Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
New Article on WAM Diesel on KitPlanes
- Thread starter FresnoR
- Start date
Dave_Boxall
Well Known Member
It's a shame they weren't more clear that they were testing a 160 HP Lycoming against a 120 HP WAM diesel. I'd also have been interested to see the power-off glide results for the Lycoming engine to get a comparison of the cooling drag between the 2 installations.
Otherwise a great article!
Dave
Otherwise a great article!
Dave
Tomcat RV4
Well Known Member
Kitplane article
A great article about alternative engine..This is my idea of what " E " in experimental is all about....As a 40 year foreign car mechanic and former salvage yard owner i am determined to fly my RV4 behind a Subaru engine when I get to the point of needing an engine..
A great article about alternative engine..This is my idea of what " E " in experimental is all about....As a 40 year foreign car mechanic and former salvage yard owner i am determined to fly my RV4 behind a Subaru engine when I get to the point of needing an engine..
KirkGrovesRV8
Well Known Member
How did the diesel compare to the 0-320?
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
It had less power and burned less fuel. The installation seems to have more cooling drag. Article here
KirkGrovesRV8
Well Known Member
Thank You Sir
pierre smith
Well Known Member
There are quite few available...
....as takeouts from RV's, sitting in hangars. PM me if you want one cheap....only 220 hours total time.
Best,
....as takeouts from RV's, sitting in hangars. PM me if you want one cheap....only 220 hours total time.
Best,
The_CaptKirk
Member
any Deltahawk news?
Anyone have word on Deltahawk diesel? Last I saw they were announcing development of a certificated model for Cirrus.
BENEFITS
- specific fuel consumption about 60%
- Jet A fuel - assuming 100LL gets the hook
- turbo normalized for altitude (I one day hope to be able to cross Sierra Nevadas on a regular basis.)
DRAWBACKS
- unproven
- weight
- issues with turbo reliability
- availability of Jet A in rural airports
- did I mention weight?
- cost, although total cost of ownership may make this moot
Anyone have word on Deltahawk diesel? Last I saw they were announcing development of a certificated model for Cirrus.
BENEFITS
- specific fuel consumption about 60%
- Jet A fuel - assuming 100LL gets the hook
- turbo normalized for altitude (I one day hope to be able to cross Sierra Nevadas on a regular basis.)
DRAWBACKS
- unproven
- weight
- issues with turbo reliability
- availability of Jet A in rural airports
- did I mention weight?
- cost, although total cost of ownership may make this moot
Why waste your money?
A Lycoming will get you anywhere you want and resale will be highest. Many people spend more for an auto-conversion than a Lycoming. Many builders have so many problems with the Subaru (and others) they never complete the Airplane. Then they can't sell the bird unless they install a proper Lycoming. By then, the firewall has too many holes and has to be replaced. It's not the auto engine as much as the gearbox and accessories that makes these auto conversions a safety and money issue. Consider the Geared (GO-480) series from Lycoming in the 50s and 60s. Used in the Aero Commander they had problems with the Gearbox. These engines also have to run at higher RPM to get the power thru that gearbox; hence the TBO on some of these engines were 1000 hours; some needing a Top Overhaul at 700 hours..!
A Lycoming will get you anywhere you want and resale will be highest. Many people spend more for an auto-conversion than a Lycoming. Many builders have so many problems with the Subaru (and others) they never complete the Airplane. Then they can't sell the bird unless they install a proper Lycoming. By then, the firewall has too many holes and has to be replaced. It's not the auto engine as much as the gearbox and accessories that makes these auto conversions a safety and money issue. Consider the Geared (GO-480) series from Lycoming in the 50s and 60s. Used in the Aero Commander they had problems with the Gearbox. These engines also have to run at higher RPM to get the power thru that gearbox; hence the TBO on some of these engines were 1000 hours; some needing a Top Overhaul at 700 hours..!
Why? Because!
Although I am not an Alt Engine guy, I really have a problem when people automatically dismiss folks who are....I might just as easily ridicule ANYONE that builds an RV these days - you can buy a completed one MUCH more cheaply than you can build one, and there are some very high quality ones on the market. It's absolutely SILLY to build an RV in todays market, if what you want is a flying airplane....
While much of what you say about Alt Engines is true (they are a difficult choice, with lots of problems to solve), I think that most folks (not all, but most) are smart enough to have done enough research to know this is not a simple option.
Why do I defend Alt Engine guys when I am not one? Because it is silly to chase smart people with lots of tinkering and engineering skills away from these forums! VAF has, unfortunately, become known as a place that is actively hostile towards folks that experiment, and that is a dang shame. All should be welcome to come here without ridicule, in my book.
Purely my opinion, of course.
Paul
Although I am not an Alt Engine guy, I really have a problem when people automatically dismiss folks who are....I might just as easily ridicule ANYONE that builds an RV these days - you can buy a completed one MUCH more cheaply than you can build one, and there are some very high quality ones on the market. It's absolutely SILLY to build an RV in todays market, if what you want is a flying airplane....
While much of what you say about Alt Engines is true (they are a difficult choice, with lots of problems to solve), I think that most folks (not all, but most) are smart enough to have done enough research to know this is not a simple option.
Why do I defend Alt Engine guys when I am not one? Because it is silly to chase smart people with lots of tinkering and engineering skills away from these forums! VAF has, unfortunately, become known as a place that is actively hostile towards folks that experiment, and that is a dang shame. All should be welcome to come here without ridicule, in my book.
Purely my opinion, of course.
Paul
Unfortunately, you are quite right.
When I first started building, I was dead-set on putting in a turbodiesel - and I would STILL love to have one. In the process of doing my background research on what it would entail and what the costs and process would be, it quickly became apparent to me that there was simply not a viable product on the market at this time at a price I could afford to pay. I may be a lot of things, but I am first and foremost a realist - and so I changed my plans to the readily available (and well proven) Lyclone engine. If there were a viable turbodiesel package on the market, I would have that instead.
BUT - one thing that really surprised me, really caught me off guard, during this process of discovery and research about the engine choice - was the amount of over-the-top vehement objection to my engine choice, bordering on personal attack. I got responses to questions along the lines of "You're stupid", "You're gonna go broke before you kill yourself in that thing", and "You're gonna kill yourself and that's ok, but you're probably gonna kill your family too, and that's not OK." and everything in between. I don't let emotion and drama make engineering decisions for me, so I paid no attention to the naysayers, but it did surprise me that so many people would choose to get that worked up over what someone else was doing that had ZERO IMPACT on their lives.
What the experience taught me to do was to keep my mouth shut, do what I'm going to do, and not say anything to anyone about it. I'm sure there are many other builders who would benefit from my lessons learned, but I've been chased from the fire one time too many.
Last edited:
Amen
Lucky for me, when I started my RV9 / WAM diesel project, I had no idea that VAF existed. And my friend at the airport who showed me how to drive a rivet was building an RV6 with a Mazda in it - so he encouraged me. I did talk to a few people at Van's who said I would never get an engine, and that it would be too heavy, but they wished me well.
I'm glad that I was well into my phase I testing before I posted here and the nay-saying started. Otherwise, I may not have ended up achieving my goal of building an economical diesel-powered RV.
Of course I understood from the beginning that my plane may not have the same resale value as a Lyc. powered plane would. But I also understood - and still do - the many benefits of diesel / Jet A engines over gasoline engines, so I moved forward, fully understanding the risks, costs, and work involved (well, maybe not the work!
This brings me to my main point: to experiment with alternative engines is fine and good, as long as the builder knows what he's getting into, and is willing and capable to work through the challenges that will invariably pop up. I think the main problem is that companies are formed offering what appears to be a "complete" FWF package, and promote the idea that anyone can just slap one on the front of their plane and fly off into the sunset. Once the builder finds out that his "ready-to-run" package is not all that, he is discouraged, feels ripped off, and the nay-saying starts.
In my opinion, until an engine (or other aviation product) is fully tested, certified, and accepted as a "mainstream" product, It should be marketed in such a way that any potential buyers are completely aware of what they're getting themselves into. One of the things I appreciated about Wilksch was that they made sure I was serious before they sent me an engine. I still remember an email from Mark Wilksch asking me why I would choose a WAM over a Lycoming, since the WAM would not be nearly as beneficial here in the US than it would be in the UK or other countries.
I now have 125 hours on the meter, and I'm still happy.
Kurt
Lucky for me, when I started my RV9 / WAM diesel project, I had no idea that VAF existed. And my friend at the airport who showed me how to drive a rivet was building an RV6 with a Mazda in it - so he encouraged me. I did talk to a few people at Van's who said I would never get an engine, and that it would be too heavy, but they wished me well.
I'm glad that I was well into my phase I testing before I posted here and the nay-saying started. Otherwise, I may not have ended up achieving my goal of building an economical diesel-powered RV.
Of course I understood from the beginning that my plane may not have the same resale value as a Lyc. powered plane would. But I also understood - and still do - the many benefits of diesel / Jet A engines over gasoline engines, so I moved forward, fully understanding the risks, costs, and work involved (well, maybe not the work!
This brings me to my main point: to experiment with alternative engines is fine and good, as long as the builder knows what he's getting into, and is willing and capable to work through the challenges that will invariably pop up. I think the main problem is that companies are formed offering what appears to be a "complete" FWF package, and promote the idea that anyone can just slap one on the front of their plane and fly off into the sunset. Once the builder finds out that his "ready-to-run" package is not all that, he is discouraged, feels ripped off, and the nay-saying starts.
In my opinion, until an engine (or other aviation product) is fully tested, certified, and accepted as a "mainstream" product, It should be marketed in such a way that any potential buyers are completely aware of what they're getting themselves into. One of the things I appreciated about Wilksch was that they made sure I was serious before they sent me an engine. I still remember an email from Mark Wilksch asking me why I would choose a WAM over a Lycoming, since the WAM would not be nearly as beneficial here in the US than it would be in the UK or other countries.
I now have 125 hours on the meter, and I'm still happy.
Kurt
The_CaptKirk
Member
I want to commend you for persevering through the "common wisdom" myth to pursue your own vision. Common wisdom should inform our decisions, but never limit our choices.
The only way to discover you're far ahead of the common wisdom is to proceed. I share a couple patents because we didn't accept the common wisdom.
Lessons learned advances us all, so don't be shy.
Balance
Hi Kurt
Great to read the article. I was able to fly alongside our Wam RV9 yesterday, I was flying my old Tailwind a friend was flying our 9. Do you know what, you wold never have known itgdidn't have aLycosaurus in it as it accelerated past me at 155mph. I was struggling to keep up in the Tailwind!
On thing was for sure the 9a was a lot more simple for my friend to land than the Tailwind was for me. We had 35 knots at 30 degrees off,with a lot of turbulance round buildings on the approach. Half the runway had been shut off which made it more difficult.
I put the Tailwind down ( this has all RV4 landing gear) but got caught by a gust and was flying again, so applied a little power settled he back to three point and landed. The RV9 with that wobbly prop acting as a bake just ceamed it on.
Anyway back to balance! When we first displayed the proposed WAM instalation at the PFA rally I heard it all. Don't fly one it will kill you, the cowling is ugly, it will take twice as long, etc,etc.
To be fair to a lot of these people these cautionary tales are mostly right. It does take a lot more work to do something new, there are risks involved. In fact I actually caution people in the same way. For example I tell people not to build an aeroplane if they want to fly, they are better to buy a share in one. The only reason to build is because you enjoy building.
The people who are totally wrong are the ones who are over the top with their condemnation. I sacked my inspector because he was so negative to the concept of putting in a WAM. He still inspects my RV4 but I dont let him anywhere near the 9. He even spoke to my wife when I was not there and told her I would kill myself test flying the 9, causing her worry and anxiety.
The balance is of course the need to experiment and try to improve or develop new technology. Without that drive, well we would still be living in caves in England and your great country would still belong to Native Americans.
So, there should be caution but innovators should be encouraged well thats my view and I would think that most people would consider it a reasonable line to take.
Back to the nine........ I think I am going to try relocating the intercooler to under the fuselage at the back of the cowl, fed by a NACA duct. I will exit the air from the coolant rad via side vents. This will get rid of the drag we are causing with the cowl flaps and should considerably increase flow though the intercooler in the climb where we are inefficient. I will do this in the summer and let you know the results. I want to get my 4 flying first...... with a 320 lycosaurus.
Regards to all
WAM
Hi Kurt
Great to read the article. I was able to fly alongside our Wam RV9 yesterday, I was flying my old Tailwind a friend was flying our 9. Do you know what, you wold never have known itgdidn't have aLycosaurus in it as it accelerated past me at 155mph. I was struggling to keep up in the Tailwind!
On thing was for sure the 9a was a lot more simple for my friend to land than the Tailwind was for me. We had 35 knots at 30 degrees off,with a lot of turbulance round buildings on the approach. Half the runway had been shut off which made it more difficult.
I put the Tailwind down ( this has all RV4 landing gear) but got caught by a gust and was flying again, so applied a little power settled he back to three point and landed. The RV9 with that wobbly prop acting as a bake just ceamed it on.
Anyway back to balance! When we first displayed the proposed WAM instalation at the PFA rally I heard it all. Don't fly one it will kill you, the cowling is ugly, it will take twice as long, etc,etc.
To be fair to a lot of these people these cautionary tales are mostly right. It does take a lot more work to do something new, there are risks involved. In fact I actually caution people in the same way. For example I tell people not to build an aeroplane if they want to fly, they are better to buy a share in one. The only reason to build is because you enjoy building.
The people who are totally wrong are the ones who are over the top with their condemnation. I sacked my inspector because he was so negative to the concept of putting in a WAM. He still inspects my RV4 but I dont let him anywhere near the 9. He even spoke to my wife when I was not there and told her I would kill myself test flying the 9, causing her worry and anxiety.
The balance is of course the need to experiment and try to improve or develop new technology. Without that drive, well we would still be living in caves in England and your great country would still belong to Native Americans.
So, there should be caution but innovators should be encouraged well thats my view and I would think that most people would consider it a reasonable line to take.
Back to the nine........ I think I am going to try relocating the intercooler to under the fuselage at the back of the cowl, fed by a NACA duct. I will exit the air from the coolant rad via side vents. This will get rid of the drag we are causing with the cowl flaps and should considerably increase flow though the intercooler in the climb where we are inefficient. I will do this in the summer and let you know the results. I want to get my 4 flying first...... with a 320 lycosaurus.
Regards to all
WAM
