Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

Auto Power
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.a
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Hello to the group,  

   

I came across an aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It was still a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering if anyone in the U.S. actually has a flying example of this type of engine installation and if so how the performance numbers stack up compared to a Lycoming etc.  

   

Paul  

     ~   [quote][b]

pascal(at)rv10builder.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: Auto Power

sore subject right now [img]cid:E018908B69B644D381CE49B16EF9E4BD(at)dell[/img]

 Below is the report I pulled from VAF- http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=38462&page=10

                                                              gipsowh               vbmenu_register("postmenu_343301", true);               

                                                 Join Date: Jan 2005

             Location: Conroe, Texas

             Posts: 41 

                           



                       Gear Collapse Incident 

               Yes, its true, N730WL was damaged Thursday        afternoon during a test flight and subsequent emergency landing. Pilot,        Bud Warren and I were taking the 10 for a flight around the airport to        check out a high operating temperature problem. We took off after a long        taxi and climbed normally, however the engine temperature kept climbing        even after leveling off. For unknown reasons the engine seemed to quit        making power. Bud skillfully banked back toward the runways. Not a good        situation. A discussion with Bud today leads me to believe that the high        engine temperature may have exceeded an operating parameter in the ECM and        the engine reverted to a low power setting. This has yet to be confirmed        but obviously needs to be addressed if this is indeed the problem.        



Bud managed to get the airplane back to the airport sacrificing        altitude and speed without stalling. Incredible job by Bud to get        us back to the runway. However, once over the runway, we were too slow and        the plane mushed onto the runway rather hard. We bounced and skidded to a        stop on the collapsed main gear. Fortunately, there was no fire and Bud        and I were able to get out of the 10 without any injuries, Thank God.        



Unfortunately, there was considerable damage to the main landing        gear and the prop was destroyed. The steps kept the bottom of the fuselage        off the runway while we skidded, so no noticeable damage to the fuselage        skin or tail. The wings didn't hit the ground but there is some minor        damage from the gear folding up. I haven't looked at the landing gear        mounts yet or the spar. So I don't know at this ten seconds the full        extent of the damage.



This project has been five years in the        making and this is a tough pill for me to swallow. I really appreciate the        concerns voiced. Will try and keep you posted on any new developments or        findings.

       __________________

Bill        Gipson

N730WL

LS1 Geareddrives powered RV-10

Conroe,        Texas 



  



  From: Paul Walter (pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au) 

 Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:45 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Subject: Auto Power

 



  

  

  

Hello to the  group, 

  

I came across an  aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It  was still a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering if anyone  in the U.S. actually has a flying  example of this type of engine installation and if so how the performance  numbers stack up compared to a Lycoming etc. 

  

Paul

~   	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

Emoticon3.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1.31 KB

Viewed:

11056 Time(s)

user_offline.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1 KB

Viewed:

11056 Time(s)

im_aim.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1013 Bytes

Viewed:

11056 Time(s)

icon9.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1.03 KB

Viewed:

11056 Time(s)

ricksked(at)embarqmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Yeah there's one in Texas.....it dead sticked in and folded the gear about two weeks ago......We just got back from Osh via Texas to Las Vegas....all Lycoming powered.   Never missed a beat....

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



--

robin1(at)mrmoisture.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Paul is asking about the real performance numbers. Here they are Paul.  

   

Alternative Engine Up Front Savings        $15,000  

Additional R&D                                                 1,000 hours Since we work for nothing-additional cost = $0.00   

Cost to build Alt. Engine RV-10                   $160,000-$225,000  

Resale Value of Alt. Engine RV-10             $80,000 (plus Liability Waver Signed, Witnessed & Notarized, twice)  

   

Paul, everyone wants and hopes for a viable alternative engine RV or for that matter just about any experimental airplane to be successful using readily available automotive type engines. Unfortunately the category has been littered with planes that never flew and even worse ones that did fly. Some even making it all the way back to the airport.  

My advice is that unless you are an aeronautical engineer that prefers building to flying construct a plans built aircraft. Saving $ on an alternative engine will be the most expensive path you can take.   

   

Robin  

   

       

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pascal

 Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:20 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Auto Power  

  

  

     

sore subject right now [img]cid:image001.gif(at)01CA109C.F363FF80[/img]  

    

Below is the report I pulled from VAF- http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=38462&page=10  

                                 

gipsowh [img]cid:image002.gif(at)01CA109C.F363FF80[/img]     

               

                          

Join Date: Jan 2005     

          

Location: Conroe, Texas     

          

Posts: 41      

          

[img]cid:image003.gif(at)01CA109C.F363FF80[/img]     

     

                            

[img]cid:image004.gif(at)01CA109C.F363FF80[/img]Gear Collapse   Incident    

         

      

Yes, its true, N730WL was damaged Thursday afternoon   during a test flight and subsequent emergency landing. Pilot, Bud Warren and   I were taking the 10 for a flight around the airport to check out a high   operating temperature problem. We took off after a long taxi and climbed   normally, however the engine temperature kept climbing even after leveling   off. For unknown reasons the engine seemed to quit making power. Bud   skillfully banked back toward the runways. Not a good situation. A discussion   with Bud today leads me to believe that the high engine temperature may have   exceeded an operating parameter in the ECM and the engine reverted to a low   power setting. This has yet to be confirmed but obviously needs to be   addressed if this is indeed the problem. 

   

   Bud managed to get the airplane back to the airport sacrificing altitude and   speed without stalling. Incredible job by Bud to get us back to the   runway. However, once over the runway, we were too slow and the plane mushed   onto the runway rather hard. We bounced and skidded to a stop on the   collapsed main gear. Fortunately, there was no fire and Bud and I were able   to get out of the 10 without any injuries, Thank God. 

   

   Unfortunately, there was considerable damage to the main landing gear and the   prop was destroyed. The steps kept the bottom of the fuselage off the runway   while we skidded, so no noticeable damage to the fuselage skin or tail. The   wings didn't hit the ground but there is some minor damage from the gear   folding up. I haven't looked at the landing gear mounts yet or the spar. So I   don't know at this ten seconds the full extent of the damage.

   

   This project has been five years in the making and this is a tough pill for   me to swallow. I really appreciate the concerns voiced. Will try and keep you   posted on any new developments or findings.   

      

__________________

   Bill Gipson

   N730WL

   LS1 Geareddrives powered RV-10

   Conroe, Texas    

        

  

      

   

      

From: Paul Walter (pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au)   

    

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:45 PM  

    

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)   

    

Subject: Auto Power  

  

  

    

   

  

   

   

Hello to the group,  

   

I came across an aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It was still a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering if anyone in the U.S. actually has a flying example of this type of engine installation and if so how the performance numbers stack up compared to a Lycoming etc.  

   

Paul  

~        	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

image001.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1.31 KB

Viewed:

11053 Time(s)

image002.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1 KB

Viewed:

11053 Time(s)

image003.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1013 Bytes

Viewed:

11053 Time(s)

image004.gif

Description:

Filesize:

1.03 KB

Viewed:

11053 Time(s)

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:22 am Post subject: Auto Power

On 07/30/2009 01:44 AM, Robin Marks wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Paul is asking about the real performance numbers. Here they are Paul.




	


    <snipped>



    I get a chuckle every time I read posts like this.  I can just

picture a few years back people saying something along the lines of "You

mean those two Wright brothers are going to make an airplane out of

bicycle parts, and they've designed their own engine to run it?  They

must be crazy!"



    Randy Crothers, like the Wright brothers, has had his share of

heartache getting a good system working, but back in March he posted on

VAF some performance numbers for his Subaru STi powered RV7A.  Here is

part of his post:



"I kept dialing the boost back down and lowering the RPMs to try to stay

right at the RV7A VNE speed of 200 Knots TAS. I found I could maintain

this speed with the following settings:

4600 RPMs, 42.6" MAP, Fuel flow showed 11.2 GPH with an A/F mixture of

about 12.3:1, I was keeping it pretty rich to to make sure I had

detonation margin. OAT was 28F, Oil T 200F, PSRU T 165F, Coolant T 196F,

Intake Air T 99F. Altitude 8800'. I estimate I kept these settings in

place for a good 40 minutes and finally had to back out of it to descend

down below the clouds and duck under the class B airspace I have to deal

with. I stayed out on the West side of Puget Sound and turned to the

East down toward Olympia WA.

I guess this engine could make pretty good use of a faster airframe like

a Lancair, or maybe a Glasair etc.

So there you have it, I can cruise at VNE for extended periods of time

at 4600 RPMs and 43" MAP."



    It may have cost him more than a straight Lycoming installation

since he has done a bunch of experimenting with various parts, however,

someone could come along and duplicate his working setup for far less

money.  We don't have much of a resale market history for RV-10s, but on

average other aircraft do not seem to sell for any less due to different

engines being installed (Glastar, Zenith 601, for example).  In fact,

for some airframes, an auto engine is actually preferred (KR2s,

Hummelbird, Sonerai, Sonex, etc).



    An auto engine is certainly not for everyone, but IMHO it is not the

doom and gloom that Robin describes in his message.  You definitely want

to do your research before going down that path, though.



"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by,

and that has made all the difference."  --Robert Frost



-Dj

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:39 am Post subject: Re: Auto Power

[quote="pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.a"]Hello to the group,  

   

I came across an aluminum block V8 powered RV 10 on utube recently. It was still a way off flying but had the engine running. I was wondering if anyone in the U.S. actually has a flying example of this type of engine installation and if so how the performance numbers stack up compared to a Lycoming etc.  

   

Paul  

     ~    	  Quote: 	
		  [b] 	




Paul,

The youtube video you mentioned is probably one of two. Todd Swezey out of Savannah with an LS2, or Bill Gipson out of Texas with an LS1. They both have run-up videos on youtube.

This is probably not the best forum to ask that question - most of the guys here are married to their Lycosaurs. I would suggest you go to www.vansairforce.com and visit the Alternative Engines Forum.

John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

robin1(at)mrmoisture.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:44 am Post subject: Auto Power

DJ,  

      My posts usually have a large component of tongue in cheek and this one was no different however my main point is not that it is impossible to develop a successful alternative engine for the -10 but more that it is very expensive and time consuming beyond compare. I say this as one of the first to make a simple modification by adding the James Plenum & Cowl. This seemingly simple change has probably cost us 500+ hours of development and we are still dealing with the ramifications of this small variant. I think I was clear that one needs real knowledge & skill to take that leap and even if you were to develop a successful platform your resale value may be significantly lower.  

      In reading a Wright Brothers biography I remember a favorite quote of Wilbur Wright the original alternative engine builder: “I don’t have time for a wife and an airplane.”  

   

Robin  

   

   

--

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: Auto Power

On 07/30/2009 11:36 AM, Robin Marks wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 In reading a Wright Brothers biography I remember a favorite quote of

 Wilbur Wright the original alternative engine builder: “I don’t have

 time for a wife and an airplane.”




	


Good one! Another favorite: "My Ex-Wife told me it was her or the

airplane. I sure do miss her!" *grin*



-Dj

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:46 am Post subject: Auto Power

Ah yes, that always lurking disease, Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome.  That one can sneak up on you fast, especially for the dedicated builder.  



--

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:46 am Post subject: Auto Power

Hmm, I disagree that this isn't a good forum to discuss this.  While many of us have chosen the path of least resistance, this is still a worthwhile discussion.  I look at it this way, the experimental category has basically branched unofficially into two sub categories which are "homebuilt" and "experimental". Most of us in the RV-10 world fall into the homebuilt category and yes, this list is geared primarily to that crowd.



  Many people think I am anti-auto conversion but that couldn't be farther from the truth.  I looked very closely at Egg's offering but came to the conclusion it wasn't ready for primetime without a lot of after the fact engineering on my part.  Anyone who can confidently standup and claim it is a true bolt on, firewall forward package for the RV-10 is really just trying to justify their decision.  I also have personal feelings on the type of person Egg is and, in my opinion, I wouldn't want to do business with someone of his questionable ethics.



  I saw the geared drives package run last year at OSH, and they are there again this year, and was really impressed with the direction it was going.  It appears to be a well thought out design with lots of potential.  The failure of what I would call the proof of concept -10 in the last couple weeks sounds to me like an ECU problem vs a fundamental design flaw and I think they can bounce back from it fairly quickly should that prove to have been the problem.  I also think this package has the most potential to be the first, real, FWF package in the -10 that isn't a Lyc.  I hope they do get there.



  I also feel the rotary's have a lot of potential and hopefully Mistral will get there one of these days.  But what all three of these have shown is that it is not a simple task to move an engine that was designed for auto use into an airplane.  Most of the truly successful conversions are of the air cooled, low RPM type as used in many of the aircraft cited previously.  Yes, Egg has had a measure of success in the smaller RV series, but most people that have used his FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort to get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that could rival a Lyc.  And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.



  Yes there will always be the homebuilders that see the experimental category as a way to get what they want at a reduced cost and potentially have a hoot building at the same time, but the experimental side needs to exist also in order to keep pushing the envelope.  I ultimately made the decision to go with a "standard" IO-540 because I decided I didn't want to be in the experimental group with my family on board.  This doesn't make it a right or wrong decision, just my decision and everyone needs to come to their own decision without worrying about the background noise out there.  We all need to remember these are certified as an "experimental" for a reason.  If you are worried that one of these experimenters are going to screw with your homebuilt resale value or increase your insurance premiums, I would suggest you reevaluate whether you made the right decision to build your own aircraft.  I knew the experimental part of the group would be there and it was something I took into account when I made the decision to build.  If other people out there didn't, it is certainly not the experimenters fault and you should just suck it up at this point as it is what you have made the decision to be a part of.



Michael



--

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:19 am Post subject: Auto Power

On 07/30/2009 12:23 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort to get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that could rival a Lyc.  And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.

   


	


    And as with any engine package, if we learn from those that went

before us, we can cut that $time$ and extra dollars down considerably. 

Installations today take much less time than those done previously,

because we can duplicate the successful installations of those that

spent that time in the past doing the experimentation.  There is a

"recipe for success" that has been worked out over the years so that

builders doing installations today have significantly higher chances of

a non-issue installation compared to installations even as recent as a

couple of years ago.  It is not quite as turnkey as a typical Lyc

installation, but the gap has narrowed considerably, and is getting

narrower every year.



-Dj

orchidman

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 277
Location: Oklahoma City - KRCE

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Auto Power

 	  deej(at)deej.net wrote: 	
		  On 07/30/2009 11:36 AM, Robin Marks wrote:

Good one! Another favorite: "My Ex-Wife told me it was her or the

airplane. I sure do miss her!" *grin*

-Dj 	


Or the tee shirt I saw at Osh Tuesday



"Got a plane for my wife.



Best trade I ever made"

_________________
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N2GB Flying)

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Besides the hassle of engineering a different engine package, and

making a cowl for it, even if it is "turn-key" there isn't anyone

besides Continental that has an engine in the horsepower range with

anywhere near as good fuel consumption specifics at total installed wt

even close. TCM is a little better on fuel and smoothness, at a cost

of at least 60lbs heavier. For all the hand wringing about old

technology, you simply are not gaining much with an auto engine in

technology. Yes automatic ignition advance. Liquid cooling has been

around aircraft engines since before WWII and generally rejected for

weight and space and leakage issues. Timed fuel injection is a very

minuscule gain over continuous mechanical. Most German cars still use

continuous mechanical.

So don't be fooled by the siren song of newer technology...most of it

has been tried and rejected on reliability, weight or cost

effectiveness.

While on engines, how many have considered the negatives of going with

a brand new untested engine at the same time as a brand new untested

airframe? Because of breakin issues, you don't have luxury of any taxi

testing, nor much prop testing etc. To avoid cylinder glazing you need

to get in the air quickly with minimal ground runs to check for leaks

first.

With a used certified engine, you don't have to worry about break-in

or infant mortality, and can focus on testing your airframe. Just a

thought.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Dj Merrill<deej(at)deej.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On 07/30/2009 12:23 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

> FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort to get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that could rival a Lyc.  And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.

>

    And as with any engine package, if we learn from those that went

 before us, we can cut that $time$ and extra dollars down considerably.

 Installations today take much less time than those done previously,

 because we can duplicate the successful installations of those that

 spent that time in the past doing the experimentation.  There is a

 "recipe for success" that has been worked out over the years so that

 builders doing installations today have significantly higher chances of

 a non-issue installation compared to installations even as recent as a

 couple of years ago.  It is not quite as turnkey as a typical Lyc

 installation, but the gap has narrowed considerably, and is getting

 narrower every year.

 -Dj

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

vhicy(at)bigpond.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: Auto Power

No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want to 

go experimental with wife and kids on board.

Search the archives on every RV forum



regards Chris



---

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:53 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 7/30/2009 5:37 PM, Chris and Susie wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want

 to go experimental with wife and kids on board.

 Search the archives on every RV forum


	


	Hi Chris, no offense taken, and none intended.  There are thousands of

experimental aircraft flying with auto engines, taking their wife, kids,

and best friends along with no more fears than with the Lycoming

engines.  Different strokes for different folks, but not as doom and

gloom as you indicate.



	Take some time to Google Sonex, KR2, Soneraii, Hummelbird, etc and

Corvair, Subaru EA-81, and VW engines conversions.  You will find lots

of successful auto conversions.  You will also finds not so successful

ones, along with not so successful Lycoming installations as well.  In

particular, look for things within the last 2 years and compare to the

old days to see the differences.



-Dj

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:53 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 7/30/2009 6:04 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Besides the hassle of engineering a different engine package, and

 making a cowl for it, even if it is "turn-key" there isn't anyone


	


Hi Kelly,

	I think you missed the point of my post that you replied to.  If you

are duplicating someone else's setup that seems to be working, you

aren't doing any engineering of your own.  You are just assembling the

same as with a Lycoming and copying the engineering that someone else

has already done.  Pre-made cowls are available for purchase if you do

not want to take the time to make the modifications to the stock

cowling.  These were not available a few years ago, but they are today.

 Things have progressed a long ways since the "old days".

 	  Quote: 	
		   besides Continental that has an engine in the horsepower range with

 anywhere near as good fuel consumption specifics at total installed wt

 even close. 


	


	I bet Randy Crothers would beg to differ with you with his Subaru STi

installation.



 	  Quote: 	
		   So don't be fooled by the siren song of newer technology...most of it

 has been tried and rejected on reliability, weight or cost

 effectiveness.


	


	I'm sure some experimentation has shown that some technologies don't

work, and they phase out.  The engine systems in cars of today aren't

even the same as they were 5 years ago in some cases.  Progress is being

made all the time, and new technology replacing old.  Who would consider

buying a car that uses magnetos these days?  Things change, technology

improves, old stuff is phased out.  Even Lycoming has their new FADEC

system, and magnetos and carbs of today will be phased out over time as

new technology replaces them.  It is inevitable.

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 To avoid cylinder glazing you need

 to get in the air quickly with minimal ground runs to check for leaks

 first.


	


	Not necessary with today's auto engines.



 	  Quote: 	
		   With a used certified engine, you don't have to worry about break-in

 or infant mortality, and can focus on testing your airframe. Just a

 thought.


	


	No worries about break in with a modern car engine, either.  Things

have changed from the days of old.



-Dj

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: Auto Power

Kelly,

Not to be nosy, but don't you work for, or represent, an engine manufacturer? If I am mistaken, I apologize.

John

 	  Kelly McMullen wrote: 	
		  Besides the hassle of engineering a different engine package, and

making a cowl for it, even if it is "turn-key" there isn't anyone

besides Continental that has an engine in the horsepower range with

anywhere near as good fuel consumption specifics at total installed wt

even close. TCM is a little better on fuel and smoothness, at a cost

of at least 60lbs heavier. For all the hand wringing about old

technology, you simply are not gaining much with an auto engine in

technology. Yes automatic ignition advance. Liquid cooling has been

around aircraft engines since before WWII and generally rejected for

weight and space and leakage issues. Timed fuel injection is a very

minuscule gain over continuous mechanical. Most German cars still use

continuous mechanical.

So don't be fooled by the siren song of newer technology...most of it

has been tried and rejected on reliability, weight or cost

effectiveness.

While on engines, how many have considered the negatives of going with

a brand new untested engine at the same time as a brand new untested

airframe? Because of breakin issues, you don't have luxury of any taxi

testing, nor much prop testing etc. To avoid cylinder glazing you need

to get in the air quickly with minimal ground runs to check for leaks

first.

With a used certified engine, you don't have to worry about break-in

or infant mortality, and can focus on testing your airframe. Just a

thought.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Dj Merrill<deej> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On 07/30/2009 12:23 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

> FWF package will tell you they were putting in extensive time and effort to get through various issues in order to get a fully functional power plant that could rival a Lyc. ï¿½And if you look at the amount of $time$ and extra dollars put in, odds are that savings in fuel and maint will be greatly reduced.

>

 ï¿½ ï¿½And as with any engine package, if we learn from those that went

 before us, we can cut that $time$ and extra dollars down considerably.

 Installations today take much less time than those done previously,

 because we can duplicate the successful installations of those that

 spent that time in the past doing the experimentation. ï¿½There is a

 "recipe for success" that has been worked out over the years so that

 builders doing installations today have significantly higher chances of

 a non-issue installation compared to installations even as recent as a

 couple of years ago. ï¿½It is not quite as turnkey as a typical Lyc

 installation, but the gap has narrowed considerably, and is getting

 narrower every year.

 -Dj

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: Auto Power

It is a bit of a sore subject here, as one RV-10 builder with

Eggenfeller engine augered in just hours before he planned to take

family on a trip in it. Some his fault, some engine's fault, as it was

a botched deadstick landing after loss of power. Only speculative what

caused loss of power. None-the-less, another experimental pilot

deceased, loss of a friend, with impacts on our insurance.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Dj Merrill<deej(at)deej.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On 7/30/2009 5:37 PM, Chris and Susie wrote:

> 

>

> No ofence but we have heard it all before. Not the place where you want

> to go experimental with wife and kids on board.

> Search the archives on every RV forum

        Hi Chris, no offense taken, and none intended.  There are thousands of

 experimental aircraft flying with auto engines, taking their wife, kids,

 and best friends along with no more fears than with the Lycoming

 engines.  Different strokes for different folks, but not as doom and

 gloom as you indicate.

        Take some time to Google Sonex, KR2, Soneraii, Hummelbird, etc and

 Corvair, Subaru EA-81, and VW engines conversions.  You will find lots

 of successful auto conversions.  You will also finds not so successful

 ones, along with not so successful Lycoming installations as well.  In

 particular, look for things within the last 2 years and compare to the

 old days to see the differences.

 -Dj

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

vhicy(at)bigpond.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: Auto Power

DJ that may be the case in the US but diferent here with RV's . The resale 

here is shocking with anything other than Lyco etc

As you say each to there own



Chris



---

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Dj Merrill<deej(at)deej.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

Show me a pre-molded cowling for RV-10 for any alternative
	


engine..haven't seen any.



 	  Quote: 	
		          I bet Randy Crothers would beg to differ with you with his Subaru STi

 installation.



Show me the data, reliable, .041 lb/hp./hr or better, 2000 hr TBO. No
	


one has yet.

 	  Quote: 	
		  


	


 	  Quote: 	
		          I'm sure some experimentation has shown that some technologies don't

 work, and they phase out.  The engine systems in cars of today aren't

 even the same as they were 5 years ago in some cases.  Progress is being

 made all the time, and new technology replacing old.  Who would consider

 buying a car that uses magnetos these days?  Things change, technology

 improves, old stuff is phased out.  Even Lycoming has their new FADEC

 system, and magnetos and carbs of today will be phased out over time as

 new technology replaces them.  It is inevitable.

Right. Magnetos need no external power and are totally reliable with
	


reasonable maintenance intervals. There is no other system that

provides that. EMag and Pmag are less than perfect in reliability and

unavailable for 6 cyl. Electronic ignition and FADEC die without

power. Even the Diamond diesel crashed with loss of power taking out

FADEC.

No FADEC provides optimum fuel mixture management. They are designed

for lazy pilots. No one is talking carburetor. No FADEC does any

better than available fuel injection properly managed. None of what

you are citing is NEW. It just combines systems designed over 50 years

ago. Fuel injection and turbocharging were all available by 1960 in GA

engines. Nothing since adds 5% to power, economy or reliability.

You simply aren't telling us anything we haven't seen before.

Kelly

A&P/IA

EAA Tech Counselor

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

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