automobile engines for the RV-10

[rv6ejguy]

When auto conversions are done right, there is no doubt they offer substantially lower per flight hour costs than traditional engines. Mine saved me about $18,000 initially over a new O-360/ Hartzell C/S. I invested that money at an average of 9.6% for the last 10 years compounded so that's over $50K more I have in the bank than going the other route. I've replaced a few spark plugs and changed the oil. Fuel burn is very similar. Even if I get $40K less for the aircraft in 10 more years, I'm still way ahead. Any overhauls costs are 20% of traditional costs.

We have many similar cases. The V6 and V8 glider tugs in Oz were operating for 40% less per flight hour than with the 540s they replaced and the acquisition costs were a fraction of that. The gyros and my friend with his Rover V8 conversion with 1000 trouble free hours, ditto.

Traditional engines simply can't compete with a reliable auto conversion due to the high initial outlay. This is one of the main factors in choosing, especially in high usage applications like training or glider towing. Too many people never consider how much that initial outlay for a traditional engine impacts them down the line financially say in 10 or 20 years. It's huge, much bigger than losing $10-30K at the end (assuming you do well on investing the saved money of course). People usually pay $1000-$5000 for the engine on a DIY conversion. Often the gearbox costs more than the engine. True mass production, as in millions of units, makes auto engines very inexpensive compared to traditional ones.

[Geico266]

Where and how are you getting 9.6% on your investment?

I'm in!

You may be very suscessful Ross, most seem not to be. Many people have started down the auto conversion road only to be left by the way side. More power to you for getting it done, like I said I would love to be turning wrenches wih you. I would suggest however, your success is not the norm.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

Even if I get $40K less for the aircraft in 10 more years, I'm still way ahead.

The Lycoming-powered are taking $40K less right now, so I guess that means you'll take $10K?

I keed, I keed!

[Mike S]

Hey Dan, what engine did you have on the biplane replica?

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by Geico266

Where and how are you getting 9.6% on your investment?

I'm in!

You may be very suscessful Ross, most seem not to be. Many people have started down the auto conversion road only to be left by the way side. More power to you for getting it done, like I said I would love to be turning wrenches wih you. I would suggest however, your success is not the norm.

Like I said before, bad news travels faster than good so a lot of people think that the majority of auto conversions are **** from what they hear through the grapevine perhaps. I couldn't say what the success rate is as it is a hard thing to gauge, how many trouble free hours make something a success? I dunno. My wild guess is perhaps 50-60% of the conversions are quite successful and people are happy with them. 25% maybe have middling fortune and 25% want them the heck out of there after lots of problems. That still leaves us with many thousands worldwide flying successfully.

My happy investments have been mostly in Canadian residential and commercial real estate mortgages. They have been very good to me.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by DanH

The Lycoming-powered are taking $40K less right now, so I guess that means you'll take $10K?

I keed, I keed!

LOL! I didn't build either of my planes to sell so I don't care much what they are finally worth in 10 or 20 years. Airplanes are bad investments for the most part. If people are that concerned, they should rent and put their money into proper investments.

In my case, they are both tax write offs for my company. They have been very instrumental for testing and marketing purposes. Our aviation sales now account for about 50% of our total sales.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Hey Dan, what engine did you have on the biplane replica?

Three cylinder Suzuki. It was not as easy as initially assumed. A good PSRU took about two years and turned into quite a science project.

Would I do another engine conversion? For the right airplane, yes. I am a gearhead and learned a lot.

For an RV-10, no way.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by DanH

Would I do another engine conversion? For the right airplane, yes. I am a gearhead and learned a lot.

For an RV-10, no way...

Dan,

I suspect that this comment needs a qualification to keep it in context. In many ways, the RV 10 is a great choice for an auto conversion; It's roomy, well proven and benign... All good attributes for a flying testbed. I've mentioned that I'm looking at developing a 300 HP class auto conversion and if I ever get it to the point where I'm willing to fly the thing, it should be on a well proven airframe. I'd probably be better off with a 182 or Bellanca Cruisemaster than a -10 (cheaper too), but the point remains.


In the context of the aircraft being a turn key, reliable family hauler however, I'm with you. I would be hard pressed to come up with anything better than a Lycasaurus.

[rv6ejguy]

Dan,

I assume this was more than a few years ago? Wow, your work looks superb here too. Were you born this way?

[TSwezey]

There is not one person out there that will ever convince me that a IO-540 is more reliable than a LS2.