WAM status?

[thomasjorgensen]

What is the status on the Wilksch engines? They seem to have lost interest in homebuilders?

[kgood]

Originally Posted by thomasjorgensen

What is the status on the Wilksch engines? They seem to have lost interest in homebuilders?

Wilksch is still in business, but is in the development mode now. There are some minor production issues with the current engine, so they are taking care of those issues while developing the larger bore 140 hp engine.

I am in regular contact with them, and they indicate that testing is going well. Hopefully this year they will release the new engine for production. I will definitely be one of the first to get one.

It would appear, as you indicate, that they're not supporting the homebuilt market. The way I see it, they're focusing their attention on the final development of the new version so that they'll have solid, reliable engines to provide to the certified and homebuilt markets.

As far as support goes, WAM has been VERY supportive of those who are flying with WAM engines. I certainly have no complaints. They have been professional and timely whenever I've needed parts or information.

I have had excellent service from my WAM 120. I would recommend this engine to anyone. The economy is great; the workload is low; and I believe it's much safer than an Avgas engine.

Regards,
Kurt

RV9/WAM 120 Diesel, 285 hours.

[thomasjorgensen]

Thanks Kurt, very informative reply.

Now I will bore you with a few more questions, hope you don't mind.

How far do you think they are from certification (i.e. when do you think the rest of us can get our fingers on one? a year or two? a decade?) The pace has seemed quite slow (but steady).

Are the 4 cylinders still a pipe dream, to be looked at after the 140?

As you can see I find these engines very interesting for us Europeans, and have found myself daydreaming of a 140 3-cylinder/160-180 4-cylinder fastback RV-4, where you could take advantage of the shape of the engine due to the narrow fuselage. With a turbine-like scoop for the intake+intercooler+oil cooler, no "cheeks", and the coolant radiator repositioned to a underbelly "p51" scoop, I envision it as a rather good looking thing, with no inherent disadvantages compared to the lycoming variants, and fantastically cheap cross countries to boot (turbo+high energy density of diesel+cheapness of diesel in europe compared to mogas). Its quickly becoming my idea of the perfect bird for Europe!

Sorry just needed to get that off my mind!

[jbagley]

Can it run inverted?

I realize that the crankshaft is on the top of the engine with the cylinders underneath, which is inverted compared to most any other engine. So, I guess i'm asking if it will run upright?

My RV6 is a few years from needing an engine. A diesel would be pretty neat I think. I like the look of the cowling and I like the economy. Inverted flight isn't really a selling point for me actually, just a curiosity.

My current rv6a can't fly inverted and I don't miss it.

[thomasjorgensen]

Im pretty sure i read somewhere that they where developing an aerobatic version...

[WAM120RV]

I concur with Kurt WAM have been very supportive to owners. Their premises is only a 15 minute flight from where I base our 9A.

The engine is not aerobatic at the moment, it has a wet sump at the bottom of the engine.

Actually a 4 with a 140 in it would go very well as its blown and turbocharged and holds onto its power output high up. We find our 9 really moves well at 8 to 9 thousand feet. Like Kert we are looking forward to the big bore version.

[thomasjorgensen]

BTW are the WAM engines installed weight comparable to similarly powered lycomings?

[kgood]

Thomas,
I'll try to answer your questions:
I don't speak for WAM, but I suspect it'll be this year that they'll have the 140 hp version available to homebuilders. I don't think they'll do anything with the 4 cyl. 160/180 hp until the 120/140 3 cyl. is up and going. As far as certification goes for the "storebought" market, I'm not sure, but I would imagine it will be within a year or so of availability in the experimental market.

Your idea to put one on an RV4 would be great. I've often thought about a P-51-style scoop, especially on a '4, but you have to remember that the sump actually hangs down below the belly of the plane, so you couldn't get a clean line between the cowling and the belly. I went with the turbine-style chin scoop, then routed my inlet plenums around the sump/head to a radiator mounted just behind the engine. The cooling system works well in this configuration.

Weight: my RV9/WAM came out lighter than the equivalent Lycoming O235 installation, and I have a CS prop. It was MUCH lighter than an O320.

Ken Krueger from Van's wrote an article about some testing we did between my plane and Van's factory RV9A/O320 (Kitplanes April 2010). The WAM performed well against the Lyc, especially considering that it has 40 less HP. Once I get the 140 hp version, I'll see if Van's wants to do another test. I'm almost positive that the WAM will match the LYC's performance, while burning considerably less fuel.

Any other questions, just let me know. I'm a real believer in the future of diesel for GA.

Kurt

[thomasjorgensen]

That is great news kurt! Truth is I had sort of dismissed WAM as an engine option (from lack of/conflicting information i guess). Seems like all europeans should sit up and take note! Bummer about the oil sump being so deep though! There go the beautiful lines... Does it also stick out the bottom of the 9?

So you considered a "bellyscoop" on your RV-9? In theory it should reduce drag... But it does complicate the build slightly. Why did you choose against it?

Im looking into that Kitplanes article.

[thomasjorgensen]

What about width wise, even with all the system, isn't the WAM still substancially narrower than a Lycoming?