Alternative Engine Bashing

[zilik]

The recent post asking about Porsche engines again brought out the nay-sayers. Yes the Porsche did not work out for Mooney but that does not mean that it would not work out for a enterprising young man building an RV.

It seems that the Lyco guys just can't wait to point out all the flaws of non aircraft engines. I think these are the builders who build to fly and not build to build. There are builder/flyers and then there are flyers.

I don't try to push my beliefs on others and I hope that others follow the same rules when dealing with me. I fly a lycoming but does that mean the guy with the Porsche or Mazda is lower that me because of his choice? I think not. Some guys/gals want to tinker and have excellent success with the non-aircraft engine. To me the guys who experiments with alternative engines are on the same level (very high) as the designer/builder or the plans built builder, some succeed and some don't.

We all have different comfort levels when it comes to flying. Some are more bold and go the alternative engine route and some stay with the norm, a Lycoming. I fall in to the normal flying guy, the big chicken, so I chose the Lycoming. I'll leave the experimenting on the ground.

But I won't bash the AE guy because he wants to go that route and I encourage the rest of the big chickens like me to do the same. Pointing unsafe practices, like solid fuel lines in the engine compartment is OK, but leave it at that. Just because its a AE does not mean that it's unsafe.

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

Thanks Gary;
AE has come a long way. when you go to the AE sites, and look at pictures of current projects, you will see it's not cheapskates that move forward, it's inovators with solid support from their group.

 

[n5lp]

????

I guess I have a little different take on it Gary. I wouldn't consider the facts in that thread "bashing." Porsche is a large and successful company with huge engineering resources. They came up with an engine that was much more expensive, less efficient and heavier than the ancient Lycoming IO-360. If it doesn't work well with all that, I think we have the right to be skeptical of garage guys or small companies.

Great if someone can do it but it sure ain't easy. Lycoming has lots of experience and their engines work pretty darn well.

 

[L.Adamson]

The person who wrote the post, asked the question....

I knew it didn't work for Mooney, and stated I had no idea in regards to an RV.

I then linked the Porshe/Mooney article........for some relevant information

This is NOT as a case of waiting to "bash".............

If someone comes up with some better installation facts, then fine by me..

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

 

[rv6ejguy]

Fair post Gary, I appreciate it.

Sorry to say I don't agree with some other posts here. There are many examples of big companies with smart engineers getting it all wrong when it comes to aircraft engines, Thielert comes to mind as a recent one. Sometimes one or two smart guys can do a better job that a whole bunch who are always knocking heads or getting the bean counters and marketing people throwing their ideas into the mix.

It takes a bit of talent to do alt engine installations successfully but what Porsche did back in the '80s has almost no bearing on what a guy doing a one off today would be doing. Lots has changed.

Nobody said anything here that Lycoming was not a good choice for RVs but let's remember, that they have warts too.

 

[Geico266]

What motivates builders to use AEs?

Desire to tinkering?
Ease of installation with a complete FF package?
Wanting to be different?
Money?
To prove it can be done?

Obviously there are different motivating factors for everyone, but it is interesting to look at what motivates builders to make the choice.

 

[TSwezey]

Cause we have a screw loose. It is the same type of mentality that trusted Van's design in the early days.

 

[mark schoening]

MY OPINION---I personally use lyc because it is proven, cost is consistent, install is standardized, parts and accessories are available, and because of this building is faster. Having said that, anyone who takes on alternative power has my admiration in that the engineering, support systems development, and tremendous time investment that is needed to prove the system both cost effective and safe for aviation use. I also think a lot of people have a strong opinion as to the viability of alternate power and although may be perceived as "shooting down" the idea, both sides need to lighten up and not be so thin skinned. Keep a sense of humor people, remember that some day anti-gravity will be the norm--beam me to the Bahamas - Scottie

 

[RV7Guy]

Safety

Okay, I've had an extra cup of coffee so here goes. Gary brings up some good points. I've been labeled as a AE basher, however, I was one of them for a while. For a quick history for those newer members, I had a Suby package from a now defunct Canadian company. Myself and another guy were filled with lies, false promises, unrealistic performance numbers and on and on. We thought we had educated ourselves, but only learned of the issues AFTER we had put down substantial deposits. They were successfully sued by one Florida RV owner and a judgement rendered.

I heard all of the Lyc folks warn me over and over. I didn't listen. After the above incident, I put on an ECI. It was only after that, that I started looking at the dismal safety record of the AE's. This cannot be denied.

However, when you point out facts regarding incidents and the safety record of the AE's, it is labeled as bashing. FACTS ARE NOT BASHING!!!! It is simply that many of the AE guys don't want to hear facts or accept those facts. They rationalize away each and everyone of the facts.

I feel it the obligation of all those experienced RVer's, (and other builders) to educate new people on the facts. If those facts are contrary to ones desires, so be it. But at least they have been educated.

One of my good friends is lucky to be alive after his Suby powered plane lost power and he went down in the desert. The plane flipped and he was able to get out okay with minor injuries but a destroyed plane. Several people tried unsuccessfully to "educate" him as to the poor safety record and success rate of this package. He didn't listen and it almost cost him his life. A father, husband and great person was nearly lost.

I won't steal his thunder but he will have very exciting news to report tomorrow.

I sincerely hope that a dependable AE package can be developed that is within the capabilities of the average builder. Until then, there are only a handful of people with the skill sets to make these work. Ross is one of these and I respect everything he writes and read all of his posts. Even then, the very dismal safety record cannot be ignored.

 

[deej]

However, when you point out facts regarding incidents and the safety record of the AE's, it is labeled as bashing. FACTS ARE NOT BASHING!!!! It is simply that many of the AE guys don't want to hear facts or accept those facts. They rationalize away each and everyone of the facts.

You are missing the point. We've heard of these incidents, over, and over (and over!). We know about them. We learn from them. We don't want to keep hearing about them over, and over (and over!). We want to have constructive conversations on how to fix any potential problems, and how to make the packages successful. Repeating over and over (and over!) the previous incidents is akin to a broken record. It gets old and quite irritating after awhile.

I ask, PLEASE, if you have constructive comments on how to make the packages better, please post and lets have a constructive dialogue. If you have detailed information how a previous package failed, then please post it so we can learn from it.

If you have any specific information on exactly what failed in your friends Suby airplane, and can share this with us, and possible solutions on how that particular failure could have been prevented, I would be grateful if you would please post that information.

However, if all you have to post is the same old "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling" 'The sky is falling", then please, just don't bother anymore. We've already heard it. My apologies if this comes across harshly, but I just don't know how to say it anymore.

Thanks,

-Dj

 

[rv6ejguy]

Same Old

Darwin, can we work on improving that safety record rather than living in the past? Let's not dwell on the engines core reliability which has been very good. It is almost 100% supporting system failures which cause problems.

I'm trying tackfully to say this, but your stance on AEs is well known here. Can we move on with some current information that would help people today and tomorrow. The same old posts from the past are a bit tiresome and don't help anyone too much IMO. Should all those with condemned ECI cylinders just rip the whole engine out and put something else in?

I'm not trying to sweep anything under the rug, just move on to problem solving rather than dwelling on many issues which have been solved long ago. Some of the newer build engines have accumulated 300-400 hours of trouble free flight time now and that is encouraging.

I encourage everyone contemplating an AE to check out the whole idea thoroughly first with other users and I tell more people to go with a Lyco/ clone than to go with an AE engine. For those who already have one, I think the forum could be useful to solve issues and make the packages as reliable as possible.

 

[Mike S]

Dont shoot the messanger

.

However, when you point out facts regarding incidents and the safety record of the AE's, it is labeled as bashing. FACTS ARE NOT BASHING!!!! It is simply that many of the AE guys don't want to hear facts or accept those facts. They rationalize away each and everyone of the facts.

I feel it the obligation of all those experienced RVer's, (and other builders) to educate new people on the facts. If those facts are contrary to ones desires, so be it. But at least they have been educated.

Darwin has a couple of good points here.

Facts are facts, but they are also history.

And educating the new folks is one of the primary reasons for VAF to exist, (IMHO).

Problem as I see it, many times the message gets lost in the delivery----

Good info but poorly presented is never a successful way to impart knowledge.

 

[John Clark]

Confirmation bias

However, when you point out facts regarding incidents and the safety record of the AE's, it is labeled as bashing. FACTS ARE NOT BASHING!!!! It is simply that many of the AE guys don't want to hear facts or accept those facts. They rationalize away each and everyone of the facts.

I feel it the obligation of all those experienced RVer's, (and other builders) to educate new people on the facts. If those facts are contrary to ones desires, so be it. But at least they have been educated.

Darwin, this is more psychology than engineering. The term is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. We all do it, in various ways. The key is to keep an open mind and at least consider the opposing view. Having a opinion is fine, having your own set of "facts" can be dangerous in this game.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[DanH]

What motivates builders to use AEs?.......
Obviously there are different motivating factors for everyone, but it is interesting to look at what motivates builders to make the choice.

In my own case cost and form factor were the initial drivers. The engine core was free (actually made money salvaging the donor car). All in I didn't spend more than $5K firewall forward, even after much development. As for form factor, the little Suzuki fit better than a 912 and was half the price.

I enjoyed the challenge. In retrospect the most valuable gain was education....I learned a lot. On the flip side, it was a bunch of work. Probably added at least a year, maybe two depending on what work you count.

Early photo. To illustrate the "what work you count" comment, this photo includes triple electronic ignitions and a purchased PSRU, both of which were found lacking and later replaced.



The next project after this RV8 (sort of a super Breezy) will probably get Subaru power.

 

[Russ McCutcheon]

Gary said, ?Just because it?s an AE does not mean that it's unsafe?. The problem is that we don?t have any proof that this is true, look at what Ross said. ?Some of the newer build engines have accumulated 300-400 hours of trouble free flight time now and that is encouraging?. This is encouraging but is very little proof for 50 odd years of people trying this and possibly will lead those pilots into false comfort buy about the time the thing pops and goes down over the mountains, every new hour behind these engines is un-tested and could lead to a failure.

As far as people telling the same story over and over goes, well some of you hear it over and over but the tellers are telling the new guys that come in and ask the same questions over that have been asked before. Should Darwin not give the new guys the benefit of his experiences? I think he should as well as the others hear that have experience with this adventure.

I am not on any side of this thing and am not saying don?t try but also don?t try to stop people from telling there story about there adventures so long as everyone is respectful. Speaking of respectful or bashing, this thread started because of ?bashing? the Porsche idea, I read that thread and it was all very respectful, where was the problem?

If I was to try an AE it would be an LS V8 in a 10, this looks like a cool idea but I probably won?t.

 

[RV7Guy]

Insanity

Everybody has heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. (I guess like reposting facts)

First, this are not MY set of facts, they are others that I have witnessed or been told directly by those involved. And it not a bias at all, it is a conclusion based years worth of incidents and accidents.

I began looking into Alt Engines in 2002. Since then very little has changed. There has been some changes but not to the degree of making it viable for any one engine or airframe. The Eggy package is still yet to prove itself worthy and now appears to be abandon in favor of another engine. Anybody care to disagree? Where are the hundreds of hours on many engines?

Again guys, don't kill the messenger. A potential AE person needs to know the facts. Guys like Ross, deej, Todd, etc don't need to know. That's all from me on this. Evaluate, conclude, decide!!!!

 

[deej]

Gary said, ?Just because it?s an AE does not mean that it's unsafe? The problem is that we don?t have any proof that this is true.

The obvious corollary to this is "Just because it is a Lycoming/clone does not mean it is safe". There are PLENTY of Lycoming/clone engine failures causing forced landings. We would not want to lead those new pilots into a false comfort of flying a Lyc when the thing pops and goes down, like this example of a new engine with only 212 hours on it:

http://glastar.ca/tsb/aviationinvestigation.html

As far as people telling the same story over and over goes, well some of you hear it over and over but the tellers are telling the new guys that come in and ask the same questions over that have been asked before. Should Darwin not give the new guys the benefit of his experiences? I think he should as well as the others hear that have experience with this adventure.

Would it be beneficial for me to post weekly or monthly on the traditional engine forum about the accident above? Or the many other Lyc/clone engine problems that happen on a regular basis? And then keep repeatedly posting the same thing over and over and over? How long would it take before people got annoyed with me for doing so?

Just trying to put a little perspective on the flip side of things.

-Dj

 

[rv6ejguy]

Gary said, “Just because it’s an AE does not mean that it's unsafe”. The problem is that we don’t have any proof that this is true, look at what Ross said. “Some of the newer build engines have accumulated 300-400 hours of trouble free flight time now and that is encouraging”. This is encouraging but is very little proof for 50 odd years of people trying this and possibly will lead those pilots into false comfort buy about the time the thing pops and goes down over the mountains, every new hour behind these engines is un-tested and could lead to a failure.

As far as people telling the same story over and over goes, well some of you hear it over and over but the tellers are telling the new guys that come in and ask the same questions over that have been asked before. Should Darwin not give the new guys the benefit of his experiences? I think he should as well as the others hear that have experience with this adventure.

I am not on any side of this thing and am not saying don’t try but also don’t try to stop people from telling there story about there adventures so long as everyone is respectful. Speaking of respectful or bashing, this thread started because of “bashing” the Porsche idea, I read that thread and it was all very respectful, where was the problem?

If I was to try an AE it would be an LS V8 in a 10, this looks like a cool idea but I probably won’t.

Well if people are looking for a couple million flight hours on AEs, it just isn't there so the best we have is hundreds of aircraft with hundreds of hours at this point.

This brings up a point about the family and flying over mountains at night in single engined aircraft. I read with interest the thread several months ago. Bottom line, if the engine stops (Lyco or AE), you and the family are likely dead. Most of the experienced guys don't consider it safe and I won't do it even during the day with only one engine even if it is a Lycoming.

Complacency and bad decisions on the ground are killers and as someone posted here a couple days ago- your first actual engine out will entirely changed your perspective on flying. Don't put yourself in a position like this in the first place is my advice. We had a great guy from here have a catastrophic cert engine failure here a few years back over the rocks near dark and sadly he is no longer with us. This stuff does happen and you are just playing the odds no matter what is stamped on the valve covers out front. Personally I like to have some out available to me when flying and try to plan accordingly.

I'm not going to repost stuff from years ago on here about successful Subaru flight time. This whole thing about defending the idea of AE engines is tiresome and I just knew deep down that the same people would post the same old things and that little would change here on VAF. Too bad. I'm gone.