What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Jet-A Powerplant

Jet-A Powerplant Input/Advice

Hello Everyone.

I'm going to start building an RV-10 this summer. The Emp kit and Wing kit are ordered!!

As with most of the plane, I have been really thinking through the finished product; avionics, paint, interior, mods, engine, etc. I am really set on having an engine that burns Jet-A or diesel. I'm aware of a few options out there (none that are really available at this time). Continental's Jet-A CD-265, Hawk E-330 Higgs Diesel, and the TP 100 turboprop. I've come across other designs, that haven't seem to have made it to market.

I've been looking at doing an off the shelf v6 3.0L diesel conversion and have found a couple of engines that seem like they might be a good start. I realize there are a lot of considerations to think about when doing something like this, so I'd prefer to go with something that has already been tried and proven. I don't think the Audi diesel that Peter has in his Raptor is the right choice. However a similar approach may be worthy.

To recap my preferences:
Burns Jet-A/diesel
Turbocharged
Single lever control (no mixture)
FADEC (or equivalent) controlled

I realize there are some good options for conventional engines that fit all of those preferences minus the fuel. So, if the right argument could be made, I may consider a gas burner.

I look forward to your suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Peter’s engine in the Raptor failed yesterday. He was able to make it back to the runway. A lot of work went into the design and he got less than 10 hours before failure.
 
The Raptor is hardly a good example of proper development and testing. Indeed, it's a good example of how NOT to do it.
 
I don't believe Continental is selling to the experimental market.

You're probably going to end up rolling your own.
 
. SNIP
so I'd prefer to go with something that has already been tried and proven.

If you find a “tried and proven” diesel or turbine option, we will be all ears. As far a I know none exist (at least no option that does not double the price of the plane).

The parallel valve IO-540 can also burn 94UL AVGAS or premium mo-gas, so it will be viable if/when the Green New Deal does away with 100LL.

Carl
 
Engine

If you find a “tried and proven” diesel or turbine option, we will be all ears. As far a I know none exist (at least no option that does not double the price of the plane).
<snip>
Carl

Problem is it doubles the cost, doubles the labor hours and typically halves the value. Exaggeration of course.
 
I have to wonder what the OP end goal is other than ditching avgas. To date, it has been demonstrated that the air cooled gas engine provides the best weight to HP ratio ( except for turbines) which only the Rotax 912 series approximates as a liquid cooled engine.
Then there is the proven reliability of the typical aircraft engines.
 
Rob-----if I may throw out alittle advise. Having been involved in several of these non-normal conversions, I can state that you'll be on your own with ALOT of custom fabrication, and probably without alot or any support from the engine manufacturer. Custom engine mount, fuel system, extended tanks, etc are just a few of the issues. Cooling may be a huge headache.

There are aircraft diesels flying, along with small turbines, but again support will be scarce.

Great concept though---

Tom
 
My end goal is to not use AvGas. But equally important is to also reduce pilot work load and get a better performing engine.

Electronic ignition = no mixture adjustment
Turbocharged = less performance loss at altitude
No carburetor = no carb-icing
Jet-A = lower fuel cost and more availability
 
Rob-----if I may throw out alittle advise. Having been involved in several of these non-normal conversions, I can state that you'll be on your own with ALOT of custom fabrication, and probably without alot or any support from the engine manufacturer. Custom engine mount, fuel system, extended tanks, etc are just a few of the issues. Cooling may be a huge headache.

There are aircraft diesels flying, along with small turbines, but again support will be scarce.

Great concept though---

Tom

Tom-
I assumed as much going into this. My next question was going to be seeking advice for services that would help with the engine mount and some other things, if I was to provide the engine.

I figured I would start the engine testing now, so I could get the bugs worked out by the time the plane was ready for it. I've been working through fuel systems and cooling options and even thought about extended tanks.

Just like being the "manufacture" of the airframe, I'd also be the powerplant mechanic for the engine. If I can build it, then I can service it.

In the end if it doesn't work out, I can always go with a turbo charged avgas engine.
 
engine

I went down this same road.

I am pretty sure Continental won't sell you their engine, there is one guy with a -10 that was testing it out, you may want to talk to him.

The Higgs engine looks promising but as of now, it is made of Unobtanium.

The TP-100 is definitely cool but not $160k cool...and the performance really isn't any better.

I also looked at the LS conversions with a PSRU. That showed promise, however, after talking to a guy with a -10 in georgia that has this conversion, I decided against it.

I ended up with the lycoming, not by preference but by practicality. None of the other options offered truly great performance gains and they all had serious execution issues. As has been stated, you will be on your own for design and engineering of mounts, exhaust, cooling system, accessories, fuel system, etc.

The other downside is time. I have better than 3000 hours in building my -10...and that is with the lycoming. Any time estimation for modifications you make will need to multiplied by at least 5...

Also note that the -10 tends to be nose heavy, so there's that to contend with.

...and in the end, you will likely see little, if any, performance gain...

It comes down to what you really want; are you willing to sacrifice significant time, effort, and cash to say that you can burn Jet-A or do you want a nice performing gas burner that you can actually finish and fly in a reasonable fashion...

I wish you luck...
 
Every once in awhile a RR250 series turboshaft shows up on ebay. Usually out of a helicopter but you might find one with the prop gearbox. They are actually relatively straightforward to work on once you get over the eye watering price of parts.

We run these in our helicopters and they are pretty much idiot proof to operate.
 
Full disclosure: this is the way I went, though I'm still building.

I too wanted most of your desires -- freedom from 100LL, no carb to ice up, no need to fiddle with mixture. I ended up choosing a parallel-valve Lycoming with SDS EFI. This combination should be mogas-compatible without need to adjust mixture once it's dialed in.

A Jet-A or conversion engine sounds like fun, but I don't have the time, money, or skills to do it. If someone else was paying my bills...
 
DeltaHawk

The DeltaHawk diesel/Jet A engine has been in development for a couple decades, and they have had a booth at Oshkosh for many years. I don't know if they are still in business. They have been discussed many times before on VAF, so do a search on their name.

My EAA chapter in IL visited their factory in the early 2000's, and it is a pretty neat concept. The problem that I saw was their V-shape piston alignment, with the pistons on top of the crank. Their testbed was a Velocity, so the cowl bumps weren't a problem. They needed to get an inverted V piston arrangement to work in a tractor-engine setup, so you can see over the engine.

https://deltahawk.com/
 
SMA Diesel

Congrats on starting an RV-10 build! The discussion about diesel engines makes good sense, because we don't truly know what the future of 100LL will be. One engine that wasn't mentioned in the post is the SMA diesel, which is operating in a few C-182 aircraft here and in Europe, as an STC conversion. You can read a little about the engine and a record that was set several years ago here: https://generalaviationnews.com/201...2-completes-record-setting-efficiency-flight/ The program has changed since then. After reading your post, I contacted a friend of mine who happens to be the US program manager for SAFRAN regarding the SMA diesel. He told me that SMA Aero Engines in Germany is now the owner of the assets of the SAFRAN piston engines program. They are exploring the installation of the engine in an RV-10, and if you did it on your RV-10 it would require guidance from SMA. Whether or not a kit is available in the future is unknown, but at least you would not be going it alone on the installation, and the engine is certified for use on the C-182.
 
....
Electronic ignition = no mixture adjustment
Turbocharged = less performance loss at altitude
No carburetor = no carb-icing
Jet-A = lower fuel cost and more availability

Mixture adjustment is a minor inconvenience.

With altitude performance, be aware that Vne is for true airspeed, not indicated. As you gain altitude, it's awful easy to push Vne, especially when you descend.

Carb icing is a non-issue with available technology. I have this for my non-RV and it's been reliable. And fuel injected engines don't have carbs, so this is a non-issue.

Jet-A fuel availability is interesting - it tends to be better at the larger, busier airports. Many of the more rural airports just don't have it, so this will limit your choice of destination. Might not be a big deal to you but something definitely to consider.

My own take on your idea is that while it's an interesting development project, it's probably not a great idea if you want a reliable airplane that gives you some utility.

Dave
 
I too was all excited about compression ignition back in the kit planning stages. I remember speaking to a engine manufacturer rep at Copperstate about 2006 or so and him regaling us with tales of how they were only a "year or two away from showing a diesel that would be a bolt in replacement for an IO540." Yeah right

A little advise. Before going down any alternative path, talk to a handful of insurance brokers first. Any possible economic factors must include insurance which can be exorbitant if even available for alternative propulsion.
 
Auto and truck engines can run on propane. Has anybody done this with an aircraft engine?

I think propane would be problematic. The tanks would be much heavier and it is a gas under pressure which would be more dangerous. The other issue is where would you get fuel.
 
My end goal is to not use AvGas. But equally important is to also reduce pilot work load and get a better performing engine.

Electronic ignition = no mixture adjustment
Turbocharged = less performance loss at altitude
No carburetor = no carb-icing
Jet-A = lower fuel cost and more availability

What about reliability? Would you want 3 others onboard with a powerplant and propeller drive of unknown durability?
 
My end goal is to not use AvGas. But equally important is to also reduce pilot work load and get a better performing engine.

Electronic ignition = no mixture adjustment
Turbocharged = less performance loss at altitude
No carburetor = no carb-icing
Jet-A = lower fuel cost and more availability

Seems to me that you can get the top 3 already with existing technology. The question is, should you?

FADEC? That's nice in a Jet or whatever, but I'll keep my mixture control, thanks. I've flown a DA42 and it's cool, but not cool enough to make me want to deal with the potential down side.

A Diamond factory pilot crashed a DA42 due to their supposedly foolproof double redundant dual Fadecs going off line right after takeoff. The reason? The battery was dead, so they started the airplane with a GPU. When the gear was retracted, the load on the not 100% recovered electrical system rocked their little computer world and that was that. The fix was to add a couple more backup batteries for I guess what would now be quadruple redundancy, which seems like an awful lot of hassle just to get rid of a red knob.

Turbo? An RV already cruises so close to redline (which is measured in TAS) that if you could keep sea level power to altitude, you would likely need structural modifications and the flight test program that should go with it in order to take advantage of those extra ponies.

No Carb? aren't we just talking about fuel injection here?

I get the reason that diesel is desirable in Europe, where 100LL is scarce/expensive, but in the US I just don't see a practical reason to move away from the tried and true Lycoming.

Best of luck to you if you go this way. and maybe I'm just set in my ways, but I thought long and hard before I pulled the trigger on a IO390 order for my RV7 just because I didn't want to add a bunch of time to my build due to having to figure out a bunch of stuff that Vans doesn't give guidance for...
 
I am surprised there is no discussion of a hybrid electric power plant for the RV-10. Something like the MagniX 250 might be a bit overkill at 375hp, however this is where all the technology develop dollars seem to be going. Direct drive generators on a sustainer IC motor appears to be most realistic configuration if you want any reasonable range. Rather than an expensive turbine, a turbo boosted Mazda type rotary with a direct drive generator may be the most cost effective hybrid combination. JET A is a practical for the near term with LNG/H2 coming on once the distribution facilities are in place (Mazda already has a dual fuel/H2 powered rotary).

The EU is really pushing H2 power and I expect global warming/cooling/climate change inspired (mandated) trends will force aviation powerplants to either pure electric or some form of H2 based fuel (direct combustion or fuel cell). Sadly, the EU seems to be inspiring a lot more innovation in GA than the US.
 
A Diamond factory pilot crashed a DA42 due to their supposedly foolproof double redundant dual Fadecs going off line right after takeoff. The reason? The battery was dead, so they started the airplane with a GPU. When the gear was retracted, the load on the not 100% recovered electrical system rocked their little computer world and that was that. The fix was to add a couple more backup batteries for I guess what would now be quadruple redundancy, which seems like an awful lot of hassle just to get rid of a red knob.

Moral of the story there is to know the systems on your airplane (which goes for any airplane, but especially a homebuilt, whether you built it or not), not “this stinks because it’s not the same as traditional airplanes”. If you have an electrically-dependent engine, you don’t just jump it off and then fly away on a dead battery—just like you don’t jump start a glass cockpit airplane and then fly into IMC. I don’t even like jump-starting my car for similar reasons; no way in **** I’m doing it to my airplane. Do it right and charge the battery properly.

But, if you’re not comfortable with electronic injection/ignition/FADEC, or all-glass panels, or tailwheels, or composites, or (insert anything here), you don’t have to use them. That’s the beauty of E-AB. You can weigh the pros and cons as you see them, and build it the way you want.
 
Sadly, the EU seems to be inspiring a lot more innovation in GA than the US.

From my experience talking to FAA and EASA regulators on the ASTM committee (back when they were working on rewriting Part 23) I found the Europeans far more open to new ideas, and far more willing to discuss changing the regs when they didn’t make sense, even though they were more strict and more restrictive in general.

The FAA, by contrast, is less controlling in many ways, but once they make a decision (on a regulation, interpretation, or anything else) it practically takes an act of God to get them to change their minds. Something completely new and different, they’ll consider, but if it’s even remotely close to anything that currently exists they will try their hardest to view it through that lens. Two quotes from FAA types on the committee:

“Well, we agree that requirement doesn’t make sense. But, we don’t know why they wrote it that way, so we aren’t going to change it”.

“There won’t be any changes to that number. We’ve heard it was on the third tablet that Moses dropped coming down the mountain”.

I think that’s why light (certified) GA development mostly seems to be coming from Europe—the regulators are more open to considering things outside the box, and they are more willing to scale down requirements that were originally developed for larger aircraft.

To circle back, one of the reasons we don’t see much in the way of FADEC/EEC/EFI on light aircraft is that the regs for those were originally written back when large passenger-carrying turbine-powered aircraft were the only feasible application. The regs were written with those in mind. Now, modern technology has made it feasible for light aircraft, but the rules haven’t changed. They’re still written to the needs of commercial engines, which are arguably overkill for a light aircraft—and definitely much more demanding than the standards for the carbs and mags so many still fly behind today.
 
I too was all excited about compression ignition back in the kit planning stages. I remember speaking to a engine manufacturer rep at Copperstate about 2006 or so and him regaling us with tales of how they were only a "year or two away from showing a diesel that would be a bolt in replacement for an IO540." Yeah right

A little advise. Before going down any alternative path, talk to a handful of insurance brokers first. Any possible economic factors must include insurance which can be exorbitant if even available for alternative propulsion.

Insurance is a big issue. The Lance Air 4P turbine is probably the most common conversion out there with a decent number flying. A friend has one currently. He does factory yearly recurrent, 20,000 plus hours, ATP, extensive GA experience and no prior claims ect. Insurance is 17,000 a year on 350,000 in hull value. Liability only is 6000.
Many 4PTurbine buyers with lessor quals can’t get any insurance.
 
The EU is really pushing H2 power and I expect global warming/cooling/climate change inspired (mandated) trends will force aviation powerplants to either pure electric or some form of H2 based fuel (direct combustion or fuel cell). Sadly, the EU seems to be inspiring a lot more innovation in GA than the US.


If someone believes in the economics or the “greenness” of Hydrogen, you should
Invest your retirement savings In it. I did energy balances for a living, H2 makes zero environmental or economic sense.
 
Last edited:
Caught myself, sort of.

I basically was one of those holes who make statements without any substantiation. So, here is a copy of a previous post of mine with some facts and stats:

The Majority of Economics of Renewable Energy is a lie. The costs associated with back-up power and "spinning reserve" are not included. Renewables also aren't nearly as green as they portray themselves. Gas turbines cycling load, making pollution while operating under no load conditions, giving up 50% of their relative efficiencies operating in simple cycle mode, all to prop up wind and solar generation's unpredictable output. There are a lot of hidden costs and environmental impacts. Add on the fact that their levelized costs are very high compared to other forms of generation (Hydro is the exception), it makes even less sense.

Every time you convert energy there is loss. For the H2 cycle: Chemical to mechanical, to electrical, to chemical, to mechanical, to electrical (first conversion drops off if using renewable source) Multiply numbers all less than 1, the product gets very small, very fast. It is a tremendous waste of resources. A quick example: to fuel a single 260MW gas turbine with hydrogen requires 1033MW (per unit time). It would also consume about 200,000 l/h of water. So, make more directly related pollution for less usable power.

So, use "green" H2 made from renewable energy. You still gave up a lot of energy. It would only take over 400 wind turbines of the most common sized frame. Those would need about 750 acres of land. BTW their capacity factor is only about 1/3 so triple the aforementioned quantities for a true average needs. Solar is worse with only about 16-18% capacity factor.

Anyone mention that there's no H2 infrastructure? Want to tanker it? The amount of energy required to liquify it hasn't been considered. You're now probably pretty close to zero net efficiency. Now if you want to turn H2 into electricity because it's a by-product of your refinery process, please do (Propane used to be a flare gas, BTW). I have a lot of respect for people who can make money off of their waste.

We can be much smarter on energy policy and utilization but common sense needs to prevail. There's a whole lot more to this but only so much time write. I'll state again, if someone truly believes in the economics of H2, don't debate it here. Go invest your retirement savings in it. Fortunes are made in such but those people are typically utilizing other people's money and riding the wave of excitement and current political winds. This is not the first time the "New Hydrogen Economy" has been touted. Physics hasn't changed since then. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Yes

If someone believes in the economics or the “greenness” of Hydrogen, you should
Invest your retirement savings In it. I did energy balances for a living, H2 makes zero environmental or economic sense.

+1

Real numbers spoil everything.

Free Macro Assembly?
 
When it comes to the day that solar, wind, Geo-thermal, etc need to power semi's down the freeway, hydrogen is a way to connect the two and accomplish that. I'm a fan, but then I bought PLUG at .87
 
http://youtu.be/gKVV98jzyG0

Proven and reliable Air cooled V12 diesel. Likely 1500 to 2500 lbs but will probably run reliably at rated HP and RPM for over 5000 hours. Here is a dyno run to see the numbers https://youtu.be/ZTlcpTUWLig 250KW = 330 HP

The PT-6 or RR/ Allison Turbo Prop engines are likely the only truly proven and reliable made for the air choices that I would trust in an airframe with passenger seats.

Good luck
 
Last edited:
A PT-6 would suck the RV10 fuel tanks dry pretty quick. Powered way back and under 10,000', a small PT-6 probably burns 35 gph. They're made to run hard. Do that and you'd be going 300kts and rip the wings off. IIRC the PT-6A-28 burns around 15gph at idle and about 55gph at low altitude cruise. Take it up to the lower flight levels and it's still burning 35-40gph. There's already a kit plane designed for a small PT-6, and it isn't the RV10 (Lancair Evolution).
 
Mixture adjustment is a minor inconvenience.

With altitude performance, be aware that Vne is for true airspeed, not indicated. As you gain altitude, it's awful easy to push Vne, especially when you descend.

Carb icing is a non-issue with available technology. I have this for my non-RV and it's been reliable. And fuel injected engines don't have carbs, so this is a non-issue.

Jet-A fuel availability is interesting - it tends to be better at the larger, busier airports. Many of the more rural airports just don't have it, so this will limit your choice of destination. Might not be a big deal to you but something definitely to consider.

My own take on your idea is that while it's an interesting development project, it's probably not a great idea if you want a reliable airplane that gives you some utility.

Dave

Obviously a reliable plane is good. Sometimes we need to "experiment" with other options to improve the technology and with enough testing can prove to be reliable, or not.

I agree there is technology already proven reliable that meets most of my preferences and I am considering those. I'm still very early in the build so if I'm going to go with an experimental engine, then it should be tested for as long as possible before flown in the plane.

As for the turbocharged engine for less power loss at altitude, it's not so I can go faster. I'm not trying to make the -10 fly like a fighter jet. LOL What I see as the big benefit is taking off from an airport at 9000' on 100 degree days without having to leave your luggage or take on less fuel. Honestly, am I going to run into this situation often, hopefully not, but it would be nice to know I have that little extra power. Sure, is that extra power worth the extra weight? That's something to be considered.
 
Congrats on starting an RV-10 build! The discussion about diesel engines makes good sense, because we don't truly know what the future of 100LL will be. One engine that wasn't mentioned in the post is the SMA diesel, which is operating in a few C-182 aircraft here and in Europe, as an STC conversion. You can read a little about the engine and a record that was set several years ago here: https://generalaviationnews.com/201...2-completes-record-setting-efficiency-flight/ The program has changed since then. After reading your post, I contacted a friend of mine who happens to be the US program manager for SAFRAN regarding the SMA diesel. He told me that SMA Aero Engines in Germany is now the owner of the assets of the SAFRAN piston engines program. They are exploring the installation of the engine in an RV-10, and if you did it on your RV-10 it would require guidance from SMA. Whether or not a kit is available in the future is unknown, but at least you would not be going it alone on the installation, and the engine is certified for use on the C-182.

I've seen this engine briefly, before. For some reason, I thought it was a discontinued project. I'll have to look into it again. Definitely going with something that has a team of engineers to support you would be great.
 
Obviously a reliable plane is good. Sometimes we need to "experiment" with other options to improve the technology and with enough testing can prove to be reliable, or not.

I agree there is technology already proven reliable that meets most of my preferences and I am considering those. I'm still very early in the build so if I'm going to go with an experimental engine, then it should be tested for as long as possible before flown in the plane.

As for the turbocharged engine for less power loss at altitude, it's not so I can go faster. I'm not trying to make the -10 fly like a fighter jet. LOL What I see as the big benefit is taking off from an airport at 9000' on 100 degree days without having to leave your luggage or take on less fuel. Honestly, am I going to run into this situation often, hopefully not, but it would be nice to know I have that little extra power. Sure, is that extra power worth the extra weight? That's something to be considered.

I think you should check the performance figures at gross weight for the Lycoming powered RV-10. More than most 4 place airplanes, I think it has a superb combination and your worries about hot/high at gross weight are unfounded. Haven't flown one, but read lots. Sounds like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Early in the build of my RV-9A (still ongoing;)) I became enamored with the Wilksh aerodiesel and the designer Mark Wilksh. The three cylinder was in production and the 4 cylinder (160 hp) was just about to be released. Modern tech, turbo, single lever, Jet-A. The 4 cylinder never was released to production. The designer went on to other things. I have a Superior IO-320 sitting in my living room ready to hang. I'm going to be very happy with it.
 
I am surprised there is no discussion of a hybrid electric power plant for the RV-10. Something like the MagniX 250 might be a bit overkill at 375hp, however this is where all the technology develop dollars seem to be going. Direct drive generators on a sustainer IC motor appears to be most realistic configuration if you want any reasonable range. Rather than an expensive turbine, a turbo boosted Mazda type rotary with a direct drive generator may be the most cost effective hybrid combination. JET A is a practical for the near term with LNG/H2 coming on once the distribution facilities are in place (Mazda already has a dual fuel/H2 powered rotary).

The EU is really pushing H2 power and I expect global warming/cooling/climate change inspired (mandated) trends will force aviation powerplants to either pure electric or some form of H2 based fuel (direct combustion or fuel cell). Sadly, the EU seems to be inspiring a lot more innovation in GA than the US.

You may be on to something with an electric powerplant. I thought about very quickly for my build. I figured the power to weight ratio for today's batteries just isn't where it needs to be. By the time I finish the plane, the technology might be right for it.
 
Very doubtful

When it comes to the day that solar, wind, Geo-thermal, etc need to power semi's down the freeway, hydrogen is a way to connect the two and accomplish that. I'm a fan, but then I bought PLUG at .87

Electricity is far more economical and safe to transport (transmit) than a pipeline of H2. Tankering would be even more expensive and probably bring the total cycle efficiency to near zero; this assuming the H2 would have to be liquified.

Ignoring the idiocy surrounding the efficiency of the total H2 cycle, burning it in an end user is still not the great environmental benefit that people are lead to believe. As the oxidizer in the combustion process is atmospheric air, Nitrogen is still part of the process. NOx, an Ozone depleter, is a byproduct. NOx is mostly thermally driven and it so happens that H2 has a relatively hot flame. That said, NOx emissions are easier to reduce than capturing carbon. Like everything else, if you squeeze the balloon in one place it gets bigger (worse) in another. Don't believe everything you hear. Assume everything you hear is a sales job and chances are you'll be right.
 
Last edited:
Early in the build of my RV-9A (still ongoing;)) I became enamored with the Wilksh aerodiesel and the designer Mark Wilksh. The three cylinder was in production and the 4 cylinder (160 hp) was just about to be released. Modern tech, turbo, single lever, Jet-A. The 4 cylinder never was released to production. The designer went on to other things. I have a Superior IO-320 sitting in my living room ready to hang. I'm going to be very happy with it.

Same here. I had my eye on that 4-cylinder really hard, but it never happened. The base power is about 20 less than I have installed now but I would go for the turbodiesel in a heartbeat for the high cruise numbers, that's my main mission.
 
Last edited:
Obviously a reliable plane is good. Sometimes we need to "experiment" with other options to improve the technology and with enough testing can prove to be reliable, or not.

I think the main question you need to ask yourself is how much of that you want to do.

If you are looking for a nice cross country airplane you can take your family on vacation in ready within a few years buy a Lycoming for all the reasons listed in this thread.

If you are willing to experiment for a decade or two (your experimentation will just start with the first flight) before you reach that point with a good chance of failures (9 out of 10 startups fail as a reference point and for some reason that number feels worse in aviation..). Then by all means go for a diesel. That is what experimental aviation was founded on. I would certainly be following you with interest and you will find many people willing to help you with technical questions.

Also nobody so far was able to show any actual (not projected) financial benefit of the experimentation approach on larger engine either. By the time you pay for R&D (all the expensive custom fabrication and mistakes you will make) and get it reliable into an airplane you have spent more money then a lifetime supply of Avgas and would have payed for the Lycoming to boot. The difference in insurance alone might pay for your avgas. So if you think about saving $$ you are very likely mistaken.

Oliver
 
I've seen this engine briefly, before. For some reason, I thought it was a discontinued project. I'll have to look into it again. Definitely going with something that has a team of engineers to support you would be great.

In some respects, it's harder. They will have restrictions, require more data, and use a decision system with multiple levels. There will be some CYA factor.

Terry's contact is more recent than mine. Previously SMA wasn't interested in EAB.

Continental made a great many changes to their version of the engine, and perhaps has made more. I have not spoken with a Jet-A contact in a while.

Even with corporate support, it requires serious commitment.

https://www.kitplanes.com/jet-a-for-the-rest-of-us/
 
Electricity is far more economical and safe to transport (transmit) than a pipeline of H2. Tankering would be even more expensive and probably bring the total cycle efficiency to near zero; this assuming the H2 would have to be liquified.

Ignoring the idiocy surrounding the efficiency of the total H2 cycle, burning it in an end user is still not the great environmental benefit that people are lead to believe. As the oxidizer in the combustion process is atmospheric air, Nitrogen is still part of the process. NOx, an Ozone depleter, is a byproduct. NOx is mostly thermally driven and it so happens that H2 has a relatively hot flame. That said, NOx emissions are easier to reduce than capturing carbon. Like everything else, if you squeeze the balloon in one place it gets bigger (worse) in another. Don't believe everything you hear. Assume everything you hear is a sales job and chances are you'll be right.

Welcome to the world of environmental politics. First, throw out any ideas about economics and efficiency and focus only on CO emission numbers.

If you read Aviation Week and Space Technology with any regularity, CO emissions reduction is the holy grail of the airlines, which forces the airframes' and engine manufactures down the H2/electric power road. Same with the Urban Air Mobility crowd, battery electric power, fuel cells, hybrid sustainers, and H2 turbines are currently getting $Bs in investment to develop the technology.

The political goal is to kill the IC engine along with gasoline and diesel fuels and that goal is backed by the social trend. GM is going all electric, as is Ford, Toyota, etc. Ampaire, Bye Aerospace, and Pipistrel are not the odd balls, its where the action is. If someone has a spare 20K of Euros, Pipistrel will be happy to sell you a complete 60Kw electric propulsion system you might be able to install in an RV-12.

Looking at the political trend, you are more likely going to end up with an all electric or electric hybrid powerplant in 5 years. With a $50K+ price tag on the IO-540s, that is a very attractive price target for an electric alternative.

One other item to going against a new Jet-A IC engine is the EPA Tier 4 emissions, which typically require some form of after treatment system to capture particulates. If you think a diesel is heavy now, wait till you see the after treatment add on. Tier 4 is killing segments of the Marine industry and that appears to be fine with the government. How far behind will GA be in this environment?

I wish I knew the answer to where this is going, I am only observing the larger political and social trends that will dictate the the technology answer, good or bad. If you follow the money, you will most likely get your answer.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
 
Apples, Oranges, and other fruit

Particulate (soot) is not a green house gas though it does contribute to acid rain. Current carbon capture (think CO2 primarily) approaches are mostly exclusive to ChemE processes. You can't make a chemical plant fly. Electric cars have little common application relative to anything that could possibly fly. Electric aircraft were beaten to death in another thread here this sub-category.

Of course we should strive to eliminate pollution but the whole energy cycle has to be considered. Carbon capture on an industrial scale has potential but is a long way off. CC on a consumer scale end-user makes no sense. Who knows once politics are involved. Ultimately, the producer of the battery with the best life cycle costs will probably be the economic victor, aviation aside.
 
Continental made a great many changes to their version of the engine, and perhaps has made more. I have not spoken with a Jet-A contact in a while.

I have, as recently as two months ago. Their position has not changed.
 
I think 12vaitor is correct on this, pretty soon Lycoming are going to find there cosy world upset by electric aircraft. First viable kitplane which uses electric will probably do huge business. 2 x 60kw electric motors, about 160/170 Hp, one on each wing pushing rather than pulling for 5 hrs flight @ 80% you need about 500kwh of electric. Thats 5 x a model S. Tesla make their batteries $100 A KWH at present so the battery plus electronics and two motors $60,000 at present (not that much more than FWF kit on a RV14-RV10. But in 3 yrs Tesla expect $50-60 a kwh. Then we are talking $30-40K.

Another issue is the weight currently about 300watts per lbs...so the battery weighs about 1600 lbs but we dont need the 50 galls of fuel at 300lbs and the 350lb engine. So 900-1000lbs heavier than an ice engine plane but a much more efficient airframe with no holes for air intakes exhaust etc

filling it up will be about $60 to travel 1000 miles. Number of moving parts will be far less so much better reliability. 10YRS from now the thought of investing in a liquid fuel GAA plane will seem crazy stupid
 
The Raptor is hardly a good example of proper development and testing. Indeed, it's a good example of how NOT to do it.
I think you are wrong with respect. Peter is a talented guy who is doing amazing work. With all his technical capabilities, time, money, tenacity he still has a heavy poor performing prototype aircraft. He is giving it a good shot and makes my point below.

As far as Peter and the "Raptor" he has the same issue all auto engines conversions have, weight, cooling drag and PSRU (and lower actual thrust). The (PSRU) Prop Speed Reduction Unit is the achilles heel of almost all car to aircraft engine conversions. As you know Automotive engines make their power and much higher RPM than an aircraft direct drive engine. So they require a speed reduction unit to slow the speed of the propeller which can't turn faster than about 2700 RPM or suffer significant loss of efficiency.

For all of you who don't follow Peter's Raptor YouTube channel, he had a seal leak on his custom designed PSRU. He lost oil and eventually engine oil pressure. The Raptor is a carbon fiber 4 place Canard like a pressurized wide body "Velocity" looking canard retractable prototype with an Audi TDI V6 Diesel and a custom PSRU with hydraulic CS Prop. The PSRU is his own design. The PSRU seal allowed engine oil to be puked out. He made a safe dead stick landing at his home airport. The engine was damaged and is being replaced and PSRU seal issue addressed. Peter wants to produce a kit to sell.

First self disclosure, in the last 35 years I have followed, researched many (many) auto engine conversions. I'm not a big fan but admire the effort. The best engine conversion is to take $35,000 and converted it into a Lycoming ( significantly less $$$ is you source a used engine). So I am not promoting Auto engines in PLANES, petrol or diesel. However no need to bash Peter and his Raptor.

With that said with Peter's never give up attitude, apparently endless time and money, methodical approach, he show Auto Engine conversions require tremendous amount of extra time and no real money savings in an aircraft that's not going to perform as well with a Lycoming.

If you deviate from Van's Aircraft plans and install some custom engine you will spend 100's or 1,000's of hours hours of extra build time and 1000's of dollars more than if you just went with the Lycoming.
 
Last edited:
Chris, I don't remember his last name, at Turbine Solutions in Deland, Florida bought my RV 10 a few years ago. He installed a turboprop on it. It was at OSH a few times.
He/they were, at the time, working on a FWF package for the RV10.

2 or 3 years ago I was in Daytona Beach, I called him and got to go fly "my" airplane. It was great.

Give him a call (386) 804-1824.
 
If someone believes in the economics or the “greenness” of Hydrogen, you should
Invest your retirement savings In it. I did energy balances for a living, H2 makes zero environmental or economic sense.

Indeed . . . . . !
 
Back
Top