The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Great. You have Google and AI. I was standing in the factory having the entire scenario explained by a Lycoming employee, while looking at the machines.
Wow.You did not get my resume. I do work on data and facts. The idea of MODERN is meaningless, is my point. The 21st Century canard is just not a fact and irrlevent strawman. We are discussing what is better, not entry into service. You are comparing a Lycoming to a "21st Century" engine. We know what a Lycoming is as you say we have 6 decades of experience. Your "21st Century" engine is not an actual engine. Doha!
"21st Century and Beyond!" is aspirational and sounds good, said Buzz Lightyear. I am not a Luddite, and I admit (as I said above) I'm jaded, have "modern engine" fatigue after 40 yrs of study on this topic. I am waiting for modern. I see nothing new in last 40 yrs or at least nothing better than a Lycoming for the RV or has not already been tried. You are keeping this 21st engine a secret. Please share. The insane amount of aircraft designs over last 100 years is amazing. It is not like people have not tried. Napier Sabre is a British H-24-cylinder, liquid-cooled, sleeve valve, piston aero engine makes my head hurt. Nothing is as complicated as that thing in 2025 and it was first run in 1938. There were smart people back then.
You keep making same illogical fallacious argument it was designed in 1957. Yawn. So what. I know. Tell me something I don't know. What your point is? Is there some new physics, materials, design that is a quantum leap? No. It is an engine that takes Dinosaur juice into power by suck, squeeze, bang, blow. You are being pedantic my friend. There is no point to your point. 4-stroke, OH pushrod valve, direct drive horizontally opposed air-cooled "Boxer" engines of the 100's of engine configurations is a great design for little planes. You think?
There is a WORLD of engine designs especially in the 20th century, well understood, endless variations of everything under the sun, has been tried, and some of these engines were WILD. Fascinating topic.. The more famous ones: Rolls-Royce Merlin, Bristol Hercules was a 14-cylinder two-row slide valve radial, Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major, Wright R-3350 (compound) Turbo-Cyclone, all developed in the 30's and 40's and 50's. These engines are the origin of the humble Lyc in the nose of almost ever GA plane and Van's RV/ You say 1957, it really goes back to 1876, when the Otto Cycle engine (4-stroke) was developed. Yes many different cycles have been tried as well. My point is 21st Century engine is meaningless. We have gone past ICE to turbines. No one can make a low cost turbine with spacific fuel consumption that is comparable to a Lycoming in the low HP category, The small turbines in helicopters are great but those are million dollar aircraft. I flew small Garrett TPS331 and PT6 they are great. I also flew Pratt & Whitney JT15D, CFM56, Rolls-Royce RB211, General Electric CF6-80, W4000. These are really nice. No one is developing small GA engines because (well Kawasaki says they are, will) because the market is small and Lycoming is pretty awesome. There are some diesels on the market, some in certified planes. DeltaHawk of course is in the news. It is not new, but a 2-stroke supercharged/turbo diesel. I think that technology goes back to the 1930's.
You should get in your DeLorean and go back to the Future of the 20st Century see the wide variety of engines... NOTHING NEW.... EVERYTHING HAS BEEN TRIED.... There were: Inline, V, inverted V, Radial, Slant.... air-cooled, water cooled ALL before 1956. Topic is well understood. The Lycoming is an out growth of tremendous development and R&D.
You also do not seem to appreciate a 1958 Lycoming (air-cooled flat direct drive engines) have had many incremental improvements, and model or configuration changes from 115 HP to 450 HP. The design was and is not stagnant stuck in 1957. The base design is solid. Should mention Continental is similar but different.
I can tell you if you fly your Lyc often, operate with in limits, maintain it, they will go way past TBO. I know. Done it many times. We have a club plane with 2600 hrs, runs like a tip. I owned and flew a PA23-160 (twin Apache) , both engines 2200 hrs. Oil consumption was 1 qt in 12 hrs, 78/80 Comp. All these planes flew daily. Mike Bush (famous in avciation) has a IO360 that went 5000 hrs before TBO and flys a twin with engines at x1.5 TBO. They are GOOD engines.
The "round" wheel or gear, pulley appeared around 3500 BC, many millenniums ago. I am going with the old ROUND design and not "modern" wheel shape. Get my point? Your argument of age of design is not logical or factual, only emotional.
I understand how you think, I respectfully disagree, and we can agree to disagree. In the mean time I want to go fly coast to coast in my RV.... Lycoming . Other planes I fly, SEL and MEL, are Lyc and TCM, Atmo and turbocharged. Powerful, reliable and integrated direct drive hydraulic prop. MODERN! I am flying not dreaming.
So if we are going on emotion and appeals to authority....
Richard "Dick" VanGrunsve is pretty smart. Right. I remember a quote he made late 80's or early 90's. "The best engine conversion is to convert $25,000 and turn it into a Lycoming." That price held up pretty close up until 2019, Van has picked the Lycoming for almost ALL of his models and he has tried, Continental, Franklin, flew them. This is not my first Rodeo. RV's are designed around a Lycoming's by Van's Aircraft, because they are good engines and frankly obvious choice since RV's came out in 1970's. There is your choice.
If you want to go "modern" you have made your choice. We all can't wait what Lycoming killer you put in your RV. Many have tried. I can't wait to see the next modern engine come (and go). If anything will over take Lycoming and TCM it will come out of the power sports industry (snowmobiles, jet skies, outboard boat engines, quads, motorcycles). The issue will be they all REV fast and all need PSRU. I don't care for them. I think DIRECT drive hydraulic prop air-cooled flat 4 or 6 is the sweet spot. Getting my resume out again, I did work in design and certification of planes. There are millions of compromises and CHOICES in designing anything. People who are less technical throw stones... whine and cry about something, but never designed anything. They have a point, sure XYZ is not perfect but it was based on a total design (and cost sometimes). If you think you can design a better aircraft engine many tried: UL power, Jabiru, Rotex (not Rotax) and dozens of car engine adaptations, conversions go ahead. If you reason is you think Lycoming's are BAD go for it. If you do it just for MODERN sakes than that is not wise.
Gaslighting is very popular in the 21st Century, don't believe your lying eyes, go with feelings. Well let my pull my resume out again. Followed this topic for 40 yrs, about same time I became a pilot, been RV building and flying. No one came up with any engine superior to the Lycoming, an overall winner, in time to build, weight, speed, resale, reliability and maintenance since I have been following this topic. Prove me wrong. Good is good. Lycoming perfect? No of course not but....
If a builder wants to fly, put a Lycoming in. You want to tinker go "modern", I can say without fear that builder making that alternate "CHOICE" for modern will experience one or more of the following:
- more expensive,
- more weight,
- more drag (water cooled),
- lower performance,
- more tinkering per hour of flying
- add X10 build time and be more of a hanger queen than a flying plane.
- prop likely fixed or electric, less performance more expensive, inferior to hydraulic.
- lower resale of aircraft
I could care less if a the base configuration was first developed the late 50's. Look I was "developed" (born) in the late 1960's and I still awesome. Ha ha. Lycoming has gone from parallel to angle valves, 4, 6 and 8 cylinder, turbo and supercharged, geared and water cooled (TCM Voyager and aftermarket Lyc water cooled jugs). They developed many engines, not to mention radials and turbines. This is not a black smith pounding out horse shoe engines. The Lyc factory cost $100's of millions, has inhouse processes few if anyone can do today, precision casting, Nitriding gaseous infusion, state of art CNC equipment, scanning electron microscope, QC tracking of every part. More important is SUPPORT, with Maintenance and Overhaul manuals, Service Bulletins, customer support and parts, with wide distribution of parts and support. Not to mention PMA parts make cost lower. NO ONE can compete. Get a part for your boutique Wiz Bang modern engine...
Modern and 21st Century is not a thing in aviation. What is a thing is proven, reliable, light, powerful, and configured to be installed in an airplane, and well supported.
"The choice you made was to stick with six decade old design;" as if I am wrong. I reject your argument as a strawman, red herring. We are not taking FIRST entry into service but WHAT IS BETTER? I am waiting for your MODERN engine... Dream or fly. I CHOOSE to fly.
My point is there is NO choice. Lycoming is the clear winner. Show me where I am wrong, ostensibly, factually. You are not realistic and fail to say WHAT is the other CHOICE? "Modern", or 21st "Century" is cliché' a canard, not science, math or physics. You have emotion but no point. It is 2025, so what is this OTHER choice?
I am not out in the wilderness or ignorant. Not my first rodeo. Lycoming for the RV is THE CHOICE. Obviously is my preposition. You can say 21st century all day but I am not swayed by that. It is an emotional argument.
I know you are NOT a FOLLOWER but a LEADER... I applaud you. I'm not a rebel without a clue. and although in my career when I lead I have a plan. I have no plan for a new engine, but support your efforts in the 21st Century. I don't mind going with the status quo when it is ostensibly, quantitatively and obviously the best CHOICE in 2025... It is 100% irrelevant when it was designed. There are few of any true new designs to compete in the 160-350HP category, in everything that matters. Rotax is nipping at the 150 hp market with their high rev screaming 139 hp engine, but if you think Rotax is modern or better good luck. I hope it is. I train people in RV-12. It's ain't bad, but it ain't a Lycoming going 190mph TAS. Keep in mind Lycoming benefits from the experience and being a certified design and as I said support, manuals, knowledge base. Not the least is RV kits are tailored to Lycs.
What "alternative" modern engine do you propose? If you have no answer I won the debate.
