What's new
Van's Air Force

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

automobile engines for the RV-10

Yes, the RV-10 has been flown with the Chevy LS-1. You can search the forums or Google it. I think there's a video somewhere.
 
Auto engines

While I like to see the competition, I see a trend with the auto conversions. You can find three auto-engine RV-10's by searching the NTSB reports.:(
 
The ls-1 from geared drives looked really nice but, tragically, I think the owner of the company was in a fatal aircraft accident not too long ago...
 
Several.

About 5 years ago, a 6 cyl. Subie equipped -10 was flying but unfortunately crashed and was totalled.

Todd Sweezey of Savannah had an LS-1 powered -10 and there's another at Peachtree City, in Georgia. Last time I saw that one, it had not yet flown.

There's another Subie-powered -10 going together in Canada, by Ross F, who should be chiming in here.

Best,
 
About 5 years ago, a 6 cyl. Subie equipped -10 was flying but unfortunately crashed and was totalled.

Todd Sweezey of Savannah had an LS-1 powered -10 and there's another at Peachtree City, in Georgia. Last time I saw that one, it had not yet flown.

There's another Subie-powered -10 going together in Canada, by Ross F, who should be chiming in here.

Best,

Bill Gibson has a LS-1 RV-10, which I believe is the first and last of the Bud's RV-10 installations. It initially had some problems, but I believe those have been resolved.

Unfortunately, all of them but Ross's have been NTSB statistics. Fortunately, Bill's was repaired and flying again. Dan's and Todd's were totalled, though neither were directly caused by engine issues.

bob
 
I've lost 3 friends in the last 6 months to crashes involving LS1 engines.

I'm tired of losing friends.
 
There are at least 2 other LS RV10s nearing flight status right now. Considering the small number of aircraft fitted with these engines, there has been an inordinate number of crashes, many of them fatal in the last 3 years.

While none so far have been caused by actual mechanical failure of the engine as far as I know, (although several engines have suffered internal damage due to improper ECU mapping) as has been the case with most automotive FF packages, supporting systems such as the gearbox, cooling, electrical, fuel and ECU issues have caused a power or thrust loss.

My advice is to stay away from this idea until someone has all the bugs worked out and several aircraft have accumulated at least 500 hours each without incident. It is also my feeling that the LS engine is really too heavy for an RV10. Every one built so far has been substantially heavier than the Lycoming version and C of G corrections have been required.

Bill's aircraft which had a power loss a couple years ago and was heavily damaged has been flying again for some time after repair but has not accumulated enough flight hours IMO to prove the overall reliability of the package.

I have cautioned one of my friends who is close to flying his RV10 sternly about the dangers and how he should be approaching the test flight period and every flight after that period is up. This is not something to be trifled with by your average non-mechanically inclined builder or pilot. For most people, writing that big check for the 540 is the way to go.
 
One thing about the Geared Drives plumbing bothered me. They used Aeroquip pushlock fittings all over the engine...oil lines, coolant lines, etc. A Rocket builder had these on his his oil lines, which failed and the airplane was totalled in an off-airport landing. I wouldn't put these fittings on a garden hose let alone an airplane. When I mentioned this to Phyllis when I saw them at the previous SNF I told her about the potential failure points of these fittings, and she disagreed. I believe they paid for this mistake with their lives.
 
We have many examples of automotive powered aircraft which have accumulated hundreds or even thousands of hours of flight time without incident so it can be done and rarely does the actual engine fail however each engine/ gearbox/ propeller/ airframe combo is different and the technical difficulties are numerous, especially with the gearbox and its interface to the engine.

Many designs suffer from a lack of proper engineering oversight and especially ground and flight testing before they are offered for sale to the public. This is truly experimental and that should never be forgotten.

Certain installations have been very reliable and successful to date, notably the Robinson LS Seabee packages which have accumulated several thousand hours collectively on a number of airframes over the last decade or so.

I think it is unfortunate that many people become very myopic and overly excited about using automotive engines in aircraft and lose sight of the potential dangers involved. I have been appalled to learn about some of the nonchalant approaches to problem solving and test flying during some of these programs and way too many people have paid for this complacency with their lives. All too often, serious problems have been essentially ignored, leading to an accident.
 
Auto engines

I am all for experimental aviation and pushing the envelope to develop the 'next big thing.' Just not in a 4 seat or larger plane where innocents may pay the price for the experiment.

There are probably many knowledgeable pilots who would not ride in some planes that are regularly filled with unknowing passengers who do not understand the risks they are exposing themselves to.

A very thorough explanation of the required passenger warning on the panel is a moral imperative.
 
Ross Farnham's last two posts should be put up on their own thread, stickied so they stay there.

Best advice I have read so far about anything.

A mate here in Brisbane has an RV8 with a Subbie, this is one of VERY FEW that actually performs, temps are all good, and is generally reliable. Maintaining the beast is a full time job though. Valve recession is the current thing being watched. Electric prop controller issues. We had to rig a temp/permanent alternate manual prop control circuit in the field, a long way from anywhere.

When that prop controller problem happened, if it were not for the fact Trevor, and his mate Tom (ex USAF and NASA) are brilliant aerobatic, glider and all sorts of other credentials pilots that aircraft would have been totalled.

That plane will never be flown with out Trevor on board. If it was a IO360 upfront....any number of us would fly it alone.

He has always said if it gives him grief....Lyc goes in. I do not consider myself or most pilots I know to be the kind of builder & pilot he is. You need to be exceptional at both. Unfortunately 80% of pilots believe they are in the top 20%. ;)
 
Yeah, I thought Ross' takes were spot on. And that coming from a conversions guy too. There's some wise advice in there.
 
I think it is unfortunate that many people become very myopic and overly excited about using automotive engines in aircraft and lose sight of the potential dangers involved.


As I've said previously, the enthusiasm with which builders embrace the concept of auto conversions is almost always inversely proportional to their understanding of things mechanical.

Consequently, the gear heads tend to steer well away from auto conversions while the guys who have never changed the oil in their car adopt the challenge with gusto.
 
Consequently, the gear heads tend to steer well away from auto conversions while the guys who have never changed the oil in their car adopt the challenge with gusto.

That brought to mind the old proverb, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
 
As I've said previously, the enthusiasm with which builders embrace the concept of auto conversions is almost always inversely proportional to their understanding of things mechanical.

Consequently, the gear heads tend to steer well away from auto conversions while the guys who have never changed the oil in their car adopt the challenge with gusto.

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.
 
Not so much...

Bud Warren of Geared Drives was a great friend, I think about him everyday. I always wanted one of his engines on an Airboat. On the front of an airplane, not so much, in fact never!
 
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.
 
So exactly what did happen?

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

How is your insurance looking for another?
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
Not as good as Lyc powered RV-10 flying side-by-side... nowhere near, actually..


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.
 
Good advice, so take it!

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!
 
Pardon me Todd.

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,
 
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'!
 
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.

Maybe not. Since an O-540 is air cooled, you would likely have major overheating issues.

Count me as one as skeptical of most auto conversions in aircraft. I surely would NEVER buy a plane with an auto engine in it.

But it is your choice.
 
Since an O-540 is air cooled, you would likely have major overheating issues.
Then you pull over and have a beer. You just know anyone who'd put a 540 in a car also has beer.
 
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'!

Actually there are many, many Subarus flying successfully (a bunch that have had problems too) plus Suzukis (3, 4 and 6 cylinder), Honda V6s, Corvairs, the before mentioned LS in Seabees, Rover V8s and a handful of others. The engine is usually not the problem at all if left essentially stock.

Titan Aircraft approves and endorses both the Suzuki and Honda V6s for their T-51 replicas and they have sold a lot of these with a lot flying now. When people couple these engines up to proven gearboxes (there are a few good ones out there) and do proper wiring and fuel systems, they are generally having good success with them. It's just that many people outside the loop don't know much about these things.
 
generally having good success with them.
I agree. That makes them good enough for real experimenters, but maybe not so good for the "average kit builder". Nobody can argue that the failure rate for auto conversions is way higher than for Lycomings and there's quite a bit of catching up left to do. Look how many engines have been tried and they are still a drop in the bucket. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but nobody except the VW guys have any significant numbers flying. I had a V8 zenith land on my strip a week after I graded it. He made it all the way back home too. Yay! Go Ben, go. A bunch of people have to stack a bunch of hours on a particular installation and nobody has done it yet. So many fizzlers so far it makes it even more uphill. Hardly anyone believes in them any more except guys who want to. I say try it if you want and I'll read every article that comes out on it, but I personally don't have time/money for non-standard engines.
 
I sure wish someone would bite on the RV-10 tri-motor idea. Lets see...Rev2300 x 3 = 255hp @ 510lbs and maybe 12gph. What could be wrong with that? 3 engine redundancy, perfect for in the soup work. When you get there drop the belly pod, take out yer harley frame and bolt on one of the revmasters.
 
I agree. That makes them good enough for real experimenters, but maybe not so good for the "average kit builder". Nobody can argue that the failure rate for auto conversions is way higher than for Lycomings and there's quite a bit of catching up left to do. Look how many engines have been tried and they are still a drop in the bucket. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but nobody except the VW guys have any significant numbers flying. I had a V8 zenith land on my strip a week after I graded it. He made it all the way back home too. Yay! Go Ben, go. A bunch of people have to stack a bunch of hours on a particular installation and nobody has done it yet. So many fizzlers so far it makes it even more uphill. Hardly anyone believes in them any more except guys who want to. I say try it if you want and I'll read every article that comes out on it, but I personally don't have time/money for non-standard engines.

I agree, the overall safety record of auto conversions falls well short of traditional engines but it does not have to be that way if people would listen to those who've been doing it for a while.

I'd hazard to say after being involved in this field for close to 20 years now that Subarus of all types have at least as many flight hours on them as VWs and there are thousands flying world wide. You have to remember that several gyro manufactuers used Subaru exclusively to power their creations. I believe 2 alone count over 800 sold. One Australian gyro instructor had over 3800 hours on a single EJ22 engine without an overhaul and training is no easy life. I doubt if any VW has anywhere near that many flight hours on it and I suspect most VW aircraft are flying very short trips around the patch for the most part.

It was calculated back in 2007 or so that the RAF 2000 gyros had likely accumulated over 200,000 flight hours alone. That installation and redrive were extremely reliable because they were all done the same way and had thousands of hours of development and testing behind them. This aircraft is being made in South Africa now, still with Subaru power.

The first Subaru EA81 was installed 30 years ago so they have been flying for a long time. I know we have sold over 300 EFI systems for all types of Subaru engines flying all over the world. In my experience, about 70% of the people flying auto conversions are happy with their choice and about 30% eventually dump it and install a traditional engine if they have a choice. Something over 25% would never go back to a traditional engine and around 50% are on the fence, seeing good and bad things about both.

After all this time, we do know what works and what doesn't for the most part, unfortunately many newcomers don't listen and have problems. I think many people have a small view of this world and bad news travels faster than good news. Really, if things are working well, which is what we expect, pilots just fly their aircraft without saying much. There are lots of auto engined aircraft flying just fine all over the world with hundreds of hours on them.

I understand that many pilots would not set foot in an auto powered aircraft but I won't fly in a Lycoming powered one either over the Rockies for instance or IFR or at night (or all of the above! yikes!) because if that one engine does stop, you are essentially dead already. There are statistically enough traditional engine failures that I can't accept that risk for myself.
 
Nice post. You win! Thanks for keeping me from getting bored.

Well this post made me smile too! :)

I think the original question was probably asking about suitable, commercially available auto FF kits being offered for the RV10. While one company was offering these packages, it is now unclear what will happen to that company following the death of the owner in a crash several months ago.

At this time, it is my opinion that there are no conversions which have enough trouble free flight time on them to warrant consideration by the average RV10 builder.

For further reading on the subject I offer a link to the excellent EPI website which explores the details in its typical no BS fashion: http://www.epi-eng.com/aircraft_engine_conversions/additional_weight_considerations.htm Enjoy.
 
RV12 Alternative

Look at today's post on RV12 site. Mandatory service bulletin for Rotax engine. This is just one of many you don't see published. How about the cooling line chafing on engine mount posted yesterday. One of the many hoses you don't have with the Honda Viking . There is something about flying behind the little, light weight Honda-Viking engine that makes me feel safe. Millions of the engines throughout the world verses thousands of Rotax. Ron Russ
N97HV RV12 flying and love it.;)


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![/QUOTE]
 
Look at today's post on RV12 site. Mandatory service bulletin for Rotax engine. This is just one of many you don't see published. How about the cooling line chafing on engine mount posted yesterday. One of the many hoses you don't have with the Honda Viking . There is something about flying behind the little, light weight Honda-Viking engine that makes me feel safe. Millions of the engines throughout the world verses thousands of Rotax. Ron Russ
N97HV RV12 flying and love it.;)


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!

The Honda L15A engine is very robust and well proven however nothing is perfect:

"Honda has announced that the company is recalling around 700,000 vehicles globally for faulty lost motion springs in the valve train. The springs may fatigue and break over time, causing the engine to stall as a result. The recall covers certain 2009-2010 Fit, Freed and City models, and so far the company has received a total of 72 complaints of the issue in Japan and 29 complaints from elsewhere in the world."

I guess 100 out of 700,000 is pretty good though! I worry more about the changes made to this engine for aviation use like gearbox, EFI system, intake manifold etc. The engine itself probably has a billion hours on it. The "other parts" probably less than 1000 collectively. Only time will tell how well this package works in the long term but I'm glad some people have signed up to try it. Could prove to be the way to go in a few years.:)
 
I would plan for 13 gph at 170 knots. But mine was 13 gallons of cheap car fuel versus av gas. But I do have to laugh. We were conservative in our original design with abundant cooling. This does create excessive drag which in turn increases fuel consumption. Yes I would burn a little more. Some called it a failure because the first LS engine ever to be flown on an RV-10 had more fuel consumption than one with an Lyco. The first time one was ever put on, the first set-up, the first time my partner and I ever built a plane and it doesn't beat the original designers engine choice. How shocking! But the first LS smoked the Lycos in cost per hour to run. Here is the log of my last flight with a really no wind. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N110TD/history/20100507/1822Z/KAHN/3J1/tracklog. I think it pretty much hit Van's design numbers. And don't worry the next one will blow the lyco's away.
 
My plane weight is fat!!!!!!!
Well over anything out there and I can't blame it all on the engine! The c.g. is within an inch of Tim Olson's c.g. It is an unbelievable 2053 lbs.! At least I won't have a super forward c.g. issue but I really ended building a high powered Tiger.

The high empty weight of most auto conversions can be a major issue, as noted by Todd. While it may have been a tiger, it was a two seat tiger.

Here is a good thread on Todd's RV-10, all 30 pages of it. Very good reading.
 
Very nice

Pierre,
I currently have 52 hours on it.
John
PS: Thanks for all the support....

John, how 'bout do all of us a favor and put up some pictures of the beautiful airbrush artwork on your -10?

You guys won't believe the scenery on his airplane!!

Best,
 
One thing to consider about service bulletins on certified motors. They are a huge safety net. Would you get a service bulletin at all on a conversion engine?

George
 
Hourly operating costs is minor compared to the hit on resale RV'swith auto engines take. Total cost of operation needs to be taken into account.

Experiment all you want, I am right there wih you. Just don't lead prospective builders to believe it is cheaper, it is not.
 
Last edited:
Hourly operating costs is minor compared to the of resale RV with auto engines take. Total cost of operation needs o be taken into account.

Experiment all you want, I am right there wih you. Just don't lead prospective builders to believe it is cheaper, it is not.

Absolutely nothing could be more True than the above. If you want to ruin your dream, put an auto conversion on your RV.
 
Back
Top