Open minded, yes!
Deuskid said:
where's the LOVE... lol
I too am following this and other engine discussions with interest [and
ignorance [as I'm probably the least knowledgeable poster in this
thread]].
I want a 9 so the H6 is out of the question for me anyhow. More's the
shame. I guess eggie decided not to worry about < 160 hp applications.
I started my search because I drive a TDI diesel - I wanted a diesel
powered canard. I have a friend in Greece [where fuel costs really vary].
Now, a few months of research have convinced me to want a -9 and
lycoming [most probably] as my first engine. Talk about a 180!
My Greek friend [who is completing a Cozy III] is leaning toward
the Volvo D5 or the Toyota 4D4. Both have too much HP for a -9 but
smaller diesels are available.
The problem of fit and finish remains.
It isn't the engine core of a Rotary, Subie or whatever that is the problem.
It all the ancillary equipment.
I LOVE my TDI and the current state of diesel technology makes using
one in an A/C easily viable [as is a Rotary or a Subie]. The devil is in the
experimentation to make them fit and work [John Slade has gone thru 3
or 4 turbos trying to get his Cozy IV to have a turbo'd B-13].
I welcome all the experimentation by those included - hat is off to ya...
but I don't have the skills or time to blaze the trail.
I will keep an open mind but until there is a clear and pronounced
advantage to alternative power sources - I've conceded to start out
traditional.
Pax John
You are probably the
most knowledgeable of
the posters. Thank goodness, here is an un-jaded open minded comment.
As you can tell Deuskid, we (me included) have prejudice, preference and
dogma we all adhere to discussing this topic. You have outlined many of
the issues with an open attitude. I share your attitude, but I am not as
diplomatic. The purpose of these debates is to get info out to others
who have not made up their mind, not change minds that are made up,
nor should we. We need the "geek" as you so call it, to make a
breakthrough.
I have followed the auto engine movement since late 80's. At first
outlandish claims where being made: Not heaver than, faster than, more
HP than, cheaper than and so on. I am heartened almost everyone has
realistic and honest data to share. This was not always true. Lets just have
actual data so the ones who are "lurking" can get good info. Enthusiasm
and faith in ones power plant of choice needs to be tempered with facts
(both sides). Most engine conversion advocates have a very realistic
attitude, and some are doing amazing things (experiments) to improve the
breed.
You bring up a point about Eggy dropping the 160 HP engine; he just
unilateral decided to drop the 2.5L 4 banger? NSI is out of business. This
is the danger of buying from a single source. At least with Lycoming
there are 3 sources of parts. I know it sounds negative, but those "looking
in" need to know that. I personally think the joy of auto engines is the
knowlege you gain by attempting your own custom installation. The off the
shelf FWF to me is Anti-alternative engine.
I personally would love to look into the EcoTec, ? 205 Horsepower @
5600 RPM and 200 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM torque ? powers the Saturn ION
Redline, Supercharged in-line 2.0L, 4-cylinder, alum blk/head, composite
intake, DOHC roller 4 valve per. It's a very interesting engine. I am not
sure its right for a RV, but it might be right for a scale replica of a P-51 or
Spitefire.
Echotec or
205HP for $4,500 new I would go with a belted drive
Belt drive
My hat is off to anyone that does something out of the norm and is the
first to forge the way. As you pointed out and others have, auto engines
are not for everyone. You point to the "geek" and the other guy who has
been challenged by a working turbo set-up. This kind of tinkering and
challenge is FUN. I admit I hate my car modern car in one area, it does
not need me. I grew up on cars with points, condensers, solid lifters, carbs
and no computers. I love tinkering. However I would rather fly. So auto
engines in planes are a bit of a paradox. Some build to invent, have
something that's custom, unique and tinker with; while others buy it
seemingly to have car like turn-key operations and less maintenance.
Every engine has its plus and minus, but I still put out the challenge to the
alternative engine guys to come up with a lighter installation, less drag,
less cost, hydraulic prop and higher performance. Just buying off the shelf
is not going to do that, unless the dealer of these FWF engine kits makes
head way. The down side is a company makes business decisions. Clearly
Eggy thinks the RV-10 is the future and that he has saturated the smaller
market. (I don't agree that he will get 230HP out of it at the prop.)
The best performing and looking FWF auto engine kit is Powersport
aviation's rotary 13B powersport RV-8. Unfortunately they are
struggling, not because the kit is not excellent, but it's partly due to
competing with the best do-it-yourself product support of any auto
engine for RV's (Real World Solutions). Although they have the lowest
weight, most HP and least drag of any FWF auto engine kit, it just
matched Lycoming performance, at the expense of fuel burn, noise and
initial cost. Cost wise its not bad compared to Eggy. The Subaru Guys can
take some clues from PwrSport's example, but you will likely never be
as light as a rotary, which is the advantage of the rotary in the auto engine
world.
Drag? This is one area I can think of which can and should be improved
with water cooled engines. I would copy a P-51. A pointy cowl with no
major drag producing inlets or exits, except induction and minimal
exhaust egress. The cooling would be in a belly scoop, aka P-51. The
problem is our RV airframes where designed around air-cooled engines.
If you are willing and able to modify the bottom of the fuselage for a
scoop, that is the way to go in my opinion. Why? In early 1940's the state
of the art in water cooling aerodynamics was achieved. Why reinvent the
wheel.
Weight? Not much you can do about that except minimize it with
materials and going on an airframe weight reduction program. Hydraulic
prop? Serious engineering most likely beyond most amateur
experimenters abilities. Performance? If you take care of itself, if other
items are improve.
If any auto guys have an aerodynamic or structural engineering problem
write me. I have an aerospace background and can do structural analysis.
I don't have time to do a full blow project but I can dust off my "Bruhn"
(Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures) and give some advice.
George
