VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Alternative Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-08-2019, 06:40 AM
AC-AERO AC-AERO is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Japan
Posts: 11
Default E-330 in a 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudfly View Post
Love it! No 100LL required. Will it fit in a 14?
Good luck!
Don't know, send me the firewall dimensions and I will soon tell you
Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:14 AM
Timberwolf Timberwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Navarre, FL
Posts: 298
Default

What is the price point for this engine? Iím building a moose with a 400hp M14P, but the ability to burn multi fuels is what interests me in this engine.
__________________
Shane
RV-6 IO-360 Angle valve, G3X touch
Murphy Moose M14P in progress
Aero Engineer, A&P
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:41 AM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,154
Default

Captain Huneycutt

I appreciate the information you've presented here- I too was very interested in the monolithic cylinders for my 540 build so I'm somewhat familiar with this impressive company. However, your OP has me scratching my head concerning the performance requirements that led you down this path. It seems your mission requirements are in conflict and I'm wondering if you can clear that up. On the one hand you are looking for a reliable, efficient people mover for your family; while on the other hand you are looking to advance the state of the art. Flying your family around in a testbed for a clean sheet powerplant is a big conflict!

As you know, the venerable Lycoming architecture has been around for a while, yet even with its sometimes crude design elements (cylinder head and port design just one example) it will still produce some impressive BSFC figures in factory trim. I have produced data that shows this already enviable baseline can be significantly improved with electronic ignition with an optimized map, and others have shown that optimized, individually tuned injectors (as developed by SDS EFI, demonstrated by Dave Anders) can help more, and of course there are plenty of tuned induction, exhaust and cylinder head options to add even more. At the end of the day there are a host of proven options to enhance the already impressive efficiency of the stone axe reliable 540 architecture. A competitor has its work cut out for it to overcome the long standing attributes of the legacy engine.

So with all that said, I assume that you performed some form of performance attribute trade study that led you to the new engine. Can you share the top 5 with us? What does this new engine offer (to you) as a realistic performance improvement over an optimized 540?

And before anyone thinks I'm "bashing" the new engine, I'm not. I very much would like to see this company offer a viable alternative to the existing product offerings. This market could use some competition.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI instalation in work
RV-8 - Flying
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65 -flying
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-09-2019, 12:29 PM
majuro15's Avatar
majuro15 majuro15 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 488
Default

Andy has a target of $55K for the NA version and $74K for the turbo version. Of course, that may change, but it may stay the same.
__________________
www.N1017H.com
Tim Huneycutt, Capt, NCANG
RV-10 Finish kit under construction
N1017H Reserved
EAA #: 1106970
2019 VAF Dues Paid!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-09-2019, 01:02 PM
majuro15's Avatar
majuro15 majuro15 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 488
Default

Mike, good point on my interests. Some would argue flying my family in a small plane is in itself dangerous and unwise. Some would say single engine ops over mountains at night is rediculoulsy stupid. Each is different. I will certainly ensure that adequate testing has been performed before I take to the skies with this engine and will take a cautious approach to putting others in the aircraft with a new engine. While there are plenty of thousands of Lycomings flying around, they still fail as well, so there is some inherent risk with any powerplant. I do see your point though, and it's a measured risk that I will mitigate to my standards before putting other people in my aircraft. Good point to bring up!

I agree with you that competitors have their work cut out for them. It's one of the reasons I believe that so many have come and gone without success. It's hard to compete with a proven, even if it is outdated, design. I'm not sure Andy will be different. Only time will tell. I believe he will be but who am I? (I'm awesome, that's who - Just Kidding) My "backup" primary powerplant will be an Aerosport built 540 with SDS and some other nice goodies for just the reasons you pointed out.

But, I'm still pushing for the V4 as my dream engine for a few reasons. One is the power. I'm considering doing the turbo version to take advantage of power at high altitudes as a cross country machine. I am NOT thinking I'll fly at 200knts! I understand I'm building a RV 10, not a PC-12. But, I am putting AC, oxygen, nice interior etc. and would like to have a little extra power available should I need it. The fuel numbers that were discussed and projected are lower than the 540 (although those have to be proven as others have mentioned a discrepancy on the numbers). I like the idea of running Jet A since we want to travel the Caribbean and Mexico, were 100LL is expensive or not available. The TBO is on condition as well and I like the architecture of the drive train with a simplified intake/exhaust system and geared prop drive all designed into the case with proper lubrication and no belts! The ingenuity is sexy to me as well and the idea of the 5 bladed prop is pretty cool factor (I know, I'm a dork but can you blame me?).

Finally, it's just something unique and new. This is experimental aviation and that's why I'm interested in building my own plane. I could go buy a SR22 and be flying tomorrow, but it's not what I want. I'm building what I want! I encourage others to do the same!

Realistically, there is still a lot to prove. Andy's got some great designs and parts on hand and a lot of funding and work into this project. For me, it's not proven yet and I don't have an engine yet. But one day, a long time ago, Lycoming 540's were brand new!

All good questions Michael, thanks!
__________________
www.N1017H.com
Tim Huneycutt, Capt, NCANG
RV-10 Finish kit under construction
N1017H Reserved
EAA #: 1106970
2019 VAF Dues Paid!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-09-2019, 01:17 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 4,907
Default

Well reasoned reply Tim. I think others will be interested for many of the same reasons.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 427.8 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi.htm


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:02 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,154
Smile

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the time to respond. Reading between the lines it seems that the primary driving factor for you is the "experiment" of advancing technology. There is nothing wrong with that, but I'd caution you to be honest with yourself about justifying your decisions. I've worked in aerospace a long time, and even veteran design engineers can "fall in love" with an idea and then back into the requirements to justify that cause. Thats why we have peer reviews. In your case it seems you are envisioning a rosy future with a perfect end product - but it is a near certainty that you have a long, hard road ahead before you are whisking your loved ones to the Carribean.

And from a more technical standpoint, loading up an RV-10 with lots of bells and whistles, then hanging 500 turbo'd horses on the firewall is not something to be taken lightly (no pun intended).

Best of luck and I really hope it works out like you envision.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI instalation in work
RV-8 - Flying
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65 -flying
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:59 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 4,907
Default

Andrew comes from the F1 world where there is a high level of structured testing preceding the introduction of a new engine. The propeller/ gearbox and TV adds another element to be tested here so not only should the engine be tested at MCP for many hundreds of hours, but also over the entire rpm and load range as the auto OEMs do these days to uncover anything which may be lurking. Finally, at least 500 hours of flight testing over all regimes and rpm/ load points would have to be done. This is all time consuming and expensive.

We do have to remember that F1 credentials in themselves don't guarantee a successful aero engine as we've seen from WAM (ex Ilmor) and SMA (Renault Sport) which had multiple problems after introduction which should have been caught with a proper testing program. In the end, only a bunch of reliable, actual flight time validates the design success of an aero engine.

I'm hoping the Higgs engines get there and offers folks a viable alternative to Lyconentals. It's a very innovative design. The 2 stroke offers a big power to weight advantage over 4 stroke designs, if it can be made as reliable.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 427.8 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi.htm



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 01-12-2019 at 11:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:13 AM
majuro15's Avatar
majuro15 majuro15 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 488
Default

Mike, good advice that is appreciated. I like to think positvely but realistically. I know there will be teething problems and I hope to document those just as much as the successes. I think that's important for others to see as well.

My 10 won't be the heaviest out there by any means either, but it's certainly not the skinniest. Wise words as well.

To Ross's point lots of testing needs to happen before flight and even then a good flight test period to prove long term reliability. With a few folks on board with 10 projects along with an OEM that will have a lot of engines going soon (if targets are met), those operational hours will climb quickly.

Again, only time will tell and if I'm not comfortable with it personally, I've already got the color picked out for my 540
__________________
www.N1017H.com
Tim Huneycutt, Capt, NCANG
RV-10 Finish kit under construction
N1017H Reserved
EAA #: 1106970
2019 VAF Dues Paid!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:39 PM
AC-AERO AC-AERO is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Japan
Posts: 11
Default Prices

Quote:
Originally Posted by majuro15 View Post
Andy has a target of $55K for the NA version and $74K for the turbo version. Of course, that may change, but it may stay the same.
Correct, I aim to keep the prices of the engines competitive, after all, even if my engine was great, if I tried to sell it for $100,000 I doubt anybody would want to buy it. Don't forget, cost of a product is dominated by the market and $50k is still high, but I am stuck with low volume manufacture and if I can maintain my costs the I will keep the product at the current level.

I am confident that if the market accepts the new E-330 Hawk, I should be able to keep the costs down. With a huge backlog I am doing my best to eliminate delays and I appreciate everybody's patience.

Regards

Andrew
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:33 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.