What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Lycoming Superiority

BruceMe

Well Known Member
Why are Lycomings so superior to every other aircraft engine?

The general layout is overall nice, and it's lite, but having the cam/lifters on the top of the case means they wear quickly. Every other type of aircraft engine does it on the bottom cause it's just easier.

Why are 99% of all RV's flying Lycoming and not Continental? Can anyone in the group answer this?
 
BruceMe said:
Why are 99% of all RV's flying Lycoming and not Continental? Can anyone in the group answer this?

Could it be because Continental doesn't make an engine in the size and HP range that will work in an RV? :rolleyes:

A friend of mine operates three C 172s, with Lycoming H2AD engines, for patroll. They fly 5 hours a day 5 days a week at about 60/65% power. At 2000 hours he puts on new cylinders. At 4000 hours he overhauls the engines. He's been doing this for at least 12 years.
 
Last edited:
Not sure

Not sure how to answer so here are some choices:


Cam location in a Horizontal engine is fairly set, however you are right cam location can be a problem with lubrication, especially when first started. If flown often not a problem. You can incorporate the optional cam "neynozzle" in your case. http://www.chuckneyent.com/neynozzle.html
(Possible all new engines come standard with this. I know ECI or Superior or both come standard with the cam nozzles like above, I believe.) The truth is cams can last to and past TBO, but requires you to FLY it, not let it sit and rust.


What, have you had problems with Lycomings? I have had owned at least 5 and never had a problem. I flew two personally a few hundred hours past TBO (9 hr/qt) and they where still going strong. The other Lyc's in my life where mid time and never had any problems with them and where going strong when I sold them.

Continental has no engine that will fit and as well as the Lycoming. Check it out. The Continental 360 (6 cyl) could work in the R-10, but at 210 HP and being very expensive Van has elected to NOT use it. All other Continentals are to large (physical size and HP). If you want an airframe that uses a big Continental, than you need to buy a kit like a Lancair. Not sure the price of the engine that is uesd in the Lancairs, but guess it is about double, not to mention triple for the kit.

Also Van knows a few things about designing airplanes, I guess, and his kits are designed for Lycoming. The engine mount is a big item to fabricate, so that is somewhat a deciding factor, the Kit is designed for a Lyc.

I don't want to leave out a do-it-yourself "alternative" engine. The most popular brands is Subaru and Mazda. There is lots of info on how to do this. Suggest Real World Solutions (RWS) for Wankel engine installation kits.​


Don't reinvent the wheel. I can tell you have a desire to break out and do things like "little pressure senders". If you want to fly, have fun, get into the air with least path of resistance I suggest you conform and buy a Lyc or Lyc clone. At $19,500 for a brand new O-360 180hp engine, it is a bargain


My last comment is rhetorical:
You are right they are terriable, got something better?

Really what else will give you a light, compact, direct drive engine, capable or making MAX HP at 2,700 RPM?

Good Luck George
 
Last edited:
You already know my leanings (Rotary), but wouldn't the better question be how could Lyc improve their design to bring them into the 21st century? Seems to me you are asking a loaded question. Rotaries have no cams, valves, lifters, etc to fail.

1. Is direct drive, low rpm necessary, or even desirable? The heavy large-bore high-displacement pistons result in high vibration and mechanical stress leves, which often result in harmonic difficulties elsewhere (with props). The heavy crankshafts are prone to breakage and wear. As far as Ive seen, the redrives used in autormotive apps have not had failure problems, therefore I do not really see an issue there.

2. Air cooling limits lean mixtures, creates problems with overheating exhaust valves that fail, and makes power boosters (turbochargers) more difficult to use - limit efficiency at high power levels. Air cooling also requires loose tolerences which tend to accelerate internal wear rates.

3, Impliment a modern electronic fuel injection system- no icing, more accurate mixture control, better economy with less exposure to pilot adjustment error. Electronics could also help prevent what seems to be the most common cause of GA accidents- manual fuel management.

4. Offer the engines and parts at a reasonable price that reflects actual manufacturing costs- closer to $5K, not 20-30K. Standardization and closer tolerences (no hand fitting...) would help lower mfg costs.
 
The Reason RVs are flying with Lycomings

Van believes the Lycoming Engines were the best available and he designed the airplanes for them. The RV-12 is a departure for the LSA application. He has said this over and over so that basic part of the query should not be a mystery. It is like asking why F-15s are not flying with Westinghouse engines.

Bob Axsom
 
Fwf!

It's all about firewall foreward "kits". RV's have more Lyc, because they were designed for it from the ground up.

Same reason Lancair Legacys have IO-550 continentals. - they were designed from the ground up around that engine and the factory supports all the firewall forwards assemblies, construction, cowlings, etc.
 
Oh Cobra, you devil you

cobra said:
You already know my leanings (Rotary), but wouldn't the better question be how could Lyc improve their design to bring them into the 21st century? Seems to me you are asking a loaded question. Rotaries have no cams, valves, lifters, etc to fail.

1. Is direct drive, low rpm necessary, or even desirable? The heavy large-bore high-displacement pistons result in high vibration and mechanical stress leves, which often result in harmonic difficulties elsewhere (with props). The heavy crankshafts are prone to breakage and wear. As far as Ive seen, the redrives used in automotive apps have not had failure problems, therefore I do not really see an issue there.

2. Air cooling limits lean mixtures, creates problems with overheating exhaust valves that fail, and makes power boosters (turbochargers) more difficult to use - limit efficiency at high power levels. Air cooling also requires loose tolerances which tend to accelerate internal wear rates.

3, Implement a modern electronic fuel injection system- no icing, more accurate mixture control, better economy with less exposure to pilot adjustment error. Electronics could also help prevent what seems to be the most common cause of GA accidents- manual fuel management.

4. Offer the engines and parts at a reasonable price that reflects actual manufacturing costs- closer to $5K, not 20-30K. Standardization and closer tolerances (no hand fitting...) would help lower mfg costs.
Oh Cobra I could not resist you devil:

"1. Is direct drive, low rpm necessary, or even desirable?" Of course it is. It is simple, light and reliable. A Lyc 360 is 5.9 Liters. You all are trying to squeeze the same HP out of 2.5L at high RPM. There is something good to be said about a BIG BORE low speed high torque engine, especially for aircraft that fly at one low RPM's, most of the time. As far as "re-drives" this has been done on aircraft engines for +70 years. The differnce is with "geared" aircraft engines the "re-drive" is integral to the engine design. In alternative (car engines) the re-drive is a bolt on after thought, work around. Not bad or unreliable, but clearly not ideal. However with an engine that does not make peek power until +6,000 rpm, there is no choice, direct drive is not possible. Direct drive after 70 years has proved its worth; there is no debate and is indeed the big advantage of the Lycoming design.

"2. Air cooling limits lean mixtures, creates problems?" Oh Cobra, you over state the issues. First leaning below 75% power in cruise is not an issue ever, and many flying LOP with ease. Yes I agree you can burn a valve if you fly with high CHT's. If a pilot is not smart to keep the mixture rich at high power or take 20 seconds to lean in cruise and than enrichen in the pattern, than they should not be flying. This HUGE work load all you EFI fans claim is really a non-issue. Have we become so lazy that we can't move a lever an inch and look at a gage for a few seconds, than shove it forward later? If I could teach student pilots to lean the mixture properly, when I was a CFI, anyone with a pilots ticket can (should) be able to do it without hurting their brain. I am not aware of an epidemic of leaning problems in the pilot community.

"3, Implement a modern electronic fuel injection system- no icing, more accurate mixture control, better economy with less exposure to pilot adjustment error. Electronics could also help prevent what seems to be the most common cause of GA accidents- manual fuel management." Cobra Please! Electronic fuel management will not keep people from running out of fuel, ever. That is a silly statement. Running out of fuel and EFI are not related. Second, Lyc has two full FADEC designs available that bolt on if one so desires. The latest is from Precision Airmotive (manufacture of MS carbs and Bendix mechanical FI). Lycs are commonly equipped with MECHANICAL FI. It is a thing of beauty, not subject to ICE, simple, and most important it does not need electricity. I understand EFI can "trim" fuel individually. However "tuning" aircraft (mechanical) FI, by matching the injectors, gets FF between cylinders dead even. With EFI, you have electrical dependency and a O2 sensor that fails with aviation fuel. Is it worth it? In an automobile YES! In an airplane, the answer is not so much (at all). Car engines in airplanes do not get better fuel economy; In fact rotary engines get worse fuel econ. Also higher cooling drag from the radiator installation makes them slower when compared to air cooled installations. EFI in planes is a "canard".

"4. Offer the engines and parts at a reasonable price that reflects actual manufacturing costs- closer to $5K, not 20-30K. Standardization and closer tolerances (no hand fitting...) would help lower mfg costs." We can go round & round, but for $19.5K new, plus less than $10k for an overhaul after 2000 hours that is pretty cheap. Lets say $5/hr for engine reserves. That's a little over the price of one gal of gas. Considering cost of hanger, insurance and gas, the engine is a small part of the equation. The cheapest "alternative engine" I have seen documented was about $12k. That is what I have into my 180HP O360, which I rebuilt from a used core. 2000 hours is also 10-15 years of flying for most. I really doubt anyone is seeing significant savings in ownership by putting a car engine into their plane. The economics you claim are really another "canard". Also Eggenfellner is asking quite a bit more than $5K for an engine. You have to fly a long time to save a few nickles. In the mean time you have spent many hours in the hanger tinkering. A rebuild on an alternative engine is not free nor is there any indication they will go 2000 hours. Even so we are talking peanuts. Alternative engines are cheaper, is a big fallacy.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


I dislike this word but the "paradigm" of aircraft and automotive is such that air cooled Lyc's are better suited for airplanes, and water cooled car engines are better suited for cars (with emissions/noise standards). What is fantastic in one "paradigm" is really a burden in the another. EFI, re-drives and water cooling are negatives in airplanes, not the positive you claim they are, because you base it on the car paradigm. The two are quite differnt. "The proof is in the eating of the pudding." Performance does not point to superiority of car engines in planes.


Cobra, the Lycoming is like a SHARK, evolved into an ideal machine for its environment. Lycomings have evolved, FADEC, roller cams, cam oilier, composite engine components, advanced cylinder materials and the biggest advantage.....more vender's & manufacturers for every part. :D

If alternative engines are so great, why isn't there any proof. Can't alternative engines stand on their own merit? I want to see faster, lighter and more efficiency. I am not seeing it. Talk of EFI, water cooling and cheaper parts is not important. It makes no difference, and in most cases its a burden. In the end the "alternative" choice means a little heavier, slower, a little more fuel burn and longer build and "tinker" times. It is not a bad choice, but its not a choice for everyone. I think we have to be honest and say this. To present car engines as a BETTER alternative, is just not cutting it. It is clearly an alternative but a better one? I say differnt but not better.

Electrically dependant engine with a belt or gear box bolted to the front of it is not as good as, direct drive, mechanical fuel injection/pump and independent ignition (mags). Everything is a trade off. Air cooled engines are the optimal trade-off for their intended use, aircraft. This was figured out by people way smarter than you and I, long ago. I'm just smart enough to recognize it and copy the obvious choice Van and all those engine and prop engineers laid out for me.

"Air heads" get accused of not willing to embrace new technology. Please, that is crazy. New technology must earn its way. The wheel is pretty good round, right? I don't think there is much improvement in the circular shape. If alternative engines are better, prove it, with facts of better performance and economy. It seems the automotive engine debate becomes a debate of how great EFI and water cooling are. They are in cars. However to add insult to injury, Lyc can be equipped with EFI (FADEC) and water cooling! water jugs! (I don't agree with their reason for using them, but hey they are trying to sell them and they are cool, :rolleyes: ) I am not adding FADEC or Cool Jugs to my Lyc, but I could. I just don't see where at $8K each they bring that much more joy.

If it does not really help the bottom line why bother? :eek:


Cheers George
 
Last edited:
George,
Always delightful. You can lead a mule to water, but cannot make them drink :)

I do not have any particular love or bias to any particular engine make or type. I all boils down to whatever characteristics the user feels most important- to me the most important factor is safety and durability, then cost , ease of installation less important.

Most auto engines are designed to use geared torque mulipliers- transmissions. Many aircraft too, if not most (turbine/jet powered) and at least some of the original rotary engines Ive seen. Last I checked, most gears are bolted on the motor. It is a non-issue, hardly an argument of good or bad. Direct drive has issues too.

I learned a long time ago that competent engineering designers should identify and fix failure modes in a product, more so when lives are involved. If anything, Lycomming has gone in the opposite direction for whatever reason lately- profitability, liability, ???. My whole approach to picking the right engine is one of durability and safty in flight. When a Lyc swallows a valve, breaks a crank, etc, it results in a catastrophic failure- the engine stops, plane forced to look for the nearest crash site. The failed Rotary keeps on running, albiet at reduced power, seldom catastrophic or due to broken drivetrain. KISS, Fewer parts, fewer ways to fail. I might feel different if the Lyc had a significant advantage in weight or fuel use, but they do not, only better in ease of initial installation and trail initial cost and especially rebuild costs.

You like air cooling, and further imply that it works better in aircraft that automobiles- maybe it does in some cases, but I still see a lot of cracked heads and exhaust valve failures reported, endless complaints about overheating under power. You are forced to run at less than rated power loading; it is not a choice, decisions based on your EGT guage. The rotary can run at full planned (or greater) power for long periods without issue. The auto industry, and even high powered motorcycles now, have abandoned air cooling completely, because it limits power output and long life.

As far as your comments concerning fuel starvation- how many planes have gone down with fuel in one tank, switched to the empty one? Seems pretty common, but IMHO, once is too many if avoidable, pilot error or not.

Just a note on efficiency- I do not see a big difference between engine types- there are only so many btus available in a gallon of gasoline, and most is wasted thru exhaust heat. The only real variables I see to improve efficiency is to reclaim waste exhaust heat or to run very lean, but only if the exhaust valves will safely allow it. Air cooling allows neither at high HP levels. That said, I think you have been right on the money with your comments regarding aerodynamics and speed. More power is not always the best answer.
 
Last edited:
Mike,

I see in your signature (and message) that you're planning to install a rotary. I'm not sure if you're on the flyrotary list or not, but just this morning, there was a complete RV-9A FWF rotary package for sale. From what I can tell, it's working well, but the owner is 70 years old, and just doesn't have the energy to tinker any more. It might make a great start for you at a good price. If you need info, let me know. If you already know about it, ignore me :p

As for why Lycoming on RV's, it truely IS the path of least resistance. I think others have covered the Lyc vs. Cont issues, so the only thing that remains is Lyc vs alternative (auto) engines.

My personal belief is that the rotary is superior to any piston auto engine, but obviously lots of folks feel the same way about Subarus. Regardless of which you believe, the truth is that they're all fighting for a distant second place behind Lycoming.

This may change in time, as more long term alternative engine installations succeed. To take any significant share from Lycoming, the general public (not just the flying public) will have to see them succeed, and accept them as an equal to Lycoming. At this time, that is just not the case. That's why AeroSport will be shipping my new Lyclone any day now :D

Cheers,
Rusty
 
cobra said:
The auto industry, and even high powered motorcycles now, have abandoned air cooling completely, because it limits power output and long life.

However, the aircraft engine is getting it's cooling under much different circumstances. Usually lower temps at altitude, and much better airflow over the cylinder fins, than you can expect with a motorcycle or automobile.

Overheated cooling systems boiling antifreeze overboard can certainly cause problems. I remember the "Thunder Mustang" making a precautionary landing at Moab, Utah due to overheating and loss of coolent, with it's 12 cylinder liquid cooled engine.

I prefer air-cooled for simplicity. No hoses to rupture, no thermostats to freeze in place, , no coolent to boil, no water pump to fail, and less drag and weight from NO radiators.

For cycles, I like my liquid cooled flat six, but prefer the sound of a Harley! :) We'll have to hear what that rotory sounds like when it flies over...

L.Adamson
 
Of course the crankshaft Mandatory SB doesn't make Lycoming appear to know what they're doing.

"Any Lycoming engine model specified lelow anufacture, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired after March 1, 1997: basically all engines with Counter weighted cranks.

"At the crankcase separation or at next overhaul, whichever occurs first, not to exceed three years form the date of this Service Bulletin; therefore affected crankshafts must be retired by Feb. 31, 2009.

includes--O-360, IO-360, AEIO-360, IO-390 AEIO-390, O-540, IO-540, AEIO-540......

BAD
 
<stamping my feet and holding my breath>

i WANT a better Alternative

I WANT an better alternative

I WANT[/B] a better alternative....

peeking between my hands over my eyes

DRAT!... still no better alternative....

until there is a COMPELLING EMPHERICAL PROVEN improvement over Lycoming...

I'm stuck using them.... stuck... resigned... accepting...

I wish and want a better engine....

and there will be a better engine...

--- daring pironeers out there will find and prove it...

someday....

but .. until they do... and then present....

compelling empherical, verifiable, proven, evidence ....

they haven't....

I wish it were otherwise...

I want it to be otherwise...

but the truth is... different... isn't better... only... just.. .different...

<tears welting up in my eyes>... sniff... sniff...

gotta go now...

just me

edited for spelling and trying [unsucessfully] to get the font size and bold to work properly
 
Last edited:
A pleasure I am sure

cobra said:
George,
Always delightful. You can lead a mule to water, but cannot make them drink :)

1 I do not have any particular love or bias to any particular engine make or type. I all boils down to whatever characteristics the user feels most important- to me the most important factor is safety and durability, then cost , ease of installation less important.

2 Most auto engines are designed to use geared torque mulipliers- transmissions. Many aircraft too, if not most (turbine/jet powered) and at least some of the original rotary engines Ive seen. Last I checked, most gears are bolted on the motor. It is a non-issue, hardly an argument of good or bad. Direct drive has issues too.

3 I learned a long time ago that competent engineering designers should identify and fix failure modes in a product, more so when lives are involved. If anything, Lycoming has gone in the opposite direction for whatever reason lately- profitability, liability, ???. My whole approach to picking the right engine is one of durability and safety in flight. When a Lyc swallows a valve, breaks a crank, etc, it results in a catastrophic failure- the engine stops, plane forced to look for the nearest crash site. The failed Rotary keeps on running, albeit at reduced power, seldom catastrophic or due to broken drive train. KISS, Fewer parts, fewer ways to fail. I might feel different if the Lyc had a significant advantage in weight or fuel use, but they do not, only better in ease of initial installation and trail initial cost and especially rebuild costs.

4 You like air cooling, and further imply that it works better in aircraft that automobiles- maybe it does in some cases, but I still see a lot of cracked heads and exhaust valve failures reported, endless complaints about overheating under power. You are forced to run at less than rated power loading; it is not a choice, decisions based on your EGT gauge. The rotary can run at full planned (or greater) power for long periods without issue. The auto industry, and even high powered motorcycles now, have abandoned air cooling completely, because it limits power output and long life.

5 As far as your comments concerning fuel starvation- how many planes have gone down with fuel in one tank, switched to the empty one? Seems pretty common, but IMHO, once is too many if avoidable, pilot error or not.

6 Just a note on efficiency- I do not see a big difference between engine types- there are only so many btus available in a gallon of gasoline, and most is wasted thru exhaust heat. The only real variables I see to improve efficiency is to reclaim waste exhaust heat or to run very lean, but only if the exhaust valves will safely allow it. Air cooling allows neither at high HP levels. That said, I think you have been right on the money with your comments regarding aerodynamics and speed. More power is not always the best answer.
1 Yes you do. I know you are enamored with the Wankel. Dr. Felix Wankel was a genius. I think its cool to. However 2-strokes also have less parts, but ultra lights have a grand history of engine failures. I'm not drawing a comparison, but just if designed properly, valves and pistons are extremely reliable. Most Lyc problems are traced to factors, all in the control by the owner/pilot, none from a "design" deficit. It does not take super human skill to keep a Lyc healthy (maintenance, operation). Plus there is a huge knowledge base for the Lyc. (buy this book: best book ever on engines)


2 What does this have to do with the "Re-drives" used on alternative engines. You are thinking CARS again, which have a huge operating range of power. Airplanes, live in one power and RPM range, 65-75% to 2300-2500 RPM. Cars are all over the place in the power chart over and over, every minute in traffic, stop and go, red light/green light operations. A 24 speed bicycle is great, but for cruising the boardwalk, a single speed bike is fine. Transmissions and "power multipliers? Wow if its so "multiplied" why are Subaru and Mazda powered RV's slower? Ouch. I want to see a 6 speed manual on your RV, with REVERSE. lol


3 Many pilots a WWII flew back with their Lycoming, P&W or Wright aircooled engine's cylinder blown off. There are at least 100,000 Lycs earning their keep day and night. You have a better chance of your wing falling off or a mid-air than structural engine failure. Just look at AOPA's data. Catastrophic failures that shut the engine down are rare but happen.

What about the Subaru that came down because a belt came off! What about the Mazda that had some bolt come loose, shutting the engine down. So there. :D This dream that the Mazda is indestructible or all the ancillary systems are not subject to failure is just is not supported by common sense or any data.

Lycs often go the distance without any minor or major repair. Everyone of your horror stories has a back story of miss-use, dis-use, poor maintenance or just dumbness. The bottom end or valve-train on a Lyc is not an issue.

The issue is electronics, computers, hoses, water pumps, electric fuel pumps that come with a car engine. You are deceiving yourself thinking you will achieve better reliability (safety). In fact the Lycoming is the personification of less is more, KISS. It's not the design of the Lyc, it is human failure, usually a mechanic or pilot that is the ROOT CAUSE. That is why I fly a "seasoned" Lyc and have a great mechanic, me. Its like a trusty horse, I trust my cojones to every time I saddle-up. Cut thru the, BTU's, transmissions, EFI and part count smoke screen. What are the facts.


4 Claims that a Lyc can not make max power because its aircooled is wrong wrong wrong (echo). I have raced my Lyc cross-country, from California to Arizona at max power, middle of summer, ++30F above std day, for 2 hours, wide open. I recall CHT in the high 300's and oil temp 210 or so. Usually my CHT is low 300's with 190F OT. This was summer, wide open. The Lyc is so de-rated that its barely working hard at 100% power. Remember its 360 cu-in and only making 180 or 200 hp (on purpose for reliability). The Chevy 350 LT1 in my '69 Camero I built in high school, had +400 HP. Trust me there is no truth to air cooled engines inability to make max power. The only stretch I can make is with high ambient temps, at max aircraft gross weight, high density altitude, in a long climb, you may have to increase airspeed to keep the CHT's down. I'll give you that. This is not a big deal in a RV. Mike there are compromises. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. This is easily avoided with basic training and minimal attention. My engine monitor will wake me up if I do get high CHT.

As far as aircooled, you are full of hot air. :rolleyes: I am shopping for a 911 (933) Porsche (last of the aircooled ones, better than the late model H2O 911's). The only reason Porsche went H2O was to meet Gov noise requirements. It had nothing to do with reliability or power. Actually the Porsche, Lyc and BMW R1150RT "boxer" motorcycle, are all AIR and liquid cooled, with oil. Oil and the oil cooler is the real cooling medium in the heads. BTW, when I say noise, I'm talking about a beautiful throaty lope. (oh yea)

Speaking of the BMW R1150RT "Boxer", love the light weight, low CG, throbbing pulse, verses the buzz. Reliability? Legendary.

Heat transfer. One of my engineering undergrad specialties. You have to shed heat to the air one way or another. You just have a middle man with water cooling. Engine-Water-Air -OR- Engine-Air. This is not top secret. Lycoming made water cooled V12's and V8's for cars and marine use in the 30's. Not modern or new. Air cooled is a choice not an accident and is highly engineered.

Back to all the problems you see. Are the pilots dragging their knuckles on the ground? "Me pilot, me fly, me keep CHT below 400F, me keep mixture rich unless below 75%, grunt grunt." Daaaa. I will concede water cooling is better for valves, emissions, lower noise and knuckle dragging pilots who don't know what CHT is. No debate. However what are you going to do with those heavy draggy radiators. Go slow. doha!


5 I call this natural selection. Survival of the fittest. If you are too dumb to read a check list before takeoff or landing, "switch to fullest tank" than "you are the weakest link, good bye." Seriously this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, the engines, EFI, FI or carbs. I could plumb my tanks to run both together, like a Cessna. I could make it work with dual electric pumps, but when you RUN out of gas in one tank there is NOTHING TO SWITCH TO. With BOTH, both tanks are dry. Tank switching GOOD. When your "super modern EFI" runs out of gas, write me.


6 Look all you said is a mix of truth and bogosity. :D You can talk BTU's all day, but in the end performance and fuel burn speaks more than volumes. The Lyc wins.

Yes there is only so much energy in gas. OK true. So why are Mazda and Subaru RV's slower? Why, only so much HP at prop and drag of radiators. All engine heat that is not turned into work goes into the air. Air cooled engines are simple, elegant and work.

The spacific fuel flow to HP of your Mazda is WORSE than piston engines, because of the poor combustion chamber shape. The only hope of reaching efficiency on Par with a Lycoming is turbo-charging and flying high. However a Lycoming can be turbo-ed and intercooled and gain the efficency edge again. Why not? Cost, complexity and further distance from KISS that you claim is the advantage of the rotary in the first place. TANSTAAFL.

A pleasure as always. Hee Haw Hee Haw (that is my mule sound)

G
 
Last edited:
Lycosaur?

Hi guys, another endless debate in progress, to which I am contributing!

The technical merits or otherwise can be argued 'til the cows come home. Properly done many solutions will work acceptably, I believe.

The killer and what makes me cringe with any 'aircraft' engine is the cost. Compared to auto engines the aircraft types are way too dear. Look at the parts count, tolerances and 'elegant' simplicity of the aircraft engine and it doesn't justify the price cf. a modern auto engine. The clones have brought the price back, and I hear that new 'lycoming' parts used in airboat engines are cheaper still. Our capitalist system provides a product choice, but extorts the highest price the market will bear. Aviation users will pay more than airboat guys, so they charge us more, for the perceived 'aircraft quality'.
 
You got to pay to play

garnt.piper said:
Hi guys, another endless debate in progress, to which I am contributing!

The technical merits or otherwise can be argued 'til the cows come home. Properly done many solutions will work acceptably, I believe.

The killer and what makes me cringe with any 'aircraft' engine is the cost.
It is a debate, not to convince the disciples, but to discuss the facts and pros and cons. It has nothing to do with what is better. It has to do with having a balanced point and weeding out rumor and urban legend. I know more about alternative engines than I ever wanted to know, but than I have been following them for almost 20 years. They have come a long way.

As far as cost, penny wise pound foolish. The cheapest FWF set up with fixed pitch I have seen using an alternative engine is about $12,500. Typically its more like $16k. When you get into the $9,000 electric MT props (needed because of no hydraulic prop control) and Eggenfellner kits you are looking at BIG bucks. More than a Lycoming.

I guarantee your Lycoming powered RV will be worth than the premium you paid up front if you sell it. Selling a Rotary/Subaru powered RV is going to be harder and resale is going to be less. Yes you are going to pay more up front but it's worth it.

Is there a big market for alternative engine RV's? I think that speaks volumes.

If you go new everything, Lyc O320, you are looking at about $24k for everything FWF using a Sensenich Fixed prop. I mean everything. About twice as much as the most home grown Rotary set up. However this is comparing a junk yard Mazda engine with a do-it-yourself rebuild, to a shinny brand NEW Lycoming, bolt-it-up with all new accessories. Performance? The Lycoming will eat the bargain basement Mazda for lunch. In cruise high up, the Mazda will be OK, but will burn more fuel and be slower. Plus you have to add oil to the gas since the Mazda needs engine oil in the fuel, similar to a two stoke engine.

However you could buy a used Lyc and overhaul it yourself. May be get a used wood prop and so on. I have less $16k-$18k in my O360/Hartzell set up. This is NOT bare bones with 180hp, dual EI, constant speed prop and custom stainless 4 into 1 exhaust. How? Lucky and I am a (cheap) bargain hunter.



We can complain about cost, but flying is not cheap. We are building very high performance planes that wax the tail of expensive Wichita retracts that cost over $250,000. That is why they have this new low performance LSA class of planes. I think many of these LSA planes will be indeed low performance, as they must be, but they will not be cheap. If you are frugle, used Lyc, used wood prop, day VFR, no paint, do your own upholstery, you can build a RV for less than $40K, easy. Nothing fancy, no "Glass" and used radio and transponder.

Everyone is pricing themselves out of sight with all the "stuff". Trust me a light 150hp/wood prop RV is awesome. You don't need to use an automotive engine to build cheap. You just have to look for deals. The less stuff, the faster it's to build, easier to maintain and as much or more fun to fly.

I called Precision Airmotive yesterday. They own the rights to Marvel Schibler Carb line and Bendix FI line (which they have improved with their Eagle line). The conversation of lawsuits came up. People crash because they run out of gas and sue the manufacture because they did not make a Carb that allows the engine can run without gas! I am being sarcastic, but my point is liability is part of the cost of aircraft parts. The first time a faimly goes after Tracy, Jan or any one of the alternative engine part / engine sellers, that may be the end of that company. I would never get into flight critical parts manufacture (again). :rolleyes:

Add up all the cost, building a +200 mph plane is NOT cheap. There are a lot of old used cheap factory planes out their you can by for $20k or $30k. If you want to putt putt around at 110mph, get a old C-172 or Cherokee 140. There are also cheap low performance kit planes, that use rotax or VW engines you can make for less than a RV. However when you get done you have something that cost almost as much and performs like a Cherokee 140. When you get done with your fancy $60k-$70k RV, you have something. $5k, $10k one way or another is not a big deal, so the new Lyc is really a bargain.



I just can't get sympathetic about complaints regarding airboats or Lycoming prices. It is what it is. I also doubt anyone is selling new, airworthy PMA parts to airboat people for less than we pay. Once you build a RV with a Lycoming it will hold its value and appreciate. There are not many kit planes that do that. I made money on my RV-4. I doubt that the value would be as great if I had a Rotary or Subaru stuffed in it. You get what you pay for. You got to pay to play.

What kills me is some complain about a price of a new O360 Lyc ($19.5k), but think nothing of paying $8,000 for a fancy GPS or another $8,000 for some "Glass" displays, $3,500 for an engine monitor, not to mention the two axis autopilot for $3,000. Ughaa! What about the $8,000 fancy paint job. The engine is the key to the whole flying thing, but people want to save a few nickles there. I don't get it. Save your money in the STUFF, not the engine.

What the alternative guys like is the difference and yes the screw you Lycoming attitude, even if it cost them the same or more and even if their plane is slower or takes 100's of hours more to build. It does not matter to them. They don't care about resell. That is cool they are pioneer's, trend setters, out of the box thinkers, or they are just crazy. :eek: ( I AM KIDDING, Much love :p )

OH YES, I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO USE THIS LINE.

"Isn't this the Traditional Engine section of the Forum. Don't you Alternative engine Guys' have your own section?"

(Just kidding, getting back for all the times I heard the "alternative" guys go, we don't want to hear about dissenting views, this is the alternative forum.)

Just my side of the debate, all opinions are valued as long as their mine! :eek: (laugh I am just kidding)


G
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
Oh Cobra I could not resist you devil:

"1. Is direct drive, low rpm necessary, or even desirable?" Of course it is.... there is no debate....
Seems to be a point about which you could not be more wrong, George.
Short of fiat, debate will rage for some time, me thinks.

-mike
 
mlw450802 said:
Seems to be a point about which you could not be more wrong, George.
Short of fiat, debate will rage for some time, me thinks.

-mike

I think what drives desireable rpm's at a particular torque is propellor design more than anything else. Total propulsion values are necessarily arrived at from both the engine capabilities and propellor efficiencies.

So I don't think it's really that debatable that low rpm and direct drive is desireable because low rpm is what propellors are best designed for (unless someone can explain to me any different).

Then if you accept the fact that propellors are necessarily best designed to work most efficiently at high torque and low rpm, it then follows that in aviation, the simplest design with the fewest parts count is going to offer the best margin of safety.

What this discussion is about, of course, is to allow people to justify whatever they chose to power their aircraft with. In the end, what both camps should do is to just make the choice and don't worry about convincing anyone else that their way is "better" just because it's "their" way.
 
wow, george! believe it or not, i actually agree with almost everything you are arguing here...except on thing, and this has NOTHING to do with this topic...

gmcjetpilot said:
I am shopping for a 911 (933) Porsche (last of the aircooled ones, better than the late model H2O 911's). The only reason Porsche went H2O was to meet Gov noise requirements. It had nothing to do with reliability or power. Actually the Porsche, Lyc and BMW R1150RT "boxer" motorcycle, are all AIR and liquid cooled, with oil. Oil and the oil cooler is the real cooling medium in the heads. BTW, when I say noise, I'm talking about a beautiful throaty lope. (oh yea)

G
i hope you meant you are shopping for a 993, not 933. sorry, had to call you on that one, as i'm an avid porschephile. you and i are on the same page here, but i'm looking for an OLD 911S (i mean OLD) or late model 914/6 or 914 2.0 to work on after the airplane is done. i completely agree with you on the air cooled 911 vs. the 996 and newer. LOVE that sound of the air cooled six!

ok, back to the debate. :D
 
Thread wandered

This thread was NOT supposed to be about Subaru or Mazda engines. I've studied them endlessly and for making wind, they are inferiour. Sorry, debate over (for me anyway). That said there's been a lot of talk about aternatives. I beleive there are alterantives, but they start from the historically proven basis.

The LyCon collective aircraft engines are THE most effiecient, lightests, cheapest engine you can hang on an airplane. Anyone who says anything else is just plain wrong. Do the research, I'm not blowing oil out the exhaust.

The big barrels, big strokes, big fins are all BIG plusses to our "ancient engines". The "bad" aspects of our aircraft engines are the accessories. We need modern ignition, modern injection and trimmed accessories. At some point airplanes wont have vacuum systems anymore. We wont need as much current to power the avionics. Zero moving parts ignition is much more reliable. Multi-port fuel injection will pay for itself in fuel savings.

Just throwing this all out there. The best future isn't so alternative, but a rethinking of the past.

-Bruce
 
Last edited:
George,
You have made a bunch of excellent points, but (to me) most seem to involve spun opinions more than undisputed fact; your following statement is spot on:

"I guarantee your Lycoming powered RV will be worth than the premium you paid up front if you sell it. Selling a Rotary/Subaru powered RV is going to be harder and resale is going to be less. Yes you are going to pay more up front but it's worth it."

Im not so sure about the last (worth it) part assuming you plan to keep your project. I generally find that conventional wisdom is often wrong or misuderstood by the masses, who tend to be too lazy to get facts and make up their own minds about issues that affect them.

The Lycs have easly been the path of least resistance for a long time and remain so at this time- but that paradigm is changing. Alternative engine FWF packages are very near and easy-to-copy working setups and most of the needed parts are available from a number of sources.

I believe your rotary price figures are off; it really depends on how much of the work is subcontracted out. Doing the work yourself (as you did with your motor) puts the price closer to 5K than 10K, assuming a completely refurbished motor with new seals, redrive, and control system w/o prop. New exhaust and intake sustems and motor mounts need to be altered to plans. The real savings build at rebuild time- less than 1K vs 10K? for Lycs, and rotary bearings/cases do NOT seem to measurably wear, so there there is probably a big difference in tbo times as well. The durability/safety issue...

FWIW, I think the Lycosaurs are very good engine choices if used within their performance box, however, the current crop of 3-rotor and turbocharged 2-rotor engines are generating a lot more HP than 180 (closer to twice that), with better durability and at near the same the weight of FWF O320/360 applications. The 160-180 HP levels conservatively used by most RV users fall far below their peak potential output, but ~180HP is pretty much all that is needed with the RV airframe (RV-10s excluded), so why push the envelope needlessly. Rotaries have near linear HP/Torque output with RPM increases and can easily run in the 8000 neighborhood safely when desired. With tuning and induction/cooling upgrades, race engines often exceed 12,000 rpm and generally last a full season between rebuilds, unlike their reciprocating bretheren that get the treatment after each race. What happens to Lycs when driven hard and fast?

One very interesting development is ongoing: work on a turbo assisted power adder is progressing, that instead of compressing air, waste exhaust heat driven turbine power is redirected to the crankshaft directly through a traction drive and one way clutch. The unique design of the rotary (no exhaust valves, big indestructble rotor/piston) looks like 30% lower fuel burn @ equavalent power output just might be possible.
 
Last edited:
Deuskid said:
<stamping my feet and holding my breath>

i WANT a better Alternative

I WANT an better alternative

I WANT a better alternative....

c030304.jpg


Get a boat, sail to Japan and bring a load of these back with you. I'm sure you will have them sold before you reach port stateside.

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c030304.html
 
Now your talking

Dang, wish that wouldn't have fallen off the face of the earth.... Maybe in someones lifetime we'll see it. Ya know, it sorta looks like its water cooled?

Here's another picture.
HONDAnental-0703a.jpg
 
Last edited:
aerial said:
c030304.jpg


Get a boat, sail to Japan and bring a load of these back with you. I'm sure you will have them sold before you reach port stateside.

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c030304.html


Hmmmm....

your link is a 3/2003 press release with no, none, nil, nada, not any.... specifics....

nope...

don't think it is there yet....

how come ... nut'n in the last 3 years....

actually my dream engine... is a diesel.... a 4 cycle, al. block, electronically managed engine... but

but it is only a dream...

what works .. for now... is aged technology....

nothing ... anyone has offered...

is empherically, verifiably, compellingly superior

drat I say....

drat

John
 
It looks like?

Mike S said:
Looks like a Subie with Honda stamped on the cam cover.

Mike
Looks like a Lyc with Honda stamped on it, actually looks like a Continental with Honda stamped on it (induction on top). :p Looks like direct drive to? Hummmm. lol G

Note: They (Honda) probably crunched the numbers and found it was a marginal business and full of liability. 2nd notice the two plugs on the same side? Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Seduced by dollars

Only an idiot would enter into this discussion....so I'd better make a comment. ;)

I am grossly influenced by the fact that I have several good acquaintances who have installed auto conversions... but in the end not one of them has been happy with the choice. There may be people out there who are satisfied with their auto conversions but my friends are not among them.

Typically they complain that the final product is heavy, underpowered, and draggy...and generally added a year to the build time. Resale value is also now of concern.

In moments of self effacing honesty they all admit that they were primarily seduced by the lure of the lower price. And then having made a decision on a dollar basis they reverse engineered their minds to convince themselves that the installation would have major advantages over a "Lycosaurus".... but in the final analysis it didn't.

Auto engines are so much better value for money than aircraft engines. Liability issues and, to a greater extent, production volumes account for this. So it is understandable that many builders will yearn for the cost savings offered by an auto conversion. The danger comes when they allow the potential dollar savings to influence their better judgement.
 
Good Guy

cobra said:
One very interesting development is ongoing: work on a turbo assisted power adder is progressing, that instead of compressing air, waste exhaust heat driven turbine power is redirected to the crankshaft directly through a traction drive and one way clutch. The unique design of the rotary (no exhaust valves, big indestructible rotor/piston) looks like 30% lower fuel burn @ equivalent power output just might be possible.
Cheers to you Mike, your a good guy. Yea this idea is not new. Back in the last throws of the big radials they had Turbo compound supercharged engines, where the mechanical energy of a turbo was mechanically feed or mixed back into the crank shaft. It worked but was gosh awful complicated and required variable ratio transmissions to couple the the turbo charger mechanically to the crank. What was old is new again. If we wait long enough the Lycomings will look modern again. lol :p

From the "HISTORY OF THE TURBO-COMPOUND", By John Leonard

"The most successful turbo-compound engine was a version of the air-cooled,
18-cylinder, two-row radial Curtiss Wright R3350-TC. This engine had three
turbines, each fed by 6 cylinders, that were geared to the crankshaft. The
normal version produced 2700 hp and weighed 2850 lbs. The turbo-
compounded version produced 3500 hp and weighted 3440 lb. This engine
was used on the Douglas DC-7c and some versions of the Lockheed
Constellation."

Notice the HP, but also note the weight, still not bad, over 1HP/LB. We don't even do that today! That is better than we have at about .67 HP/LB. This was in the 50's. Not bad. That would be cool to do, but think it would be heavy? More suited for a big engine. Who knows? Of course the jets came along, JT3C on the DC-8/B707, that was that for the piston engines on most large commercial and military aircraft.

George
 
Last edited:
For the record...

BruceMe said:
This thread was NOT supposed to be about Subaru or Mazda engines. I've studied them endlessly and for making wind, they are inferiour. Sorry, debate over (for me anyway). That said there's been a lot of talk about aternatives. I beleive there are alterantives, but they start from the historically proven basis.

The LyCon collective aircraft engines are THE most effiecient, lightests, cheapest engine you can hang on an airplane. Anyone who says anything else is just plain wrong. Do the research, I'm not blowing oil out the exhaust.

The big barrels, big strokes, big fins are all BIG plusses to our "ancient engines". The "bad" aspects of our aircraft engines are the accessories. We need modern ignition, modern injection and trimmed accessories. At some point airplanes wont have vacuum systems anymore. We wont need as much current to power the avionics. Zero moving parts ignition is much more reliable. Multi-port fuel injection will pay for itself in fuel savings.

Just throwing this all out there. The best future isn't so alternative, but a rethinking of the past.

-Bruce

Bruce, just for the record I wanted to reply to your good points here. My XP-360 powered RV-6 has
1. No vacuum system and plenty of avionics on a 60 amp alternator
2. Zero moving parts in my Lightspeed ignition
3. Plenty modern Airflow Performance fuel injection
I think you're right - except its not the future, its here already in the Homebuilt world, if not the certified world. God Bless America!

Jordan "Gadget" Grant
RV-6 N198G Flying!
 
PJSeipel said:
You are SOOOOo right, Mazda and Suburu don't issue AD's for their engines! What about that batch of RX-8's that were loosing significant HP a few hundred miles from new? As hard as people work at it, they still can't justify why their alternative engine is better than a Lyclone without trying to trash the lyclones technology. For me 35 years, 1500hr's, 78/80 Compression, zero overhauls (so far), 7.5GPH trip fuel burn, Zero electronics. I'll stick with lycoming.

For others, flying without having to fill the oil between flights is much more important. I prefer not having to make emergency landings on freeways myself. We all have different priorities. I agree that someday alternative engines will be viable options, but untill there is ANY advantage to them, I'll just stick with the lycoming.

Sure it's outdated, burns oil, has wide tolerances, tons of AD's, vibrates, burns lotsa gas, is all mechanical, but on a positive note:

It's proven, burns oil, DOES has wide tolerances, there ARE AD's (knowledge is power), runs, burns the same amount of gas as everyone else putting 200HP to a prop, and IS all mechanical.
 
I would personally love to see some alternatives designed from the ground up as aircraft engines. I happen to think that rotaries have an awful lot of potential here. The problem is that the few that have tried have not really gotten anywhere. Part of the problem, I think, is that the cost is comparable to a brand new Lycoming (sometimes more) and the advantages are just not overwhelming.

I think the auto conversions are neato', esp. the Eggenfellner conversion and the Mazda du jour's. On my next aircraft, I may very well experiment with one just for the sake of experimenting and coolness factor (perfectly valid reasons, IMHO). It's clear to me, though, that the current round of high tech solutions, while more advanced than the Lyc's, are not nescessarily better suited to aircraft use and in general need to be made to work in an aircraft. This isn't a bad thing as experimenting and making things work is part of what experimental aircraft is all about but it is something to consider. The spec sheets don't tell the whole story.
 
Higher technology comes with higher fuel prices

I know this is all about Lyc's (and yes, I have one on the nose of my 9A) but the turbo-compounding thing was almost as far off topic as this, so. . .

If you can get can copy of the Feb 27, 2006 Autoweek there is an article about a developer with a six-stroke engine which has great potential, although mainly in over the road trucks. The added two strokes (after the traditional four) are water inject/steam power and steam exhaust. This was kicked around by at least one major OTR engine mfgr 20-25 years ago, but fuel was cheap, and who cared. This guy is a well known name in racing and engine development. I called him and as I have always believed, the time may have come. The engine has no cooling system (relies on the steam) and has a BSFC about 40% below a normal engine.

Higher fuel prices may bring higher technology, because there is huge waste going out the exhaust and cooling system. I would like to see the six-cycle tried in aviation, although that is YEARS away, if ever. Just the reduction in cooling drag would be impressive. I'd sure like to see it succeed! Til then, it'll have to be Lycoming.

Bob Kelly, Painting
 
Powersport - not bad

jcoloccia said:
I happen to think that rotaries have an awful lot of potential here. The problem is that the few that have tried have not really gotten anywhere.
I agree with 100%, but in defense of Rotaries not getting anywhere I would point to: http://www.powersportaviation.com/ They went pretty far and hope still going.

I agree that PS has not got anywhere in the business sense, yet, but I hope they do. If I was in the market for an Alt engine kit and Lyc was not an option I would rather a Powersport than Eggy, no offense to Jan's efforts, that would just be my preference. The cowl looks awesome. I know Eggenfellner is trying to use a typical Sam James cowl, with two round cheek inlets straddling the spinner (like an aircooled engine has). I think he is missing the boat. The area behind the prop is not that great a place. I would put the radiator'(s) like Powersport did or in another location.

Van's news letter, "the RVator" wrote about their fly-off with two powersport powered RV-8's against the factory 180HP RV-8. (For some reason the 200HP factory plane, was also flown, a comparative dog to the 180HP Lyc factory plane? Why? May be too many demo flights by prospective customers?)

Performance, of powersport to Lyc a clear match. Yea! The down side was fuel burn, but at least they performed well and the weight was not out of line. Price was comparable to a new IO-360 (200HP angle valve). but clearly more than a (I)O360(180HP). The use of an expensive electric MT prop on the Powersport planes (no hydraulics available) adds cost. All in all not bad. The only other down side was noise. Rotary planes are loud, like a two stroke motorcycle with expansion chambers. Although Lyc's are not whisper quite, the lower tone exhaust note and no doubt less dB's (decibels), is a little less objectionable to those on the ground. Listen to a rotary flyby, it has a high pitch.

Has far as fuel economy turbine/turboporp's are not really fuel efficient. Turbines do make up for lack of fuel economy with huge power to little weight ratio, reliability and maintenance bordering on none needed. Turbines need inspections at 3,000 hours, not overhauls. Overhauls are modular by sections of the engine and are in the 10,000 hour to 20,000 range. Some parts 30,000 hours. (Jet mechanics please correct me if I am far off.) The problem with this technology for little planes is cost and the "economy of scale" really makes it only practical for 400 hp and up ranges. Really turbo props are less attractive as small turbofans have become more efficient in the small thrust range. Piston or other internal combustion engines are going to be around for a long foreseeable future. (Did you know Chyrsler tried a turbine car and drove it for years in the 50's and 60's! Never made it. http://www.turbinecar.com/turbine.htm They do make turbine powered tanks, but most are turbo diesels I think. Funny no clear winner and everything has pros and cons. Hummm seeing a trend here.)

If Powersport or anyone comes up with 3 rotor/turbocharging or anyway to get more (reliable/economic) power, people will accept despite cost, noise and even fuel penalties. People are willing to spend extra money if the performance justifies it. I would. At this time however the best alternative engine kit, in my opinion Powersport, is only matching Lyc performance. I think the is GREAT and a giant step.

Powersport did not happen over night. Powersport is the outgrowth of the pioneering work the late Everett Hatch did over a decade ago. The folks that took it over are very smart and have a highly engineered package. Now as far as fuel burn? If you are running a Rotary hard I don't think it will be fuel thrifty, ever. However if flown in econ mode, I am sure the fuel econ deficit shown in Van's max performance test will not be so great. However you can't ignore the facts.

Noise is another thing. With out adding a lot more weight for exhaust, Rotary exhaust gas is going very fast. I have been told turbocharging quites this down. Turbo not only lowers the noise but can improve fuel economy when flown high. The down side is a turbo is a big ticket item, both in cost, weight and potential maintenance. As they say TANSTAAFL.

As far as weight, Powersport shows you can get the weight down to about a IO360 (200HP) angle plug Lyc. However to be honest the Lyc IO360 (200HP) angle plug engine, with counter weighted crank, is no light weight. A 180HP IO360 is about 30lbs lighter.

Van's Powersport Rotary. (Why no Eggenfellner fly offs?)**
;

**RV6ejguy has one of the faster best performing RV-6A's with a Subaru engine. Fair to point out his plane is custom, to say the least, and he has abilities and facilities most of us do not have. With that said he was able to almost match the performance of a 180HP Lyc. However with the turbo he had an slight edge on the normally aspirated Lyc at altitude, I believe above 10,000 feet. With that said, I see Turbo's as an integral part of any "alternative engine" installation, good, bad and ugly. The good as mentioned is better altitude performance, economy and less exhaust noise when used on rotary engines. The bad is the extra weight, cost and complexity. The real ugly is possible additional/extra drag to install an inter-cooler (another radiator). With out an inter-cooler, turbo charging is a double edge sword. At altitude the income air to the engine can get so heated from the turbocharging (compression), it actually can cause loss of power at some point and possible engine damage. The good news is water cooled engines, especially the rotary (I am guessing) may be more tolerant. However "racing" rotary engines do blow up in a catastrophic and spectacular ways when "tuned" to extream high power output levels, so there are limits. Either way when ever you "BOOST" an engine, increasing pressure you do put more of a strain on the engine. Again "TANSTAAFL".


Hope this sparks some more critical debate on improving "the alternative engine". There are very smart talent people working the issues, but there are issues to be worked. The more that work the issues the better, but we have to be honest and I think most are. This has been a great discussion.

The Lycoming has the advantage of over a 100 years of piston engine development for aircraft use. No one says it can't be done, but there are challenges to be sure. Wishing will only get so far. As you said the rotary has some real potential. The Honda/Continental has some potential, we guess. The turbo diesel may be next great thing? The big problem is money to develop these for a very small market, which does not make it attractive to big business. It will be up to home builders in garages all over the world to make the breakthroughs. I think they are doing a darn good job. Keep it up. :D George
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
I agree with 100%, but in defense of Rotaries not getting anywhere I would point to: http://www.powersportaviation.com/ They went pretty far and hope still going.

Agreed. Powersport looks like it may be a serious contender in the experimental market in the coming years. I noticed on their website that they tested their reduction unit with a Hartzel C/S prop. I wonder if they're planning support for hydraulics? As far as I know they don't support this yet (someone correct me here) but they DO have support for a dry sump...that's 1/2 way to decent aerobatics.
 
I think "alternative engines" needs a new angle. If the main purpose of choosing something other than a Lycoming is purchase cost, combustion methods might be the wrong end to start.

I like the concept of the XP-360 Build School, I wonder if there is a market (or product already available) for "rebuild it yourself" kits.

A guide on how to buy and refurb a 2000hr engine, simply put. I'm sure we could get 50-100 pages on "Zen and the art of Lycoming second-hand shopping" from this forum alone. ;) The bits requiring heavy tools can be done by any machining shop (far, far away from any airport, lest they know how much they can charge), all assembly is done by you. High-end micrometers can be rented for a weekend of measurement and inspection, fun for the whole family. I guess the crank and cam is a more delicate issue, those could be provided by the kit manufacturer.

Sure, it has many potential pitfalls and many would prefer to have the engine prepared by trained professionals, but the exact same arguments are also used against homebuilt airframes. :D

And anyone can go ahead and refurb a Lyc without such a kit, but many (myself included) would never consider it without instructions and parts of the same quality that the rest of the aircraft gets.
 
You can rebuild a Lyc easily, fun and save a bundle

Ola said:
I think "alternative engines" needs a new angle. If the main purpose of choosing something other than a Lycoming is purchase cost, combustion methods might be the wrong end to start.

I like the concept of the XP-360 Build School, I wonder if there is a market (or product already available) for "rebuild it yourself" kits.

A guide on how to buy and refurb a 2000hr engine, simply put. I'm sure we could get 50-100 pages on "Zen and the art of Lycoming second-hand shopping" from this forum alone. ;) The bits requiring heavy tools can be done by any machining shop (far, far away from any airport, lest they know how much they can charge), all assembly is done by you.

Sure, it has many potential pitfalls and many would prefer to have the engine prepared by trained professionals, but the exact same arguments are also used against home built airframes. :D

And anyone can go ahead and refurb a Lyc without such a kit, but many (myself included) would never consider it without instructions and parts of the same quality that the rest of the aircraft gets.
First the Superior "school" I hear is great, but its not cheap. It'll cost more to build an engine that way, plus airfare, hotel. However you'll have a great learning experience, and that's why the amateur class of planes was conceived.

It really does not require "self Help" book and a "Zen Forum of rebuild", although not a bad idea. All the help already out there.

Second you CAN rebuild a Lycoming easily. The beauty is they are built simple, its Farm Tractor technology at its best. Big, simple and straightforward.

As far as a "KIT" there is no need for that as you said. Lycoming, ECI or Superior parts can be bought at many outlets easily. Check their web site's for dealer/distributor locations.

Lycoming has a service letter or note that list all the parts needed for an overhaul.

You will need a Rebuild manual from Lycoming. Besides the Lycoming overhaul manual, a must have is the Sacramento Sky Ranch Engineering Manual.

Special tools? There are not many and cost is nominal. You may be able to borrow them. Some tools you can make.

Think of it like building or remodeling a house. You can have a contractor do it all, or you can "sub-contract" it out yourself and do the initial tear out and finish work.


SENDING IT OUT
Besides parts you will need to avail yourself of special services.

If you have rebuilt a car engine, you know you bring the engine block, heads and crank in for cleaning and machining at the "machine shop". No differnce with a Lycoming. After tear down you ship the case halves, cam, followers, rods/caps, crank, accessory case gears and **cylinders off to one or more shops, lets say ECI in Texas (recommend them). They'll clean, strip, inspect, repair, re-plate as necessary. Some parts only get inspected. These machine shops or "repair stations" are certified by the FAA to do this work. They know what needs to be done.

* Cylinders can be purchased brand new, as a complete assembly with pistons and rings. You just junk or sell your old ones. You can opt to rebuild them with new guides, seats, valves and refinished. You will save money overhauling a used jugs, but it will not be less than 1/2 of new. The price of new assemblies has dropped, and $900 each is hard to beat. There are "cylinder overhaul" specialist, cost about $385 per jug.

The NEW / USED cylinder debate is open for discussion. Overhaul shops like new since they are warrantied by the manufacture. If your "seasoned" cylinders are in good shape, first run, than why not overhaul?


PUT IT TOGETHER
After you get the overhauled parts back, assemble with new bolts, buts, lock tabs and seals. You would be surprised there are not many gaskets, since many mating parts have high "flatness" tolerance and go together without gaskets.

That is it. I would suggest an experienced A&P / AI, who knows what they are doing, to help you if you're not sure. Parts and "machine shop" services are cheaper working with someone who has an account (wholesale). Many A&P's are willing to do side work. It ain't hard. If I can do it, anyone can.


PARTS & SERVICE
Parts and services are readily available, easily found with a quick internet search. In fact any of the big engine shops: Aerosport, Mattituck, PenYen, Lycon, American Engines to name just a few, may do engine "sub work". Some my do it in house or just send it off to ECI themselves? They would probably sell you parts also, but its cheaper, no doubt, to go direct to a distributor (wholesale if possible).


WHAT IT COST
You can expect to save at least $4,000 overhauling it yourself and more. You are primarily saving labor cost of dis-assembly, shipping parts out (since engine shops do that to), assembly and testing. The shop has overhead and liability you don't.

ASSESORIES:
Many things are no longer commonly "field overhauled", like Carbs. It is easier just to send it out, for a rebuilt one from Precision Airmotive, or they rebuild your actual Carb if you like. Some A&P's will say they can rebuild it and throw in an overhaul kit. For not much more than the cost of a rebuild kit, the manufacture (or Carb specialty shop) can rebuild it. Just my opinion that the the manufacture is better. A Carb's NOT very complicated, but in my opinion I think its a specialty item.

Prop Gov gos for the the prop shop for overhaul.

Mags? Most just exchange for new ones (slick), however if rebuilding Bendix mags, most A&P's can overhaul them I believe. I sold my Bendix mags and bought EI's.

Alternators? Usually or typically we use a non certified part, so those need not be sent out.

Of course new hoses, engine mounts and other items are called for in an overhaul. It is PREVENTITIVE maintenance. Don't be cheap. :)



WHAT TO DO?
You can clearly save a bunch of money. Down side? Well it takes work and time, but on a scale of building a whole plane, not a big deal. If you screw up, no one to blame and no warranty. Not to mention an engine failure could be hazardous to your health. Good news, "it don't take no genius", but READ Sacramento Sky Ranch's manual. If you have never done any engine work, don't have a facilities or tools to do it right, get help. Experience does count a little. It can be done by a novice with some assistance, producing excellent results. I did it, with help. It was easy, fun and now I know.

Most shops will take the engine off your hand, overhaul the whole thing, accessories and all, return it ready to go for $14,000 or less. All this assumes the cam or crank are good. If it was a normal run to TBO, than you can expect all to be OK. However individual parts can cost $230 each (exhaust valve) to almost $5,000 (crank). Whether you do it yourself or not, the key is getting a good core. If a part is bad it needs to be replaced, regardless who does the rebuild. The real key of course is hunting down a good cheap core.

From the math, the going rate for a new O320/O360, ready to mount is about $19,500. Not bad. A NEW engine kit, parts only, do it your self is about $17,000, you save $2,000. So a new engine for $17,000 and you don't have to ship out used parts for overhaul.

Going the used route, buying a core say for $5000, unless you do the overhaul yourself, it will end up costing as much as a new engine ready to fly, $5000 core + "Pro" rebuild ($10,000 to $14,000) = not a bargain, at least compared to a new engine, with new parts. However buy a core for less than $3,000, add a do it yourself OH, $8,000-$9,000, you have $12,000 into it, saving over $8,000. I would not pay anywhere close to $5,000 for a core, unless its already airworthy, usable as is.

The best bargain is the proverbial mid-time engine with log books, no damage, good compression and nominal oil use, a used engine you can bolt in and fly without rebuilding. The typical scenarios are a RV'er up-grading, selling their O320 (like Doug did) or a wind damaged plane the just flipped over, sold at auction. Problem with the salvage company is they usually want top dollar (read unrealistic), for their junk. Sometimes you can get a deal. Its a crap shoot.

I found for the basic OH work plus parts, ball park cost is $6,000. Add a few grand for accessories (Carb/FI, Mags, Prop Gov) and labor, you can see where the shops get their price. Your car cost $500-$1000 for the "big service" tune-up. The advantage of having it done by an engine shop for the big bucks is top shops Dyno the engine and do initial break-in. If you do it yourself, you are breaking-in on the plane and testing "performance" in flight. It has been done many times successfully.


SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
ECI does have new Kit engines you can buy and assemble at home. I recommend dealing with ECI because I like dealing with them. I find Superior a little hard to deal with sometimes. Superior also has just been sold off. ECI is flexible and customer friendly, Superior seems rigid and wants to sell you their XP product. It has nothing to do with quality BTW. Both are good products.

Last suggestion. If there is a community or aviation Votech college with an A&P course, you may sign up for some classes or "audit" some classes if the teacher will let you. Go visit an engine shop or FBO with "heavy" maintenance that's rebuilding an engine.

Rebuild and learn how it works. Thats what home building is all about, education. I know you'll not regret rebuilding. However you do need to do lots of home work, and it does take the right tools and skill, but none are hard to achieve.

G
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply George. Unfortunately I am a long way from making use of your advice, I'll be stuck in the reading/dreaming phase a few more years. I'm just toying with the idea here, I know there is a lot of people with time, money and entrepreneur attitude within the experimental community.

Like you said, and I, anyone can do it. But the idea is, perhaps more people would do it if there was a company that would hold your hand through the process for an appropriate fee.

One could do much more than just provide guides, with expertise in the company one could be buying new components in volume and/or have a wide network of second hand dealers to funnel towards the customers. Volume work on things like inspecting/approving cams and cranks can save a lot of money for the customer while still earning little cut to the provider.


For myself, living in Norway, dealing with one supplier only would help a lot if I were to shop used parts from the US. There is of course a second hand market here (England, France and Germany mostly), but the US has a lot more for much less.

If I was in the market for an engine now, I would still be refreshing the Deltahawk website once a week but my money would go towards the proverbial mid-time.
 
L.Adamson said:
For cycles, I like my liquid cooled flat six, but prefer the sound of a Harley! :) We'll have to hear what that rotory sounds like when it flies over...

L.Adamson
Think chain saw w/o a muffler.

Rotary engines are loud and obnoxious creatures.

There is one rotary powered RV flying around here and you can hear him coming long before you can hear a Lycoming powered RV. Not the most neighborly engine out there.
 
Now, now...

The rotary can be as quiet as you want it to be. Does a new RX-8 sound like a chain saw without a muffler"? Of course not.

Being in NC, you're probably talking about Ed Anderson's RV-6. He's in a constant state of tinkering with different exhaust systems, mostly trying to quiet it without a muffler. We think he's managed to make the engine seem quieter to himself, but only because he's losing his hearing :D

Seriously, the DB level can be as low, or lower than a LyCont, but the tone and RPM is much different. People at my airport used to whine about how my RV-3 sounded, but it was no louder than the LyConts. You can hear it coming for miles, but you could also hear the LyConts the same distance. The difference is that you "notice" the rotary because it sounds different.

I used to fly low down the beach, just a couple miles off shore. I always imagined people were standing on the beach looking for that "boat" that was doing 200 mph :D

Cheers,
Rusty
 
lyco much louder and rougher

Today I flew my NSI subie 9 to vans,I took Ken up for a few minutes and he confimed that the plane pretty much acted like thier 9A with the constant prop as far as performance.Then we got a ride in the 10,very impressive plane really liked it(better since I am building one)What I didnt like was the lyco,after flying behind a super smooth subie,the lyco was very loud and rough.It was almost disconcerting.
I will be putting an io540 in the 10 simply because until a 10 flys with a subie so I can get a better idea how they will perform I just cant make that comitment.For those of you that have not been up in one of the better subie rvs you would not possibly understand the feeling of that smoothness.

Tom :confused:
 
faster...not so

So why are Mazda and Subaru RV's slower? Why, only so much HP at prop and drag of radiators.

I have not flown in any Mazdas to compare but have flown many times in a RV 7 with an Egg Subaru in it and it is definitely not slower but was faster than a RV 7 IO 360 angle valve. They are identical airframes (as close as you can get building them yourself) and were flown side by side in formation.

Ryan
slowly building the right wing
 
I could easily be wrong (and Id love to hear from others that know better), but Id guess speed differences are attributable to propeller efficiencies more than anything else, since the cowl openings are generally the same and power/weights are close enough to cancel out between individual planes. My guess is that most of the current propellers are optimized for Lycoming rpm limits (slower rpm) than the alternative engines are capable of at when they are at full power. Harmonic limitations and wider availability of C/S options probably also play a role.

BTW, Ive heard some mutterings that the aircraft engines normally do not produce the full rated HP under normal conditions. Not so with auto engines- they are generally underrated at the factory to compensate for road conditions. Could be true, since it is difficult to put a Lyc/Cont on a dynometer to verify numbers while it is easy (and common) practice with wheeled vehicles. Arent most aircraft power ratings estimated from fuel burn and velocity measurements?
 
Ryan:

Please post details about the RV 7 with a sube-a-loop that was faster than the angle valve. Frankly it would be the first.

Second, Cobra, regardless of the cowl opening sizes, there is much drag within the cowl as a result of the coolers. Remember that heat transfer is never fully efficient. If you pick 95% for the sake of argument, air cooled equals 400 degree metal to 60 degree air, one transfer at high delta T.

Water cooled equals metal to water at delta T of 200 degrees or less (unless the metal is actually running hotter in water cooled), followed by radiators at 250 degrees to 60 degree air. Much lower delta T.

So you see that in the water cooled example, we have much lower delta T and the efficiency loss of two transfers, which will require much more airflow at the exchanger to remove a similar amount of heat energy at the cylinder, than does air cooling.

More drag is innevitable.
 
The redrives are keeping prop rpms within the recommended ranges. The hp is dependent mainly on rpm the engine is turning at least on the atmo engines. If you turn the engine to 6000 and it made 165hp at 6000 factory, it is usually at least that in an aircraft with the less restrictive exhaust.

There are some engine dynos setup to run aircraft engines in some of the bigger shops. Same goes for auto engines, lots of Superflow, Land and Sea, Stuska etc. engine dynos out there if you want to hook an engine up at see what it makes.

The factory ratings are very realistic these days using either SAE, DIN or JIS standards depending on where you live. Chances are few people will ever go to the trouble of dynoing a a Lyco after breakin on an engine dyno because of the removal and installation labor involved not to mention the cost for mounts and adapters and actual dyno time. Same probably goes for an auto conversion. Can and has been done if you have the time and money to do it.

Both the Sube and Wankel conversions have proven to be faster than the best lycos in two different tests. It is not difficult for an auto engine to make lots of power to reliably accomplish this. I think the big question is what the fuel flow is at that speed. We know the Powersport Wankels were way worse. We don't have any hard numbers on the Sube yet.

The cooling drag has little to do with inlet areas and more to do with duct and heat exchanger internal drag and air exit velocity. This question has not been answered yet either.

The bottom line will be another fly off like the two Powersport RV8s did at Van's by Sube powered RV's flying the same flight profiles in formation and tanking them up before and after each flight. When the Sube uses the same or less fuel for the whole mission and matches the Lycos speed, it will have arrived so to speak.

I'd be very interested in Van's evaluation of the NSI powered RV one reader spoke of here.
 
I understand that cooling efficiency is a function of the temperature differential- but the drag should be a function of the inlet size and the velocity of air entering that duct-- basically the volume of air that is restricted within the cooling system.

I don't personally see much difference between piping air against a big metal finned block of metal or a radiator, IF the inlets are the same size, the same plane forward and outlet velocity are approx the same. No argument if the inlet ports are different sizes.
 
Jconard said:
Ryan:

Please post details about the RV 7 with a sube-a-loop that was faster than the angle valve. Frankly it would be the first.

July 15, 2005
--- In [email protected], "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...>
>> > wrote:

>> >>
>> >> On the way home, I was having trouble keeping up with Subie.
> Being
>> >> objective here, not trying to start any alternate engine wars,
>> > just want to
>> >> state for the record:
>> >>
>> >> Level at 8500', flying neck and neck, Subie was pulling away
> from
>> > me. I had
>> >> to futz with the mixture and was juuust able to keep up with him
>> > at peak
>> >> power. Wide open heading west doing 183 knots groundspeed on
> the
>> > GPS.
>> >> Subie had a passenger with him, and my right seat was empty
> (but I
>> > forgot to
>> >> close the vents!). I'm sure at comparable weight he'd pull away
>> > from me
>> >> easily!
>> >>
>> >> )_( Dan
>> >> RV-7 N714D (560 hours)
>> >> http://www.rvproject.com
>> >
The airplanes discussed here are Dan Checkoway's angle valve 200 horse IO-360 powered RV7 and Robert Paisley's Eggenfellner 2.5 subaru sti powered RV7.

Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9E 460 hours, looking forward to seeing folks next week at Sun-n-Fun
 
Last edited:
Sorry,

I assume we were talking about equal flight regimes...e.g. fuel flow. at 7gph at 8500 feet, what would the comparison be.

One could bolt a jato rocket to an rv, and pull away from anything...but I guess I always assume that in airplanes the comparison is speed per gallon at a given altitude.
 
Jconard said:
Sorry,

I assume we were talking about equal flight regimes...e.g. fuel flow. at 7gph at 8500 feet, what would the comparison be.

One could bolt a jato rocket to an rv, and pull away from anything...but I guess I always assume that in airplanes the comparison is speed per gallon at a given altitude.

Sorry,

I thought we were talking about two airplanes flying side by side and one pulling away from the other. Seems to me that matches the definition of faster.

But you are correct, you could bolt on an 0-720 somehow, and make it fly fast. In this case, both engines were advertised as 200hp, the sube appeared in this case to be ever so slightly faster.


Nathan Larson
 
Back
Top