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

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.
 
Last edited:
Where and how are you getting 9.6% on your investment? :eek:

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.
 
Last edited:
Where and how are you getting 9.6% on your investment? :eek:

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

I keed, I keed! :p

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.
 
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.

s13joh.jpg


21bp1zr.jpg
 
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.
 
Dan,

I assume this was more than a few years ago? Wow, your work looks superb here too. Were you born this way?;)
 
There is not one person out there that will ever convince me that a IO-540 is more reliable than a LS2.
 
None of the LS engines have been the cause of the crashes. It's the wiring, the fuel plumbing, ECU programming. Put more energy into developing these systems and I believe you will have a good overall system. I'm putting my actions where my mouth is. :D

As far as the resale value.....I don't really care. This is the only airplane I'll ever build and I'm flying the snot out of it until I'm too old. Investments and airplanes are words that shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
Remember the axiom: "If it floats, flies or *****,.... rent"!! It will ALWAYS be cheaper.
Unfortunately it is difficult to rent a really decent boat or airplane and the third one is illegal in all states except for Nevada. Hence we buy boats and build airplanes.
 
Todd,
I haven't read the NTSB report on your RV-10 fire that consumed it.

JDanno's comment: "It's the wiring, the fuel plumbing, ECU programming" that cause the problems with LS type engine installs. In your opinion, is that correct?

Can you address in hind site what went wrong with your RV-10 and when you build again (I'm assuming from you comments), what will you have to do to make sure you project is safe and dependable to fly?
 
David Algie has a very impressive turbo LS-1 on his LP-1 project. He developed a lightweight carbon fiber gear reduction unit. The carbon fiber prop was designed from scratch and it's fadec-controlled for constant mach number. The radiator is located behind the pressurized cabin and a radiator fan flips down to prevent overheating on the ground. The cooling air exits the rear fuselage with the help of a blown exhaust system.

98149d1181941876-ls1-homebuilt-aircraft-dsc00313.jpg


If you haven't been on his website, it's probably worth a look: http://members.iquest.net/~aca/

I dropped by his shop a few weeks ago and I was very impressed. It's an extremely complex (maybe it would seem simple if I built Indy cars for a living like David) project with an awful lot of variables... but he seems to have everything well planned out.

PS - The answer to that question in your head is 385 knots while pressurized to sea level.
 
Good experience with auto conversions

Fascinating reading in this thread. I am one of the gearheads that have built 10, V6 naturally aspirated auto conversions, 7 supercharged V6 auto conversions and 1, LS2 naturally aspirated conversion. To date, half of the V6s are flying and only one to my knowledge has had problems, all related to using AV gas instead of Auto fuel. I believe they are still using AV but putting in an additive to neutralise the lead. The LS2 has been thru 2 aircraft so far but I do not know hours except to say when I last saw it it had 173 hours and that was in late 2008 in the first aircraft I installed it in.
All these conversions use belt reductions specifically designed for them and the V8 uses twin belts. No failures to my knowledge with these units.
I currently fly behind a Sti 2.5 turbo I also designed and built myself and have to date 130 trouble free hours. I will be using this installation in a RV8 QB I have just purchased.
As Ross Farnham mentioned and I fully agree I use only dedicated and properly mapped ECUs (MoTeC) and wiring harnesses specifically designed for the application and built by a specialist(CPWS) in Mil Spec Wiring. I use an Auto flight PSRU which has an enviable record and I believe Titan also use these PSRUs exclusively as does RAM performance.These PSRUs are used in their hundreds, yes hundreds by gyro flyers using all manner of Suby engines. I have heard of only one failure in these units which was openly discussed by the designer and manufacturer Neil Hintz. I did extensive dyno work mapping these engines, weeks in fact, then the mule aircraft flew hundreds of hours without a single issue and all maps remained unchanged in my time with the company. Cooling systems were designed and Rads manufactured by PWR exclusively with not a single issue.
My own installation has had no changes made of any sort since day one save for shortening the rad exit skirt on the back of my cowl.
Properly designed and executed Auto conversions are very cost effective and reliable in my humble opinion.
 
Great post, Geoff..

However, as Ross pointed out, the average guy is not capable of your expertise without your experience/education.

For most, the simplicity of bolting on a Lyc and correctly wiring and plumbing it, is a challenge of its own, but within the means of most of us.

Guys like you and Ross amaze me with what you come up with!

Best,
 
David Algie has a very impressive turbo LS-1 on his LP-1 project. He developed a lightweight carbon fiber gear reduction unit. The carbon fiber prop was designed from scratch and it's fadec-controlled for constant mach number. The radiator is located behind the pressurized cabin and a radiator fan flips down to prevent overheating on the ground. The cooling air exits the rear fuselage with the help of a blown exhaust system.

98149d1181941876-ls1-homebuilt-aircraft-dsc00313.jpg


If you haven't been on his website, it's probably worth a look: http://members.iquest.net/~aca/

I dropped by his shop a few weeks ago and I was very impressed. It's an extremely complex (maybe it would seem simple if I built Indy cars for a living like David) project with an awful lot of variables... but he seems to have everything well planned out.

PS - The answer to that question in your head is 385 knots while pressurized to sea level.

David's project is simply amazing and I've been following it for years. It is the probably the most complex experimental ever designed. His clean sheet design shows his thinking outside the box is truly innovative. The carbon work is pure art as is the rest of the project.

That being said, I'll go out on a limb and say the aircraft will never do the speeds quoted at the fuel flows claimed- these are an impossibility. I wish him luck on the carbon gearbox case and propeller. The landing gear has some interesting features. There is a lot to prove here. I'm skeptical of a 24,000 foot pressurized aircraft not fitted with an intercooler and the same goes for a turbocharged engine fitted with cast pistons.

David is an immensely talented fellow in so many fields but this project is a huge, huge bite to take without some prior experience in aviation. I do believe however that David will work the bugs out. He is tremendously driven and tenacious.

I can't wait to see it fly and see how everything works out. I think it is the most exciting experimental design to come along in decades. Many eyes will be on this project and the concept of the automotive V8 will be either proven or not. :cool::)
 
David's project is simply amazing and I've been following it for years. It is the probably the most complex experimental ever designed. His clean sheet design shows his thinking outside the box is truly innovative. The carbon work is pure art as is the rest of the project.

That being said, I'll go out on a limb and say the aircraft will never do the speeds quoted at the fuel flows claimed- these are an impossibility. I wish him luck on the carbon gearbox case and propeller. The landing gear has some interesting features. There is a lot to prove here. I'm skeptical of a 24,000 foot pressurized aircraft not fitted with an intercooler and the same goes for a turbocharged engine fitted with cast pistons...


I too have been following the project with awe. The fabrication is spectacular quality. That said, I recognize that the airplane is new and unproven from the spinner back, and this is a huge development nightmare. I wish him all the best of luck, but this is a "hail Mary pass" in every sense.
 
Fascinating reading in this thread. I am one of the gearheads that have built 10, V6 naturally aspirated auto conversions, 7 supercharged V6 auto conversions and 1, LS2 naturally aspirated conversion. To date, half of the V6s are flying and only one to my knowledge has had problems, all related to using AV gas instead of Auto fuel. I believe they are still using AV but putting in an additive to neutralise the lead. The LS2 has been thru 2 aircraft so far but I do not know hours except to say when I last saw it it had 173 hours and that was in late 2008 in the first aircraft I installed it in.
All these conversions use belt reductions specifically designed for them and the V8 uses twin belts. No failures to my knowledge with these units.
I currently fly behind a Sti 2.5 turbo I also designed and built myself and have to date 130 trouble free hours. I will be using this installation in a RV8 QB I have just purchased.
As Ross Farnham mentioned and I fully agree I use only dedicated and properly mapped ECUs (MoTeC) and wiring harnesses specifically designed for the application and built by a specialist(CPWS) in Mil Spec Wiring. I use an Auto flight PSRU which has an enviable record and I believe Titan also use these PSRUs exclusively as does RAM performance.These PSRUs are used in their hundreds, yes hundreds by gyro flyers using all manner of Suby engines. I have heard of only one failure in these units which was openly discussed by the designer and manufacturer Neil Hintz. I did extensive dyno work mapping these engines, weeks in fact, then the mule aircraft flew hundreds of hours without a single issue and all maps remained unchanged in my time with the company. Cooling systems were designed and Rads manufactured by PWR exclusively with not a single issue.
My own installation has had no changes made of any sort since day one save for shortening the rad exit skirt on the back of my cowl.
Properly designed and executed Auto conversions are very cost effective and reliable in my humble opinion.

Thanks for your input on your experiences with auto engines. Sometimes I feel like a small voice in the woods here.;):)
 
Wow!

David Algie has a very impressive turbo LS-1 on his LP-1 project. He developed a lightweight carbon fiber gear reduction unit. The carbon fiber prop was designed from scratch and it's fadec-controlled for constant mach number. The radiator is located behind the pressurized cabin and a radiator fan flips down to prevent overheating on the ground. The cooling air exits the rear fuselage with the help of a blown exhaust system.

98149d1181941876-ls1-homebuilt-aircraft-dsc00313.jpg


If you haven't been on his website, it's probably worth a look: http://members.iquest.net/~aca/

I dropped by his shop a few weeks ago and I was very impressed. It's an extremely complex (maybe it would seem simple if I built Indy cars for a living like David) project with an awful lot of variables... but he seems to have everything well planned out.

PS - The answer to that question in your head is 385 knots while pressurized to sea level.

What a project! Some impressive work. The radiator in the back is exactly where I am going to put mine when I build again. The workmanship is just exceptional. Not a big fan of the the exhaust system tucked inside and the very little if any cooling to the engine compartment but I would probably guess he has all that worked out. It is a piece of art !
 
Back
Top