What's new
Van's Air Force

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

rv automobile engine conversion - creates animosity?

maxelrad

Member
After 20 years of design and building, I have completed an RV-4 with an automobile engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cp9jg9NNx0

Currently in the test phase, I've logged 25 hrs and am pleased with the results.

Have begun polishing the aluminum and will, in my opinion, end up with an attractive airplane with an unusual looking cowl.

My request from the members of the forum is an explanation of the lack of love I am feeling from the RV builder/owner community.

If my deviation from the norm upsets you - please let me know - flame away - all positive or negative responses will be greatly appreciated!

michael
 
After 20 years of design and building, I have completed an RV-4 with an automobile engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cp9jg9NNx0

Currently in the test phase, I've logged 25 hrs and am pleased with the results.

Have begun polishing the aluminum and will, in my opinion, end up with an attractive airplane with an unusual looking cowl.

My request from the members of the forum is an explanation of the lack of love I am feeling from the RV builder/owner community.

If my deviation from the norm upsets you - please let me know - flame away - all positive or negative responses will be greatly appreciated!

michael

Michael, Great to see your post. I watched the video when you posted last year. Quite the project!! Can you tell us more about the installation? The automotive installations have so many challenges, that most of us don't have to meet. Or could in one lifetime :D

How have the first 25 hours been going? Even a Lyc install has a number of things to get adjusted and tuned in, what are you finding?

An inline 4 has excellent rod and main bearing ratios compared to the bore, and the cranks can be quite beefy and stiff. With cool oil they should be quite robust, maybe better than the flying web opposed 4's.

Please share how it is going.
 
the experimental world has changed quite a bit since paul first founded the EAA. There are very few experimenters out there anymore. the new kits make it more of an exercise in assembly than building. is that bad? no, just change. there are people out there that are afraid of changing any thing from the plans. look at the number of people that cringe at the thought of hanging anything but a brand new factory engine on their built exactly to plan aircraft. is there anything wrong with that? no, but there is also nothing wrong with trying something new and different. that is what experimental is all about. your aircraft is different and interesting. some people do not like the look of it? to bad, as long as you are happy, if your not, feel free to change it to something else that you deem better.

I am also involved in corvettes, and its the same in the corvette world. arguments and ridicule of anybody that builds a custom or resto mod. its not exactly as it came out of the factory so its not as good or is destroying a good car. i think they are all great and make the owner happy.

i give you a lot of credit for trying something different. it takes a lot of time and effort to develop something different.

keep us posted on how your test progress goes.

bob burns]
RV-4 N82RB
 
Michael,
You have not been sharing much information about the engine, just 4 messages in the 7 years you've been here.
People are interested in what you are doing, how about more about it.
 
I am putting a C-85 12F in my 3. This has added at least 2 years and hundreds of modifications. I have enjoyed the challenge.


Bob Grigsby
J3 Cub. C-65. Pure fun

Dues paid+16. Lurking most of the time
 
I have read stories and posts from people who have tried auto conversions and some builders complaints were because of missed deadlines for equipment deliveries and parts that didn't work as claimed. If I remember, some got burned by companies or people and lost quite a bit of money and time. I think that is more the stigma than the engine itself. The communication about service updates and other issues has been a problem too.

I went with a Lycoming because it was the easiest for me and I am not a mechanic. I admire those who can work on any engine. There has been good success with the Covair and VW engines and the Viking is about as pretty of an engine as you can get.

Good luck with your plane. Like others have said - I would enjoy reading more about it. I have followed Don from Texas and his 12 build and would like to read more about your build too.
 
Static Thrust?

Did you ever tie your tail wheel to a large fish scale and measure static trust?

There is a C-172 in Finland flying with a TDI VW that appears to be built very clean and tidy under the cowl.

There are some you tube videos, including his static thrust test.

What is your cruise speed at 8500 ft?
 
Michael,
I grew up in Pgh, learned to fly at Washington Co Airport in the 70's. I havent flown up in my -4 from the Carolinas yet(where I live now) , but planning to get up that way sometime soon. What airport are you based at? Id love to see your machine and chat if I get up that way.
 
Experimenters pave the way for the rest of us. Without them ,we assemblers would have nothing to assemble. Keep up the good work experimenting ! ;)
 
Hi Michael,

Congrats on getting it flying. You have every reason to be proud of your accomplishment; those of us who are even willing to attempt it are an extremely small subset of the community, and those who are successful, an even smaller subset.

Unfortunately, about half the posts you're likely to get on this forum will be negative, coming either from those who never tried, or who tried & failed. (Lots of people seem to think that if they can't or are unwilling to try, then no one should be able to.)

I just watched your video on your throttle body adaptation, & really like your thinking & execution. I'd love to see more of your installation, including how you set up your cooling system (size calcs, duct work, etc), and your reduction drive design/construction.

Have you ever posted on the homebuiltairplanes.com forum? There's a pretty good alt engine section there, and I think your reception will likely be better than here. They also have a section you can use as a build log. That section is 'locked down' so only you can post to your build thread, so you could document your build there and still entertain comments in the alt engine section.

Again, any info you're willing to share would be welcome, at least by me.

Charlie
 
...There is a C-172 in Finland flying with a TDI VW that appears to be built very clean and tidy under the cowl...

I understand it only appears that good when it detects that you're looking at it. Under normal conditions it is up to 40 times worse.
 
Dying to hear from you

rv automobile engine conversion - creates animosity?

Michael, we are all hoping to hear from you and more about your RV-4.
I see 16 replies to your post and none has posted anything negative towards you or your airplane.
My request from the members of the forum is an explanation of the lack of love I am feeling from the RV builder/owner community.

Most of us would not put an automobile engine in an airplane. Can't speak for others but I personally admire people who do and my hat is off to you.
Soooo, how about some feed back on your 20 year project!
Apart from the technical achievement there has to be a story to tell and we all like to hear about it.:)
 
response to questions

I'll try to answer some of the questions so far.

The plane's empty weight is 997 lbs empty. I have not faired the gear or mounted wheel pants. It will cruise at 140 MPH IAS - might see 155 with fairing and pants. Not a speed demon. Might be able to tune for more speed but power equals heat and would probably strain my installed cooling capacity.

Fuel consumption 93 octane mogas 6 GPH. I am based in Western Pennsylvania KBTP. Anyone interested in visiting is certainly welcome. [email protected].

Here are a few photos of interest.

https://plus.google.com/photos/111186768409262658401/albums/6290164371227709441

There have been some interesting observations in the discourse so far.

I still want to hear from those who may feel that I am tarnishing the brand.

michael
 
Link works for me, but says I don't have privs to access.
edit: I just clicked on the 'request access' link.

Far from tarnishing the brand; I think Van's 2 seaters make great 'test mules' for trying something new in the powerplant dept. Strong, relatively safe in a forced landing, and docile handling.

Charlie
 
Rv

I flew a rv6a about 4 years ago in Upland California that had a BeltedAir Chevy v6 set up. Wish I'd have bought the plane . Took of on a 82deg day 3/4 fuel and two on board and the plane performed flawlessly . Did a few rolls right and left,loop,wing over and the plane. No hiccups .
I see you conversion and I hope that someday I have the guts to put my knowledge to work to try something similar. Maybe just the Belted Air set up, or ...?
I can't wait to see you flying videos using the eccotec engine!
Thanks for letting me see what you got this far.
God bless!
 
Experimentation is great

Looks like the comments here are all supportive of the direction you have taken with YOUR plane. As so many like to say "build the plane you want... Not the one others want you to." My two cents would be that the only time you are going to feel real push back from the RV community is when and if you decide to sell your plane. That seems to be when those looking at and valuing your plane will be the most critical. Understandably so. While there are modifications that some are comfortable doing with the RV series, most are content and even very satisfied with the opportunity that the RV gives us to have a great plane at an affordable cost both in building and operating.
Good luck to you and your project. Sounds like you are enjoying the process and will have a fun plane.
 
Auto engines

I really enjoy hearing about auto engine conversions because experimentation is how our technology improves. I don't have the skill to tinker with auto engines myself, but I am happy to adopt improvements once bold people work the kinks out. Bold people developed electronic ignition to the point where technically challenged people like me can enjoy the benefits.

Thanks for showing us "chickens" what is possible, and be careful!

Jay
 
I am close to doing taxi tests with my suby powered RV4.It is stock legacy 2.5 (165hp).I have airstrikes Peru,and SDS Computer to operate fuel injection/ignition.my radiator is small and mounted P51 style.I used a lot of info from SDS (Ross) as to cooling system.have idled for 15 mins playing with Dynon,and small 12" household fan in front,stayed at 190 deg temp.my biggest time consumer was feeling fiberglass cowling around Suby.Tom
 
I also plan on using 3blade prop from airstrikes.They DO NOT recommend their psru or prop for over 180hp.The other thing I can speak highly of SDS as Over years ,big problem with auto conversions is Micky mousing auto computer for a/c use...Tom
 
Tarnishing the brand? I doubt you will hear any of that. There are those who have lost friends to endeavors outside the norm...and they may not be in love with your direction but I doubt they will publicly say so in any manner. The RV world is very much live and let live.

My question would be....what kind of "love" are you expecting from strangers on the Internet?
 
I have only seen a handful, and my thoughts and observations are not completely researched or justified

But they are in the RV insurance pool, and tend to have a poorer safety record from what I've seen

I'd love to be wrong, someone show the data
 
Back in post #1, Michael made this statement:

"If my deviation from the norm upsets you - please let me know - flame away - all positive or negative responses will be greatly appreciated!"

Sure didn't take long for a moderator to delete the post Dan Horton made.

Based on his comment above, Michael is ready for what the RV community has to offer, both good and bad. Why then, does he need a moderator to run interference for him?

For those of you that haven't taken the time to look at his photos, here are two:

344p0qq.jpg


15rm7tw.jpg


Michael, per your request above I have both a positive and a negative response. You are to be commended for your perseverance in getting your project to the point where it is today. The negative response? That cowl was whacked with the biggest ugly stick in the state of Pennsylvania!

Tony

[ed. Tony, not exactly sure what you're talking about - I didn't delete any post here. Maybe Dan deleted his own reply.. Michael, I'm excited you're building the airplane that you want to build. I couldn't wish you any more luck than I'm currently wishing you right now! Good luck in your build and I hope it brings you happiness and joy. v/r,dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DR,

Dan made a posting, a reasonable one. It was deleted.

He made a second entirely sensible posting commenting about the deletion of the first one and this was also reasonable. It was deleted, too.

I made a posting regretting the deletion of Dan's first one and mine was deleted within an hour.

[ed. Well, it wasn't me, and I can't see who did it - permantly deleted vs soft deleted. Mods, please in the future only SOFT delete so I can see what's the fuss. And thanks for the clarification, David. v/r,dr]

Tony, thanks for posting those cowling photos.

On a different topic, here's a photo showing part of the engine mount:

0Tnu2V1H8N6WKu1wkv1qEDpRvsBt6IJrozIWk8QPRoPmi-nyl5penY_j_DcC-oTlZk8g1lrhrw=w293-h220


Please note that this design puts the vertical tube in bending, which is why engine mounts are typically trusses. Trusses have little bending. Tubes are not particularly strong in bending, so this is worth a bit of qualified analysis. It appears as if the original intent was to have a truss member from the top firewall connection to the forward isolator region but that the manifold assembly got in the way.

Not trying to flame the builder, he did something few of use do - he successfully (so far, anyway) adapted a car engine to an RV. Gotta respect that. Balancing the various competing requirements is difficult, especially since the form factor of this engine is so different than what the plane was designed for. But I did want to point out an area which might be fine (some of the details aren't visible) in case other people might be tempted to say to themselves, "Oh, a tube in bending - I can use that!" Well, maybe not.

Dave
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, Doug, I didn't delete my own post, or the one asking for clarification of why (in public or in private), or David Paule's opinion that the original deletion was inappropriate.

You know I support reasonable moderation. Sometimes a moderator gets a little past the line, just like the moderated. Please keep an eye on it. [ed. Thanks Dan, I will. v/r,dr]
 
Dave, I noticed the area you referenced as well. It got my attention because I recently re-purposed a Cessna 150 mount for an application that was designed for a VW engine and had to consider similar circumstances.

I'm wondering if the engine mount is a conventional RV-4 Lycoming mount that has been modified. The cut off stubs at the upper fuse gussets look familiar.

But this is an innovative powerplant installation that required a bunch of work in spite of the cowl having a look only a mother could love... :)

(P.S. I always sign my name to moderated posts on the rare occasions I feel the need to hit the soft delete button.)
 
Last edited:
Dave, I noticed the area you referenced as well. It got my attention because I recently re-purposed a Cessna 150 mount for an application that was designed for a VW engine and had to consider similar circumstances.

I'm wondering if the engine mount is a conventional RV-4 Lycoming mount that has been modified. The cut off stubs at the upper fuse gussets look familiar.

But this is an innovative powerplant installation that required a bunch of work in spite of the cowl having a look only a mother could love... :)

(P.S. I always sign my name to moderated posts on the rare occasions I feel the need to hit the delete button.)

I would say yes this did start as an RV-4 engine mount, it's looking better on this side so in light of this it might be adequate, stuff must have gotten it the way on the other side.
100_0389.JPG
 
In the photo Russ posted, it appears as if there are no lateral truss elements for the upper engine mount area. With both the top right isolator tubes terminating at the same vertical tube, that vertical tube is loaded in both bending (again) and torsion, unless something got added after the photo was taken.

In a real truss assembly, all the elements are loaded with axial forces. Axial forces are compression and tension. There's no bending and no torsion in real truss members.

Designers often fall into the trap of using some truss elements in a design that overall, becomes a space frame with bending and torsion and the designer can't see it. To them, its a truss and once they call it that, they tend to keep thinking that. In one egregious case, a large space shuttle payload structure was built that way. Its designer couldn't understand why he had to keep beefing it up; "It's a truss, darn it!" Once it has bending or torsion it's not a truss. It's a frame.

Dave
 
Big Thank You

I really appreciate ALL of your comments and the interest of the community expressed measured by the number of views.

Yes - the cowl looks like the spawn of Godzilla - stuff happens.

Plan to disquise it somewhat with a different paint scheme.

Once again - your support is very gratifying.

Fly Safely

michael
 
I really appreciate ALL of your comments and the interest of the community expressed measured by the number of views.

Yes - the cowl looks like the spawn of Godzilla - stuff happens.

Plan to disquise it somewhat with a different paint scheme.

Once again - your support is very gratifying.

Fly Safely

michael

Michael, if the scoop is a dark color (black?) it will appear somewhat smaller. But it just makes your plane....unique! :)
 
I really appreciate ALL of your comments and the interest of the community expressed measured by the number of views.

Yes - the cowl looks like the spawn of Godzilla - stuff happens.

Plan to disquise it somewhat with a different paint scheme.

Once again - your support is very gratifying.

Fly Safely

michael

Michael, if the scoop is a darker color (black?) than the rest of the cowl it will appear somewhat smaller. But the cowl just makes your plane....unique! :)
 
A pug is an ugly dog, but hey, that's what is so cool about it. I built many V8 Pintos in my youth, ugly, but cool! as I went by and all you saw was tail light getting smaller!
 
This cowling will appear better when the spinner gets added. And it appears as if it wouldn't be hard some time to round off and perhaps shrink the radiator inlet at the bottom and that, like the spinner, might result in a more pleasing appearance and perhaps even better performance.

Dave
 
PSRU?

Michael: Do you have a good photo of your engine with the PSRU installed? Is it a belt version? Fly safe!

Doug

RV-9A Mazda 13B/ FWF
RV-3A O-290"G", sold
 
rv automobile engine conversion-creates animosity?

Flame away, huh? Ok I'll give it a try, and I'm on your side of the Conventional/Alternative argument. An RV-4 needs what, about 150hp, and the eco-tech is 2 liters (120 cubic inches) That means you will need to get 1.25 HP per cubic inch for your RV-4. Water cooled engines are good
but they're not that good. I'd much rather see a chevy or ford v-6 bored and stroked to 300ci or 320ci (they're out there) and re-cammed for low rpm power
The 3 things we need most in our aircraft engines is 1. reliability 2. more reliability 3. as much reliability as possible. Why? because it's safer that way.
You've done a lot of hard work there, I'll give you credit for that and your persistence, but that thing needs to be a museum piece or a race car engine, not an airplane engine. Tough Love? Yes Sir, but you asked for it. I only hope it will be taken in the spirit it was intended.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No argument on the reliability, but a -4 only needs 150 hp if you intend to go fast & fly off short strips (really short strips). You can easily exceed the climb & cruise performance of just about any small production a/c on 100 hp (& still have the wonderful handling of the -4).

Charlie
 
Flame away, huh? Ok I'll give it a try, and I'm on your side of the Conventional/Alternative argument. An RV-4 needs what, about 150hp, and the eco-tech is 2 liters (120 cubic inches) That means you will need to get 1.25 HP per cubic inch for your RV-4. Water cooled engines are good
but they're not that good. I'd much rather see a chevy or ford v-6 bored and stroked to 300ci or 320ci (they're out there) and re-cammed for low rpm power
The 3 things we need most in our aircraft engines is 1. reliability 2. more reliability 3. as much reliability as possible. Why? because it's safer that way.
You've done a lot of hard work there, I'll give you credit for that and your persistence, but that thing needs to be a museum piece or a race car engine, not an airplane engine. Tough Love? Yes Sir, but you asked for it. I only hope it will be taken in the spirit it was intended.

Welcome To VAF!
 
Back
Top