Honda Piston Aircraft Engine

[Rotary10-RV]

What would be better? WHAT IS BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lyc has continuously improved there engines and still, Roller Cam?


I would love to know what U-All's dream engine would look like? Please Please Please tell me. Oh yes it must be as light, powerful and cost no more than a Lyc.

Bring it ON.... Remember its for an airplane not a formula 1 or indy car.

George,
If we were talking conventional piston, I might suggest OHC and 4 valve technology. That works even in my diesel pickup. Air cooling is fine for engines intended for older airframes, but I would water cool and build the airframe around that system. Fadec of course, my preference being for a direct piezio injection (gas or diesel) similar to that used in the newest Audis. This system is availble to any OEM including Lycoming. Remember I said that Lycoming could also make a better engine, nothing exclusive to Honda here. My guess is that the reason that Honda is interested in VLJ's is more profit and less liability exposure. Any shared production (with automotive engine parts that could give us some economy of scale, read lower cost, would be wonderful. My ideal engine would be something similar to Mazda's 26B four rotor engine that was used in their LeMans winning race car before they banned rotary engines outright. This engine used coated aluminum end plates for the rotor housings and was super light for it's output. This would lighten the current 2 rotor by 27 pounds and the current 3 rotor by over 50 pounds. The only reason this isnt available now is the cost of the coatings in limited quantities. Let me state flat out, the only reason that I'm homebuilding is that I simply cannot afford to purchase any aircraft that has been built in the last two decades. COST COST COST. I can't afford flying any other way. I am not interested in Cub-style flying personally, and I'm too big for a 152 which is too slow anyway. I'm slowbuilding to save cash there as well. I may well be priced out before I finish anyway. I haven't found one of the low-cost Lycs every tells me are out there and I'm quite capable of rebuilding one myself. There it is, I'm straining my bluecollar budget to hopefully allow flying while I can still do it physically. It always amazes me how these last points are often lost on people.
Bill Jepson

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Great response

George,
If we were talking conventional piston, I might suggest OHC and 4 valve technology. That works even in my diesel pickup. Air cooling is fine for engines intended for older airframes, but I would water cool and build the airframe around that system. Fadec of course, my preference being for a direct piezio injection (gas or diesel) similar to that used in the newest Audis. This system is availble to any OEM including Lycoming. Remember I said that Lycoming could also make a better engine, nothing exclusive to Honda here. My guess is that the reason that Honda is interested in VLJ's is more profit and less liability exposure. Any shared production (with automotive engine parts that could give us some economy of scale, read lower cost, would be wonderful. My ideal engine would be something similar to Mazda's 26B four rotor engine that was used in their LeMans winning race car before they banned rotary engines outright. This engine used coated aluminum end plates for the rotor housings and was super light for it's output. This would lighten the current 2 rotor by 27 pounds and the current 3 rotor by over 50 pounds. The only reason this isnt available now is the cost of the coatings in limited quantities. Let me state flat out, the only reason that I'm homebuilding is that I simply cannot afford to purchase any aircraft that has been built in the last two decades. COST COST COST. I can't afford flying any other way. I am not interested in Cub-style flying personally, and I'm too big for a 152 which is too slow anyway. I'm slowbuilding to save cash there as well. I may well be priced out before I finish anyway. I haven't found one of the low-cost Lycs every tells me are out there and I'm quite capable of rebuilding one myself. There it is, I'm straining my bluecollar budget to hopefully allow flying while I can still do it physically. It always amazes me how these last points are often lost on people.
Bill Jepson

Hey Bill thanks for the input. I was wondering if anyone would bite on that loaded question. I am going to play devils advocate.

OHC - Over Head Cam's and 4-valves are better for breathing, but it will add width, weight and complexity, in the form of cam belts. For a 2700 rpm engine breathing is not a huge issue. Of course you may be thinking of a geared engine turning real fast. You have a good idea. You are right, but I don't see it being practical; New technology or ideas may be a viable option but not for a direct drive engine. The old push Rod's N Rocker's work pretty good at low RPMs. Overhead VALVES are still around in great number and still being mass produced, like the 500 HP LS7 Corvette engine.

Water cooling - Agreed an airframe designed around it is a must. However it's impossible to completely negate the weight and complexity issue. The WHOLE new airframe is another playing field. I agree the exisiting airframes are not really suitable for water cooling. However if YOU must have water cooled Lyc its hear TODAY! Cool Jugs (about $10,000). Funny if you look at the video it sounds like a Porsche, VW or Subaru with the water cooled jackets. Could AIR COOLING be improved over Lycomings current design? NO. I searched the old NASA (NACA than) Top Secret WAR REPORTS on engine technology. The best and brightest engineer's and scientest worked on engine cooling, fins size, depth, spacing and so forth from the 1920's-40's. Some people don't realize how sophisticated OLD air cooled engines are, because they look so simple. That's the idea.


Fuel injection - I hear you, electronic port injection is cool but is it really worth the weight, wires and redundancy/reliability issues. We have two FADEC's for Lycs today, Aerosance and Precision Airmotive Eagle EMS. The Aerosance is SEQUENTIAL PORT FUEL INJECTION, which is individual computer control of fuel to each cylinder. So we have that. I am not sure what a Piezo FI is, but I know what piezoelectricity is. It just describes the ability of crystals to produce voltage. How accurately do we need to meter fuel? Again with steady state power requirements in an airplane all this is a waste if it brings cost, complexity and weight. There is true elegance and beauty in a Carburetor or Mechanical (mass air) FI.


BLUECOLLOR BUILDING
I hear you Bill, great comments. You are a brave man for throwing out ideas. It was a leading question. I agree we need to keep cost down and I don't see new engines doing that anytime soon. You can die waiting for the new better engine. The IDEA IS TO FLY. I agree the Rotary is a cool engine and Tracy RWS has done a nice job with his lower cost do-it-yourselfers option. However a NEW BETTER ENGINE is opposite of lower cost. Lycs development cost are absorbed and ECI/Superior just basiclly got it for free.

I don't understand why people don't respect and appreciate the value in a Lycoming engine, or even worse, people call a Lycoming inferior?! Fact is, it's superior in every way and is still a bargain. It's hard or impossible to get a RV to fly faster or more efficiently than with a Lycoming powerplant. The Subie and Rotary guys hate that comment, but I just keep pounding the point, WHAT IS BETTER? Now the RV-10 is a new deal. We shall see.

There are things that keep me away from mazda and I just prefer the Lyc. Don't want to make you cry but I paid $2000 for a 600 hour SMOH O-360 on second OH. I was lucky. When you talk three and four rotor Mazdas you are no doubt into money. I know a little about the Rotary. (I was kid when my folks owned an RX-3. Later as a teen I bought an old worn out RX-2 and nursed it to health.) I know the rotary will always burn a little more fuel and oil and be noisy. I have an acquaintance who drives a Mazda RX-8. I know her fuel and oil use. Cool car but I'm sure its not the future engine of GA or experimental aviation. I am sure Honda will not build a rotary aircraft engine.

As I said there is nothing NEW UNDER THE SUN. The rotary was envisioned in 1919 and was in cars in 1967. This is antique 40 year old technology that has not set the world on fire. Its however pure genius on the part of the man, Felix Wankel, who invented it. Electronic fuel injection, 1966, again 40 year old technology. OH cams (year 1912) and water cooling is not new. The first practical piston engines are over 100 years old, the very first 1885. The Lycoming is not really antiquated it is just so well suited that other's (Honda) are not willing to compete.

You need a 540, but a basic O-360 ECI engine kit build up cost (I am not sure but guess) $16,500-$18,500. That is for a NEW engine. The 540 engine and prop issue is different than the 4-banger engine and prop economics.

I see elegance in the a air cooled engine with a carb or mechanical FI. Than again I like the Porsche 911 (air cooled horz opposed 6 banger) or the BMW R1150RT cycle (air cooled horz opposed twin). Take the BMW motor cycle. BMW also make water cooled 4 cyl bikes, which do have more power but weight more. They really don't make enough for the extra weight. The RT handles better, just like a light RV. Like a plane weight and CG is critical. Water cooling is great, but when weight and reliability are involved, air cooling has clear advantage. Water cooling is a clear winner in noise and emissions.


SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, WHAT ENGINE WOULD BE BETTER THAN A LYC?
ANYONE ELSE KNOW WHAT TECHNOLOGY WOULD BE A QUANTUM LEAP OVER A LYCOMING?

 

[Tandem46]

George wrote:
Water cooling...However if YOU must have water cooled Lyc its hear TODAY! Cool Jugs (about $10,000).

Cool jugs website hasn't been updated in over 4 1/2 yrs. Dick Rutan had a bad experience with them, I wouldn't go that route.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Good info & and the HISTORY OF THE WORLD (at least engines)

George wrote:
Water cooling...However if YOU must have water cooled Lyc its hear TODAY! Cool Jugs (about $10,000).

Cool jugs website hasn't been updated in over 4 1/2 yrs. Dick Rutan had a bad experience with them, I wouldn't go that route.

Thanks for the info. I was not really serious about anyone getting them. I would not use them my self; obviously I am Pro air-cooled engines for planes. The cool jugs has the same where to put the radiator problem, that any water cooled engine has.

The cool jugs really illustrates my point that "NEW" 100 year old water cooling technology is not really a panacea. Lycs are air cooled because that was the best way to cool an aircraft engine, not because they could not figure out how to make a water cooled engine. The Lyc was designed the way it is ON PURPOSE, not because of lack of technology.

HISTORY LESSON WARNING (please skip if you don't want eyes to bleed)
The Zenith of piston aircraft engines is the 50's and 60's. The basic "short block" has not changed. I do wounder if they continued to try to improve piston engines into the 70's, 80's thru today at the same rate as they did in the 30's and 40's, my guess is there would be little difference. As it is we have composite parts, FADEC, electronic ignition, roller cams, special exhaust (much better than certified planes) and improved materials and finishes.

The analogy would be like jet engines. Since 1945 there has been rapid and progressive improvements in both commercial and military jet engines thru the late 70's and early 80's. However really there has been nothing new. Most of the technology is making it bigger or smaller (or vectored thrust, which is cool for fighters). There are some manufacturing ideas to make cheaper turbine disk, but over all jet engines have plateaued and changes are incremental not quantum.

The same with piston aircraft engines, they went thru rapid improvement from the 1920's thru the 50's. They are about as good as they get today. It is basically the optimal compromise in package size, power, weight, reliability and efficency. However we are ALL waiting for the next "Dyna Cam" or perpetual4s motion machine. The only problem is when one of these BREAKTHROUGHS flys Side-By-Side with a Lycoming, the reality sets in. It's hard to improve on a dedicated engine designed spacifically for aircraft. If any new engine came along I would want to see a side-by-side fly off against the gold standard, Lycoming (or TCM as the case may be).

Lycoming made their first Horz opposed engine, the O-145, 65HP, 4-cyl, 165 lbs, in the 1939 taylorcraft. The R-680 was also introduced in 1939 and they made 26,000 of them. The O-235 came along in 1940, and the O-290 in 1942. The O-320 1953, effectively an O-235 with bore increased from 4.375 to 5.125 inches. The O-360 came out in 1955, just over 50 years old. Rounding out the popular engines, the O-540 came in 1957. They used lessons learned from the development of all the engines that preceded it, especially WWII engine development. The total engine research of all manufactures and knowledge would probably cost billions in today's dollars. Now a new engine is going to come from where and what will be so much better? There is nothing new under the sun.

The reason car engines are so good is because they are optimized for CAR's not planes. The Lycoming was optimized for airplanes. Not sure what I am missing? Lycoming was making V-12's and supercharged V-8's in the 1930's! So its not like they pounded these engines out on an anvil with a hammer. Here is a cool HISTORY OF LYCOMING. It is kind of sad is some ways that the business and financial guys post war destroyed Curtiss-Wright and all most did the same to Lycomng. In other ways it makes you proud to show the power of American industry and more important the people that made it happen, with their hearts, minds and hands. I was watching a show last week of the WWII vets going to the new memorial in their honor. I cried. What sacrifice and bravery, and many never talked about it. Now you have every dragged out actors or discredited politicians write a book to say how hard they have it. Makes you want to slap them.

Lycoming is still going and there new commitment to make experimental engines is exciting. I just think they should have started on that 20 years ago, but who would have known experimentals would be what it is today.

IF you built a NEW engine from a blank piece of paper, today, for a direct drive, 150-200 HP aircraft engine, I am convinced it would look a lot like a Lyc. Now if you decided you want a screaming 7,000 RPM engine, than that changes the whole equation. I personally don't think high RPM engines are the way to go. Lycoming has made many "G" engines, like the GO-480 and IGSO-540 geared, supercharged engines. These "G" engines peak about 380HP. That is the transition to turbine power starts to sound good, that is if you don't want a big radial. Geared Lycoming engines are or where not real popular and people don't want to work on them. They where fine if you flew them properly. A freight outfit I flew for had a twin with geared engines. I never flew it, but you had avoid back driving the gear box, e.g., using too little MP in a descent.

Direct drive has the obvious advantage as does LOW RPM and BIG Bore. A 5.125 inch diameter piston on a 4.375 stoke is BIG. There are limits, bit just happens in the universe the stars align and all is well in engine land. Its NOT the only solution. You can go the 74 cubic inch (1.2 L) route and turn almost 6,000 RPM like a Rotax does to get 115 HP, or you can go the 2,700 rpm route and use 235 cubic inches (3.85 L) of a Lycoming O-235 and get 118 HP. If you are running at a steady 2,500 RPM and not going from idle to accelerating to idle over and over, like you do in a car, the BIG BORE slow turning makes sense. It makes particular sense when you consider a prop turned too fast is very inefficient. A car has a transmission and can handle gearing and RPM. Airplanes have really one prime sweet spot or small range they run in 99% of the time.

The down side of direct drive is the crankshaft becomes a very critical stressed piece that needs to be designed, analyzed, tested and made per specs. That is why when you have a prop strike, you need to tear the engine down, to inspect that and other critical components. Crank failures? Well they happen for many reasons, but they are statistically not common. I remember when guys where boosting just a year of so ago gear reduction drives, PSRUs have never failed. That is not true. They have been failing for decades and people are not telling the truth selling the absolute reliability myth of drives. PSRU's are not bad but they are critical and not better than sliced bread. They are a thing to fail. Solid cranks is proven technology and has no moving parts between the prop and the crank, its bolted on directly.

A SOLID crank manufactured properly is infinitely more reliable because it is solid. Most cranks are manufactured properly. My 1970's something O360 crank is fine and still fine. The AD is a long story covered in other threads. Never the less there are trade offs and a gear reduction does allow you to run small bore engines up to high RPM to make power. That allows for little cranks. They are NOT made better, they are just under less load. However look at a Lyc crank and then a Subaru you will see what I mean.


Thanks again, it's good to know about the update and Dick Rutan. What happened to Dick Rutan BTW?

So my questions still

 

[Tandem46]

George,
I sent you a PM.
Tobin

 

[Rotary10-RV]

Hey Bill thanks for the input. I was wondering if anyone would bite on that loaded question. I am going to play devils advocate.

Easiest game to play George, Try the constructive for a change, it can be much harder. Still I'll add some comments.

OHC - Over Head Cam's and 4-valves are better for breathing

AND efficiency, which is what were talking about. For a minor increase in complexity you can IMPROVE PERFORMANCE over a pushrod engine. This can result in lighter overall weight. The engine need not be wider, there are several drives that can be used. Chain, Hi-vo or roller, are very compact. I can think of others as well. 4 valve heads work even at low RPMs. In fact anything that improves breathing will improve power a a given RPM. The intake and exhaust need to be designed for low RPMs.

Water cooling - Agreed an airframe designed around it is a must. However it's impossible to completely negate the weight and complexity issue.

I will agree there are different parts, but properly designed WC engines can be lighter. Those fins do weigh something. I worked the motorcycle industry in the past, and the water cooled engines of the same output have been consistantly lighter.

Fuel injection - George, direct injection is just flat out BETTER. No one would have bothered with FADEC otherwise. And the system can be redundant, in fact Mistral uses a redundant EMS on the rotary they're building for aircraft.

It was a leading question. I agree we need to keep cost down and I don't see new engines doing that anytime soon. You can die waiting for the new better engine. The IDEA IS TO FLY.

Duh, OK I hadn't figured that one out. George your question wasn't leading it was a troll. A means to tell everyone how we will never make a better engine than a Lyc. What you usually fail to mention about "OLD" engines is that all the high output engines that were being designed at the end of WW2 were water pumpers, even Lycomings! Jets simply killed development on high output piston engines.



There are things that keep me away from mazda and I just prefer the Lyc. Don't want to make you cry but I paid $2000 for a 600 hour SMOH O-360 on second OH. I was lucky.

Incredibly lucky George. With the number of RV being completed rivaling Cessnas GA output those are becoming non-existant. All the easy stuff has been snapped up. Yes I need a 540, or equivalent output, so I bought a 3 rotor 20B. I paid $2500. As rare a buy as your cheap Lyc O-360.

I see elegance in the a air cooled engine with a carb or mechanical FI. Than again I like the Porsche 911 (air cooled horz opposed 6 banger) or the BMW R1150RT cycle (air cooled horz opposed twin). Take the BMW motor cycle. BMW also make water cooled 4 cyl bikes, which do have more power but weight more.

George until the last year BMW motorcycles have just been flat out DOGS. Good running and reliable but slow and heavy. The new standard bearer? A 1200 watercooled bike from a clean sheet of paper


SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, WHAT ENGINE WOULD BE BETTER THAN A LYC

Answer: My 20B when I'm done.
Bill

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Really!

I'll address your comments.

OHC - Over Head Cam's and 4-valves are better for breathing

AND efficiency, which is what were talking about. For a minor increase in complexity you can IMPROVE PERFORMANCE over a pushrod engine. This can result in lighter overall weight. The engine need not be wider, there are several drives that can be used. Chain, Hi-vo or roller, are very compact. I can think of others as well. 4 valve heads work even at low RPMs. In fact anything that improves breathing will improve power a a given RPM. The intake and exhaust need to be designed for low RPMs.

You are wrong and I'm not going to explain the relationship of RPM and volumetric efficency at 2,700 rpm with huge 5.125" pistons and large valves. With low RPM valve train inertia is not an issue. With huge pistons you can stuff BIG FAT valves in the head. You are right that 4 valves is merrier. 1% better? That is why there is an angle valve Lyc head. Over head cam at 7,000 rpm above useful, 2,700 rpm not so much. OHC comes at cost of weight and complexity and is not worth it.

The Lyc cam is driven, by a gear, but LONG chains you are talking for OHC would weigh a LOT! You don't want belts and chains from a reliability stand point.

Water cooling - Agreed an airframe designed around it is a must. However it's impossible to completely negate the weight and complexity issue.

I will agree there are different parts, but properly designed WC engines can be lighter. Those fins do weigh something. I worked the motorcycle industry in the past, and the water cooled engines of the same output have been consistently lighter.

I think you are dreaming. Subie RV's weight about 100 lbs more. Mazda a little better. I am not going to argue that WC is not great for cars and motorcycles, great for emissions and reducing mechanical engine noise. You can't hear a car running, it's so quite. Airplanes w/ prop, wind and exhaust under the seat are noisy anyway.

Fuel injection - George, direct injection is just flat out BETTER. No one would have bothered with FADEC otherwise. And the system can be redundant, in fact Mistral uses a redundant EMS on the rotary they're building for aircraft.

It was a leading question. I agree we need to keep cost down and I don't see new engines doing that anytime soon. You can die waiting for the new better engine. The IDEA IS TO FLY.

I never said Fuel injection was not "flat out better". The comment is mechanical fuel injection verse super duper electronic fuel injection. When the horse hockey hits the fan, I want my engine to keep working, verses some IC chip going crazy and causing an unscheduled landing.

From a performance stand point in a plane the advantages of FI, better distribution, undeniable, but we are talking a small better. Carbs still work well and unlike cars, which demand FI due to emission standards, planes do not have emission requirements, but don't fool yourself, FI alone on an aircraft engine or even a rotary with out a CAT is like a tie on a pig, they are dirty by car standards. In fact the Mazda is not great on emissions to start with and Mazda does a lot to get it by. Even today Carbs are used on "off road" race cars of all kinds, track, drag or dirt.

Duh, OK I hadn't figured that one out. George your question wasn't leading it was a troll. A means to tell everyone how we will never make a better engine than a Lyc. What you usually fail to mention about "OLD" engines is that all the high output engines that were being designed at the end of WW2 were water pumpers, even Lycomings! Jets simply killed development on high output piston engines.

First troll is very offensive term, you should look it up. I don't go for "internet speak". A leading question is to LEAD into a discussion. I'll be the bigger man and not turn it into personal comments and attacks. I'll stick to facts.

The topic is the Honda engine and what happened to it? My comment was you can't beat a Lycoming (thechnology) and what better engine technology is there today or even tomorrow. That is not a troll, look it up. It is an honest answer. I think it's a thought provoking question which you have not answered.

Incredibly lucky George. With the number of RV being completed rivaling Cessnas GA output those are becoming non-existent. All the easy stuff has been snapped up. Yes I need a 540, or equivalent output, so I bought a 3 rotor 20B. I paid $2500. As rare a buy as your cheap Lyc O-360.

I can read you are frustrated but don't take it out on me personally. We are talking about engines, not personalities, but you are right a new 540's are expensive. Than the Harmon Rocket's started taking off and now the RV-10, so the market has dried up. They are still out there. I think if you look you'll find them and build it up for well under $30K.

You made one brilliant point. THE IDEA is to get flying, not dream or wish for a better engine. This confuses me because you will spend WAY more time getting into the air with your 20B three rotor. Now I understand the finance deal. If you do it yourself you will save money. I know the 13B set up can cost in the $15,000 to $17,000 range, buying a few off the shelf parts. I assume the COSMO will be more bucks. Are you going with twin turbos like the car did? So to save $10,000 you take a year or more longer?

I wish you the best of luck and hope its a huge success. I want you to make me eat my words. However don't take my comments about the Lycoming being the best choice as an attack on your project.

I know you don't like my opinions, but your RV-10 will fly faster, climb faster and be worth more resale wise with a Lyc. So for $2500 you have a bunch of 20B's cores. Did you get the twin turbos / intercoolers with that? I highly recommend you turbo it to get the power, but you probably knew that.

Bill, I am not criticizing YOUR choice of a rotary engines but shinning a light on the OLD WWII Lycoming Myth, OLD and antiquated. Fact, there is nothing new under the sun. Dr Felix Wankle conceived of the rotary in 1954, first prototype in 1957. This 50 year old technology is not new. The Mazda rotary came out in 1967, 10 years after the 540 which was released in 1957. Did you know in the USA, 1959 under licence, Curtiss-Wright pioneered improvements in the basic wankle design. Curtis-Wright took 50% of the license income made in the USA and limited its development. Of course Curtis-Wright went out of business from post war greedy financial moves.

Water cooling has been around for over 100 years, as long as the first useful mass produced 4-cycle engines. Overhead cams where around in 1912 when Fiat porduced a double over head cams (DOHC) engines. Fuel injection came out in the 40's/50's, common in cars starting in the 60's. FI really came into its own in 70's/80's due to smog and emission standards, not because the Carb did not work. So what NEW technology is there to make a better Lyc?

George until the last year BMW motorcycles have just been flat out DOGS. Good running and reliable but slow and heavy. The new standard bearer? A 1200 water-cooled bike from a clean sheet of paper

I am sorry you are wrong again. The BMW "K" bikes, water cooled, weigh 50 lbs more than R-series "boxers", air cooled twin BMW bikes. That's a lot of Wt. on a bike, about 9% weight increase. The air cooled "Boxers" retain their value. Actually air cooled BMW's bikes and the Porsche 911 are air/oil cooled. The Porsche for example has 14-15 qts of oil and large oil cooler.

Again the NHRA 2006 Pro Bike points leader, near the end of session, is on a Harley.


SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, WHAT (new) ENGINE WOULD BE BETTER THAN A LYC

 

[cawmd82]

Better?

Easy.....A Honda, BMW, Isuzu, or more likely Subaru that has had PROFESSIONAL engineers spend a few years sorting out the details and working out the adaptations. Fact is that would cost millions and be of questionable worth to the shareholders.

It CAN be done, it just is not economical---so far as anyone has been able to muster so far.

The other dark horse in the game remains Mistral. They seem to be pros, seem to have the money, and are playing the game---Will they pass go and collect $200----that is the big ?????

Meanwhile, I am fixin' to bolt an O 360 ECI motor in place. Until someone does all that other work on development and proving it is hard for me to imagine going elsewhere. The cost of an Egg Subaru---with all it's ? marks is utterly absurd.

 

[cobra]

George,
You are confusing facts with opinions again.

Lycs are fine and dandy, and way overpriced, but nothing special. It is just an engine, goes round and round until it breaks, wears out, or gets recalled at your expense.

13B= $15-$17K??? Maybe if it is attached to a raging 93-95 twin turbo RX-7...

FWIW, I just bought a 0-mile Mazda Renesis (new improved 13B) engine for about $1850 (converted from AUD) along with 25 other smart people. 200-230 glass smooth HP on regular mogas, 220 lbs actual weight incl pallet+crate, no exhaust, no bell housing, has full FI parts, coils, alternator, pumps, etc. Thems the facts.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

What do you want to know?

George,
You are confusing facts with opinions again.

Lycs are fine and dandy, and way overpriced, but nothing special. It is just an engine, goes round and round until it breaks, wears out, or gets recalled at your expense.

13B= $15-$17K??? Maybe if it is attached to a raging 93-95 twin turbo RX-7...

FWIW, I just bought a 0-mile Mazda Renesis (new improved 13B) engine for about $1850 (converted from AUD) along with 25 other smart people. 200-230 glass smooth HP on regular mogas, 220 lbs actual weight incl pallet+crate, no exhaust, no bell housing, has full FI parts, coils, alternator, pumps, etc. Thems the facts.

OK I am laughing, as far as price you get what you pay for.

Your "Dandy" paragraph means what? All engines wear. Are you claiming the rotary in a plane will last forever?

What recall? Be specific please. This is the same old tired bull hockey. When you can't come up with facts, than make personal comments or start defaming the Lycoming. Are you saying Lycomings are poorly designed? Poorly made? What? You tell me. School me on how terriable Lycomings are. They have been flying for over 50 years.

My twin with O320's was going on 2350 hours, L&R when I sold it, with mid 70's compression and 8-9 hr/qt. My Lyc O-360 was made in the early 70's and went to TBO, rebuilt and is going to TBO again, and it will do it another time and time after that three more times. There are no recalls or AD's on it, except I had to replace the oil pump at overhaul and some other minor issue. At least someone is watching and tracking it.

You don't have to attack Lycomings to feel good about your decision. On the other hand if you don't want to own up to the disadvantages of the wankel that's intellectually dishonest. I can't accused you all of lack of enthusiasm. Why not talk about how great the Wankel is, verses how terriable the Lycoming is. How it won airplane races or set records. Oh, ha ha yes that was the Lycoming winning races and setting records, sorry. my bad.

You are spouting rhetoric. Be Specific and use facts, what recall? Do you mean the crank AD on Lycs made over a few years with cranks from one forging house vendor? OK so what? Stuff happens. Tracy at RWS had an emergency notice on his PRSU. Fortunately he flys his own product and discovered it before a customer lost their propeller, plane or life. Slinging mud has no use in a technical discussion. I would rather talk about how to make the wankel better in a plane. However we have to agree to disagree, it's not ever going to dominate the world of light planes. This was researched in the 50's and 60's and was abandoned for commercial aircraft. Not until the experimental movement has there been a renaissance. I hope for the best, but the inherent engine design has a fuel burn and noise issue top on my TO BAD list.

What do you want me to say? You win, wankels are better than Lycs, except the wankel weighs more, burns more gas, uses oil, slower and are very noisy. Yep, other than that they're better.

Price! Take me to school please. I am not too cool for school. That is ONE rocking deal you got. Now I do cruise RWS, Atkins and wankel builder sites. So I am not totally clueless as you imply. I was going on leonard's cost list, http://members.aol.com/vp4skydoc/ , $17,500 with the do overs. He bought two engines, one for $1,300 (no good) and the another for $7,500, so subtracting the $1,300 and 1/2 the price of the second engine (for no particular reason), you get about $12,500. That is do it yourself price.

I think in today's dollors, $15,000 to $17,000 for a real nice 13b-reis turbo set-up is not out of line, assuming you will have to farm out some fabrication. As far as a Lycoming, you can get a O-360 for just a tad over $20,000, brand spanking new. If you build it yourself from an engine kit with all new parts, take off $2,500 or so for a $17,500. So please don't talk about cost when Eggenfellner sells engines for way more than that.

If you could get a powersport aviation rotary engine kit, FWF, it would be ++$30,000, plus $6,000 in options and a $9,000 electric prop. That is about in round numbers $45,000! The Lyc needs "accessories" but about $3,000 and the props are $3,000 to $6,800 (with gov). Don't get me wrong I am a huge Powersport fan; it's a very well designed kit and about as good as it gets. The results will be about O360 performance but at big fuel burn. You can kid yourself but don't dillude others. The performance is there if done perfectly, but the Wankel is a THIRSTY son of a gun. I know the excuses, the ECU was not set right. OK what ever. One day they will set the ECU right.

Your 13B-REIS for $1,850 is great, but be honest, tell me about you and your 25 smart friends, can the get say another 100 more 13B renesis at that $1850 price. Cool if you can, I'll send you some customers. I have been schooled; everyone else pays that much for a tired old junk yard straight 13B's. U da man. Looking at Atkins price list short block without core is about $3,000, so I know what I read. If you go with new parts its about $6,000.

It is cheaper than a Lycoming, I'll give you that, but by the time you add all the parts , PSRU, electonic engine controller, radiator and extra labor, you are not that far from a Lyc. You are right you can do it cheaper, but not by much and it will take 100's of hours of extra labor.


All that weight info and what HP you think its going to make, means nothing to me, until you mounted into a plane and fly it. As far as weight the rotary is better than a Subie, but it will still be 40-75 lbs more than a 160 or 180HP parallel valve RV. As far as power, why does Tracy run his RV4 in the 160 HP class? I guess it does not make 180 hp? Doha!

Get back to me when you finish it, weigh it and want to race.

Look we all can't agree. Best of luck with that project, and I mean it. You got to take the good with the bad. Have reasonable expectations and you will be happy, but attention wood-be builders thinking of an alternative engine, if you want to get into the air faster at least expense with max performance, the best alternative engine is take $20,000 and convert it into a new Lycoming clone. If you want to tinker and invent something unique, go with a rotary. (I reserve all rights to be 100% totally wrong. If you disagree or have facts great, but don't be mean or you will hurt my feelings. )

 

[cobra]

George,
You misunderstood my attempt at dry humor, Im not dissing you nor Lycomming at all; I always enjoy your opinions. Lycs are and will likely remain a good and easy solution for most Vans builders. But the "Best", who knows- that depends on individual value judgements.

My point is only that all these motors are just parts of aircraft- they do work for us and not much more. We dont need all the passions and emotions. I think we probably both have problems using subjective terms like "best", "no question", etc when the real differences are minimal and both are probably just fine for our needs.

I think our biggest disagreement involves air vs water cooling- we can agree that both have advantages and disadvantages. The way I see it, air cooling IS more efficient due to the high delta T's between the hot cylinder heads during FAST flight; that fact is also the problem, air cooled engines are prone to overheating under continual heavy load, especially during slow flight. Overheating can lead to lubrication breakdowns, stress cracking, seizing, broken valves, durability issues at the worst, limiting cruise performance to 75% of rated power and loose tolerence related issues at the least. Water cooling adds weight and complexity, but it also controls head and piston temps better, thus allowing tighter tolerences.

As for your cost comments- my experience is not uncommon at all, other than it is difficult to find good Renesis motors at this time (they are only 2 years old). I can say from my observation, builders can get into rotary systems significantly cheaper than Lycomming systems, due to differences in availability (mass production), relative differences in durability, and huge differences in replacement part costs. Cherry picking one of the hand produced, high-cost, specially assembled kits like Eggenfelter, Mistral, Powersport, etc is misleading of the potential costs savings involved. Anyone can order a $2000 Japanese replacement low-mileage Mazda, Honda, or Subaru motor, in good running condition, from many automotive inporters. I dont think that is the case with used Lycs- most decent mid-hour O-360's that Ive seen sold ARE in the $10-15K range, O-540s more, O-320s a little less, and many of those require a $10K overhaul in the near future.

 

[Mike S]

more old tech

Over head cam, four valve cylinder heads, water cooled, gear reduction prop drive, -----------------------------and,

FAST!!

P-51/Merlin

Mike

 

[rv6ejguy]

Over head cam, four valve cylinder heads, water cooled, gear reduction prop drive, -----------------------------and,

FAST!!

P-51/Merlin

Mike

Absolutely. Sounds REALLY nice too! It is interesting that it takes a 3000lb. R3350 to beat a 1700lb. Merlin. About TWICE the displacement and weight! The Merlin 130 series was the ultimate development of the piston aero engine-2030 hp out of 1650 cubic inches and 1700 lbs. This easily exceeded the power to weight and hp per cubic inch outputs of any of the 1945 era air cooled engines like the R2800 or R3350s. So liquid cooled engines are not always heavier.

Also interesting that the naturally aspirated Falconer V12 in the Thunder Mustang holds the C1.c speed record at 376mph and that it takes a turbocharged Conti 550 running 60+ inches to beat it at Reno. Once they unleash the 1000+ hp capability of the supercharged V12 demonstrated in offshore boat racing, the days of the Conti and Lycos winning the Sport Class will be over. Weight with redrive is about 50 lbs. heavier than the Conti. The Conti requires over 40 gallons of spray bar water and ADI to live at that power level for the 10 minute race. Add that 400 lbs. to the equation!

While I love turbocharged engines, you have to have respect for the TM gang and John Parker and what they have done with an atmo engine.

Honda, in their studies with TCM clearly understood the advantages of liquid cooling and made this choice based on their vast experience in both worlds and took to heart all the lessons from motorsport as well. There are no air cooled engines competitive in the upper echelons of auto racing now. The last successful air cooled cars were the 962 Porsches back in the mid '80s. Once the Nissan/ Electramotive and AAR Toyota GTP cars came along, Porsche's reign was instantly and permanently over. Porsche finally switched to water cooled heads as they just were not competitive once outputs exceeded about 200hp/ liter. The power density of liquid cooled engines cannot be approached by air cooled powerplants. Witness the 900+ hp F1 engines weighing under 300 lbs. and their tiny cubic measurement. Liquid cooling permits a HUCR than air cooling for high output and higher thermal efficiency.

Honda was heading down the right path. For lay people to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing is simply absurd. I think Honda builds over 15 million engines per year! It is a shame that Honda didn't release it to fit RVs.

 

[aadamson]

Note sure if this was added or not?

While I was at Reno this year, I asked Cont about the Honda/Cont program. It's still alive and well, but not nearly as front and center as it was. No committments, nor timeframes. About the only comment was that it wasn't dead and that it was still very much alive.

Oh, well, when they are ready, I guess we'll find out more...

 

[rv6ejguy]

While I was at Reno this year, I asked Cont about the Honda/Cont program. It's still alive and well, but not nearly as front and center as it was. No committments, nor timeframes. About the only comment was that it wasn't dead and that it was still very much alive.

Oh, well, when they are ready, I guess we'll find out more...

Well, that is good news.

 

[Pilottonny]

keep on "bashing" !

Hello you Yankees, (bashing each other over engines), let me ad some fuel to the fire!

What about this engine for RV?s (ideal for the 9's) ???? http://www.limflug.de/index.php?page=products_motors_75-125kw_L2400DTX&lang=de

" 160 BHP, German-well-known-high-quality-standard, Turbo charged, intercooled, double electronic ignition, fuel injection, water cooling, running on Mogas, only 130 kg !!, and..... ready available. "

They sell the same engine also certified (for EUR 1.500,- less !), but then its only 130 BHP, because they turn the turbo down a little bit. But still, at "only" EUR 30.000,- brand new, it seems a nice alternative for the fuel slurping "Lycosauruses".

(Imagine what power you will have "up there" with the turbo! and... no carb. ice, no shock cooling, single leaver control, low fuel consumption, thus long range, and... and... and...)

I am still waiting/wondering/hoping for the Wilksch Diesel (WAM120 or WAM 160) http://www.wilksch.com/ to be a succes, because the fuel prices over here (Europe) are so astronomic, that, for me, an Avgas "Lycosaurus" is totally out of the question at the moment.

If the diesels will not perform as predicted, or Wilksch can not supply, the "mogas-Limbach", might be an alternative for me.

And while I am at it, what about this prop ?: http://www.v-prop.com/index.html

This will beat everything on the market, with its low weight, and approx. half the price of any other CS-prop. Unfortunately it is only available, at the moment, for the Jabiru 2200 and 3300 and the Rotax engines. But it will certainly be available for more engines in the future. In combination with a somewhat heavier diesel engine, it will bring the total weight back down to Avgas-engine-weight-equivalent.

Guys, keep on "bashing" , regards,

PilotTonny.

 

[zav6a]

Boost

Must run a ton of boost to get 160 hp out of 148 ci at 3000 rpm!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Burning questions

Hello you Yankees, (bashing each other over engines), let me ad some fuel to the fire!

What about this engine for RV?s (ideal for the 9's) ???? http://www.limflug.de/index.php?page=products_motors_75-125kw_L2400DTX&lang=de

" 160 BHP, German-well-known-high-quality-standard, Turbo charged, inter-cooled, double electronic ignition, fuel injection, water cooling, running on Mogas, only 130 kg !!, and..... ready available. " PilotTonny.

Das VW engine with Wasserk?hlung (water cooling)? I wounder how many Euros they want. Ich nehme an, da? es Weise mehr ist, als es ist.

 

[WildBill]

diesels for small planes?

>I am starting to think diesels are great for larger planes, but not small ones. The nasty weight deal. Unfortunately they are running into the new mini jets like the eclipse, for just a measly 1.5-1.8 mil. I think those little jet engines are awesome. A new single engine jet may be, something practical unlike the BD-5.

Maybe this is just another un-realistic thing to put hopes into, but have you seen this company?:

http://www.regtech.com/

Their 'bulletin board' stock has been in the sub- .50c to $2.50 range in the last two years, and they pretty much have no income, but sure looks like an idealized light plane engine, except that one would need a reduction drive. (their target seems to be UAV's).

 

[stanman]

lighweight engines..diesel/lycs

we have a co. over here in australia that has developed some advanced magnesium alloys both for sandcasting and diecasting magnesium blocks...powertrains for automotive engines.....in fact a german co. has already built a lite weight turbo diesel engine from these alloys(genios le turbo diesel?)...it has been running around europe...being tested for a couple of years.....according to the companie's blurb ..the alloys are considerably better than existing powerterain mag. alloys...and are right up there with the allum.alloy engines in relation to elevated temp /bolt retention properties etc.........hopefully the lite weight ..jet a...cheap fuel... diesel engine ...may be imminent......also could lighten up some of the componetry in the existing air cooled engines??....i am planning a lyclone at this stage however!!...rgds all..stanman......rv 8 fuse...

 

[captainron]

Hello you Yankees, (bashing each other over engines), let me ad some fuel to the fire!

What about this engine for RV?s (ideal for the 9's) ???? http://www.limflug.de/index.php?page=products_motors_75-125kw_L2400DTX&lang=de

" 160 BHP, German-well-known-high-quality-standard, Turbo charged, intercooled, double electronic ignition, fuel injection, water cooling, running on Mogas, only 130 kg !!, and..... ready available. "

Well, we could have stopped reading right at "German"! I think it's time to remind everyone here about when a certain manufacturer known for their exceptional German engineering, teamed-up with a well respected airframe manufacturer to come up with the ideal airplane running the world's most advanced airplane engine. This fabulous combination actually went into production! Anyone remember.....Mooney Porsche?

 

[mgomez]

Limbach

Is that Limbach of Volkswagen heritage? Or Subaru?

 

[rv6ejguy]

Advanced materials is one more technology where a big weight advantage could be gained over existing materials. MMCs have been played with for some time now and could make a block potentially 30% lighter than cast aluminum.

 

[Mike S]

Is that Limbach of Volkswagen heritage? Or Subaru?

Vw.

Been around for at least 20 years, probably more.

Mike

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Der vounder auto

Vw.

Been around for at least 20 years, probably more.

Mike

Yawwwn, oh did I say that out loud!

 

[jcoloccia]

Well, we could have stopped reading right at "German"! I think it's time to remind everyone here about when a certain manufacturer known for their exceptional German engineering, teamed-up with a well respected airframe manufacturer to come up with the ideal airplane running the world's most advanced airplane engine. This fabulous combination actually went into production! Anyone remember.....Mooney Porsche?

Wasn't that only for, like, 3 years or something? They're on Continentals now

 

[captainron]

Hmmm....Real airplane engines-that WORK!

John, I believe you meant: "They're back on Continentals now!"

 

[Anezangl]

Gentlemen, could any of you direct me to a person or site that can give me information about Honda auto conversions. I am tinkering w/ the idea of pushing an airboat w/ a Honda civic motor. I guess I am looking for info about reduction drives that are availible if any? Thanks for any and all help! Have a great day! Mike...............

 

[Davedownunder]

Honda piston aircraft engine

Take a look at the Honda 150 Hp Outboard motor. It uses a Honda Accord engine. Runs all day at 100 % has great torque low down and revs out at about 5 or 6000, with good economy. So why not an airplane motor with a prop reduction? Power loads would be similar.

 

[TSwezey]

Seems like yesterday we arguing over this stuff but it has been over 2 plus years(only two on this one)! Davedownunder there are people working on honda conversions. Most here will say it won't work but if you really want to, have the knowledge, money and time go for it! I bet you can make it work.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Titan aircraft is working with some smart blokes in NZ on Acura V6 conversions for the T51. First one should be flying soon. These are nice engines.

 

[Captain Avgas]

Seems like yesterday we arguing over this stuff but it has been over 2 plus years(only two on this one)! Davedownunder there are people working on honda conversions. Most here will say it won't work but if you really want to, have the knowledge, money and time go for it! I bet you can make it work.

I have a good friend who tried a Honda Legend V6 (2.7 litre) conversion in his RV6A. It came in horribly overweight, totally underpowered, cost him an arm and a leg, and added 3 years to his build time.....and he ended up in a farmer's paddock when it quit. Then he ripped it out and did a completely new FWF package with an IO360. And NOW, finally, he's a happy aviator.

 

[TSwezey]

I have a good friend who tried a Honda Legend V6 (2.7 litre) conversion in his RV6A. It came in horribly overweight, totally underpowered, cost him an arm and a leg, and added 3 years to his build time.....and he ended up in a farmer's paddock when it quit. Then he ripped it out and did a completely new FWF package with an IO360. And NOW, finally, he's a happy aviator.

I don't think an RV is a suitable Honda conversion project.

 

[N941WR]

What about the CAM 100?

It is 100 HP civic engine w/ a PRU and has been used for around 10 years +/- in homebuilts.

Not enough HP for most RV's.

 

[rv6ejguy]

I have a good friend who tried a Honda Legend V6 (2.7 litre) conversion in his RV6A. It came in horribly overweight, totally underpowered, cost him an arm and a leg, and added 3 years to his build time.....and he ended up in a farmer's paddock when it quit. Then he ripped it out and did a completely new FWF package with an IO360. And NOW, finally, he's a happy aviator.

Just gotta do it right. Anyone not prepared to put in the time to engineer the installation properly and get the details handled should not start down this path- Just go Lycoming.

The early Legend V6s were a bit lame by todays standards. The newer Acura engines like the 3.2 have 230-258hp and the 3.5 has 286. They are not as light as the Sube but pretty potent and would certainly outperform an O-360 easily.

Neil Hintz from Autoflight is doing the drives. He has hundreds flying and is a top notch guy, making possibly the best PSRUs anywhere for experimentals. Do the fuel, fire and cooling properly and I think this will be a fine package.

I'd be very interested in the details of WHY this engine above quit. Any ideas?

 

[Captain Avgas]

Just gotta do it right. Anyone not prepared to put in the time to engineer the installation properly and get the details handled should not start down this path- Just go Lycoming.

I'd be very interested in the details of WHY this engine above quit. Any ideas?

Hi Ross, my friend got sick of the anaemic climb rate and 140 knot cruise speed and in desperation installed an aftermarket supercharger....and it seized.

The problem I see with many adopters of auto conversions is that their early enthusiam seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of things mechanical.

Don't get me wrong here....it can be done and a person of your obvious expertise can probably make a fair fist of it. But as you say......it's best left to very skilled gearheads.

But when I hear some-one who doesn't know the difference between a conrod and a pushrod tell me about how they are going instal an auto conversion because a "lycosaurus is such dated technology" I just have to chuckle.

 

[Phyrcooler]

Wow... Saw this thread and thought to myself... COOL... an update or new discussion on the HONDA PISTON AIRCRAFT ENGINE!

Then I realized it was actually a resurrected old thread that I had ironically started 2 years ago. OK... no problem... what's new? Oh... sigh... just another argument on auto conversions... .

Oh well... variety of opinions keeps this site interesting.

DJ

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Flame proof apparel has been fitted

The early Legend V6s were a bit lame by todays standards. The newer Acura engines like the 3.2 have 230-258hp and the 3.5 has 286. They are not as light as the Sube but pretty potent and would certainly outperform an O-360 easily.

I seriously doubt it, proof please.

It would be heavy

Radiator would produce more cooling drag (aka slower) than air-cooled engine

The "reported" HP would never make it to the prop (HP rating is near red line and engine would last an afternoon).

Now flame me please, asbesto underware on, would like to test.

 

[TSwezey]

I knew a good auto engine debate would get you posting George! It's like crack!

 

[Geico266]

The problem I see with many adopters of auto conversions is that their early enthusiam seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of things mechanical.

Well thought out, well said, and very true.

 

[rv6ejguy]

I seriously doubt it, proof please.

It would be heavy

Radiator would produce more cooling drag (aka slower) than air-cooled engine

The "reported" HP would never make it to the prop (HP rating is near red line and engine would last an afternoon).

Now flame me please, asbesto underware on, would like to test.

Nope, not gonna start this one again George, sorry to disappoint. Too busy right now moving airplanes and my business. Yep, the mighty Subie RV10 is out at the hangar finally.

I love the quote by Captain Avgas. This is so true.

 

[TSwezey]

Nope, not gonna start this one again George, sorry to disappoint. Too busy right now moving airplanes and my business. Yep, the mighty Subie RV10 is out at the hangar finally.

I love the quote by Captain Avgas. This is so true.

Congrats! Wings on yet?

 

[Bob Axsom]

No Demand

Honda has probably completed their research and have a fully developed system that they could production but there is no market that justifies their going forward with it. Japan is pretty much locked into the big scale production mode of operations since the big scale emergence in the 70s. I just returned from China this week and the potential is much greater there for many reasons. The labor force is unlimited and the potential for internal consumption is very large. They have a strong fear of security that pretty much eliminates private flight but if that barrier is breached the demand would be awesome. While we were touring the Ming Tombs I saw an ultralight passing over the the Sacred Way many times on a regular basis. I learned that the pilot was giving rides from a nearby lake - barnstorming.

Bob Axsom

 

[rv6ejguy]

Congrats! Wings on yet?

Wings won't be going on for many months as there is not enough room in the present hangar. The new hangar is 6 months behind schedule unfortunately. It is good to have it all out at the airport safe and sound though. I've had bad dreams about something getting crumpled up during this nervous phase. Many thanks to friend Bill Baxter for the use of his truck and trailer.

I intend to enjoy???? myself over the next few months doing wiring, pinhole filling and sanding.

 

[TSwezey]

Wings won't be going on for many months as there is not enough room in the present hangar. The new hangar is 6 months behind schedule unfortunately. It is good to have it all out at the airport safe and sound though. I've had bad dreams about something getting crumpled up during this nervous phase. Many thanks to friend Bill Baxter for the use of his truck and trailer.

I intend to enjoy???? myself over the next few months doing wiring, pinhole filling and sanding.

I am envious!

 

[Rotary10-RV]

Interesting how fast these discussions move off topic

Guys,
If I remember correctly the Honda piston engine test bed was 1. single overhead cam. 2. Combined air-water cooled. 3.Large displacement and direct drive. The engine looked like a giant Rotax 912 with Honda on it. The likelyhood is that liability was the final nail in the coffin. The other was the possibility of sales volume. Honda is used to selling thousands of engines PER MONTH.

"Wow! What a quarter! The General Aviation Manufacturers? Association just reported a total of 917 airplanes delivered in the second quarter of 2005. In terms of deliveries, that?s the strongest second quarter this industry has experienced since 1982. That?s right: The strongest second quarter for deliveries in 23 years! Pretty good, huh?"

This is the GAMA comments, reported WITH GUSTO, on a 3 month period. Why would Honda want any part of such a miniscule market? There is just no return, especially with the liability angle.

To all the alternate engine naysayers, I have nothing against Lycs or Contis, I just maintain that they should cost 10-15k. Something that the anti-car-engine guys should think about is WHY can anyone build anything even close to the price or output (of a "standard") when a first article usually costs 4-5 times what a production engine, or production anything costs. Two or three times I have been very close to selling EVERYTHING aircraft and engine as I don't think I can afford the cost of construction reguardless of engine choice. I continue to progress slowly despite being very enthuastic about flying and doing something different. We need to bring more people into GA or darned few people will be interested in flying at all. The suggestions we need are, "how to do it safely," and, "how to control the cost of building." No your engine is do-do or "I would never use anything like that." These arguements will not get 1 more plane in the air. Nor will their arguements help someone put a decent package together. If like David Dornier you complete a plane and don't get enough out of it to satisfy you, as the owner of the repairmans certificate you can CHANGE IT! The more we keep this an exclusive club the easier we are to wipe out by government edict. I rarely even bother to look in here anymore since the names change but the arguements remain the same. FWIW
Bill Jepson

 

[Captain Avgas]

I rarely even bother to look in here anymore since the names change but the arguements remain the same. FWIW
Bill Jepson

Maybe that says something about the universal validity of the arguments.

 

[dlomheim]

Dubious at best...

Maybe that says something about the universal validity of the arguments.

What argument? The bottom line is that there are RV builders installing alternative engines, and this list can (and should) be a benefit to them as they progress with their installations and flight testing. Issues such as cooling / cooling drag improvements are something anyone doing an alternative engine install will need to work out inorder to optimize their installation, and it is this type of information that I look for when perusing this list. I personally care nothing about the silly arguing which originates from those whose time would be better spent on the "traditional engine" list (since that is what they fly behind). For those installing and flying behind alternative engines, I hope you all will continue to post information to this list regarding your trials / tribulations and progress, etc. so we all can continue improve our installations; and simply ignore the pointless sparing from those not involved in this undertaking.

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A; 13B FWF

 

[L.Adamson]

I personally care nothing about the silly arguing which originates from those whose time would be better spent on the "traditional engine" list (since that is what they fly behind). For those installing and flying behind alternative engines, I hope you all will continue to post information to this list regarding your trials / tribulations and progress, etc. so we all can continue improve our installations; and simply ignore the pointless sparing from those not involved in this undertaking.

I'm open minded, but when I see my traditional engine plane flying, as well as a friends flying................. while another acquaintance has about three minutes of flight due to tweaks and continuing over-heating problems; it makes you wonder. Unlike the alternative engine plane, my plane isn't covered with louvers & doors on the lower cowl either. The problem is; is that this scenario isn't isolated. It appears to get played out, quite often across the builders community.
My decision for Lyc, or clone has been strongly reinforced...........lately.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[rv6ejguy]

I'm open minded, but when I see my traditional engine plane flying, as well as a friends flying................. while another acquaintance has about three minutes of flight due to tweaks and continuing over-heating problems; it makes you wonder. Unlike the alternative engine plane, my plane isn't covered with louvers & doors on the lower cowl either. The problem is; is that this scenario isn't isolated. It appears to get played out, quite often across the builders community.
My decision for Lyc, or clone has been strongly reinforced...........lately.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

Sounds like your friend could use a hand. Feel free to have him contact me if I can offer any assistance to help get his problems solved. 3 minutes of flight can't be much fun. This stuff takes perseverance sometimes. My friend's Subie turbo Glastar has worked quite well from day one and he has about 60 hours on it now after 6 months. He is going to revise the cooling system slightly as it is not quite enough on hot days but the rest has been trouble free.

We might have other things to worry about but not things like ECI cylinder ADs or cracking IO-470 crankcases that two other friends with traditional engines talked about last weekend at the airport. Our fixes cost a few hundred $, theirs were a lot more costly.

Each engine installation has it drawbacks, we just need to get all the technical issues right to enjoy the flying part. We all want to get our engines working as well as your Lycoming.

Even the factories don't get it all right the first time as we have seen over and over again.