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.
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