RVbySDI
Well Known Member
My .02
I have read with great interest this entire thread from beginning to end. F1Rocket, Tom Maxwell, Cobra, Gmcjetpilot I agree with all of you. Now that I have said that I hope everyone recognizes that each one of these distinquised gentleman represent different sides of this debate. There are several issues being discussed here not the least of which is the question of which engine to put into my RV9A project.
Here are my thoughts on this debate as I have on occasion discussed them with anyone who is within earshot of me and willing to listen. I personally agree with leeschaumberg's comments stating that:
Let me preface anything I say from here on out with this statement. I am not an engineer, heck, I am not even a mechanic, I am just your average airplane manufacturer (after all that is how the FAA sees me when I register my homebuilt RV) out there trying to build the best airplane that I can so I can enjoy the pleasures in life I have chosen for myself to enjoy.
If you want to really look at alternative engines for aircraft there are others that no one in this thread has examined. I have talked with and read articles from knowledgable individuals who say that the real issue with producing power for an aircraft has to always revolve around the amount of torque that any engine can produce. It is the torque that allows for the ability for speed, climb, cruise, everything that we want an aircraft to do (at least in the prop world, I am not a jet jockey so this could be totally different for you turbine heads out there). Well, if you want torque, and lots of it, the ideal motor is going to be an electric one. Electric motors generate darn near 100% of its energy into torque. imagine the climb characteristics of an electric motor in your aircraft.
Of course the all important problem with electric motors is feeding it all of that electricity to generate that torque. Well, I would say that the true experimental aircraft builder out there who wants to look at alternative engines should be examining the hydrogen fuel cell industry. To me that is the future of propulsion whether it be ground based or airborn in orientation.
The Subies and the Wankels are still trying to tap into the same 70+ year technology that the Lycons are doing. The only true difference I am seeing between any of the "aircraft" engines and the "auto-conversion" enginees is in the secondary systems (i.e. ignition, cooling, mixture, transmission of power to the driving force, etc.). Ok, I know there are all of these debates that discuss the beefiness of what in the auto world can be called a big block 4 cyl Lycon to a small block Subie or Wankel. The reality is that whatever house you choose to reside in these are still the same old technologies that Orville & Wilbur, RollsRoyce, Henry Ford, Mercedes or countless of the other engine forefathers of the internal combustion world devised a century ago.
There have been increases in the capabilities (metalurgy comes to mind) to creat blocks of metal that can surround and control an extremely violent explosion countless thousands of times per minute that are much better than those gentlemen could do "way back then". However you look at it though, there really isn't much difference in the design.
Outside the above discussion however, this debate over Lycon's versus autoconversions really is a matter of economics. The reason I am examining the potential of the autoconversion is the fact that I wanted an economical engine to place in my RV that would give me the performance I want. However, the real truth of the matter is I am having a very hard time chinking down 25K plus into an engine. With that idea in mind I cannot understand why a new autoconversion engine package is coming out to be equal or more in price to a Lycon package. Afterall, that is the only real reason that I am willing to turn away from the tried and true proven "technology" of the Lycons. Now, I recognize that I could go out there and purchase an auto engine myself and configure it to operate in my airplane for cheaper than the 25K plus I would pay to some of these out their selling the "plug and play" packages. Truthfully though, I can do that with a Lycon for much less than the price of a new Lycon engine also and with a lot less trouble for my efforts.
I suspect that the motivation driving those choosing Lycon packages over autoconversions is the same motivation driving me to lean that way now too. As much as I like the Eggenfelner Subaru package, and I really do like it a great deal, the reality is that I can't really afford it any more than I can afford a brand new Lycoming Mattatuck clone IO-320 with FADEC installed and constant speed prop out in front. So, I will most likely end up finding a low or mid time Lycoming engine as inexpensively as possible to put into my RV. Perhaps I will have to rebuild it to meet my requirments. If so, since I am not a mechanic, I sure bet I will learn a lot about how these massive blocks of metal make airplanes fly.
Well for what it is worth there is my .02 on the subject. As I am just beginning my research on this engine issue I welcome any and all comments concerning my input. I honestly greatly appreciate all who have contributed to this thread. It makes for very interesting reading.
RVBYSDI
Steve Ingraham
Will be adopted by an RV9A
project on 06/02/05
I have read with great interest this entire thread from beginning to end. F1Rocket, Tom Maxwell, Cobra, Gmcjetpilot I agree with all of you. Now that I have said that I hope everyone recognizes that each one of these distinquised gentleman represent different sides of this debate. There are several issues being discussed here not the least of which is the question of which engine to put into my RV9A project.
Here are my thoughts on this debate as I have on occasion discussed them with anyone who is within earshot of me and willing to listen. I personally agree with leeschaumberg's comments stating that:
A good modern, efficient, and powerful aircraft engine in the size needed does not exist today.
Let me preface anything I say from here on out with this statement. I am not an engineer, heck, I am not even a mechanic, I am just your average airplane manufacturer (after all that is how the FAA sees me when I register my homebuilt RV) out there trying to build the best airplane that I can so I can enjoy the pleasures in life I have chosen for myself to enjoy.
If you want to really look at alternative engines for aircraft there are others that no one in this thread has examined. I have talked with and read articles from knowledgable individuals who say that the real issue with producing power for an aircraft has to always revolve around the amount of torque that any engine can produce. It is the torque that allows for the ability for speed, climb, cruise, everything that we want an aircraft to do (at least in the prop world, I am not a jet jockey so this could be totally different for you turbine heads out there). Well, if you want torque, and lots of it, the ideal motor is going to be an electric one. Electric motors generate darn near 100% of its energy into torque. imagine the climb characteristics of an electric motor in your aircraft.
Of course the all important problem with electric motors is feeding it all of that electricity to generate that torque. Well, I would say that the true experimental aircraft builder out there who wants to look at alternative engines should be examining the hydrogen fuel cell industry. To me that is the future of propulsion whether it be ground based or airborn in orientation.
The Subies and the Wankels are still trying to tap into the same 70+ year technology that the Lycons are doing. The only true difference I am seeing between any of the "aircraft" engines and the "auto-conversion" enginees is in the secondary systems (i.e. ignition, cooling, mixture, transmission of power to the driving force, etc.). Ok, I know there are all of these debates that discuss the beefiness of what in the auto world can be called a big block 4 cyl Lycon to a small block Subie or Wankel. The reality is that whatever house you choose to reside in these are still the same old technologies that Orville & Wilbur, RollsRoyce, Henry Ford, Mercedes or countless of the other engine forefathers of the internal combustion world devised a century ago.
There have been increases in the capabilities (metalurgy comes to mind) to creat blocks of metal that can surround and control an extremely violent explosion countless thousands of times per minute that are much better than those gentlemen could do "way back then". However you look at it though, there really isn't much difference in the design.
Outside the above discussion however, this debate over Lycon's versus autoconversions really is a matter of economics. The reason I am examining the potential of the autoconversion is the fact that I wanted an economical engine to place in my RV that would give me the performance I want. However, the real truth of the matter is I am having a very hard time chinking down 25K plus into an engine. With that idea in mind I cannot understand why a new autoconversion engine package is coming out to be equal or more in price to a Lycon package. Afterall, that is the only real reason that I am willing to turn away from the tried and true proven "technology" of the Lycons. Now, I recognize that I could go out there and purchase an auto engine myself and configure it to operate in my airplane for cheaper than the 25K plus I would pay to some of these out their selling the "plug and play" packages. Truthfully though, I can do that with a Lycon for much less than the price of a new Lycon engine also and with a lot less trouble for my efforts.
I suspect that the motivation driving those choosing Lycon packages over autoconversions is the same motivation driving me to lean that way now too. As much as I like the Eggenfelner Subaru package, and I really do like it a great deal, the reality is that I can't really afford it any more than I can afford a brand new Lycoming Mattatuck clone IO-320 with FADEC installed and constant speed prop out in front. So, I will most likely end up finding a low or mid time Lycoming engine as inexpensively as possible to put into my RV. Perhaps I will have to rebuild it to meet my requirments. If so, since I am not a mechanic, I sure bet I will learn a lot about how these massive blocks of metal make airplanes fly.
Well for what it is worth there is my .02 on the subject. As I am just beginning my research on this engine issue I welcome any and all comments concerning my input. I honestly greatly appreciate all who have contributed to this thread. It makes for very interesting reading.
RVBYSDI
Steve Ingraham
Will be adopted by an RV9A
project on 06/02/05