What's new
Van's Air Force

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

LS1 Based FWF from Vesta

Has anyone out there had any dealings with Vesta Inc. Propultion Systems?

They have a FWF package that looks like a good fit for the RV-10

Dave Hertner
 
I've corresponded and talked to Jason Day with VESTA Inc. about a FWF package for the RV-10. He seems very knowledgeable about his product. Everything sounds good, but I want to see his work. Hopefully he will be at Sun N Fun in April with an LS-1 engine package. My fuselage kit will ship in February, so I'll be having to make a decision regarding an engine this spring. I'm trying to collect as much information as possible ( and save some money)before I make the leap. I'm definitely on the fence. Anyone care to push me off? ;)

Bill Gipson
Conroe, Texas
RV-10 Wings
 
Ls1 Rv-10

Bill, I am skeptical of an LS1 based system fitting in a RV-10 without weight and cooling issues. You should see an engine RUNNING IN A COWL MOCKUP before you believe anything you see with V8 based engines. I would like to say that I like the LS1 engine, I'm building an RV-10, and would love a less expensive engine package. That said very few V8 packages work unless the aircraft was designed around them. Cooling in climb and on the ground is always a problem. The RV-10 stresses in the fuselage are handled in the lower portion of the fuselage, there is a great deal of ribbing in the floor. This is important because a P-51 style belly scoop and radiator just won't fit. There are many sources quoted sying that you need approximately 2-3 cubic inches of radiator per HP. Most times you will find you need more unless you have a VERY good duct design. You will need AT LEAST 600 cubic inches of radiator if you want to be able to use anywhere near the 300+ HP the engine is capable of making. A very solid PSRU (preferably gear drive) is also needed. The LS1 is light for a V8 but once you mount the PSRU it will go around 450 lbs. If someone says less make them show you the package on a scale, (and then check the scale!) The Team 38 iron block engines weigh 420+ for the engine alone. Then you need to mount the radiator/s and oil coolers. The problem with V8's is that if you don't run the exhaust straight out of the cowl you run out of room in there. This doesn't mean that it can't be done, just that it's much harder to be successful than most people think. The Subaru is a great example, it has the perfect planform for most aircraft, a flat 4. Most models are rated at HP higher than needed in the planes to which they are being fitted and yet Eggenfellner is the ONLY outfit currently selling a SUCCESSFUL over the counter package. The job of conversion is tougher than it looks. Be CAREFUL! DO NOT PAY FOR A COMPLETE PACKAGE UP FRONT! Use an escrow account or demand to have several flights in a aircraft with the conversion in place. Lastly if the demo aircraft doesn't have at least 100 hours of trouble-free airtime wait or give it a pass. You will be happier later not having wasted your money. There is too much snake oil out there right now.
Bill Jepson, rotary10-RV
 
Follow-up on Vesta

Bill G,
I checked out the Vesta web site. The use of the Hi-Vo chain drive is passable. The radiator layout is, Total BS sorry to say. The layouts shown on the web site will have trouble cooling a lawn mower. There was a LA based company trying to do this same layout for the Lancair IV, (Engine Air I believe) they had only 2 flying examples, and the best one eventually converted back to a Continental! Not a glowing endorsement. Ignore this package until they invest THEIR money in a flying example. All discussion on the site is anectodal, (ie nothing flying or tested) it is impossible to tell on the web site if they have even 1 operating example. Ask some flyer you know about the Zoche Diesel. They even have running examples of their vaporware. They have been "nearly ready" for about 15 years. If you are not capable of engineering the package yourself the Conti or Lyc will have you in the air ages sooner for a price.
Bill Jepson
Rotary10-RV
 
Ls1

Thanks for the push. I, as well as others, will take on board your timely comments. I'm not taking this engine decision lightly and right now all options are on the table. As you point out, it's difficult to determine from a distance which are REAL options. I hope others will voice their concerns and lets get the real issues out in front of other RV-10 builders. Regards,

Bill Gipson
RV-10
wings
 
LS1 package

Bill G,
Glad to offer the $0.02. So you will know I like alternate engines. I am planning to run a Rotary (wankel) Mazda. I have been communicating with a firm that is certifying a turbo-2 rotor. (WWW.mistralengines.com) I will use their PSRU which is purpose built for the Rotary. I plan to use a 3 rotor Mazda sold in Japan but not used in US cars. The LS1 shows a lot of promise as well. I am a mechanical engineer and plan to design a lot of the FWF package myself. If you are looking for someone to provide the package, you should also check Team 38. They have a nice PSRU. They will only do iron blocks themselves though. I think the LS1 bottom end is actually better than the iron block. (LS6?) Good luck.
Bill Jepson
 
RE: LS1 vs. Mistral - Liquid Cooling

Bill Jepson,

I am curious about the cooling of the Mistral. I had a look at their website and I didn't see a whole lot of radiator. There was one on the side that was visible but it doesn't seem to meet the 2-3 cu.in. rule of thumb that you mentioned earlier.
I have been looking at many of the alternative engines out there with the express intention of placing a liquid cooled engine in my RV-10. Like you, I love the idea of the lower costs involved in the LS1 option. Lower fuel prices (Pump gas) and lower overhaul costs are a big incentive. Not to mention comfortable winter flying. There is a huge body of test data available that proves the reliability of the LS1 so I don't think that the engine alone is the stumbling block. I'm again with you on that. The cooling (In cowl) has to be the thing that is proven to me. I have heard many stories where cooling was the issue.
I will have to see an engine performing (in cowl) before I lay any money down but I have no doubt that we are starting to reach a critical mass in the number of people trying to solve the problems with these engines. They are just too good of a basis for a FWF system.
I am going to be talking with Jason Day Vesta. I think that the website talk sounds credible as a starting point. I will have to do a lot more digging before my mind is made up. He has a lot of competition.

Dave Hertner
 
Mistral cooling/ LS1 cooling

Dave Hertner said:
Bill Jepson,

I am curious about the cooling of the Mistral. I had a look at their website and I didn't see a whole lot of radiator. There was one on the side that was visible but it doesn't seem to meet the 2-3 cu.in. rule of thumb that you mentioned earlier.
I have been looking at many of the alternative engines out there with the express intention of placing a liquid cooled engine in my RV-10. Like you, I love the idea of the lower costs involved in the LS1 option. Lower fuel prices (Pump gas) and lower overhaul costs are a big incentive. Not to mention comfortable winter flying. There is a huge body of test data available that proves the reliability of the LS1 so I don't think that the engine alone is the stumbling block. I'm again with you on that. The cooling (In cowl) has to be the thing that is proven to me.

Dave Hertner

Hi Dave,
Your skepticism is well placed on the radiator issue. Mistral does 2 things. First: They use a very thick rather box shaped radiator placed on the right side of the cowl. The rotary is a VERY SMALL package. The engine itself is only about 12-13 inches wide and 14 inches tall. This small size, and the fact that the intake and exhaust of the engine as used in the plane are both on the left side, allows them to put several heat exchangers on the right. (Oil coolers are vital for rotarys.) Second:They stack the coolers on the right. The intercooler is even there near the top of the cowl breathing down like a car. Lastly they are producing "only" 230 HP (their design target) lessening the cooling demand a little. BTW Their engine is installed in a Piper Arrow and is flying right now! They have worked out several minor bugs already and things look really good for them right now.
The problem with the LS1 is exhaust on both sides and a fairly cowl filling profile. This means that you have to use the "blow out the sides" technique with the radiators passing air through some gills or something. One of the things radiators like is a clear appoach and exit path. (The exit is actually more important) The packing in of the rads like shown on Vestas site makes good ducting nearly impossible. Please understand I'm not against them, and really hope their arrangement is successful. There are just some known problems that have killed very similar looking design layouts in the past. The LS1 should be the best bet for V8 conversion with its large weight advantage over other V8's. Check out Algie Composite Aircraft for a nice LS1 package. David Algie is a lead fabricator for the Team Green indy car team and really understands packaging, plus the carbon fiber work is awesome. Here's hoping.
Bill Jepson
rotary10-RV
 
Vesta Firewall Forward

Hello Bill Jepson;

You are right. You need over 600 cu.in. for the LS1. The Vesta radiators are 800 cubic inches. Those words you use, "impossible" and "total BS", are very impressive. You must believe you are quite an authority. However, I don't believe you can be an accurate judge of the air flow of the Vesta radiator system by the photos on the web site. Nor have you seen a Vesta FWF system in person. I apologize that the photos are out of date and it does not show everything ( I will update). Furthermore, the air flow through the radiator system is smooth and plentiful. Cooling is stable on the ground test so far (in several different cowlings). We are actually thinking about reducing the radiators a bit (too much cooling). Flight tests are planned for this summer in the Lancair IVP and Murphy Moose by a couple of builders using Vesta component. So far, my customers have been the type that have not required me to do flight testing for them. They look at me as their machine shop and usually have had plans do build their own LS1 systems before they met me. For other customers we are building FWF systems, propellers, and components for the Express, Velocity, RV-7, Four Winds, Pawnee(crop duster), several Mustang kits, and other special aircraft. We have nearly 12 months of backlog. I invite you to come to Sun & Fun, Oshkosh, or New Jersey to see the radiator and other systems in person.

Jason Day
 
You are right. You need over 600 cu.in. for the LS1. The Vesta radiators are 800 cubic inches. Those words you use, "impossible" and "total BS", are very impressive. You must believe you are quite an authority. However, I don't believe you can be an accurate judge of the air flow of the Vesta radiator system by the photos on the web site. Nor have you seen a Vesta FWF system in person. I apologize that the photos are out of date and it does not show everything ( I will update). Furthermore, the air flow through the radiator system is smooth and plentiful. <snip>

Jason, Believe it or not I am on your side. I would love to see photos of the duct work. Engine Air used stacked radiators, lower, exiting the cowl normally and side exiting "gill" style. They had a terrible cooling problem in climb, but worked ok in cruise. The Hi-VO is certainly capable of managing the HP when properly laid out. Be careful of harmonics. The site photos may be my stumbling block as they don't show any ducting at all. Here's hoping you have found the proper combination. (I know it isn't impossible! But the airflow MUST be carefully managed.) I have built homebuilts back to the BD-5 and racing cars and motorcycles for about 20 years. I work as a mechanical engineer, so yes I DO have considerable experience in radiator layouts. The motorcycles can be tough to cool with the close fairings, just like an aircraft.
I have seen too many people burned by buying an unproven system just because it looks cool. (I worked on BD-5's remember) The BD had the trifecta, crappy engine, with terrible cooling, and horrible driveline harmonics. Due to the number of installations I have seen that have problems I am skeptical when any V8 based package hits the market that claims to fit in the cowl, cool well, and be a bolt-up FWF. With those cautions, please understand I like the LS-1 and I look forward to seeing a good package. I actually hope you CAN prove me wrong and get the system working. I will be first in line to congratulate you. Post your First Flight data.
Bill Jepson
 
Excerpt from http://www.afaco.com/resnpub.html

"Advanced Flying Automobile (AFA) LS1 Engine Study

This paper describes the results of a study determining the feasiblity of a reciprocating automotive engine for the Advanced Flying Automobile (AFA). Reliable proven automotive engines are preferred because of the high cost of certified aircraft engines and the technological gap created over the past fifty years of manufacturing know-how. This research effort summarizes knowledge required to convert the Corvette LS1 engine for highway and flight applications. Study concludes the LS1 engine is practical for the AFA design.

SAE Paper No. 1999-01-5644

Mike Czajkowski, AFA Co."
 
LS1 suitability for aircraft

Supereri said:
Excerpt from http://www.afaco.com/resnpub.html

"Advanced Flying Automobile (AFA) LS1 Engine Study

This paper describes the results of a study determining the feasiblity of a reciprocating automotive engine for the Advanced Flying Automobile (AFA). Reliable proven automotive engines are preferred because of the high cost of certified aircraft engines and the technological gap created over the past fifty years of manufacturing know-how. This research effort summarizes knowledge required to convert the Corvette LS1 engine for highway and flight applications. Study concludes the LS1 engine is practical for the AFA design.

SAE Paper No. 1999-01-5644

Mike Czajkowski, AFA Co."

Mike, Please note that the previous post DOES NOT dispute the engine's suitability, only the SYSTEM used to make it airworthy. The LS1 with the deep well bottom end, (like done in Chrysler Hemis), makes the crank much more stable. Few other lightweight engines would be as suitable. The problem with V8's is crank centerline. (too low) The Vesta system uses a Hi-VO chain system to offset centerline. (good thing) The V8 has both intake and exhaust routings to contend with. The Subarus usually are in the way of the radiators as well when using cheek rads.
It is always hard to fit the needed radiators inside the cowl. The higher the output the more difficult it becomes. Note that in most piston engine fighters with WC engines the radiators are remoted, ie wing or fuslage mounted. Examples; are the P51 obviously, the Spitfire with wing mounts, the P38 mounted on the tail boom. The P40 had a remote radiator on the prototype but the AAC forced them to cowl mount it which slowed the plane 10-20 mph due to drag.
This doesn't say that it cannot be done. It is a tough task to do without a big drag penalty. Most of us don't have a big fluid flow progtram to check things with and must "cut and try" to be sure everything works. My comments are there to warn the newbe's Not everyone is successful.
I certainly believe it can be done as I plan to run a WC engine myself, though of a different design.
Bill Jepson
 
Bill,
The previous post was from me, Eric. I was simply cutting and pasting what I found on a webpage. Would be interesting to see that SAE document though.

Also note that "AFA" is short for Advanced FLying Automobile which seems to be a company seeking investors to produce a flying car.
 
Vesta

I'm new to the group and have not as yet checked out Vesta. You might be able to tell from the handle that I'm into solving cooling issues. I'm an oil cooler dealer and have designed several oil coolers and radiators, my background is with Niagara for 17 years before venturing off and starting Aero Classics only to lose it to debt and stupididty. Pacific oil coolers own Aero now, (proof that you should never trust anyone) no engineering support or quality, just can't say anything good about them so I just won't say anything at all. I'm heading off to check out the Vesta engine and I'd love to see more firewall forward packages come avialable simailar to Jan Eggenfellner's Subaru. I worked with Jan on his little rads and there's no reason I can't adapt that package to anyone elses, I'm working woth Niagara once again but have inroads to Stewart-Warner as well so I can get the job done, Happy to be in the group!...Bill Kay
 
Help me with the cost comparison

While I won't need to decide on th egine for a loooooong time, I definitely spend a good deal of time thinking about it. I looked at the Mistral site and they do have a very attractive sounding product until you hit the pricing page. It doesn't seem to me that the $37k for engine and PSRU is all that attractive when compared to the $34k listed for a new 540 on Vans site. Am I missing something here?
 
Radiator design

DrCool said:
I'm new to the group and have not as yet checked out Vesta. You might be able to tell from the handle that I'm into solving cooling issues. I'm an oil cooler dealer and have designed several oil coolers and radiators, my background is with Niagara for 17 years before venturing off and starting Aero Classics ...

Hi Bill,

Great to have your expertise on the list. What is your current company name and website? I've got an eggenfellner subaru, so I probably have some of your work. Are you also working on the intercooler?
 
Mistral Rotary engine (to be certified)

Got2Fly said:
While I won't need to decide on th egine for a loooooong time, I definitely spend a good deal of time thinking about it. I looked at the Mistral site and they do have a very attractive sounding product until you hit the pricing page. It doesn't seem to me that the $37k for engine and PSRU is all that attractive when compared to the $34k listed for a new 540 on Vans site. Am I missing something here?

Got2fly,
Yes and No. There are some things you're missing such as the Mistral is a full FWF package, (it will bolt up to a dynafocal mount), and is turbo&fi. The Mistral will outperform the FI (260HP) lyc above 8k feet and should be more economical at the same time. Take note as well that the rotary will be twice as smooth as the Lycoming. Rotary cars were among the first to come with a real rev-limiter as they were so smooth people would over rev them and not even notice. The FI Lycoming is 260HP (more) but is also 40K. The package should weigh about 100 pounds less than the 540, (based on the honest flying weight of the unit in the Piper Arrow), ready to go. The Mistral engine package is being CERTIFIED so it will obviously cost more than a basic auto conversion. All that said, Vans does offer it's builders a better buy on a typical aircraft engine. If you buy the engine from Mistral you aren't really comparing an auto conversion but rather an alternate aircraft engine choice. If you are not prone to try something different the carburator Lyc is a good choice. The price differences require you to be certain of what you want. The Mistral engine is NEW TECH but unproven to this point. If they complete their certification,(and from what I have seen I believe they will), they will be a very viable alternative to a Lyc or Conti, but won't be any cheaper. The engine will be the equivilent of a FADEC equiped Lycoming, that is single lever and auto mixture. Those are options that will add a lot of cost to the 540. The auto conversion rotary would be like Tracy Cook's Realworld solutions redrive and engine management system. Much cheaper than Mistral but you need to do most of the setup your self, and definately not certified.
Bill J
Rotary10-RV
 
Last edited:
Heat exchangers, DR Cool

Doc, I am going to need several good heat exchangers for both water and oil. Can you post a location for contact or a web site where we might see your wares? Auto conversions do need good radiators. Can you supply water radiators with AN connections?
Bill J
 
Mistral and Vest

Bill,

Thanks for pointing out the missing pieces in my logic comparing the pricing. There are just so many different aspects to this stuff that comparing apples to oranges is quite a challenge.

Regarding the Vesta, any new news on flying vesta v8 conversions? I'll be in Philly this summer and would like to make a trip up to Pittstown, what is there to see at the 'factory'?

Ken
 
The best auto engine conversion

The best automotive engine conversion is to take $30,000 and convert it into a fresh IO-540 Lycoming. :D (Sorry could not resist)

Unless you want to be the first, I would wait to see what they have flying. A Lycoming is a bolt in deal, using all of Van's supplied components, engine mount, cowl, systems, without mod, re-engineering or designing. Resale will be better (with a Lyc) and you will be able to fly without being a "test pilot" and engine tinker. Nothing wrong with doing an experiment, but the engine in a plane, that has your back-side in it, is a big experiment. Think about it. If you want to be a test pilot, go auto, you want to fly, go Lycoming.

I think blazing a trail and being a pioneer is great, but in the end it will take much longer to build, the cost will NOT be significantly less if at all. Also, you may likely have something with less performance in the end. Weight will be much higher, I guarantee it. What are you going to do, make your 4 place a two place or ignore Van's weight limits? Again be careful what you do to a design that is made around a specific engine.

Where are the heat exchangers going. All the successful water-cooled planes (P-51) have an airframe designed around the engine and cooling system. Auto conversions I have seen all have their radiators installed as an after thought or a work around to the airframes design, intended for an air-cooled engine. The cooling drag is high which reduces performance and with the added weight , you are going in the wrong direction. Also forget any claims of fuel economy. It takes so much HP to make it go and a LS1, Subie or Rotary (actually a little worse) have no quantum leap in efficency or specific fuel use over a Lycoming. In fact the Lycoming, leaned at higher altitudes (lower % pwr) can get 24 mph or more. That is better than many cars, trucks and mini vans, and that is more than triple the national speed limit. Increase in MPG is from turbo charging (increased compression) and flying high, not all that practical for short flights or unpressurized cabins. Also tubo charges/super chargers come at cost of weight, cost and complexity.

A Lycoming with one mag (other EI) and mechanical fuel pump requires no special systems than the typical aircraft installation to operate or install. Auto engines with radiators, total reliance on electrical power have more "Stuff". Stuff like electronic fuel injection and ignition can go out. There are work-arounds, but again more work, weight and effort.

Cost can be less (than a Lyc) with a homegrown rotary installation for example. You can save you money, in trade for sweat equity. However all the commercial "engine kits" I have seen to date end up being very expensive, easily more than a Lycoming with off the shelf kit components from Van's. Plus you are stuck with a very expensive electric constant speed prop option, since most of the reduction drives have no provision for Hydraulic prop, which is superior and cheaper. The LS1 folks claim hyd prop capability? Cool, like to see that.

Just being different is enough to drive people to alternate engines. The promise of cheap overhauls is smoke and mirrors. A Lycoming flow regularly, maintained and not abused will go 2000 hours easily with no problem. I know because I have done it, twice. That is a LONG TIME and a lot of flying for the average pilot, at least 10 years or more. With gas costing $4/gal, I think we have other concerns. I might start looking for a real big rubber band. :D

I am building a RV-7 now and have $10,000 into my fresh overhauled O-360A1A. By getting a good deal on a core and overhauling myself , with friends help, I saved $8K. If I was building a RV-10 I would look for a good used O-540 and overhaul it. Since the O-540 is not as popular as the IO-540's, which are popular with the Rocket guy's, you should be able to get one for a good price, if you look. Why do you need FI, doing aerobatics with sustained inverted negative G flight? No. Go carb. I think you could get a O-540 in under $20-$22K if you are a good hunter. Just a thought.

Good Luck George
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
The best automotive engine conversion is to take $30,000 and convert it into a fresh IO-540 Lycoming. :D (Sorry could not resist)

GMC, What baloney! This IS the alternate engine forum! If you had read the previous posts where I commented on Mistral you will note I commented they are designed for HYD C/S from the outset. I plan to have a max of about 12K in my factory new conversion producing 250 reliable HP. (The core engine cost $2500.00 RUNNING)
Conversion is NOT for everybody, but please keep your trolls/fishing expeditions in the "arguement/neverending debates" forum. There is nothing sacred about anything made in the Lycoming factory, as the recent string of crankshaft failures indicates. The engine products are VASTLY overpriced. Those of us who are converting engines are the only people that will help keep your overpriced Lyc affordable. It is not for you obviously, but don't waste the bandwidth insulting the folks interested in other engine possibilities. A IO540 is a good engine, but sorry one new cylinder cost more than my core ENGINE. If I produce a reliable engine for less than a overhauled Lyc I'll have been successful in spades. I won't fly an unsafe final product be it Lyc or alternate engined.
ROTARY10-RV
 
Great:

If you can do the following:

"I plan to have a max of about 12K in my factory new conversion producing 250 reliable HP."

Make it run at only 5% less performance than a lycoming for at least 200 hours,


I will buy 10 of them at $20K each.

Of course you may be a wee bit optimistic, but good luck.

By the way, if you really think that the cost of a lycoming is influenced in the slightest by the tinkering few...well, perhaps a business course would be a good investment.
 
My opinion

Rotary10-RV said:
GMC, What baloney! This IS the alternate engine forum! If you had read the previous posts where I commented on Mistral you will note I commented they are designed for HYD C/S from the outset. I plan to have a max of about 12K in my factory new conversion producing 250 reliable HP. (The core engine cost $2500.00 RUNNING) Conversion is NOT for everybody, but please keep your trolls/fishing expeditions in the "arguement/neverending debates" forum.
First of all I have a right to express my opinion in a courteous fashion and I don't have to agree. Also I will post in any forum I want, but thanks for the advice.

Second this alternative engine category is not a fan club; it is a discussion of all aspects pro or con. If you don't want to hear the negatives don't read it. This is America. I guess you don't like my opinion. I read my original post again and think it is pretty positve and basically it rocked. :rolleyes:

I also looked at your other post and you say things like "this is total BS". Watch yourself Ace, I don't care for your tone. BTW I find it ironic you, Mr. "Rotary 10-RV", is posting negative comments to a thread called "LS1 Based FWF from Vesta." Your calling me names?

As far as calling me baloney, fishing, troll, what ever, get over it, I just respectively disagree. I do not think you will achieve the design goals you think you can, at least compared to an IO-540. If the most intelligent thing you have to say is you can buy a car engine core for $1,000, than so be it. ($1000 for new Lyc cylinder with valves-springs-retainer-seat, piston, rings etc). I would not use a core myself if I was building an auto conversion. A new LS1 short block is about 6 to 7 grand I think. I agree a bargain in aircraft terms. Also I stand corrected that Vesta says they have a hyd prop set up "option". Like to see that.

To avoid your rage in the future, I have noted your user name and will never disagree with you ever again. If you want to attack me personally send me a private message to tell me off. Look forward to the beat down.

For the record I love American V8s and think they might work in high HP applications, but I also think the rotary is probably the best do it yourself auto engine on the market for the RV and looking forward to seeing Tracy Crooks 3 rotary RV-8. I have followed automotive conversions for years and admire them, but please don't mislead people into thinking this is going to be cheap, easy power. There will be much work and the results are not known. FACT. As far as a rotary, adding 2/3rds a qt of 2-stroke oil every fill up to the gas tanks or injector is not attractive. Also fuel economy and noise are issues, small but should be considered. However as I said Mr. "Rotary 10-RV" I like the rotary. Good luck with that.

I have an engineering degree, grad school and worked directly for and consultant to a long list of aerospace companies. Second I have been in experimental aircraft for 20 years. I have had my hand in building 3 RV's, RV-7 currently, none with auto engines. However I have worked with several auto engine conversions and had several friends and acquaintance build and fly auto engine planes. We seemed to remain friends and I supported them with out name-calling. I now fly for a living and have type ratings on several corporate jets as well as 3 Boeing models.

My goal is not to piss you off, but help give the novice a broad picture of the facts and opinion based on 20 years experience. Again it is my opinion that 99.9% of the builders are best served by a Lycoming or aircraft engine. I son't mean to say a car engine is not able to propel an aircraft. The one point is if you want to fly, get a Lycoming, you want to experiment get an auto engine. I respectively think you are wrong that you will be able to save significant money or gain any performance advantage from a (I)O-540. I am sure from my experience you will add 100's of hours or even a 1000 hours or more of build time, that is if you are skilled and have the shop resources. No doubt this is a cakewalk for you, but for most this would be a huge overwhelming task. That's all.

BTW, I think the Belted-Power guys with a basic, cast iron mild carbureted points ignition Chevy V6 and belt drive really have a nice reliable alternative to the O-320/360. For the RV-10 I guess you are looking for more power than a V6. Their belted system works for V8s as well. Have you looked into that? A belt has some nice properties, although does require periodic belt replacement (like your cam belt on your car).

I wish you the best of luck and hope you much successes and most of all fly safe.

Regards George
 
Last edited:
Rotary10-RV said:
gmcjetpilot said:
The best automotive engine conversion is to take $30,000 and convert it into a fresh IO-540 Lycoming. :D (Sorry could not resist)

GMC, What baloney! This IS the alternate engine forum! If you had read the previous posts where I commented on Mistral you will note I commented they are designed for HYD C/S from the outset. I plan to have a max of about 12K in my factory new conversion producing 250 reliable HP. (The core engine cost $2500.00 RUNNING)
Conversion is NOT for everybody, but please keep your trolls/fishing expeditions in the "arguement/neverending debates" forum. There is nothing sacred about anything made in the Lycoming factory, as the recent string of crankshaft failures indicates. The engine products are VASTLY overpriced. Those of us who are converting engines are the only people that will help keep your overpriced Lyc affordable. It is not for you obviously, but don't waste the bandwidth insulting the folks interested in other engine possibilities. A IO540 is a good engine, but sorry one new cylinder cost more than my core ENGINE. If I produce a reliable engine for less than a overhauled Lyc I'll have been successful in spades. I won't fly an unsafe final product be it Lyc or alternate engined.
ROTARY10-RV


I'd agree with Rotary 10-RV here. GMCJETPILOT has made his views well known. This stuff belongs in the never ending debate section. Let's try to reserve this section for actual real info on ALTERNATIVE engine choices. Not everyone wants a Lyc new or rebuilt. Lots don't go to TBO without topping or other work even with care. One 540 threw a rod here last year in a Piper, forced landed, aircraft written off. Any engine can break.

Some of us are addressing the weight and cooling issues on our -10 engine installations. I'm pretty confident that our -10 Sube will equal or outperform an IO-540 in almost every respect.
 
Tell us more...

Some of us are addressing the weight and cooling issues on our -10 engine installations. I'm pretty confident that our -10 Sube will equal or outperform an IO-540 in almost every respect.
OK, now you have to tell us more! What are you using? Have you talked about this in other posts, so I don't waste your time re-typing it?

BTW, I also know George's opinions about auto conversions, but I like to read his posts. Since I'm doing an auto conversion (Eggenfellner), George's warnings help to keep me focused on some of the things that can go wrong. I'm happy to hear from people with a lot of experience, even if I don't always agree with what they say.
 
Last edited:
I've mentioned our latest RV10 project in some other posts. Sube twin turbo EG33 (3.3L SVX) flat 6 with P51 style rad scoop and proper exit door, Marcotte M-300 redrive with MT MTV-18-B/193-53a C/S prop. Looks like total package dry weight without accessories (no prop) will be in the 400 lb. range which is similar to IO-540. 260-300hp available for takeoff. Flat rated to 260 hp. Cruise rpm should be down in the 4000 rpm range

Currently flying a -6A with turbocharged EJ22T. Learned a lot on that one about rads, props, weight and intercoolers which we are applying to better solutions on the RV10.

Best of luck with your Sube!
 
I also looked at your other post and you say things like "this is total BS". Watch yourself Ace, I don't care for your tone. BTW I find it ironic you, Mr. "Rotary 10-RV", is posting negative comments to a thread called "LS1 Based FWF from Vesta." Your calling me names?

GMC,
Sorry you don't like my tone. The truth is that if you review that post I was replying to someone that requested specific information about the FWF from Vesta. I reviewed the pictures and made comments. Jason Day from Vesta replied, and claimed there was more to the package, GREAT. I assured him and everyone else in other posts that I am NOT anti-Vesta V-8 package. But after seeing the problems others have had fitting a V-8 plus cooling in a cowl I recomended the person vait to see a flying example with some hours prior to putting out his money. I believe this is a totally justified atitude. Failure of several V-8 companies most notably Engine Air (who had seemed to be doing the job correctly) shows that a conversion is not for everyone. The question was asked by Bill Gipson, I responded to him to hopefully prevent another money lost horror story. Mr. Day responded and seems to be dealing in good faith, I told him I look forward to postings of first flights and hopefully continued operation. MY name is Bill Jepson BTW i responded using part of your handle as your post wasn't signed. I don't recall calling you any names.
I won't waste the typing time to post to you off-line we are both obviously firm in our likes/dislikes. My comments to this forum have been very forthright and open and I am going to run a Mazda 20B rotary conversion in my RV-10, hence the Handle "Rotary10-RV". Later posts suggested I take a business course... etc, hardly constructive even if you believe I'm self-deluded. I am a working independent contract engineer so business costs are something I do know a bit about. I purchased a running 20B engine for $2,500.00. I will do the teardown and rebuild to original specs myself. Unless there are major problems, (unlikely on an engine running at teardown), the rebuild should cost less than $3.000.00. The major cost will be the PSRU which I will purchase from Mistral the florida & switzerland based company who are certifing a 2 rotor engine. Cost; $6,500.00. This PSRU is designed for a HYD/CS prop. I plan to run the automotive injection which came with the engine. This puts my cost at 12K. I would not suggest that I would sell them to the public for that price, or that there won't be additional cost, just as there would be for a new or used IO-540. I enjoy building things so I am discounting my "sweat equity". There it is, like it or don't doesn't matter to me. I have tired of the excercise of justifing myself to those who like to argue and will limit posts in the future as the time can be better spent building.
Bill Jepson
Rotary10-RV
 
Peace Bill, Mazda Rocks

rv6ejguy:
Sube twin turbo EG33 (3.3L SVX) flat 6. WOW, that will be something, please post pics and info when able. Cool.

Bill:
Gee, First have a beer and relax. I would like to hear more facts about the LS1 and your rotary project. Up until the RV-10 no one considered a V8 engine because it was too large for the other RV's. It may be great but who knows unless we get facts we can verify.

As far as the Rotary, that is a known quantity and well documented by Tracy Crook and others. It sounds like you are doing something different. Your last post listed cost and detail and a PSRU with a Hyd prop control? That PSRU sounds interesting. Tell us more, weight, Hyd prop! If they will sell you just the PSRU, great. I see their whole engine rotary package is expensive. Cool, good stuff, lets hear more. http://www.mistral-engines.com/ A 230HP engine cost $36,000. Why is there no flight test data, fuel burn, speed, etc. Can you tell us?

I really would prefer facts as you just presented about your rotary project vs. lecturing me or telling me "that's baloney". Facts Bill, please facts, no personal attacks. I am interested in what you are doing but not if you are going to call me names or use "This is total BS" and name calling.
Rotary10-RV said:
I checked out the Vesta web site....The radiator layout is, Total BS sorry to say.
You can say whatever you want but there is a nice way to say it. I looked at Vesta's web site also and think some of their comparison numbers, cost and weight are not correct. However I have never used the word BS in any of my post, even to you. I have presented my point of view, I think the Lycoming engine for 99% of the RV builders is still an excellent choice. Do you have a problem with that?

I am interested in the auto engine conversion field, as I have been following it for 20 years. I have been disappointed by talk and mock mock-ups at air shows and claims made never met, time after time. I am very skeptical until the prop meets the air. Yes the Subie and Rotary (normally aspirated) have proved a level of performance that is acceptable but not quite up to the Lycoming for most installations.

For me the whole idea behind the original alternative engine was low priced engines that where as good as a Lycoming in performance. Overall the cost advantage has disappeared or even reversed for car engines as Lycoming and Lyc clones get cheaper. In fact Lycoming prices are going down with the clones now available. So there is a good alternative engie to a Lycoming, it is called a ECI or Superior. Also with so many in the field there are opportunities for used engines, as I took advantage of, which can actually make the Lyc cheaper than a total homegrown Mazda 13B. I know I did it. I agree the rotary can be cheaper than a new Lycoming, but I have $10K into my fresh O-360 Lyc. It can be done. With your $2,500 engine, $3,000 rebuild and $6,500 PSRU you are up to $12,000, about what I will have into my Lycoming with dual electronic ignition. What about all the other stuff you will need like a electronic fuel/ignition controller and radiators (plus oil cooler)? So $18,000 for a brand new Lycoming O-360 is not that bad. You compared a O-540 to your 13B mazda. Obviously a O-540 will be more, but a bargain can be had if you look. Van says they go for $10K to $15K used. I do not think you will get the 250/260 HP a O-540 can get out of your 13B.

The turbo charger is the key to high altitude operations where they can do very well and get a slight advantage over a normally aspirated Lyc at high altitudes. However most RV's fly local most of the time or below 10,000 most of the time. It is not a put down Bill, only a design factor. To get the most out of the turbo you need to fly high and suck O2 thru a tube. I personally don't care to use O2, so I choose to fly below 12,500 for most of my RV flying. However with 180hp and a light RV I can easily go much higher if I wanted to, but those turbo mazda's and Subie's may pass me. :eek:

What is your problem with what I am saying? Obviously your eyes have glazed because I am critical of some aspects of auto engines, because you miss all the positive things I said about the Rotary and Subie. I even talked a guy into the do it yourself Rotary. Why? It is the only do-it-your-self engine conversion with enough support for the average builder to complete, critical components are available and most important, can be done for less money. However the adding oil to the gas, noise and no Hyd constant speed prop option (not with standing the PSRU you mention) is a turn off.

I like the Subaru engine itself. I like the Eggy kit, but my complaint is the FWF kit too expensive. There have been do-it-your-self projects that turned out nice RV's with custom Subie engine installations, but the average person could not complete it from scratch in my opinion. If I had a Subie it would be the "big block" with turbo, but I just can't deal with the electric prop, it is just a personal choice. Since there is not PSRU with a Hyd prop control you are stuck. The MT electric prop is too expesive ($9,000).

As far as operation cost there is not as much difference from any auto engine and a Lycoming. They all burn gas and as you know the rotary will always be a gas-guzzler, unless you turbo it and fly real high (17,500 feet). The alleged savings of an auto engine at rebuild time will take 10-15 year to be realized, which is the time a Lyc will go between rebuilds. Yes I think the auto engine will go longer between oil changes but this is chump change compared to gas, hanger, insurance, tax and so on.

What is the problem saying the Lycoming is still a good engine? A blacksmith with a hammer and an anvil does not pound out a Lycoming engines. The materials, tolerances and digital processes and production controls are of the highest standards. The advantage of water-cooling is undeniable. This is where the auto engine has an advantage over a Lycoming or any air-cooled engine, but this is an airplane not a car. A plane has plenty of air for cooling, but water cooling is now available for the Lyc Cool Jugs The trade off's for lighter air-cooled engines are poor emissions, lower detonation margins and blow-by which dilutes the oil, requiring more frequent oil changes. However water-cooling carries a penalty in weight and difficulty engineering efficient heat exchangers into an airframe designed for an air-cooled engine. It is not a fatal flaw, just a challenge to be dealt with. The day Van designs optional heat exchanger cooling tunnels into the belly of the RV will be a good day for water-cooled auto engine conversions.

Best of luck with you Rotary engine 10-RV project. I am sure it will be very nice and all the work will be well worth it.

Regards George
 
Last edited:
peace, projects, and conversions

You can say whatever you want but there is a nice way to say it. I looked at Vesta's web site also and think some of their comparison numbers, cost and weight are not correct. However I have never used the word BS in any of my post, even to you. I have presented my point of view, I think the Lycoming engine for 99% of the RV builders is still an excellent choice. Do you have a problem with that?

GMC,
OK peace. However don't you think your lead line at least provocotive? My BS comment may have been over the top, but it did get a considered reply out of Jason Day/Vesta V-8 which was useful. Jason seems a straight shooter. But I would like to see flying examples of his work. We need to sort out the snake-oil salesmen. I seriously doubt anyone was offended, if so I'm sorry. In this case I do believe the ends justify the means.
My own project is a 20B engine. For those that don't speak Mazda that is a 3 (three) rotor engine based on the 13B housings and therefore 50% bigger than a 13B. My weight point to beat has always been an IO-540. About 450+ pounds ready to run. (many are way more than that) Mistral's PSRU (the most expensive part of my project) is offered for sale indivdually, mostly due to the urgings of Paul Lamar to Francois Bedoin Mistral's C00 or CEO. (not sure) The company plans its own 3 rotor offerings later so the PSRU was designed for the power of up to a 380 HP turbo 3 rotor. Mine will be normally aspirated and derated from 345 HP in the car (w/turbo) to approximatly 250 HP WITHOUT turbo. The 20B easily will produce 250 HP in fact Paul Lamar has recently been testing a version of the 13B producing 228 HP with a carburated intake with much room for improvement. The Mistral PSRU has been running a CS prop from day one in testing on a Piper Arrow. If you check their site carefully thay are posting their tested Hp/torque curves for both the NA and turbo engine. They are also testing a SPARK IGNITION Jet A engine which is very interesting. The Turbo engine will be certified which helps to explain the pricetag.
I am a builder back to the BD-5 era. (I was 16) I worked my way through school as a mechanic, then machinist, finalily engineering starting 19 years ago. Like many of us in the engineering world I am upset by vaporware giving us all a bad name. I lack the funds to proceed as fast as I would like to or the engine would be running on the test stand now. I'm NOT retired so I need to fit in the time for design and construction around my typical work, not always easy I'm sure you would agree. I'm not really thin skinned but I am passionate about the fact that homebuilding pushes the availability of offerings from conversion builders as well as spawning the entire clone industry. I was reffering to clones primarily when stating that Lycoming was starting to feel the pinch caused by homebuilders. Van's is one of the largest purchasers of new engines and people like Eggenfellner ARE having an effect on sales. I am interested in a rotary FWF to sell to the public, but I'm not ready to risk everything to start that business. I should have started a Rotary Engine Thread. IMO the rotary makes a better aircraft engine than a car engine! I havent even mentioned the smoothness of the design yet either. enough already
Bill Jepson
 
FWF Rotary Package!

Cool Bill, I can tell you are passionate and have a lot of knowledge and skill. You are the kind of folks that can take the rotary or other auto engine conversions to the next level. I think a FWF package would be great. Love the new streamlined cowl James Aircraft makes, I think was made for the powersport rotary. If I can help getting your FWF package going let me know. Now get to work on that RV. :D Cheers George
 
Back
Top