What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 Engine options

Bill Britton

Well Known Member
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard something related to this engine???

I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.

I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.

Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???

Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill Britton said:
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard something related to this engine???

I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.

I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.

Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???

Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS

Bill, I wouldn't be afraid to use the H6 EGGENFELLNER. But would shy away from other subie conversions at the moment. Jan has a grasp of what is needed. The second 10 is flying very well on the 210 Hp Conti. In fact I have been to the factory a couple of times and most of the guys say they like it better. The lighter weight seems to make it handle more like the "little" RV's. I am going to use a 3 rotor Mazda rotary in my 10 so I'm not conversion shy. :rolleyes: The comment I usually make is if you don't think you can engineer the package yourself be sure to buy a complete package or go certified.
Bill Jepson
Rotary10-RV
 
RV-10 Engine Options

Thanks to everybody for responding to this question, both here and on the Matronics site. There's a lot of interest in auto conversions. More so than I originally thought. We'll wait and see how Jan does with his motor.

Bill
 
Bill Britton said:
Nope. Never heard of them. Where abouts were they from???

Bill

Amarillo, TX. The guy bought the plane from my dad after a "mishap" during taxi testing. Dad sold it rather than repair the damage. We know that Page repaired the airplane and subsequently flew it. We never heard from him again after that (YIKES!!! :-( ).

I thought you might be related.

Thanks for the response!

Terry
RV-8 Preview Plans
N232TS Reserved
 
210 Hp Conti.

Re: "The second 10 is flying very well on the 210 Hp Conti. In fact I have been to the factory a couple of times and most of the guys say they like it better."

Has anyone seen or heard anything regarding N220RV's Wt & Bal calcs?

Cheers,
Greg.
 
IMHO, for safety reasons, I believe the best pick for the RV-10 just might be the turbocharged Mazda rotary with HD planetary-gear redrive. Very few moving parts involved to break and the economy from the turbo should be very good for a high peak-HP engine.
 
We've started on a twin turbo Subaru EG33 powered RV10 quickbuild. This will be a one off for now but I'll probably build jigs for the mount in case others are interested. MT C/S prop and Marcotte M-300 drive will be used.
 
Car engines in aircraft have a terrible track record. There is a RV7A at my home airport that has been for sale for 10 years. No one will touch it for very good reason. Resale value for an RV with a car engine in it will be very poor. Most people won’t touch one. There was I Lancair 360 in the neighborhood with a Subaru engine in it. The engine threw a rod in phase 1. Fortunately they were over a dry lake when it happened so they landed it safely.
 
Auto engines

A local RV builder spent many years building his Subaru powered RV7A only to crash on its first flight and the plane burned up completely, thank goodness no one was hurt , they hardly even got off the ground and upwind when problems started.
When we went to recover what was left of his years of hard work,I said to the owner that I have only one word for you: Lycoming!,,,,,,
 
...and

"...I said to the owner that I have only one word for you: Lycoming!,,,,,,"

This is one reason why we are perpetually stuck with ancient technology.

It is absolutely fine if an alternative engine isn't for you, or for the majority of others who just want to have a known, proven power plant.

That doesn't mean that others shouldn't try for a better solution...and attempting to do so will inevitably have problems along the way.

The leaders are always trying to find a better way...and yes, that is the less travelled road and it is filled with many pot holes. All through history this has been the case...in fact, had Van not been someone looking for a better way, our aircraft and this very forum would likely not exist.

Is an alternative engine for everyone? Absolutely not; for those who have the vision and ability, it's a different story.
 
At one point, Lycoming was the "alternative".

Rotax was the alternative option that now seems to have done a pretty good job at making the O-200 and O-235 obsolete.

As much as we love our -360 and -540 engines, somebody will eventually succeed in making them obsolete too.
 
At one point, Lycoming was the "alternative".

Rotax was the alternative option that now seems to have done a pretty good job at making the O-200 and O-235 obsolete.

As much as we love our -360 and -540 engines, somebody will eventually succeed in making them obsolete too.

Yes, they will...and we will be cleared out of this perpetual holding pattern restricting us to 50+ year old "technology"...
 
Old technology

I still use a pot to cook in, and a wood stove to make pizza's. That technology is slightly older than the Lycoming's, just saying.....
 
I still use a pot to cook in, and a wood stove to make pizza's. That technology is slightly older than the Lycoming's, just saying.....

Does that really apply? Pots and a wood stove work well but are you saying you never use an oven to make your pizza? How do you improve on a pot?

I understand that you choose to stick with ancient but reliable tech but there are people who choose to try and improve that tech. Those people will be the ones to push the envelope and, eventually, move the status quo forward.

I admire these folks.
 
I admire these folks.

So do I. That said, an RV-10 is a terrible choice. Experimenting should not include three passengers, and pilot survival is a whole lot more likely with a lower stall speed, kinetic energy being a function of velocity squared.

Want to develop your own auto conversion? Put it on a Cub clone, or a Highlander, or a Zenith, or any other airplane where it makes sense.
 
I'm going to disagree. The 200-300hp range is very popular outside RVs. The RV10 platform is perfect to experiment within that range. There's lots of talk of ~200hp turbines going on the RV8 because it sounds sporty. That's probably too much power for anything but an RV10 because of the altitude capabilities of most turbine engines and the TAS limit on our airframes.

Just because there are 3 pax seats, doesn't mean people have to sit there.
 
So do I. That said, an RV-10 is a terrible choice. Experimenting should not include three passengers, and pilot survival is a whole lot more likely with a lower stall speed, kinetic energy being a function of velocity squared.

Want to develop your own auto conversion? Put it on a Cub clone, or a Highlander, or a Zenith, or any other airplane where it makes sense.

Agreed, three passengers shouldn't be included but just because it can carry 4 doesn't mean it must...

I am also pretty sure that those select few who want to push the boundaries further out would have the sense to know this.

...I have been wrong before, though...
 
I still use a pot to cook in, and a wood stove to make pizza's. That technology is slightly older than the Lycoming's, just saying.....


But the pots on my stove are heated by electro magnets, powered by an array of solar panels on my roof. My pizza oven is also electric, powered by the same array that makes my house produce more electricity than we use in a year.

Yeah, we still cook food since our species tends to require many things to be cooked before eating, but how we do it really has changed, especially over the last few years.

In contrast, the engine that makes my RV-10 fulfill the simple requirement of forward movement is based on a 50-60 year old design and the spark comes from magnetos that are virtually unchanged since 1898.

I would argue that the pace of technological change in my kitchen far, far exceeds that in the front of my plane.
 
It really comes down to your priorities, goals and capabilities.

I wanted a worry free, as close to 100% dispatch as possible. I planed on travel with wife and friends as the major mission. So safety and reliability is a high priority. I did not want an endless tinker project. That spells a more conventional approach to me.

Besides, I have been an engineer long enough to realize the simplest approach is generally the most trouble free. Large displacement slow turning engines are good prop engines. Fast turning, liquid cooled geared engines are more difficult to get right, and have more failure modes ,spending more time in the shop on the ground.

I do take at least some issue with the 'old technology' argument since at the core, all internal combustion piston engines are 'old technology'. It's the accessories that make a modern engine, well 'modern'. With experimental EI/EFI options we aren't exactly in the stone age still.
 
An engine for the RV-10 based on current model Honda V6 from the Pilot should be good for 250-280hp and the basic engine will cost $2500 before adding the redrive, dedicated controller etc. So a complete ready to fly engine should have a cost of about $10k and an "overhaul" would cost another $2500+ labor to swap out the long block.

Anyone interested in such a beast ? It should be weight competitive to any of the Lycoming 540's. The junkyards are packed with engines from crashed Pilot SUV's....
 

Attachments

  • Honda B35.JPG
    Honda B35.JPG
    41.1 KB · Views: 128
Development cost...

An engine for the RV-10 based on current model Honda V6 from the Pilot should be good for 250-280hp and the basic engine will cost $2500 before adding the redrive, dedicated controller etc. So a complete ready to fly engine should have a cost of about $10k and an "overhaul" would cost another $2500+ labor to swap out the long block.

Anyone interested in such a beast ? It should be weight competitive to any of the Lycoming 540's. The junkyards are packed with engines from crashed Pilot SUV's....

This seems to be next evolution to the Honda Fit engine used for the 100hp to 120hp aircraft applications.

The big challenge to any of the automotive engine conversions is the development and reliability testing. While this engine may well have some benefits, I would want to see it have more than a few thousand hours of testing.... initial application could be the swamp boats used in Florida.
I still question if the total weight could be comparable to a Lycoming when you figure in the redrive, cooling components, and accessories..... But I would be interested in more info if this develops..

Trust me, I would want this to work so there is a more economical alterative to the Lycoming. I recently bought the tail cone kit for the RV-10. I'm still thinking thru how to pay for the engine when that time comes.

In other news, the battery technology continues to evolve and improve. I'm currently in the middle of a tech conference that is focused on graphene and other nano technology to enhance battery tech. Once the energy density increases, we'll see more option for electric propulsion for aircraft.
 
An engine for the RV-10 based on current model Honda V6 from the Pilot should be good for 250-280hp and the basic engine will cost $2500 before adding the redrive, dedicated controller etc. So a complete ready to fly engine should have a cost of about $10k and an "overhaul" would cost another $2500+ labor to swap out the long block...

You will not save any money compared to the 540. If successful, it's a near guaranteed $50~75K hit in resale value. If unsuccessful, you buy both Honda and Lycoming firewall forwards.

Really want a Honda-powered hot rod? Buy a Titan Mustang kit, where the engine choice makes sense.
 
If you saved yourself $50k then its not a hit is it ? Its only a hit if one wastes that amount of money and it doesn't pan out. If it does pan out, you just saved all the gas you are likely to pump in that airplane till you die ?

Honda raced this engine so it has a very good track record, its considered one of Honda's most reliable engines. But I will say that there are few current re-drives in this power class. I have contacted the supplier in Quebec who makes several different redrives and will see if he replies. All his gearboxes come with governors for constant speed props in the 300hp and above power rating. I don't know yet what the cost of his product is.

This engine does have timing belts, in an aircraft application they could be run without covers so that they are easy to inspect. Its a SOHC design. Port injectors, coil on plug. So nothing crazy complicated.

I might consider having "A sample" customers, pay only half of cost until the powerplant has achieved a certain number of hours or a certain number of months from commissioning. It would be a huge saving compared to buying a conventional 6 cylinder engine from Continental or Lycoming....

You will not save any money compared to the 540. If successful, it's a near guaranteed $50~75K hit in resale value. If unsuccessful, you buy both Honda and Lycoming firewall forwards.

Really want a Honda-powered hot rod? Buy a Titan Mustang kit, where the engine choice makes sense.
 
buying an RV WITHOUT a Lycoming

I have bought and sold several airplanes and built an RV10.

The most important consideration and determining factor in the sell price in all of the deals was the condition of the traditional engine.

if you don’t care about ever recovering your investment put something other than a Lycoming on your RV. Know that the airplane will eventually end up with a Lycoming that will be installed by the next owner.

What about insurance? There has to be an increased premium if you can even get it insured.
 
The availability and affordability of the engines will always make or break sales of any airplane. If in the next 10 years there were to be more affordable engines succeed and gain more general acceptance (like has happened in the last 10 years where Viking now totally dominates with the Zenith STOL series of kits) then one will see a lot more of these airplanes being built.

There does not seem to be any sign that they are going away. In fact Viking engine sales now likely outnumber those from Lycoming and Continental combined for experimental airplanes (obviously factory airplanes get either of those or a Rotax for the most part). The basic recipe is to target half or slightly less the cost of the Lycoming for the application.

The engine is definitely not the limiting factor, its the question of having reduction drive companies who stay in business and make a good product. And having a well designed engine controller with as few single point failure modes as possible. Most of the rest of it is pretty generic. For those who have the means to write a $50k check for a Lycoming, kudos to you but there are a lot more people who could be in the market if that number was $15k or less.
 
Back
Top