I'd expect speed and ROC to be somewhat better than with the 540.

Jerry Cochran · #28 11-16-2011, 01:03 PM

I hope the RV-12 builders on this forum read this thread and take the comments, especially Ross's to heart, because it seems some of them are headed for "alternatives"...

OTOH, like others have said, if you are truly a gearhead who likes to experiment and baby sit the engine, gearbox, electronics, and it's not just about saving $$ then go for it!

pierre smith · #29 11-16-2011, 01:05 PM

I raced my -10 at Todds home airport while his was still flying.

I was around 15 MPH faster, maybe more. That installation was really heavy and as I recall, needed 100 lbs in the baggage area to satisfy CG issues. It had AC and the cowl had been modified to accomodate a radiator on either side of the engine, with side air exits.

Sure sounded good though

Best,

aerhed · #30 11-16-2011, 01:18 PM

Truth be told, I still think you'd be better off putting a 540 in a car than a car motor in an RV-10. Starting with Model A motors in Funk's, etc. to this day, the only really successful car engines have been VW conversions. Too bad they're so tiny. I'd think of it as really only for the experimental value as opposed to flying practicality. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, if you wanted to build a tri-motor 10 with 3 revmasters, that would be somethin'! Not sure what, but somethin'!