VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 09-09-2018, 02:45 PM
NewbRVator NewbRVator is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: CA
Posts: 27
Default

What's the difference between Lycoming's DEL120 and this type of powerplant?

https://www.lycoming.com/engines/del-120
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-09-2018, 03:31 PM
rongawer's Avatar
rongawer rongawer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbRVator View Post
What's the difference between Lycoming's DEL120 and this type of powerplant?

https://www.lycoming.com/engines/del-120
The DEL120 is a four stroke compression ignition diesel.

The Higgs is a stepped cycle, spark ignition engine.
__________________
Ron Gawer

- RV10, N1530G (reserved). Empennage in progress.
- RV12, N975G, Flying
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-09-2018, 04:35 PM
NewbRVator NewbRVator is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: CA
Posts: 27
Default

The Higgs is a stepped cycle, spark ignition engine.

This seems very promising especially for the RV-10
__________________
Yearly dues paid 9/18
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-09-2018, 04:55 PM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 1,145
Default Yes...

Yes, sure looks like a good fit...

BUT

So did the Deltahawk, 6 Cylinder Pmags, The Dynacam, several small turboprops, etc.

Hopefully, this one will make it!
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful
Wiring...

Dues Paid 2018,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:14 PM
Mudfly Mudfly is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alpharetta, Ga
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbRVator View Post
The Higgs is a stepped cycle, spark ignition engine.

This seems very promising especially for the RV-10
....and the RV-14??
Good to see more and more of these new engine developments that don't use 100LL. I still have a hard time understanding all time and money being spent on trying to develop a "special fuel" for existing aircraft engines. Spend that time and money on developing a new engine that burns Jet A, a fuel readily available world wide. We put a man on the moon...surely an engine for a small airplane can't be that difficult.
Good luck to these guys!
__________________
Shawn Edwards
RV-14A (140174)
www.myrv14build.blogspot.com

Last edited by Mudfly : 09-09-2018 at 10:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:29 PM
David Paule David Paule is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,591
Default

Any engine will make plenty of torque if it's geared low enough.

For an existing airplane design, it suggests that an optimum prop would be fairly long. If so, that introduces ground clearance issues. Or it could have a large number of blades.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:15 PM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 1,145
Default Itís all about the money

The problem is that the development costs are astronomical...and the potential market return is tiny. Putting a man on he moon cost about 14 billion dollars IN THE 60s. There were many thousands of people involved and it took the government to finance it. Designing and going to production on a small airplane engine, well, if the numbers were favorable there would be many more choices available now...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful
Wiring...

Dues Paid 2018,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-10-2018, 09:28 PM
rongawer's Avatar
rongawer rongawer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Paule View Post
Any engine will make plenty of torque if it's geared low enough.

For an existing airplane design, it suggests that an optimum prop would be fairly long. If so, that introduces ground clearance issues. Or it could have a large number of blades.

Dave
The prop currently be proposed is the MT-5. Itís a 5 bladed composite, but will handle the pulses. It weighs in at ~85#, so not bad. Should be smooth.
__________________
Ron Gawer

- RV10, N1530G (reserved). Empennage in progress.
- RV12, N975G, Flying
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-10-2018, 10:05 PM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 1,145
Default Prop

85 lbs for the prop? Thats about 30 lbs more than my MTV9 which is 12 lbs more than the recommended MTV12. That weight out on the nose of the -10 may be an issue...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful
Wiring...

Dues Paid 2018,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:57 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudfly View Post
....and the RV-14??
Good to see more and more of these new engine developments that don't use 100LL. I still have a hard time understanding all time and money being spent on trying to develop a "special fuel" for existing aircraft engines. Spend that time and money on developing a new engine that burns Jet A, a fuel readily available world wide. We put a man on the moon...surely an engine for a small airplane can't be that difficult.
Good luck to these guys!
Itís not a question of ďis it possibleĒ, itís a question of ďcan we afford itĒ. A brand new engine that can slot into place where a Lycoming went but burns Jet wonít be cheap to develop, and even if every light airplane in the US bought one youíd only be looking at 160k or so units to amortize all that development expense across. My guess is that the final experimental version would run about what a new Lycoming does. And thatís not even accounting for certification costs, which would probably add 50% to the development cost, and then another 20-30% for the STCs required.

Most of the GA fleet is not going to drop money equivalent to 1-3 times the current value of their aircraft on a new engine.

By contrast, a 100LL replacement is expensive to develop too, but its sales are in much smaller and affordable units over a longer time. Itís easier for the fleet to absorb a 20-30% increase in fuel costs than capital outlay exceeding the aircraftís hull value.
__________________
RV-7ER - canoe flipped
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
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 03:16 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.