What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New engine from Vashon/Dynon founder

It looks interesting. I'm always hopeful that someone comes along with a better mouse trap. However, it looks a lot like a UL Power UL350iS, which is 123 hp at 2800 rpm continuous (130hp at 3000 5 minute limit) and 160 pounds, plus 13 pounds of airframe mounted accessories and already has EFII with FADEC.
 
It looks interesting. I'm always hopeful that someone comes along with a better mouse trap. However, it looks a lot like a UL Power UL350iS, which is 123 hp at 2800 rpm continuous (130hp at 3000 5 minute limit) and 160 pounds, plus 13 pounds of airframe mounted accessories and already has EFII with FADEC.

Both of which are preferable to the current 100hp offering, with modern features. So that would put two vendors competing for that market - which is exactly where we are today (Lycoming/Continental) but with a better engine. If that's the case, I'll take it - it's still good forward progress. Couple more of those and you'll have a first down.
 
With all due respect, have you priced a UL Power engine in "ready to fly" condition? In the case of this new engine, the price point will, if they hit their targets, be a strong motivating force in the market.

The last time I priced a new O-200 it was north of USD$24K. If this engine comes in even at USD$16K it will have a significant advantage.
 
If the pricing target is true, it will be a great powerplant option for the SLSAs that now use the Rotax engine. The price of the Rotax is approaching the higher cu inch traditional 100LL aircraft engines.
 
If the pricing target is true, it will be a great powerplant option for the SLSAs that now use the Rotax engine. The price of the Rotax is approaching the higher cu inch traditional 100LL aircraft engines.

Maybe...... will depend on the airplane it is intended for.

Their final goal weight is still a bit higher (15-20 lbs) than the fully installed weight of a Rotax 912. Not huge, but a factor that would have to be considered in many airplanes. And that is assuming that the claimed weight is with an exhaust and other required accessories. If it is not (pretty common), then the weight delta would be even wider.

Even then I think could be a game changer if they are eventually able to deliver an engine at about $12K
 
Lot's of good info in general

I never took a close look at the EPI website before yesterday. In addition to the engine that the OP referenced, there is a ton of good information on internal combustion engine design and theory.

I don't want to start a politcal discussion on this forum, but there is a very interesting write-up on energy technology under the "What's new" tab. Check out the topic "contemporay energy mythology".
 
cylinder wear treatment

A monolithic cylinder made of aluminum would require treatment for wear such as Nikasil wouldn't it? But I don't see what they use.
 
The cost quote I remembered from the video was "less than half the current cost of a Cont. O-200, which I think is currently around $24K (the reason I wrote 12K)

I think if they can get the price down to the $12K range, it will take away the market of the Rotax which costs almost the same as a new O-360, even if it weights more than a Rotax.
 
A monolithic cylinder made of aluminum would require treatment for wear such as Nikasil wouldn't it? But I don't see what they use.

Edit: I don't see anything in the link that says they don't insert a sleeve, as do other engines - only an implication that they create the cylinder in a different way than traditional cylinders. While Nickasil CAN be deposited on Aluminum directly, Iron sleeves are not expensive nor particularly heavy and it seems like it would be very risky to trust a very thin deposited layer for aircraft use. However, after searching I have found other references to monolithic aluminum cylinders, so apparently they do exist. /Edit. They could still use a sleeve of nickel-steel called a "barrel." IMHO, plain Aluminum would last about a week... Here's a good description of an aircraft cylinder from Superior Air Parts. So, after trying to answer your question I am much less certain than I was originally....
 
Last edited:
Aluminum Bores

Yup, remember the debacle when General Motors built the aluminum cylinder Vega? The only other aluminum cylinder engine I know of was a model airplane engine. Somehow, K&B?s John Broadbeck got chrome to stick to aluminum on the low- cost K&B .61. He wouldn?t say how it was done. I had one, and that engine?s undoing was fast wear on the plain bearing main bearing. It got so loose I could feel cold, raw fuel spraying out if it. The cylinder did fine. The engine under test must surely have steel sleeves.
 
Nikasil and similar products have been around for decades.

Successfully used by the likes of Porsche and Rotax. No need to have steel sleeves if you are looking for reduced weight and much higher heat transfer rates on aluminum cylinders.
 
Nikasil and similar products have been around for decades.

Successfully used by the likes of Porsche and Rotax. No need to have steel sleeves if you are looking for reduced weight and much higher heat transfer rates on aluminum cylinders.

Yeah, after my earlier post I started looking around the internet. I find a lot of references to them in racing, but little or nothing having to do with reliable, long lasting use. So, that begs the question - if they are really better, why isn't anyone using them in cars or motorcycles? Steel sleeves can handle hotter temperatures and really don't weigh all that much.

This is another one of those ideas that sounds really good, but I think I'll wait until they have a few hundred thousand hours of operational data before I'll try it...
 
Nickasil

Yeah, after my earlier post I started looking around the internet. I find a lot of references to them in racing, but little or nothing having to do with reliable, long lasting use. So, that begs the question - if they are really better, why isn't anyone using them in cars or motorcycles? Steel sleeves can handle hotter temperatures and really don't weigh all that much.

This is another one of those ideas that sounds really good, but I think I'll wait until they have a few hundred thousand hours of operational data before I'll try it...

Porsche successfully used nickasil or a similar process on their alulminum cylinder air cooled 911 production engines for years.

I think there is less reason to use this type process on water cooled engines with multi-cylinder blocks which is why you don't see it used much in the production road-vehicle world these days.

Skylor
 
A great many current motorcycles use this type of cylinder coating on aluminum.
BMW motorcycles for one,that commonly go over 100k+ miles without any internal cylinder work. Just FYI.
 
You guys want to read some interesting stuff... look at the engines/alloys that Mercury Marine have developed specifically Mercosil. Would love to have money to experiment with that stuff.
 
Edit: I don't see anything in the link that says they don't insert a sleeve, as do other engines - only an implication that they create the cylinder in a different way than traditional cylinders. While Nickasil CAN be deposited on Aluminum directly, Iron sleeves are not expensive nor particularly heavy and it seems like it would be very risky to trust a very thin deposited layer for aircraft use. However, after searching I have found other references to monolithic aluminum cylinders, so apparently they do exist. /Edit. They could still use a sleeve of nickel-steel called a "barrel." IMHO, plain Aluminum would last about a week... Here's a good description of an aircraft cylinder from Superior Air Parts. So, after trying to answer your question I am much less certain than I was originally....

Just ask GM about how the Chevy Vega engine worked out. :eek: Aluminum cylinders coated with some new-fangled silica. I think they might have lasted longer with a coat of epoxy.
 
Plenty of modern production and race engines use Nikasil or Nikasil type cylinder coatings. Well proven and reliable as long as you don't have high sulfur content in the fuel.

Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar, plenty of race engines, bike, marine, small engines have all used it. Rotax 912s have Nikasil coated cylinders as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, after my earlier post I started looking around the internet. I find a lot of references to them in racing, but little or nothing having to do with reliable, long lasting use. So, that begs the question - if they are really better, why isn't anyone using them in cars or motorcycles? Steel sleeves can handle hotter temperatures and really don't weigh all that much.

This is another one of those ideas that sounds really good, but I think I'll wait until they have a few hundred thousand hours of operational data before I'll try it...

There are hundreds of millions or billions of hours on Nikasil and Alusil coated cylinders...
 
Last edited:
Hypereutectic bores and (Nikasil) plated bores to two different technologies that allow aluminium blocks to run without iron cylinder liners. Both are very widely used although I don't know who is using what these days in the Auto OEM space. It's certainly not new nor mysterious and high time it makes its way into aero engines.
 
Those were the days

Just ask GM about how the Chevy Vega engine worked out. :eek: Aluminum cylinders coated with some new-fangled silica. I think they might have lasted longer with a coat of epoxy.

This reminds me of a time in the late 70s. My girlfriend (now wife) had a job in Oklahoma. She was driving back to see her mother in Missouri. She called me from a truck stop, her Chevy Vega had melted down on the interstate. I drove down in my mighty Rambler to the rescue. As I recall we had it towed, and the guy at the truck stop recommended we junk it, which we did.

I was never a fan of all Al blocks since that time.

cheers

Geoff
 
This reminds me of a time in the late 70s. My girlfriend (now wife) had a job in Oklahoma. She was driving back to see her mother in Missouri. She called me from a truck stop, her Chevy Vega had melted down on the interstate. I drove down in my mighty Rambler to the rescue. As I recall we had it towed, and the guy at the truck stop recommended we junk it, which we did.

I was never a fan of all Al blocks since that time.

cheers

Geoff

The vast majority of auto engines have aluminum blocks today. Many have thin iron sleeves, many have Nikasil or Alusil coated bores. Lots has changed in 40+ years since the Vega debacle.
 
Just ask GM about how the Chevy Vega engine worked out. :eek: Aluminum cylinders coated with some new-fangled silica. I think they might have lasted longer with a coat of epoxy.

Well, that was a long time ago and as others have pointed out Porsche and motorcycle cylinders have been successful. Besides, Chevy in the years the Vega was produced did not have a great reputation.

My initial gut feeling that it couldn't work does not seem correct now - and if the parts are considerably cheaper, in the long run it may still make sense even if the cylinders needed to be replaced more often.

I would have no interest in the normally aspirated version, but replacing my O-290 with the turbocharged version would be sweet if the price were low enough.
 
My initial gut feeling that it couldn't work does not seem correct now - and if the parts are considerably cheaper, in the long run it may still make sense even if the cylinders needed to be replaced more often.

My 911 with nikasil cylinders has 140,000 miles on the original cylinders and burns no oil with good compression. I don't think poor longevity is a trade off with these technologies.

Larry
 
Nostalgia

Thread made this old man look up Nikasil. Looks good. Requires diamond honing.

Bought an almost new Vega once with the engine parts in a box. Got a block with the stepped sleeves. Six on the floor, German racing trim. Several 2000+ x-countries. I liked.

The word then was that the original Vega hypertectic aluminum/silcon block was OK 'til a little coolant hit the bore and then it was all over rather quickly. Wouldn't be a prob with aircooled would it? That block was very hard and very strong for it's weight.

Hmm. Get an old Franklin, pull the sleeves, make some pistons, Nikasil the cylinders. Presto, 395 cu. in.

Ron
 
Vega

Once a long time ago I purchased blown Vega's for small block V8 conversions, nothing like 450 hp and a 4speed Muncie in a Vega. :D
 
Ok, you guys got me interested so I emailed ECI to ask if, like Lycomings, it would be recommended to run no more than 75% continuous power - particularly in light of the Rotax 915 which can run about 95% power continuously. Below is the text of the email thread. It is my humble opinion that a 160hp turbo engine designed to run continuously at full power and 80lbs lighter than an IO-360 would, in practice, beat the pants off an IO-360 or even a TIO-360 under most conditions, and that is not even accounting for the cost difference.

_______________________________________________________

Hi,

A quick question about your new engine - and of course it may be too soon for you to answer. Presuming (and we are all rooting for you!) success in the initial design, would you anticipate that the engine limits would be like traditional Lycomings (i.e. 75% maximum continuous power) or would it be more like the Rotax 915 (142 max / 135 continuous)?

Would really love for there to be a turbocharged engine with performance similar to the 915 at a substantially lower price by the time I retire (3 years or so); I'd love to replace the O-290 in my baby!

Best regards,

Bill
_______________________________________________________

Hello Bill.

Being perhaps a bit optimistic, but I would not be surprised if it could run 100% at 100%.
I designed a great deal of extra strength and stiffness into the engine, along with a HUGE amount of heat rejection capacity--so much in fact that we had problems with the initial piston design as a result of the low cylinder temperatures--and that was on the dyno with a fan doing the cooling.
I am working (occasionally) on the top-intake / turbo version that I am targeting 160 HP min, and could be more with an excellent intercooling system.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,

Jack Kane
_______________________________________________________

Jack - is it ok if I share your response on Van's Forums?

_______________________________________________________

Bill:
That's fine with me--just be clear that (a) the production version of the naturally-aspirated 125 HP version is currently in endurance testing, and (b) the turbo version is a good way off, and depends on the success of the NA version too.
You could also put in a link to my web page describing the engine if you like.
Best;
JK
 
I was under the impression that Maximum Continuous Power for most normally aspirated Lycoming's is 100% power, and they would make TBO at 100%.

For example, the FAA TCDS shows Max Continuous as full rated power, and does not show a limited-time "Takeoff" power setting of more than Max Continuous Power for most (if not all) of the normally aspirated Lycoming (I)O-360s.

That may be true, but since most operations are above 6500 feet is kind of irrelevant for normally aspirated.

I was focusing on turbocharged engines. I don?t recall ever seeing recommendations for more than 80% power continuous operation apart from the Rotax. That doesn?t mean they aren?t out there, only that I?ve never run across it. So, a turbo 160hp engine rated for 100% continuous slightly outperforms a turbo 200hp engine rated for only 75% continuous.

All of this is of course idle daydreaming until or unless the engine materializes.
 
The confusion may come from rated vs recommended. I believe the lyc's are "rated" for continuous power, but the manufacturer recommends no more than 75% power in cruise for optimum longevity. The same way that cylinders are rated for 500*, but recommended at 435 or less for longevity. Seems clear that chances of getting to TBO are higher at the recommended levels. Not sure if the rating requires running all the way to TBO hours. Vaguely remember it being 500 or 1000 hours without damage.
 
Interesting. I wonder if anyone out there has ever run their turbo engine more than 80% power continuously, and what the result was?
 
The Reno guys run 250-275% of stock rated power, 8 minutes at a time. Lifespan drop precipitously at those power settings...

In normal use, if thermal and crank stress levels don't exceed the design limits, I wouldn't expect a big reduction in life operating at 80% power. Most aircraft turbo engines run little more than 40-45 inches for takeoff which isn't much.

In cruise on turbo 520 Contis and 541 Lycs. (geared), MAP is usually around 34-36 inches with the rpm way back. Life is fine if you respect the MAP, CHT and turbine inlet temps and don't horse the throttles around in my experience. Conversely, some ham fisted, brain dead folks can take them out in a few hours...
 
So, my inference from that is that running it about RECOMMENDED power setting continuously is probably bad with current engines.

Well, we will have to wait and see if this new miracle engine allows recommending operation up to 95-100% power continuously. And then, of course, the gunea pigs get to find out if that was too optimistic... :D
 
Interesting. I wonder if anyone out there has ever run their turbo engine more than 80% power continuously, and what the result was?

The GAMI/APS crowd that runs LOPWOT (lean of peak, wide open throttle) run the TSIO-550s at about 80%+ nearly all the time. As near as I can tell, they make TBO just fine, but as a general rule, they are well instrumented and well educated. I think those engines are turbo normalized to run about 30" max but have the higher 8.5/1 compression pistons.
 
I've listen to Mike Busch on the EAA webinar and he runs his engine WOT and LOP all the time. His argument is at WOT he gets the maximum volumetric efficiency from his engines. He just has to made sure all of his CHTs are no higher than 380degF and his engine went way past TBO.

Sorry for divergent from the original post.
 
I am a Lycoming man.... (Continental if I have to).

Every new engine is the best, latest and "modern". The only "new engine" to catch on in USA market in decades is Rotax, due to FAA adding Light Sport category. Many LSA designs came from Europe with Rotax; even RV-12 is based on the Rotax. There was/is a lack of 100-120 HP engines except for the Continental (I)O-200. Rotax is not cheap. A new Rotax 915is (140 HP) is $36,995. That is more than a Lycoming.

I would love to see new engines like this, direct drive and air-cooled take on the Austria Rotax geared high Rev water cooled engines.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top