Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

While many people focus on the engine (Auto vs Lyc/Cont) in these 

discussions and will make a decision based primarily on that point.  I 

believe that the  'alternative' power issue is MUCH larger. Not only is 

the engine often 'new' and lacking millions of air-hours experience 

(which is no guarantee, but does provide a factual database for 

statistical analysis and expectation setting), but frequently and of 

necessity in most of the alternate power systems also there is a PSRU 

which is new or new to that engine (what was wrong with version 2? or 3? 

or X? how many versions will there be after the one you buy/test?), 

perhaps add in a new propeller? Maybe the propeller controller 

(electronic/?). Engine mount? Exhaust? Cooling? Electrical? Ignition? 

Fuel distribution? Turbo/Supercharger? Intercooler? Cowling? Cowl Flaps? 

Induction air? . . . .  I'm sure there are others.

 From a risk management perspective, when you consider each item 

individually,  for someone WELL VERSED in these technologies the 

individual risks may indeed be or appear to be manageable. I'm glad 

there are people in the world that have the skills and are able to do 

the experienced based engineering/analysis/discovery & experimenting. 

However when you consider ALL of those things possibly being combined 

together for the 1st time in an airplane that you are the test pilot of. 

If / When the power system begins to operate in an unexpected manner, 

which of us is able to determine _in real time_ the offending 

component/s? I'm sure that the mathematicians out there could provide 

real numbers, but when the number of variables increases the risk 

increases exponentially.

Now there are some are well equipped with the technical engineering and 

test pilot skills to tackle this and find it within their comfort zone, 

If that's truly the case, good for you, At my advanced age I haven't the 

time or inclination to gain/acquire the equivalent knowledge. While we 

build/license and (someday :-\ ) fly our 'RV's as 'experimental' 

aircraft. IMHO I believe that most of us are not true  'experimenters' 

but rather 'kit assemblers' I don't mean to demean any of us  by that 

term, but only to point out that in my case the selection of one of 

Van's designs had a LOT to do with the fact that there  were over 5000 

of them in the air. vs some other 'kit' mfg.

So when you consider an 'alternate' engine also consider ALL of the 

other things that need to be a part of that power system, and if you're 

considering getting it as a 'package' because you think someone who is 

smarter / more experienced / than you has done all of the analysis, 

engineering, and testing make absolutely certain that whoever you buy it 

from FULLY discloses each and every component, and exactly how much 

engineering / testing has been done on ALL of the integrated parts in 

the package. Someone that really has that training will not hesitate to 

provide the information and data. A technical entrepreneur will provide 

anecdotes. When you have that information, assign whatever risk factors 

you believe in and make your decision, just make it fully informed.

The real tragedy would be for someone without the background/skills to 

make a decision, believing one thing and then finding out, too late they 

were wrong.



Deems Davis # 406

http://deemsrv10.com/

 	  Quote: 	
		   *



 *

Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

My position is much like Deems.  In this process (especially if my wife

is going to continue supporting the project), I am building as

reasonably close to a certified airplane as possible.



I'm not an experimenter and my airplane isn't an experiment.  It's just

going to be Experimental so I can have more flexibility.



Sure we'll be using some non-certified equipment (autopilot, efis, etc)

but even in those categories we're staying in the realm of the

well-known.  Tru-Trak, Chelton (Maybe GRT), etc.



That's how we're approaching it.



Phil



--

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Yes, not just engine, but engine package as in links of the chain. With that said, here is an interesting point of view from someone who claims he knows statistics...this is just interesting reading. This guy could be Jan Eggenfellner or Dick Cheney for all I know. Don't beleive everything you read on the internet or watch on T.V. This is my disclaimer.

  

 www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html

  

 As per fuel economy with the RV10 vs. the Turbo normalizing Subaru, the Lycoming will win hands down, but undstand what the supposed tradeoffs are, the turbo normalizer is allowing the engine to burn more fuel for more power at greater altitudes, whether that be climb or more speed is the pilots choice and I haven't been in one so I cannot attest to this. But that the case with the turbo normalized Lyco and Continentals which everyone claims is even better than a normally aspirated version.

  

 JOhn G.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:33:25 -0700

 From: deemsdavis(at)cox.net

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RV10-List: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>

 

 While many people focus on the engine (Auto vs Lyc/Cont) in these 

 discussions and will make a decision based primarily on that point. I 

 believe that the 'alternative' power issue is MUCH larger. Not only is 

 the engine often 'new' and lacking millions of air-hours experience 

 (which is no guarantee, but does provide a factual database for 

 statistical analysis and expectation setting), but frequently and of 

 necessity in most of the alternate power systems also there is a PSRU 

 which is new or new to that engine (what was wrong with version 2? or 3? 

 or X? how many versions will there be after the one you buy/test?), 

 perhaps add in a new propeller? Maybe the propeller controller 

 (electronic/?). Engine mount? Exhaust? Cooling? Electrical? Ignition? 

 Fuel distribution? Turbo/Supercharger? Intercooler? Cowling? Cowl Flaps? 

 Induction air? . . . . I'm sure there are others.

 From a risk management perspective, when you consider each item 

 individually, for someone WELL VERSED in these technologies the 

 individual risks may indeed be or appear to be manageable. I'm glad 

 there are people in the world that have the skills and are able to do 

 the experienced based engineering/analysis/discovery & experimenting. 

 However when you consider ALL of those things possibly being combined 

 together for the 1st time in an airplane that you are the test pilot of. 

 If / When the power system begins to operate in an unexpected manner, 

 which of us is able to determine _in real time_ the offending 

 component/s? I'm sure that the mathematicians out there could provide 

 real numbers, but when the number of variables increases the risk 

 increases exponentially.

 Now there are some are well equipped with the technical engineering and 

 test pilot skills to tackle this and find it within their comfort zone, 

 If that's truly the case, good for you, At my advanced age I haven't the 

 time or inclination to gain/acquire the equivalent knowledge. While we 

 build/license and (someday :-\ ) fly our 'RV's as 'experimental' 

 aircraft. IMHO I believe that most of us are not true 'experimenters' 

 but rather 'kit assemblers' I don't mean to demean any of us by that 

 term, but only to point out that in my case the selection of one of 

 Van's designs had a LOT to do with the fact that there were over 5000 

 of them in the air. vs some other 'kit' mfg.

 So when you consider an 'alternate' engine also consider ALL of the 

 other things that need to be a part of that power system, and if you're 

 considering getting it as a 'package' because you think someone who is 

 smarter / more experienced / than you has done all of the analysis, 

 engineering, and testing make absolutely certain that whoever you buy it 

 from FULLY discloses each and every component, and exactly how much 

 engineering / testing has been done on ALL of the integrated parts in 

 the package. Someone that really has that training will not hesitate to 

 provide the information and data. A technical entrepreneur will provide 

 anecdotes. When you have that information, assign whatever risk factors 

 you believe in and make your decision, just make it fully informed.

 The real tragedy would be for someone without the background/skills to 

 make a decision, believing one thing and then finding out, too late they 

 were wrong.

 

 Deems Davis # 406

 http://deemsrv10.com/

 > *

 >

 > *

 

 

&g====================
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 


	


  [quote][b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Deems Davis wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   If / When the power system begins to operate in an unexpected manner,

 which of us is able to determine _in real time_ the offending

 component/s? I'm sure that the mathematicians out there could provide

 real numbers, but when the number of variables increases the risk

 increases exponentially.


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   IMHO I believe that most of us are not true  'experimenters' but

 rather 'kit assemblers' I don't mean to demean any of us  by that

 term, but only to point out that in my case the selection of


	


Hi Deems,

    I agree with you that most of us are kit assemblers, and I don't

think it would matter what type of engine is installed.  Most of us are

not likely to be able to determine in real time which component might be

failing.  However, I do not think we need to, and in fact should not

even try to do this while in flight.  The important thing is to

recognize that there is a problem, and get the airplane on the ground in

a safe manner as soon as possible.  Troubleshooting should be done on

the ground, not while in flight, in my opinion.



    Those that are considering an alternative powerplant are more likely

to be the experimenter type, and realize that they will not be able to

rely as much on a typical A&P for assistance, but rather are willing to

educate themselves and be able to do most of the work themselves.  I

actually consider this a benefit, not a liability, based on my

experiences with some A&Ps in the past...



-Dj

-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

I guess I will join in a little and give my perspective too, since

it's not turning into a war and everyone seems to be playing nice.

(Man, what IS it about you people....are -10 builders really

that nice?  )



I'm not against using an alternative engine in a plane. There

may be many good things people learn from it over time.  But,

I'm not all all of the opinion that if you want a known, safe,

family x/c airplane that it would be the best choice to make...

mainly because there are plenty of unknowns.  The problem is,

alternatives have a few things going against them getting

a good reputation.  #1 is that while they are catching on

to a niche market, there isn't any consistency within the

various engine builders.  So, there is no such thing as a

long-term proven design....they're in constant evolution.

That can be a good thing too, in that they are evolving, but

it will make it impossible for and strong statistical info

to be drawn about a design.  #2 is that with lesser numbers

buying and flying them, there isn't much engine life experience

that can be used to compare.  I read the link on statistical

info that John G. just posted, but even the author says that

there just aren't piles of numbers available for the engines.

EVERYTHING is a SWAG.  When you read Kitplanes engine issue

you can see how many engines a company delivers and sometimes

they'll give the number of hours on the highest time engine

they have.  I'm always shocked by how low both the delivered

count and the total time count is.  I can't say I know this

as fact, but I think you'd be VERY hard pressed to even

FIND a dozen, or especially 25, car engine planes that had

2000 hours on the engine in flight.  The alternative

buyers always look at the things that are known, like

Lyc's have valve issues, and some people's cylinders don't

make TBO, and point to those things like Lyc's must be

plagued.  But, there are hundreds if not thousands of

aircraft engines that have made it to TBO, with either

little or no issues.  So the Lyc that blows a jug at 1200

hours is frowned on, but the fact that the alternative

engines have in very very large part not even flown 1200

hours in any serious quantity just gets overlooked.  The

statistical info just isn't there to show that they'll

be an improvement, even if they could.  The fact that

no 2 alternative engine makers will have the same design

for all their components also makes it hard because there

just isn't any consistency that can be used to draw major

conclusions.  This doesn't make them bad...but they are

definitely unknowns.



Continuing on that thought...since no 2 engine builders

are turning out the same product, that means that for

any modified components you're looking at a single source

supplier.  Now, there is a ton of truth in the fact that

since a subie, for instance, is a subie, that lots of

parts are available at auto parts stores.  But, there's

also tons of truth in that a PRSU, or many associated parts

are ONLY available from the original maker.  When you fly

a Lyc, you can break down anywhere, and although parts

may or may not be available near by, you can order almost

every single part in the engine from any one of dozens of

places and get it overnight.  If you blow your PRSU, you've

got but ONE place to go to get it, and your availability

will be up to their delivery times.  Nobody wants a

failure, but aircraft engine companies have AOG (aircraft

on ground) plans for how to get you parts fast, and

with them being the majority, there's no reason that

even blowing a couple of cylinders will set you back

more than a couple of days, if that.  Yeah, a subaru

can get pistons locally, but the surgery required to

replace them will likely be a little more troublesome

to obtain if you're 2000 miles from home.



Looking at Ray's comments on fuel economy, I'd have to say

from everything I've heard, he's right on there too.

Most alternatives end up burning more or at least the

same fuel quantity, for the same performance.  And as he

pointed out, if you want a turbo you fly 100LL like the

rest of us.  Keep in mind that the O-540 can use Mogas

just like the non-turboed subie.  Fuel Economy just won't

realistically be a factor in the decision to go that route.

Also, people seldom think of some laws of physics involved

in that controversy, even surrounding mogas in their Lyc.

Auto fuel is much more likely to vapor lock than 100LL,

and ESPECIALLY if you're flying high where reduced air

pressure causes more vapor to form.  The high-altitude

world is not a place for mogas, or many other things

either.  And when it comes to turbo charging, I don't

see that as a real positive addition to most RV-10's.

Dan had talked about how his plane would be slower and

perform much worse below 10,000', but get better and

start passing the Lyc equipped between 10 and 14K'.

There seems to be lots of hype and glory surrounding

flying real high, but the fact is, when you add a turbo

you're going to add high-alt performance but with the

added cost of more fuel, and you're not going to add

as much speed (even if you don't care about Van's choice

of VNE) than you will fuel.  I'm always amazed even at

the Lancairs, who turbo their planes and love the speed,

but their fuel flows are nowhere near what ours would

be cruising at 14,000'.  Add to that the fact that

even OXYGEN costs money, and you're gonna really

make that plane cost more to fly on x/c if you're

basically forced into going high to get respectable

fuel economies.  If I put the 4 of us in the plane on

Oxygen, it only lasts so long, so we avoid cruising

over 11,000 unless we see significant benefit from

doing so...and even then we need to plan our trip around

the O2 supply if we're going to use it.  So I found it

strange that the goal would be to have an RV-10 that

just started to get it's sweet spot once you passed

10,000'.  Not only that, but the climb performance

down low that he reported was abysmal from an RV-10

perspective...I don't remember so don't take this as

gospel, but I thought it was 900-1100fpm or so

on one phone call we had, but even at the high end

or slightly higher you're looking at much more time in the

climb phase, waiting to get out of the bumps and burning

more gas.  That's even my gripe about going with a 210hp

Continental...why not just get great climb so you can

be up to 8000' fast and start leaning it out for great

economy?



Regarding the "40's technology" of the Lyc...while some

of that's fair and true, some of it isn't. There have

been many improvements along the way. Picking apart

Dj's list (sorry Dj), things like ELECTRONIC IGNITION,

CONTROLLED TIMING, FUEL INJECTION, (EVEN SINGLE-LEVER CONTROL

WITH FADEC), NO PRIMER, NO CARB HEAT, (ABILITY TO BURN

AUTO FUEL) are things that the Lycs have been able to do.

I have no carb heat, I have fuel injection, I have elec.

ignition with variable timing...so if you trimmed that

down to an actual list of just DIFFERENCES then the

list would be a short one.



* Water Cooling

* Reduced Overhaul Costs



Sorry, but I can't give a pass on the "quieter" as every

video we've seen and many comments we've read point to

the fact that there's little difference there.  Also, some

people say an MT prop is "smoother" too.  At some point

though, it all is just subjective opinion and I think a

dynamically balanced Lyc doesn't fare too poorly against

an alternative, even if it was not quite as smooth.

Water cooling can be a double-edged sword, by the way, with

a coolant leak, but I need to point out again....in the RV-10

specifically, the cabin heat works VERY VERY well, and I'd

be willing to bet that liquid cooling will just make getting

good heat more complicated and less likely than just going

stock.  I can't possibly run my heater at full flow, even

in Wisconsin winters...there's just too much available

heat both front and rear...much nicer than in any of my

3 cars.  You absolutely DO have to maintain your exhaust

to ensure no CO issues, and having a CO monitor is important,

but I'll tell you what....the most common CO issues that you'll

find in ALL airplanes is from CO let in through the airframe,

not the exhaust.  Even my old plane, with brand new exhaust,

had slight CO entry coming in from the tail and doors during

high-angle-of-attack operation.  So CO monitors are a good

thing for ALL planes...and if you really aren't going to

inspect and maintain your exhaust, then yeah, you should

be paranoid...otherwise, it's really a non-issue.  The water

cooling does give better temperature stability, which

is probably the largest reason Lyc's have looser piston

rings...they expand/contract more.  So you've got a plus

there, but a minus based on exactly what would happen

when you have a leak...and cooling leaks are something

I've seen plenty of in my cars over the years.

As far as single-lever control goes, there's also something

to be said for HAVING the manual ability to control things

like mixture and prop, and I don't find the 3-lever

system hard to manage....so I'm not ready to trust FADEC

either.  So, if someone produces a fair and balanced list

of actual differences that exist ONLY on one side or the

other, the list will be pretty small, I'm sure, and things

still are widely opened to a balanced debate on the

positives and negatives of each option.  I think you'll

find that on a feature for feature basis, we're much

closer together than we are apart, so it's not a war.



 From an insurance perspective, and safety perspective, I'd

have to say that I don't see eye to eye with some that

the major reason to go alternative is safety.  Personally,

I think the insurance companies *should* be levying higher

rates on alternatives until they are proven and a few hundred

have been pushed to equivalent hours of a 2000 hour TBO.

There just isn't any data, real solid data, to prove

that there is either any severe safety problem with

certified engines vs. alternatives.  The only reason there

are so many case studies showing failures in certifieds is

that there are so many MORE of them flying and so many

more literally MILLIONS of hours of flight time gathered.

Heck, even looking at our recent RV-10 statistical

info, we've got between 10,000 and 20,000 or more hours

of fairly safe and trouble-free operation on the Lycs, but

we have a totally unknown safety record on the one

alternative flying.  If the engine wasn't an issue, then

they have perhaps 100 hours to the positive to give

testimony.  If it was, it's already a black mark on the

statistical chart.  This is absolutely not to indicate that

I feel that it was at fault, by the way, but the point is,

just due to the number of hours flying, I'd say any

argument using safety or risk is pointless...there just

isn't enough data to make that conclusion, even if it were

true.  Same with RV-10 safety as opposed to Cirrus.  Sure,

we all know that Cirrus looks fairly poor if you compare

directly because they've had a bunch of fatals and we've

had ONE.  But, looking at the type of pilot and the type

of flying that will tend to be drawn to BOTH aircraft

types, I'm thinking it won't take but a few years and

we'll start to see some fatals caused by the same issues

they have...CFIT, continuation into storms/ice, and

etc.  It may very well be that the RV-10 and Cirrus turn

into twins in the safety category....if we allow that

of our pilot attitudes.



So it's because of those things that I personally felt

that the only way for me, to get a family x/c plane with

at least a fair chance at meeting reliability expectations,

was to go with an IO-540.  Had I been building a 2 seater,

I'd have been much more open to alternatives, and heck,

even on the -10 my original thoughts fell heavily towards

Crossflow, Delta Hawk, SMA.  But I wanted this RV-10 to

be mostly a "known" rather than an unknown, and I don't

think it's unfair to say that any choice other than the

Lyc (with the small exception of the Continental 210Hp) is

pretty much largely an "unknown".  That's why I feel

it's important for me not to throw rocks, because it

really isn't a "known bad" to go with the subaru or others,

it's just absolutely not time for it to be considered

as a "known good" because it's premature by perhaps

10 or 20,000 operational hours.  For some, it will take

more than that, and for others, they want to be in

the forefront.  Rather than discourage that, I'd rather

encourage that....but with the exception that the builder

needs to know what they're getting into, both the good

and the bad.  It may be a perfectly positive experience

for them, and we hope that's true.  Some day, due to

fuel issues or others, we may all be shopping for

some type of alternative, and flying them low and doing

all sorts of things that we may not wish for, so it will

be nice to have some people pioneer the process a bit.



Sorry that got so long, but I don't really plan to jump

on the bandwagon and drag out every last issue in the

thread as it pops up....so I just wanted to lay out my

piece and let things flow.



Here's to starting a smooth RV-10 '08 right around

the corner!

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Excellent points, Deems.  I don't understand why people put so much

attention towards alternate engines but not towards alternate airfoils,

spars,  bolts, brakes, etc. (Mr. Harmon excluded!).  I guess the engine is a

big, juicy target.  "1940s technology, tractor ignition", etc., etc.



I've seen Lyc/Con and auto coversions fail many times.  The "upside" of a

Lyc/Con failure is that it's usually pretty well understood and help is

readily available.  FAA puts its full effort into notifying owners about

problems.  Lots of people are there to at least sell you parts if not help

fix the problem.  Too many amatuer builders get into these things without

realizing what a huge job it is to make work right.  Would any successful

alternative engine operators agree that it takes just as long to get the FWF

part done as the rest of the plane?  How many Lyc/Con operators remove it to

put on alternates?



Dave Saylor

AirCrafters LLC

RV-10 N921AC  50 hours, in paint

GlaStar N11KN, LOM engine (same issues)...(SOLD!)








 	  Quote: 	
		  >While many people focus on the engine (Auto vs Lyc/Cont) in these

discussions and will make a decision based primarily on that point.  I
	


believe that the  'alternative' power issue is MUCH larger. Not only is the

engine often 'new' and lacking millions of air-hours experience (which is no

guarantee, but does provide a factual database for statistical analysis and

expectation setting), but frequently and of necessity in most of the

alternate power systems also there is a PSRU which is new or new to that

engine (what was wrong with version 2? or 3? 

or X? how many versions will there be after the one you buy/test?), perhaps

add in a new propeller? Maybe the propeller controller (electronic/?).

Engine mount? Exhaust? Cooling? Electrical? Ignition? <<

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Regarding the "40's technology" of the Lyc...while some

 of that's fair and true, some of it isn't. There have

 been many improvements along the way. Picking apart

 Dj's list (sorry Dj), things like ELECTRONIC IGNITION,

 CONTROLLED TIMING, FUEL INJECTION, (EVEN SINGLE-LEVER CONTROL

 WITH FADEC), NO PRIMER, NO CARB HEAT, (ABILITY TO BURN

 AUTO FUEL) are things that the Lycs have been able to do.


	


Hi Tim,

    No offense taken!    The original e-mail asked about advantages

over an O-540, which does not have any of those things.  I did mention

that some of them could be duplicated on the Lyc.



    How much would it cost to add all of the above to an O-540?  Taken

as a collective list, I think we are really talking about adding FADEC. 

I know this is available for some of the 4 cyl Lycs.  Is it available

for the O-540?



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Glad you didn't take offense!  I didn't catch it that

you were just referring to the O-540.  Some will kill me for

saying this I'm sure, but the IO-540 seems to be the most

popular way to go on the RV-10's so far.  I know there are

some O-540's though, and performance isn't much different.

Usually though, the IO-540 makes it easier to run LOP, so

it has an edge there.

I don't know if a FADEC is available yet or not, but from

not-so-loud things I hear about actual incidents with it,

it doesn't sounds like FADEC is something I'd be too hot

to dive into just yet.  There's something definitely to be

said for simplicity, and less electronic sensors/control

reliance.  Even my old Diesel suburbans were like that...the

original mechanical pump systems worked well, lasted long,

and rarely had issues.  Then they throw in electric

pumps with computers and suddenly you're burning out

cylinders and all sorts of stuff. (my own 6.5 block came out

of one that I rebuilt after the owner suffered a

failure of his electric pump system on one cylinder).

So for me, keeping most of the electronics out of it is

a very good idea.  It was hard enough to trust the Lightspeed

ignition, but while there have been a handful of people

with problems, that one has so many great success stories

from flying copies I'm surprised it isn't being adapted

for certified use.  It sure smooths out the engine from

a mag-only, yet allows me to be 100% electrically IN-dependent

by having a mag fire the other side.

PS: that's one of the down sides of most alternatives...they

don't provide for redundant ignition.  My dang Nissan

was a pain in the butt whenever it's ignition controller

went nuts.  The most beautiful running engine when it was

good...the most hair pulling when it wasn't.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Dj Merrill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Tim Olson wrote:

> Regarding the "40's technology" of the Lyc...while some

> of that's fair and true, some of it isn't. There have

> been many improvements along the way. Picking apart

> Dj's list (sorry Dj), things like ELECTRONIC IGNITION,

> CONTROLLED TIMING, FUEL INJECTION, (EVEN SINGLE-LEVER CONTROL

> WITH FADEC), NO PRIMER, NO CARB HEAT, (ABILITY TO BURN

> AUTO FUEL) are things that the Lycs have been able to do.

 Hi Tim,

     No offense taken!    The original e-mail asked about advantages

 over an O-540, which does not have any of those things.  I did mention

 that some of them could be duplicated on the Lyc.

     How much would it cost to add all of the above to an O-540?  Taken

 as a collective list, I think we are really talking about adding FADEC. 

 I know this is available for some of the 4 cyl Lycs.  Is it available

 for the O-540?

 -Dj

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Lets be real clear here:

  

 Was the 900-1000fpm climb on his plane with or without the four blades, before or after the time it spent down in Florida? 

  

 With or without turbo shouldn't really make a difference because as I understand it, it is not really a boost at low altitudes, perhaps 30-32MAP is the difference, not absolutley sure as somehow it shows 200HP on the website for the E6 vs 220HP for the E6T and or perhaps better with the intercooler. Disclaimer notes again.

 

In anycase, I have decided to sell my 10 project, without engine and commit Hari Kari. 

 

The suicide hotline number is 967-5309 in case anyone cares to stop me. Anyone willing to join me, contact me off group.

 

Just trying to bring levity to a complex issue.

 

Do Not Archive.

  

 John G.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:32:36 -0600

 From: Tim(at)MyRV10.com

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>

 

 I guess I will join in a little and give my perspective too, since

 it's not turning into a war and everyone seems to be playing nice.

 (Man, what IS it about you people....are -10 builders really

 that nice?  )

 

 I'm not against using an alternative engine in a plane. There

 may be many good things people learn from it over time. But,

 I'm not all all of the opinion that if you want a known, safe,

 family x/c airplane that it would be the best choice to make...

 mainly because there are plenty of unknowns. The problem is,

 alternatives have a few things going against them getting

 a good reputation. #1 is that while they are catching on

 to a niche market, there isn't any consistency within the

 various engine builders. So, there is no such thing as a

 long-term proven design....they're in constant evolution.

 That can be a good thing too, in that they are evolving, but

 it will make it impossible for and strong statistical info

 to be drawn about a design. #2 is that with lesser numbers

 buying and flying them, there isn't much engine life experience

 that can be used to compare. I read the link on statistical

 info that John G. just posted, but even the author says that

 there just aren't piles of numbers available for the engines.

 EVERYTHING is a SWAG. When you read Kitplanes engine issue

 you can see how many engines a company delivers and sometimes

 they'll give the number of hours on the highest time engine

 they have. I'm always shocked by how low both the delivered

 count and the total time count is. I can't say I know this

 as fact, but I think you'd be VERY hard pressed to even

 FIND a dozen, or especially 25, car engine planes that had

 2000 hours on the engine in flight. The alternative

 buyers always look at the things that are known, like

 Lyc's have valve issues, and some people's cylinders don't

 make TBO, and point to those things like Lyc's must be

 plagued. But, there are hundreds if not thousands of

 aircraft engines that have made it to TBO, with either

 little or no issues. So the Lyc that blows a jug at 1200

 hours is frowned on, but the fact that the alternative

 engines have in very very large part not even flown 1200

 hours in any serious quantity just gets overlooked. The

 statistical info just isn't there to show that they'll

 be an improvement, even if they could. The fact that

 no 2 alternative engine makers will have the same design

 for all their components also makes it hard because there

 just isn't any consistency that can be used to draw major

 conclusions. This doesn't make them bad...but they are

 definitely unknowns.

 

 Continuing on that thought...since no 2 engine builders

 are turning out the same product, that means that for

 any modified components you're looking at a single source

 supplier. Now, there is a ton of truth in the fact that

 since a subie, for instance, is a subie, that lots of

 parts are available at auto parts stores. But, there's

 also tons of truth in that a PRSU, or many associated parts

 are ONLY available from the original maker. When you fly

 a Lyc, you can break down anywhere, and although parts

 may or may not be available near by, you can order almost

 every single part in the engine from any one of dozens of

 places and get it overnight. If you blow your PRSU, you've

 got but ONE place to go to get it, and your availability

 will be up to their delivery times. Nobody wants a

 failure, but aircraft engine companies have AOG (aircraft

 on ground) plans for how to get you parts fast, and

 with them being the majority, there's no reason that

 even blowing a couple of cylinders will set you back

 more than a couple of days, if that. Yeah, a subaru

 can get pistons locally, but the surgery required to

 replace them will likely be a little more troublesome

 to obtain if you're 2000 miles from home.

 

 Looking at Ray's comments on fuel economy, I'd have to say

 from everything I've heard, he's right on there too.

 Most alternatives end up burning more or at least the

 same fuel quantity, for the same performance. And as he

 pointed out, if you want a turbo you fly 100LL like the

 rest of us. Keep in mind that the O-540 can use Mogas

 just like the non-turboed subie. Fuel Economy just won't

 realistically be a factor in the decision to go that route.

 Also, people seldom think of some laws of physics involved

 in that controversy, even surrounding mogas in their Lyc.

 Auto fuel is much more likely to vapor lock than 100LL,

 and ESPECIALLY if you're flying high where reduced air

 pressure causes more vapor to form. The high-altitude

 world is not a place for mogas, or many other things

 either. And when it comes to turbo charging, I don't

 see that as a real positive addition to most RV-10's.

 Dan had talked about how his plane would be slower and

 perform much worse below 10,000', but get better and

 start passing the Lyc equipped between 10 and 14K'.

 There seems to be lots of hype and glory surrounding

 flying real high, but the fact is, when you add a turbo

 you're going to add high-alt performance but with the

 added cost of more fuel, and you're not going to add

 as much speed (even if you don't care about Van's choice

 of VNE) than you will fuel. I'm always amazed even at

 the Lancairs, who turbo their planes and love the speed,

 but their fuel flows are nowhere near what ours would

 be cruising at 14,000'. Add to that the fact that

 even OXYGEN costs money, and you're gonna really

 make that plane cost more to fly on x/c if you're

 basically forced into going high to get respectable

 fuel economies. If I put the 4 of us in the plane on

 Oxygen, it only lasts so long, so we avoid cruising

 over 11,000 unless we see significant benefit from

 doing so...and even then we need to plan our trip around

 the O2 supply if we're going to use it. So I found it

 strange that the goal would be to have an RV-10 that

 just started to get it's sweet spot once you passed

 10,000'. Not only that, but the climb performance

 down low that he reported was abysmal from an RV-10

 perspective...I don't remember so don't take this as

 gospel, but I thought it was 900-1100fpm or so

 on one phone call we had, but even at the high end

 or slightly higher you're looking at much more time in the

 climb phase, waiting to get out of the bumps and burning

 more gas. That's even my gripe about going with a 210hp

 Continental..why not just get great climb so you can

 be up to 8000' fast and start leaning it out for great

 economy?

 

 Regarding the "40's technology" of the Lyc...while some

 of that's fair and true, some of it isn't. There have

 been many improvements along the way. Picking apart

 Dj's list (sorry Dj), things like ELECTRONIC IGNITION,

 CONTROLLED TIMING, FUEL INJECTION, (EVEN SINGLE-LEVER CONTROL

 WITH FADEC), NO PRIMER, NO CARB HEAT, (ABILITY TO BURN

 AUTO FUEL) are things that the Lycs have been able to do.

 I have no carb heat, I have fuel injection, I have elec.

 ignition with variable timing...so if you trimmed that

 down to an actual list of just DIFFERENCES then the

 list would be a short one.

 

 * Water Cooling

 * Reduced Overhaul Costs

 

 Sorry, but I can't give a pass on the "quieter" as every

 video we've seen and many comments we've read point to

 the fact that there's little difference there. Also, some

 people say an MT prop is "smoother" too. At some point

 though, it all is just subjective opinion and I think a

 dynamically balanced Lyc doesn't fare too poorly against

 an alternative, even if it was not quite as smooth.

 Water cooling can be a double-edged sword, by the way, with

 a coolant leak, but I need to point out again....in the RV-10

 specifically, the cabin heat works VERY VERY well, and I'd

 be willing to bet that liquid cooling will just make getting

 good heat more complicated and less likely than just going

 stock. I can't possibly run my heater at full flow, even

 in Wisconsin winters...there's just too much available

 heat both front and rear...much nicer than in any of my

 3 cars. You absolutely DO have to maintain your exhaust

 to ensure no CO issues, and having a CO monitor is important,

 but I'll tell you what....the most common CO issues that you'll

 find in ALL airplanes is from CO let in through the airframe,

 not the exhaust. Even my old plane, with brand new exhaust,

 had slight CO entry coming in from the tail and doors during

 high-angle-of-attack operation. So CO monitors are a good

 thing for ALL planes...and if you really aren't going to

 inspect and maintain your exhaust, then yeah, you should

 be paranoid...otherwise, it's really a non-issue. The water

 cooling does give better temperature stability, which

 is probably the largest reason Lyc's have looser piston

 rings...they expand/contract more. So you've got a plus

 there, but a minus based on exactly what would happen

 when you have a leak...and cooling leaks are something

 I've seen plenty of in my cars over the years.

 As far as single-lever control goes, there's also something

 to be said for HAVING the manual ability to control things

 like mixture and prop, and I don't find the 3-lever

 system hard to manage....so I'm not ready to trust FADEC

 either. So, if someone produces a fair and balanced list

 of actual differences that exist ONLY on one side or the

 other, the list will be pretty small, I'm sure, and things

 still are widely opened to a balanced debate on the

 positives and negatives of each option. I think you'll

 find that on a feature for feature basis, we're much

 closer together than we are apart, so it's not a war.

 

 From an insurance perspective, and safety perspective, I'd

 have to say that I don't see eye to eye with some that

 the major reason to go alternative is safety. Personally,

 I think the insurance companies *should* be levying higher

 rates on alternatives until they are proven and a few hundred

 have been pushed to equivalent hours of a 2000 hour TBO.

 There just isn't any data, real solid data, to prove

 that there is either any severe safety problem with

 certified engines vs. alternatives. The only reason there

 are so many case studies showing failures in certifieds is

 that there are so many MORE of them flying and so many

 more literally MILLIONS of hours of flight time gathered.

 Heck, even looking at our recent RV-10 statistical

 info, we've got between 10,000 and 20,000 or more hours

 of fairly safe and trouble-free operation on the Lycs, but

 we have a totally unknown safety record on the one

 alternative flying. If the engine wasn't an issue, then

 they have perhaps 100 hours to the positive to give

 testimony. If it was, it's already a black mark on the

 statistical chart. This is absolutely not to indicate that

 I feel that it was at fault, by the way, but the point is,

 just due to the number of hours flying, I'd say any

 argument using safety or risk is pointless...there just

 isn't enough data to make that conclusion, even if it were

 true. Same with RV-10 safety as opposed to Cirrus. Sure,

 we all know that Cirrus looks fairly poor if you compare

 directly because they've had a bunch of fatals and we've

 had ONE. But, looking at the type of pilot and the type

 of flying that will tend to be drawn to BOTH aircraft

 types, I'm thinking it won't take but a few years and

 we'll start to see some fatals caused by the same issues

 they have...CFIT, continuation into storms/ice, and

 etc. It may very well be that the RV-10 and Cirrus turn

 into twins in the safety category....if we allow that

 of our pilot attitudes.

 

 So it's because of those things that I personally felt

 that the only way for me, to get a family x/c plane with

 at least a fair chance at meeting reliability expectations,

 was to go with an IO-540. Had I been building a 2 seater,

 I'd have been much more open to alternatives, and heck,

 even on the -10 my original thoughts fell heavily towards

 Crossflow, Delta Hawk, SMA. But I wanted this RV-10 to

 be mostly a "known" rather than an unknown, and I don't

 think it's unfair to say that any choice other than the

 Lyc (with the small exception of the Continental 210Hp) is

 pretty much largely an "unknown". That's why I feel

 it's important for me not to throw rocks, because it

 really isn't a "known bad" to go with the subaru or others,

 it's just absolutely not time for it to be considered

 as a "known good" because it's premature by perhaps

 10 or 20,000 operational hours. For some, it will take

 more than that, and for others, they want to be in

 the forefront. Rather than discourage that, I'd rather

 encourage that....but with the exception that the builder

 needs to know what they're getting into, both the good

 and the bad. It may be a perfectly positive experience

 for them, and we hope that's true. Some day, due to

 fuel issues or others, we may all be shopping for

 some type of alternative, and flying them low and doing

 all sorts of things that we may not wish for, so it will

 be nice to have some people pioneer the process a bit.

 

 Sorry that got so long, but I don't really plan to jump

 on the bandwagon and drag out every last issue in the

 thread as it pops up....so I just wanted to lay out my

 piece and let things flow.

 

 Here's to starting a smooth RV-10 '08 right around

 the corner!

 

 

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 do not===

 

 

 


	




  [quote][b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 PS: that's one of the down sides of most alternatives...they

 don't provide for redundant ignition. 




	


    I totally agree.  This has been one of the major niggling points for

me.  I've looked into this some, and the MTBF of the electronic ignition

systems are extremely low.  Statistically, the chances of the ignition

system failing during my expected flying-lifetime is practically nil. 

However, I realize statistics are a numbers game, and someone has to be

on the bottom end of the bell curve, so there are no guarantees.



    There is an interesting read on this topic here: 

http://www.sdsefi.com/air6.html



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

John, first, don't commit Hari Kari....you've been far too

good for the list!



I WISH I could remember every detail.  I believe it was

right after 10/9 when he had some speed numbers posted,

that I talked to him on the phone. I think in fact

that it was the same phone call when he talked to me

about his prop.  I can't guarantee the accuracy, because

it's all by memory, so please, please, don't overreact

but take it with a grain of salt.



On that conversation, I remember him saying his climb

was something like 900 or 1100fpm (I THINK).  I remember

being shocked, and asking him something like "Wow,

why is that, isn't the 4-bladed prop supposed to give

you lots better climb?"  And then he started to talk

about how I have to remember that the engine is a

lower HP engine (220HP), and that it really doesn't start

to kick in its benefits until you're at altitude.  As we

talked, he was telling me how that as far as he could

tell, he was going to be slower and climb slower until

he got over 10,000', where he'd intersect with what

he figured was the IO-540 performance (although

I don't know how much he directly knew about climb

performance for the IO at those altitudes).  And that

by the time he gets to 14,000', where he planned to

do lots of his cruising, he should be ahead of the

IO-540's because the turbo would start showing it's

benefits after 10,000'.  He did sound like the

4-bladed prop was somewhat of a hinderance in

some of the performance numbers until you got to

the right flight conditions, and I was surprised that

even the 210HP continental N220RV had more climb

performance.  But, I can't remember the specific

number he gave.  I know it wasn't more than 1400fpm

because I would remember that...but I remember being

somewhat shocked because I thought with 4 blades

that it would not be that far from keeping up.



As for me, I climb at about 2200fpm when solo as

a general average...perhaps even more at this

time of year, but when I go full-4-up in the

plane I can usually count on 1500fpm, and if

I have 2 of us in the plane I can usually easily

make 1700fpm or more.  That's climb performance

starting at about 1000msl up to the 3000msl

range, because at those altitudes you're blowing

upwards so fast that you progress quickly to

the levels where the performance naturally

decreases.  I know when I was alone last weekend

I was still climbing around 1500fpm when I

reached 8500', which surprised me a bit, but

that was solo.  Once you get up to 12,000,

the performance in climb has dropped off quite

a bit.  For me, I don't think I have reason to

want to go to 18,000, so I'm happy enough.

I would never turbocharge my IO-540 anyway, because

I like the economy of a non-turbo, along with

the slightly better reliability and less maintenance

to worry about.  And, you're supposed to let

turbos spin down and cool off before a sudden

shutdown too.



Sorry guys, I really thought I'd have been done typing

by now.  I'll try to stop.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

John Gonzalez wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Lets be real clear here:

  

 Was the 900-1000fpm climb on his plane with or without the four blades, 

 before or after the time it spent down in Florida?

  

 With or without turbo shouldn't really make a difference because as I 

 understand it, it is not really a boost at low altitudes, perhaps 

 30-32MAP is the difference, not absolutley sure as somehow it shows 

 200HP on the website for the E6 vs 220HP for the E6T and or perhaps 

 better with the intercooler. Disclaimer notes again.

  

 In anycase, I have decided to sell my 10 project, without engine and 

 commit Hari Kari.

  

 The suicide hotline number is 967-5309 in case anyone cares to stop me. 

 Anyone willing to join me, contact me off group.

  

 Just trying to bring levity to a complex issue.

  

 Do Not Archive.

  

 John G.

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

It's very simple for me.  I am so far removed from truly knowing what I need

to know in order not to be anything other than dangerous to myself and

others that it's not funny.  What's the phrase?  I do not even know enough

to ask the right questions.  



Now.  That does not mean I'm not learning, but it does mean I understand my

limits.  Sure, I've rebuilt engines in my day, and done a good job.  Also,

I'm good with a puzzle, with my hands and am very analytic.  But, I'm no

engineer and no mechanic with years of experience.  So, that leaves me with

history.  



Lycoming engines have history and depth of knowledge.  It is a known

quantity, and it is something around which this particular airframe was (in

some respects) built.  I will have enough on my plate to learn what I need

and want to learn about, in no particular order:  EFIS, Electronic ignition,

LOP flying, IFR, GPS, Autopilot, Brake systems, Electric trim, Batteries and

alternators, electrical diagrams, fuel systems, constant speed propellers,

brake systems, exhaust systems, heating systems, lighting systems, wiring,

sealants, fuel systems.........



Think that I'll stay with the depth of history, depth of knowledge that

exists so I can "safely" enjoy this creation.  Then, when I'm done with that

part of my education, I might start another project and feel ready for

another challenge, perhaps an alternative engine.  So, bless your collective

hearts, you alternative engine guys and gals, I wish you all the success and

will closely follow your progress.  Joining you is just not in my personal

knowledge space at this time.  



Thus, my point.  This is a great undertaking (some call it a hobby, which I

think is a word reserved for model trains), but one that has some serious

consequences if not done carefully and with knowledge.  If you don't have

the ability to know enough to know what questions to ask, I really don't

think you should be playing with something that has so many unknowns.  I was

put off by Jan in the very beginning  because he brushed aside, with some

bluster, my questions.  I do not see Bart or others doing the same.  They

don't need to.  The depth of knowledge is such that they can be silent and I

can get the information anyway.  They are helpful because of the great

people they are, but also because there is competition.  They want your

business, your respect, and your advocacy.  Thus, the learning opportunities

are so much greater, and for me, therefore, is the safety.  The differences

AT THIS TIME are so small (given some very real physics) between the older

technologies and the newer, along with their respective FWF packages and the

need to learn so great....well, you get the picture.  



John J

 40328



--

effectus(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Hi everyone,

 

 This has to be one of my favorite subjects!

 

     I have long followed the alternative engine discussion and even went so far as to do some major research into the creation of an alternative engine based on an automotive V8. I agree that there are a number of viable engines out there that would make a good basis for an aircraft engine. I also agree that there is a collective need to come up with a viable alternative to the venerable, high  maintenance horizontally opposed  air cooled  direct drive engine for small propeller driven aircraft. Something that can be swapped with OEM installations.

 

     Unfortunately the direction we always look is to the automotive sector for salvation. Even the likes of Theilalert (sp?) have taken automotive diesel technology and converted it for aircraft use. The only people that I see doing the proper type of engine development in the aircraft engine arena and who aren't one of the major players is DeltaHawk and look at the time they have had in trying to bring a new design to market.

 

     Unfortunately and fortunately it is going to take a different approach to designing an engine system for aircraft before we see a true alternative to the current offerings.

 

     We are planning a long term strategy that will take a new highly efficient compressor technology and develop a Brayton-Cycle engine for small propeller driven aircraft. We plan to develop the engine for land based electrical power generation first so that we can put the countless hours of test time in without putting any lives at risk. We will then start to put together a test plan that installs a thoroughly tested engine in a thoroughly tested airframe. Professional test pilots will conduct the proper engine and aircraft performance tests which will be documented and available to the prospective buyer.

 

     This is all about 10 years down the road because that is the time it is going to take to do it right. When it is done though we should have a pure rotation engine system that fits perfectly into the place where an IO-360 and IO-540 would fit. Same mount, same cowl. We'll make no other performance guarantees at this time but it will be comparable or better than the engine it replaces. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

     This is how it should be done.

 

 Dave Hertner

 #40164

 Wiring and Contemplating hanging the IO-540

  

    [quote][b]

CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

What a fun bunch of perspectives on a potentially explosive topic   



Maybe 10 builders are really that nice!  I thought I'd chime in here

also, only because it's been on my mind lately.  Initially, when I

decided to build an airplane, I really believed that I would go with an

alternate engine.  I considered different avenues, and since I'm more

familiar with car engines than with aircraft engines, I felt comfortable

with my decision.  And if I am anything in life, I am an experimenter!

Everything seems to be a voyage of discovery with me, and I don't mind

making a science project out of stuff.  As I got closer to buying an

engine package, the one thing that I hadn't considered is the fact that

I'm just not that good of a pilot.  Yet.  Not that I won't be someday,

but I'm just new at it.



The facts:



I'm not dinging myself here, but the cold hard fact is that I don't have

that many PIC hours, I don't get out flying that much lately because of

building, and I have an instrument rating (not current right now).  Add

all these things together, with an untested airplane, and you have a

veritable playground for potential bad decision making.  On top of that,

I've only ever flown a Cherokee PA-28, and a Cessna 172.  



I'm confident that with proper training, the first flight of my 10

should be fun and exciting with a moderate pucker factor.  The reason

I'm confident is because all the systems that I'm using (engine,

avionics, etc) have been tested by other pilots to an extensive enough

degree to give me at least a pretty good sense of security.  Yea, it's

not very groundbreaking of me in some respects, but when I realized that

if I went with an alternate engine I'd be one of the FIRST few to do so

in this airframe, I had a small but important (for me) epiphany.  I'm

comfortable with being a test pilot, but not THAT much of a test pilot.

So yea, I'm using a 60 year old engine design.  It's not the coolest, or

newest or neato-est.  bummer.



Possibly, someday, in another life where I'm building another airplane,

I'll be this awesome pilot who can dead-stick it into someone's backyard

barbeque without breaking a sweat.  At that time, I'll try to power my

airplane with something cooler.  Today, though, I have enough to learn

about flying a new slippery airplane to keep my hands plenty full.



To sum up: for me, the limiting factor is the nut behind the wheel.



Ps: I hung my lycosaur last weekend!



cj

#40410

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net





--

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

I have been just skimming most of the e-mails on this topic, because I  

am very happy with the performance of the IO-540, but I am keeping a  

lot of them for future reference if necessary.

What I want to know, though, is what in the world happened to  

Innodyn?  Man, I would swap out an IO-540 for that little turbine in a  

minute if they would just take a deposit from me to guarantee a  

delivery spot.    Seriously, though, does anybody know what the  

status is on them?

do not archive

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694

On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Glad you didn't take offense!  I didn't catch it that

 you were just referring to the O-540.  Some will kill me for

 saying this I'm sure, but the IO-540 seems to be the most

 popular way to go on the RV-10's so far.  I know there are

 some O-540's though, and performance isn't much different.

 Usually though, the IO-540 makes it easier to run LOP, so

 it has an edge there.

 I don't know if a FADEC is available yet or not, but from

 not-so-loud things I hear about actual incidents with it,

 it doesn't sounds like FADEC is something I'd be too hot

 to dive into just yet.  There's something definitely to be

 said for simplicity, and less electronic sensors/control

 reliance.  Even my old Diesel suburbans were like that...the

 original mechanical pump systems worked well, lasted long,

 and rarely had issues.  Then they throw in electric

 pumps with computers and suddenly you're burning out

 cylinders and all sorts of stuff. (my own 6.5 block came out

 of one that I rebuilt after the owner suffered a

 failure of his electric pump system on one cylinder).

 So for me, keeping most of the electronics out of it is

 a very good idea.  It was hard enough to trust the Lightspeed

 ignition, but while there have been a handful of people

 with problems, that one has so many great success stories

 from flying copies I'm surprised it isn't being adapted

 for certified use.  It sure smooths out the engine from

 a mag-only, yet allows me to be 100% electrically IN-dependent

 by having a mag fire the other side.

 PS: that's one of the down sides of most alternatives...they

 don't provide for redundant ignition.  My dang Nissan

 was a pain in the butt whenever it's ignition controller

 went nuts.  The most beautiful running engine when it was

 good...the most hair pulling when it wasn't.

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 do not archive

 Dj Merrill wrote:

> 

> Tim Olson wrote:

>> Regarding the "40's technology" of the Lyc...while some

>> of that's fair and true, some of it isn't. There have

>> been many improvements along the way. Picking apart

>> Dj's list (sorry Dj), things like ELECTRONIC IGNITION,

>> CONTROLLED TIMING, FUEL INJECTION, (EVEN SINGLE-LEVER CONTROL

>> WITH FADEC), NO PRIMER, NO CARB HEAT, (ABILITY TO BURN

>> AUTO FUEL) are things that the Lycs have been able to do.

> Hi Tim,

>    No offense taken!    The original e-mail asked about advantages

> over an O-540, which does not have any of those things.  I did  

> mention

> that some of them could be duplicated on the Lyc.

>    How much would it cost to add all of the above to an O-540?  Taken

> as a collective list, I think we are really talking about adding  

> FADEC. I know this is available for some of the 4 cyl Lycs.  Is it  

> available

> for the O-540?

> -Dj

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

Hey Jesse,

  

 As for Innodyne, they are taking deposits, but they only want the deposit in a currency other than U.S. Dollars. They took Euro from me a while back, but it was funny when I asked for my deposit back, I got back a lot less than when I made the original conversion and I got dollars back.

  

 I am learning slowly, but learning.

  

 Do Not Archive.

  

 John G.



 	  Quote: 	
		   From: jesse(at)saintaviation.com

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems?

 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:07:40 -0500

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

 

 I have been just skimming most of the e-mails on this topic, because I 

 am very happy with the performance of the IO-540, but I am keeping a 

 lot of them for future reference if necessary.

 

 What I want to know, though, is what in the world happened to 

 Innodyn? Man, I would swap out an IO-540 for that little turbine in a 

 minute if they would just take a deposit from me to guarantee a 

 delivery spot.  Seriously, though, does anybody know what the 

 status is on them?

 

 do not archive

 

 Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com

 Cell: 352-427-0285

 Fax: 815-377-3694

 

 On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

 

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>

 >

 > Glad you didn't take offense! I didn't catch it that

 > you were just referring to the O-540. Some will kill me for

 > saying this I'm sure, but the IO-540 seems to be the most

 > popular way to go on the RV-10's so far. I know there are

 > some O-540's though, and performance isn't much different.

 > Usually though, the IO-540 makes it easier to run LOP, so

 > it has an edge there.

 >

 > I don't know if a FADEC is available yet or not, but from

 > not-so-loud things I hear about actual incidents with it,

 > it doesn't sounds like FADEC is something I'd be too hot

 > to dive into just yet. There's something definitely to be

 > said for simplicity, and less electronic sensors/control

 > reliance. Even my old Diesel suburbans were like that...the

 > original mechanical pump systems worked well, lasted long,

 > and rarely had issues. Then they throw in electric

 > pumps with computers and suddenly you're burning out

 > cylinders and all sorts of stuff. (my own 6.5 block came out

 > of one that I rebuilt after the owner suffered a

 > failure of his electric pump system on one cylinder).

 > So for me, keeping most of the electronics out of it is

 > a very good idea. It was hard enough to trust the Lightspeed

 > ignition, but while there have been a handful of people

 > with problems, that one has so many great success stories

 > from flying copies I'm surprised it isn't being adapted

 > for certified use. It sure smooths out the engine from

 > a mag-only, yet allows me to be 100% electrically IN-dependent

 > by having a mag fire the other side.

 >

 > PS: that's one of the down sides of most alternatives...they

 > don't provide for redundant ignition. My dang Nissan

 > was a pain in the butt whenever it's ignition controller

 > went nuts. The most beautiful running engine when it was

 > good...the most hair pulling when it wasn't.

 >

 >

 > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 > do not archive

 >

 >

 > Dj Merrill wrote:

 >> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>

 >> Tim Olson wrote:

 >>> Regarding the "40's technology" of the Lyc...while some

 >>> of that's fair and true, some of it isn't. There have

 >>> been many improvements along the way. Picking apart

 >>> Dj's list (sorry Dj), things like ELECTRONIC IGNITION,

 >>> CONTROLLED TIMING, FUEL INJECTION, (EVEN SINGLE-LEVER CONTROL

 >>> WITH FADEC), NO PRIMER, NO CARB HEAT, (ABILITY TO BURN

 >>> AUTO FUEL) are things that the Lycs have been able to do.

 >> Hi Tim,

 >> No offense taken!  The original e-mail asked about advantages

 >> over an O-540, which does not have any of those things. I did 

 >> mention

 >> that some of them could be duplicated on the Lyc.

 >> How much would it cost to add all of the above to an O-540? Taken

 >> as a collective list, I think we are really talking about adding 

 >> FADEC. I know this is available for some of the 4 cyl Lycs. Is it 

 >> available

 >> for the O-540?

 >> -Dj

 >

 >

 >

&g======================
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   =======

 

 

 


	


  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum