What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-4 With Automobile engine ground run up

interesting, wonder what he has planned for the cowl. I might suggest that next time use a set of chocks and tie the tail down.

bob burns
N82RB RV-4
 
At first glance, this looks like a good engine match for the RV4. Hopefully we will hear/see more about this installation. It appears to sit with heads on top, assuming that box on the front is the drive unit. Also, wonder if it retains the factory ECU with all the associated benefits like timing and knock control. So many questions!
 
I don't know how this guy expects to complete a test flight if he cant keep his emotions in any better check than what he did during that ground run....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
At first glance, this looks like a good engine match for the RV4. Hopefully we will hear/see more about this installation. It appears to sit with heads on top, assuming that box on the front is the drive unit. Also, wonder if it retains the factory ECU with all the associated benefits like timing and knock control. So many questions!

Caption says Megasquirt ECU. The cowling design will be interesting to see. This is an inline four, hence the need for the long belt drive to get the thrust line close to stock for prop clearance. Around 145hp depending on version. Hope we can learn some more and hear how it works.
 
I can picture it now. That is going to be one ugly cowl! Maybe it was the camera angle but the prop/ ground clearance looks close.
 
I might suggest that next time use a set of chocks and tie the tail down.

Along with the fact that I never saw even a smidgen of "UP" elevator.
Even when the tail began to get light, I saw neutral elevator at best.
 
I didn't use the factory ECU as it requires a code to operate from the body control computer. Custom tuning with the Microsquirt better matches the aircraft reqirements also. My cowl is complete - will show it in a later post. It appears smewhat ungainly.
Took six months to fabricate from scratch s-glass over a wood and plaster buck.
Yes - the box up front is the PSRU - cog belt driven.
 
I didn't use the factory ECU as it requires a code to operate from the body control computer. Custom tuning with the Microsquirt better matches the aircraft reqirements also. My cowl is complete - will show it in a later post. It appears smewhat ungainly.
Took six months to fabricate from scratch s-glass over a wood and plaster buck.
Yes - the box up front is the PSRU - cog belt driven.

Yes, most 2000 and up OEM ECUs are heavily tied into chassis sensors making them complicated or scary to use on other applications like aircraft where those sensors are simply not there to send signals back. You never know what the ECU response may be- from throwing a code to limp mode to fuel pump shutdown, ignition or fuel cuts. Hence the widespread use of aftermarket controllers where responses are predictable and known.

Kudos to get it all in there and running. That's a big job.
 
Tomcat RV 4 in Poughkeepsie, NY is finishing up - 4 with Subaru 2.5 stock eng., with airtrikes geared PSRU, SDS ignition/injection control. Nice thing about smooth auto engine, you can test fire without prop. Modifying RV4 cowl to cover Subaru. Fiberglass is not my thing, but can't be any worse than constructing old style slow build -4...Hope to have to airport spring/summer 2016...Someday photos.. If this works out as planned , would be inexpensive way into air....Have photos, but job, family life leave no time to get them onto VAF . Tom
 
stability

With all the extra frontal area it might be a good idea to have a smart aero guy look at stability before you commit to flight.
 
A little up elevator would make me feel better.

Yep. Engine start with full down elevator...

My Rocket would be on it's nose in a heartbeat.

Will be interesting to watch the progress however. Always rooting for the alternative engine guys.
 
It sounds really smooth and quiet. Is it quiet in person? What kind of powerplant is it? Are there many flying? Hats off to you for taking the challenge.
 
It sounds really smooth and quiet. Is it quiet in person? What kind of powerplant is it? Are there many flying? Hats off to you for taking the challenge.

2.2L Ecotec. I believe the late Bud Warren was working on a LSJ (supercharged Ecotec) a few years back. Not sure if it flew or not.
 
This design isn't my cup of tea either, but why all the snarky comments? What's wrong with experimentation and innovation in an "experimental aircraft" and on an experimental aircraft website? You guys sound like you wear helmets to bed. Sheesh!


Lee...
 
With all the extra frontal area it might be a good idea to have a smart aero guy look at stability before you commit to flight.

I am a stability and control Eng. The RVs have very generous vertical tail area. Look at the side view of an RV compared to something like a sonerai (not that it's a shining example). The RV probably has 3 times the tail area. Yes there will be some affect on directional stability, but it being an RV I would expect it to have lots of margin.

Having said that it is now a new design and flight test should be conducted with caution, particularly as the CG is moved aft. CG affects directional as well as longitudinal stability.

Regarding another post talking about snarky comments, I think those were mostly directed towards the pilot's use of controls during the engine run. As far as the engine goes I wish him much success and I would like to learn more.
 
I didn't use the factory ECU as it requires a code to operate from the body control computer. Custom tuning with the Microsquirt better matches the aircraft reqirements also. My cowl is complete - will show it in a later post. It appears smewhat ungainly.
Took six months to fabricate from scratch s-glass over a wood and plaster buck.
Yes - the box up front is the PSRU - cog belt driven.

A friend of mine owns a -6a and a 7. He has a business called speedoshop.com. He sells hardware and software that cracks the codes on car ecus. He must be doing something right as this is his primary source of income and he built a giant hangar condo with 4 bifold doors and a generous living space. Being an rv gu I am sure he would be happy to tell you how to hack an ecu if you were interested.
 
i run this engine in my track toy, a twin charged (supercharged-turbocharged) ariel atom, i beat the tar out of it, and it just keeps taking it

stock internals, running 24psi of boost.....it's a great little engine
 
Experimental is...

This design isn't my cup of tea either, but why all the snarky comments? What's wrong with experimentation and innovation in an "experimental aircraft" and on an experimental aircraft website? You guys sound like you wear helmets to bed. Sheesh!


Lee...

Amen brother!
Van's first airplane was a conglomeration of 2 kits, a GPU and spare parts...of course, so was the Wright Flyer...:)
Those who dare, win...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-f1F1xlg3o

V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Auto Engine

It may take a while to work out some issues but then you will have a one of a kind aircraft. Very Cool.
I have an auto conversion as well, mine is a Corvair, fuel injected, turbo charged, Megasquirt II running the injectors and ignition timing.
It took me about 2 years to work out all the bugs.
Here is video of testing my home built direct drive hub.
https://youtu.be/Mwx8zfeifGQ
 
I love the fact that people are still experimenting with unconventional ways of getting a prop to spin. In most cases the powerplant is the biggest expense of the build.
 
ECO Tech 2.2 engine

This design isn't my cup of tea either, but why all the snarky comments?... Lee...

I think he actually limited the number of "snarky comments" by posting on the RV-4 page, vs. the "alternative engine" page! :)

With so much stuff right behind the prop, I'm thinking the cowling will have to look something like the old "Ranger" in-line engines resorted to "back in the day".

It will also be interesting to see what the performance numbers are when it gets going; and hopefully he'll post some close up pictures of the cooling layout of rads, etc. As I've found with my Mazda installation, there just isn't a lot of space to play w/under the cowling of an RV!

Fun project!

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A / Mazda 13B / FWF
 
Congrats on getting it running; looks like a nice fit for a -4. Please keep us updated on your progress; I'm always interested in alternatives to lycosaurs.

Charlie
Mazda Renesis RV7, in progress
 
Charlie, I believe this is the airplane that reported a first flight in another forum just the other day. Do some searching and I believe you'll find a photo of it in a hangar. There were lots of "snarky" comments about the functional but somewhat boxy engine cowl.

P.S. Here's the thread in the "General Discussion" forum.
 
Last edited:
Mo Power...

This unfortunate incident (from the NTSB report) looks more like Pilot error or buffoonery by taking off with a known problem than the auto engine conversion itself.
At least he lived to tell about it and hopefully learn from his mistakes.

When my friend Tracy Crook first started flying his RV4/Mazda 13B conversion 25 years ago, I regularly chatted with him and personally observed his progress during the lengthy development. Tracy spent many, many hours and brain bytes perfecting his Dual Rotor Mazda 13b, Electronic fuel injection, reduction drive and later Renesis and planetary reduction drive conversions. In the end, his RV4 (and now his -8) are meticulously refined and developed conversions that he worked very hard to insure reliability. Even with that he will tell you that:
"if you want an easier trail to follow, install a Lycoming".

As far as the aforementioned incident went it appears to be cut and dried. As Forrest Gump quoted:
"Stupid is as stupid does"

V/R
Smokey

https://issuu.com/contact.magazine/docs/contact_magazine_issue_87_rotary_is
Tracy's RV4 in Contact magazine's Rotary issue along with several other rotary powered RV's.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunate but a good lesson for others going down this route. Glad the pilot walked away.

Having been in the auto engine conversion world for 20 years now and supplying hundreds of ECUs to this market for over 25 (not on this airplane BTW), I have assisted countless folks on tuning, cooling, fuel systems etc. in that time.

The primary causes of piston failure (and I've seen dozens of them) is running too lean and/or with too much timing. AFRs need to be in the high 10s or low 11s at high power and generally ignition timing at no more than 24-26 degrees when running on 91 mogas.

I was assisting the NTSB on an investigation a couple weeks back on a V6 Honda conversion which suffered multiple piston failure and subsequent forced landing in extremis with serious injuries to the pilot.

You need a good understanding of engines and tuning to arrive at a successful result. Unfortunately, too many folks don't possess either and rely on incorrect information from others who also don't know what they are doing.
 
This thread actually started in 2015 at the first engine run of this aircraft which was an RV4 with an Eco auto conversion.

There is another thread from 2015 dealing with the first flight of this aircraft. You can find it here.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=130677

Both of these threads offer quite fascinating reading because in 2015 there was quite a lot of polarised attitude towards this aircraft. One poster who was sceptical of the auto conversion described it as heavy, underpowered and unlikely to last long at max rated horsepower (150 HP). Another poster described the builder as having the spirit of the Wright brothers. In fact there were many “colourful” posts.

And now after the plane has been completely destroyed following a total engine failure (the second engine failure in a month) and the NTSB report is available we can look back and see how some posts were cannily prophetic and others were greatly misguided.

By the way, if one more person summons up the spirit of the Wright brothers to justify dangerous and penny pinching tinkering on amateur-built kit aircraft I think I’m going to throw up. Let’s just accept the fact that anyone with the natural engineering brilliance and aviation genius of the Wright brothers would not be buying some-one else’s kit aircraft to build....they’d be designing their own.

Those who read all the posts will come across Dan Horton’s comments. In referring to the relevant aircraft and to comments that it was being built in the spirit of the experimental category he stated: “No new ideas are being proven”. In hindsight that proved to be very true.
 
Last edited:
Of course any engine run with too much timing and too lean will melt down. This was human caused from the improper mapping to the decision to take off with an engine not running right. The pilot admits to all this and kudos for him to step up and say so.
 
Last edited:
Conceptually there us no reason why say a honda fit engine won?t work in an airplane. I have that car with 300,000 km over 12 yrs and the engine has never quit. It still runs as smooth as a swiss watch. It is a marvel of engineering.

Practically speaking there are probably 1000 ways to screw up the installation of said engine in an airplane. You need to know exactly what you are doing and you need to be very very careful. Cooling, ignition, gearbox resonance, lubrication, fuel delivery, mixture and on and on. It is beyond the skill level of probably many average home builders. Some if us screw up Lycoming installations. It also requires and extremely methodical and conservative approach. Clearly this guy did not gave that mind set.

There are guys who will do it, successfully, and I?m sure that it would be a really rewarding and educational experience. But it is way more difficult and more risky and more time consuming than a standard lycoming installation. If you don?t think you have the technical talent and meticulous and careful conservative mindset required please don?t do it. If you are a lifelong machinist, mechanic, fabricator and a very careful and methodical builder with a few very smart friends then I hope you do it and succeed.
 
so true

Conceptually there us no reason why say a honda fit engine won?t work in an airplane. I have that car with 300,000 km over 12 yrs and the engine has never quit. It still runs as smooth as a swiss watch. It is a marvel of engineering.

Practically speaking there are probably 1000 ways to screw up the installation of said engine in an airplane. You need to know exactly what you are doing and you need to be very very careful. Cooling, ignition, gearbox resonance, lubrication, fuel delivery, mixture and on and on. It is beyond the skill level of probably many average home builders. Some if us screw up Lycoming installations. It also requires and extremely methodical and conservative approach. Clearly this guy did not gave that mind set.

There are guys who will do it, successfully, and I?m sure that it would be a really rewarding and educational experience. But it is way more difficult and more risky and more time consuming than a standard lycoming installation. If you don?t think you have the technical talent and meticulous and careful conservative mindset required please don?t do it. If you are a lifelong machinist, mechanic, fabricator and a very careful and methodical builder with a few very smart friends then I hope you do it and succeed.
Scott, I think you summarized it perfectly.
 
RV-4 Auto Engine

All I can say is wow!!!
No chocks and no stick back and no emotion. That's one but ugly RV-4 and the cowl is not even on yet. My suggestion is get ride of the auto engine and put a Lycoming in her.
 
Unfortunate but a good lesson for others going down this route. Glad the pilot walked away.

Having been in the auto engine conversion world for 20 years now and supplying hundreds of ECUs to this market for over 25 (not on this airplane BTW), I have assisted countless folks on tuning, cooling, fuel systems etc. in that time.

The primary causes of piston failure (and I've seen dozens of them) is running too lean and/or with too much timing. AFRs need to be in the high 10s or low 11s at high power and generally ignition timing at no more than 24-26 degrees when running on 91 mogas.

I was assisting the NTSB on an investigation a couple weeks back on a V6 Honda conversion which suffered multiple piston failure and subsequent forced landing in extremis with serious injuries to the pilot.

You need a good understanding of engines and tuning to arrive at a successful result. Unfortunately, too many folks don't possess either and rely on incorrect information from others who also don't know what they are doing.

I have been testing a Honda engine for several years for my RV6A project. I recently received my airworthiness certificate but I am not flying yet. I have learned a lot from Ross at SDS and I want to validate (not that it is needed) his statement about the importance of monitoring air fuel mixture values and ignition advance from my own experiences.

Early on in my testing I had the engine on a test stand and I was only using a narrow band 02 (mixture) gauge and an EGT instrument to monitor my fuel mixture values. Due to this limitation and my own lack of attention I ended up running the engine too lean and scored 2 cylinders

Since then I have used a wide band O2 sensor (PLX) which is much more accurate and I have paid careful attention the Air/Fuel mixture like Ross has suggested, and the engine runs beautifully. Since I have a turbocharger on it I also take a keen interest in the intake air temp as well.

Most of us who choose an alternative engine for our experimental airframe accept the risks with the benefits of this decision.

My point was not to hijack the thread but merely support the importance of knowing what your engine system values should be and to learn from others.
 
Back
Top