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 Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 7/30/2009 7:31 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   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. 


	




Hi Kelly,

	I knew Dan from multiple email and in-person chats.  I was in the tent

site next to him the Oshkosh prior to the accident.  It indeed was a sad

loss, and I was mortified when I heard about it.  However, if you read

the preliminary NTSB report, and the series of emails exchanged on this

list, VAF and some of the other mailing lists, it seems pretty clear (to

me at least) that as unfortunate as this accident was, it seemed to be

primarily builder induced, and had nothing to do with the type of engine

that was installed.  I am of the opinion that it could easily have been

prevented had proper tools and techniques been used, and the proper time

and training employed to learn the systems on the airplane prior to

flying it.  We ALL learned an expensive and valuable lesson that if we

see any builder taking shortcuts, we need to speak up, and speak up

loudly, regardless of any hurt feelings.  I heard plenty of comments

around the RV10 campsite at OSH that year about some of the issues seen

with his airplane, and no one, myself included, spoke up about it.  That

is a lesson we must NEVER forget.



-Dj

Kelly McMullen

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

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject: Auto Power

I have NO idea where you got that idea. I am retired, RV-10 builder,

A&P/IA and Tech Counselor. Never worked for engine manufacturer in my

life. I was in one career a certified emissions technician on autos,

raced cars before switching hobbies to aviation many years ago.



On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM, johngoodman<johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 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
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 7/30/2009 7:40 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

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

 engine..haven't seen any.

	<http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/Products.htm>  $1495,

professionally made by Zach Chase, as well known and respected craftsman

in the fiberglass community, with tons of Glasair, Glastar, Sportsman

and other aircraft under his belt.

 	  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.

	If you are truly interested, I invite you to contact Randy directly and

inquire about his installation to find out about the HP being produced,

weight of the overall installation, and other details that you may be

interested in.  There is no need for me to be the middle man, which

would be detrimental to your fact finding mission.

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

<snip>

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

	I am one hundred percent certain we are not locked into magneto

technology (or any technology) in the aviation world from now until the

end of time.  Just this year we have three (?) companies that brought

all electric aircraft to OSH.  In another 50 years it is not unrealistic

to believe there will be lots more, or perhaps some even newer, better

technology available and in widespread use.

	Technology improves, things change, and old tech is phased out.  This

is inevitable.

-Dj

Kelly McMullen

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

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Dj Merrill<deej(at)deej.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		          <http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/Products.htm>  $1495,

 professionally made by Zach Chase, as well known and respected craftsman

 in the fiberglass community, with tons of Glasair, Glastar, Sportsman

 and other aircraft under his belt.

OK,

One exists. Pardon me if I insult anyone, but that appearance is butt

ugly, compared to James cowl or Vans cowl.

 	  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.

I am not willing to take the time to search the world for someone that

might have a one off producing those fuel specifics. If there were

one, that made enough since, they would have the ear of the aircraft

manufacturers. Porsche tried, and failed miserably with their PFM

engine. No, I don't think Subaru or their tuners are smarter than

Porsche.

 	  Quote: 	

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

 <snip>

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

        I am one hundred percent certain we are not locked into magneto

 technology (or any technology) in the aviation world from now until the

 end of time.  Just this year we have three (?) companies that brought

 all electric aircraft to OSH.  In another 50 years it is not unrealistic

 to believe there will be lots more, or perhaps some even newer, better

 technology available and in widespread use.

We may not be locked into magnetos, but there is no more reliable way

to have independently powered ignition out there today. Every battery

powered system has failure points, and you can waste lots of time

building redundant power systems that are heavier, and no more

efficient.

There simply is not more than 5% power available by using the latest

variable timing electronic ignition, over fixed timing magnetos, and

the electronics simply are not as reliable. That has been fact for

many years and hasn't changed. Loss of power on Dan Lloyd's plane is

very likely from electrical failure, whether builder induced or not.

Had he been more careful, it might have gone a few years without a

failure, maybe not.

I'm not interested in a 220hp engine for a plane the size of the -10 anyway.

 If that were sufficient, I could mount up a TCM IO-360 like 220RV and

dismiss all the development and vendor issues with Eggenfeller.

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

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: Auto Power

Kelly,

As I said in my post, I apologize if it was not correct. I just remember you making posts about Barrett, or somebody like that. I also remember that you were the one who got me on to NAPA 7220 primer. Best primer advice I've ever gotten. No harm intended.

John

 	  Kelly McMullen wrote: 	
		  I have NO idea where you got that idea. I am retired, RV-10 builder,

A&P/IA and Tech Counselor. Never worked for engine manufacturer in my

life. I was in one career a certified emissions technician on autos,

raced cars before switching hobbies to aviation many years ago.



On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM, johngoodman<johngoodman> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Kelly,

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

 John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 7/30/2009 9:03 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   One exists. Pardon me if I insult anyone, but that appearance is butt

 ugly, compared to James cowl or Vans cowl.


	


	No insult taken.  Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and

aesthetics is always a personal choice.



	I've always thought the A-10 "Warthog" aircraft were very cool looking,

but I know others that think they are butt ugly.



 	  Quote: 	
		   I am not willing to take the time to search the world for someone that

 might have a one off producing those fuel specifics. If there were


	


	*shrug*  I can only point you to the source, I can't make you actually

go get the data and read it.  If you decide you are interested enough,

you now have a potential place to find out more about it.

 	  Quote: 	
		   We may not be locked into magnetos, but there is no more reliable way

 to have independently powered ignition out there today. 


	


	I haven't researched every single ignition source that is available

today, so I can't really comment whether this is true or not.   It is

entirely possible there are ignition sources that are more reliable than

magnetos, but I don't know.



	What about the three electric power aircraft that are being shown at

OSH this year?  Are their electronic ignition sources more reliable than

magnetos?  Are they more efficient?



	



 	  Quote: 	
		   over fixed timing magnetos, and

 the electronics simply are not as reliable. That has been fact for

 many years and hasn't changed. 


	


	I'm not sure I am willing to accept this at face value.  Typically in

the computing world, the MTBF of electronics is much higher than that of

physical devices that have moving parts.  Do you have reliability data

on the electronics in the latest ignition systems versus magnetos that

you'd be willing to share with us?

 	  Quote: 	
		   I'm not interested in a 220hp engine for a plane the size of the -10 anyway.


	


	The current Subaru STi is putting out 305 hp in the car.  I don't know

exactly what Randy's STi system is putting out for HP, but I bet if you

contacted him he might share that info with you...  



-Dj

Kelly McMullen

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

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Dj Merrill<deej(at)deej.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  > I am not willing to take the time to search the world for someone that

> might have a one off producing those fuel specifics. If there were

        *shrug*  I can only point you to the source, I can't make you actually

 go get the data and read it.  If you decide you are interested enough,

 you now have a potential place to find out more about it.

You are free to make your choices. How many are flying with the STi

engine in what airframes?

What are the fuel specifics? What is the weight. If you make others go

search that info, maybe it isn't worth advertising how "good" it is.

 	  Quote: 	
		  >

        I'm not sure I am willing to accept this at face value.  Typically in

 the computing world, the MTBF of electronics is much higher than that of

 physical devices that have moving parts.  Do you have reliability data

 on the electronics in the latest ignition systems versus magnetos that

 you'd be willing to share with us?

Simple. No 12 V power, electronic is dead, no backup. To be

independent you need two separate systems and batteries. Find me one

battery as light a magneto that can power an ignition as long as you

need.

 	  Quote: 	
		  > I'm not interested in a 220hp engine for a plane the size of the -10 anyway.

        The current Subaru STi is putting out 305 hp in the car.  I don't know

 exactly what Randy's STi system is putting out for HP, but I bet if you

 contacted him he might share that info with you...  

Why don't you show us how good it is? Can it do it without a failure

prone PSRU? Horsepower delivered to the prop?? If the product is so

good, I'm sure others want to know details. Color me skeptical.

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

bhughes(at)qnsi.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Paul, 

  

I have a rotary powered RV10 in  phase 1 with about 20 hours on it. So far no major issues. It’s the RX8  two-rotor engine with a small super charger. It’s producing about 238 hp and  closely matches Van’s estimates for the 235 hp engine. No fuel flow data yet but  should be between .45 and .55 BSFC. I’m running richer because of the super  charger and the 100 +F degree days here in Texas.  But I’m also running 93 octane auto fuel  so it’s a little easier on the wallet than 100LL.  My FWF probably coast about 18K but I  made several items several times. My engine was a 0 time crate engine and I paid  $5000 for it with several mod’s mostly to remove internals not needed for  aviation. Several others are putting 3 rotor, 20B’s in RV-10’s. They will see  between 260 and 300 hp depending on intake design and porting. There’s also a  nice twin turbo Subaru RV-10 that should be close to completion. He’s a second-  time RV and Subaru offender. Ross?  

  

If you have an interest you  should do the research. Then if anyone can talk you out of it you shouldn’t do  it. If someone can talk you into it then you also shouldn’t do it. It will add  years to your build time and may not save you any money. Saving money on the  engine block is not a good reason to pursue an alternative. The total cost of  ownership and flying can be less expensive then a Lyc.  http://www.flyrotary.com/ is a good resource for  learning about auto conversions. Its rotary related but things like cooling and  fuel systems have almost become standard regardless of the alternative engine.  Our rotary group has had several first flights this year. I am very fortunate to  have two other flying rotary’s here in Austin TX. One Lancair ES and an RV-7A.    

  

I will not debate the merits of  alternative engines on this site but I will debunk a few things that were stated  as absolute. 

  

BSFC better than .41.   Piston and rotary engines average  about .5 BSFC. But who cares if you run at least 50% auto fuel. 

  

Alternative engine FWF’s are  heaver. While this is usually true it’s not set in stone.  There are a few flying examples of  lighter installations.  

  

2000 hr TBO.  Who cares if you can buy 3-4 new engines  for the price of a lyc overhaul. We have several rotaries with over 1000 hrs.  One should be close to 3000.  I have  no data on the Chevy’s or Subi’s. 

  

RV-10 Cowl.   Egg’s got one for the Subi.  Extreme Composites has a base cowl for the Rotary. You have to add your own  cooling inlets. This allows the builder more options for heat exchanger  placement.  Not sure who makes the  subi cowl but Extreme composites makes cowls for the F1 rocket and other  aviation fiberglass parts.  

  

  

I will also confirm a few things  that have been said and add a few more.  

  

Your FWF will likely take more  time than the airframe. 

Your personal Phase 1 will likely  be more than 100 hrs.  

Flight testing will carry more  risk.  

Your electrical system needs to  be bullet proof.  

Your resale value will be lower.  No problem if you plan to keep the plane at least 10 years. The money you save  on fuel will make up most of the difference. 

Your own your own for service and  repairs. No dropping it off at the repair shop.  

Dan’s accident was a tragedy and  a blow to everyone on this list. But lyc’s and cont’s also fail. The rotary  powered lancair ES driver here in Austin keeps a chunk of steel in is hanger. If  ask him why he chose to put an alternative engine in his plane he will hand it  to you. It’s what’s left of a Lyc piston that exited the cowl. Fortunately they  had turned back to the airport about 30 seconds before the engine came apart.  Just made the runway. We have another rotary  owner with the same story.  

  

  

Bobby Hughes  

  

 



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

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:46 PM

To:  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

[b]

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Wow, we have completely revived an old Alt Engine War!  What ever  

happened to Innodyne?



Anybody know of a good primer to use or is it even worth priming at all?



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

352-427-0285



Sent from my iPhone

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 7/30/2009 10:30 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   You are free to make your choices. How many are flying with the STi

 engine in what airframes?

 What are the fuel specifics? What is the weight. If you make others go

 search that info, maybe it isn't worth advertising how "good" it is.


	


	I have no idea.  You seemed interested, so I was simply trying to help

you find the information you seek.  If you are interested in the STi

information, I'd recommend that you contact Randy Crothers and ask him

about his setup.  He posts frequently on the VAF forums, and I could

probably locate his e-mail address for you or anyone that may want it.



	Just for clarification, I'm not advertising for anything.  I am merely

trying to clarify some potential mis-information, and help point people

to sources for information if they are interested in finding out more.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Simple. No 12 V power, electronic is dead, no backup. To be

 independent you need two separate systems and batteries. Find me one

 battery as light a magneto that can power an ignition as long as you

 need.


	


	Okay, no fuel, piston engine goes dead.  So which is more reliable, the

electric engine, or the piston engine?  The two failure modes we just

mentioned tell us nothing about how reliable either engine package might

be.  All they tell us is that without the source of fuel for the engine

(electrons for the electric engine, gasoline for the piston engine), the

engine does not run.



	The electric engine needs power to run (ie, electricity).  The piston

engine needs gasoline, air, and power (spark).  On the surface it would

seem that needing 3 things to run versus 1 thing to run would make the

piston engine less reliable.  In other words, the chances that 1 out of

the 3 things would fail might be higher than just one thing failing.

But that is misleading as well.  We need to know what is the reliability

of each of the individual items, and then calculate them all together to

get a better idea of overall reliability.



	The piston engine also has significantly more moving parts than the

electric engine.  More moving parts generally means a higher chance of

one of those parts failing, but that doesn't paint the whole picture

either.  The electric engine might have a single part that has an MTBF

of 10 hours, for example.



	We can't really tell anything about the reliability of the piston

engine, the electric engine, or the various options available for piston

engines without having the reliability data for each part, and

calculating the assembled engine package as a whole.  Without that

critical data, all of this is just speculation from both of us.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Why don't you show us how good it is? Can it do it without a failure

 prone PSRU? Horsepower delivered to the prop?? If the product is so

 good, I'm sure others want to know details. Color me skeptical.


	


	If you are the one interested, why would you ask me to do this work for

you?  I've offered what help I can and tried to give some potential

sources for the information that you seek.  If you are interested, you

should satisfy your curiosity for yourself, and I'll try to offer what

information I can.  If you are not interested, I don't see how asking

others to do this work is of any benefit.



-Dj

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>  

wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Anybody know of a good primer to use


	




Sherwin Williams 988

http://www.sherwin-automotive.com/products/show_product.cfm?product=7565







-Dj

 	  Quote:

ricksked(at)embarqmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:19 pm Post subject: Auto Power

Akzo for Lycomings' NAPA SE for auto conversions...

---

Kelly McMullen

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

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:48 am Post subject: Auto Power

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Bobby J. Hughes<bhughes(at)qnsi.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Paul,


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   I have a rotary powered RV10 in phase 1 with about 20 hours on it. So far no

 major issues. It’s the RX8 two-rotor engine with a small super charger. It’s

 producing about 238 hp and closely matches Van’s estimates for the 235 hp

 engine. No fuel flow data yet but should be between .45 and .55 BSFC. I’m

 running richer because of the super charger and the 100 +F degree days here

 in Texas.  But I’m also running 93 octane auto fuel so it’s a little easier

 on the wallet than 100LL.

So can a Lyc. run on mogas. Good luck finding it in most parts of the
	


country without ethanol.



 	  Quote: 	
		   BSFC better than .41.   Piston and rotary engines average about .5 BSFC. But

 who cares if you run at least 50% auto fuel.

 It is called range. Higher fuel consumption equals significantly
	


shorter fuel range, unless you put in aux tanks with that debate.



 	  Quote: 	
		   2000 hr TBO.  Who cares if you can buy 3-4 new engines for the price of a

 lyc overhaul. We have several rotaries with over 1000 hrs. One should be

 close to 3000.  I have no data on the Chevy’s or Subi’s.

Who wants to change engines every 1000-1500 hours? Who pays for that labor?
	


 But lyc’s

 	  Quote: 	
		   and cont’s also fail. The rotary powered lancair ES driver here in Austin

 keeps a chunk of steel in is hanger. If ask him why he chose to put an

 alternative engine in his plane he will hand it to you. It’s what’s left of

 a Lyc piston that exited the cowl. Fortunately they had turned back to the

 airport about 30 seconds before the engine came apart. Just made the

 runway. We have another rotary owner with the same story.

Lycoming pistons and Continental pistons are aluminum, not steel. Only
	


the TCM has a steel insert for the ring land. Tell him to try a new

story or new name to the part.

Perhaps it was a steel connecting rod....improper

inspection/assembly...no engine is immune from that. Engines don't

fail catastrophically unless not built right to start, or over

stressed by turbos/superchargers or drastically improper

operation/maintenance.

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

bhughes(at)qnsi.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: Auto Power

So can a Lyc. run on mogas. Good luck finding it in most parts of the country without ethanol. 



None locally yet but the fuel system is ethanol safe. No vapor pressure issues so far.



 It is called range. Higher fuel consumption equals significantly shorter fuel range, unless you put in aux tanks with that debate. 



Personal range is about 3 hours. Plane can go much further than me. 



Lycoming pistons and Continental pistons are aluminum, not steel. Only the TCM has a steel insert for the ring land. Tell him to try a new story or new name to the part.

Perhaps it was a steel connecting rod....improper inspection/assembly...no engine is immune from that. Engines don't fail catastrophically unless not built right to start, or over stressed by turbos/superchargers or drastically improper operation/maintenance.



Your correct. Pistons are aluminum and rotors are steel. So I should have said ball of aluminum. It was also a trainer so maintenance should have been perfect right?



Who wants to change engines every 1000-1500 hours? Who pays for that labor?  



It would be about a three day task with my airframe and I would do it myself. As I said, you can't just drop it off at the shop.



Bobby

(back to lurking)



--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: Auto Power

Rick, your RV-10 was beautiful, Oshkosh inspirational, and your humor Priceless as I return to work this afternoon.  Raise one for me tonight with the whole successful group, Tell Bob & Gary Thanks for all the work and memories, tell Bob Newman I will work on the Vag Vents as modification #287 after I begin telling my limitless stories back home..

  

 Oh, by the way tell Jessie I use PPG primer with my Barrett and the new piston design in the Super RV10 - Gen II.

  

 Fly home safe to everyone.

  



  John Cox



 

  From: ricksked(at)embarqmail.com

Sent: Thu 7/30/2009 9:12 PM

To: Rv

Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Auto Power

 [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: ricksked(at)embarqmail.com  Akzo for Lycomings' NAPA SE for auto conversions... ---

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:13 am Post subject: Auto Power

On 07/31/2009 07:38 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   So can a Lyc. run on mogas. Good luck finding it in most parts of the

 country without ethanol.


	


    One minor difference is that both Mazda and Subaru have designed and

support their engines running on gasoline with a 10% ethanol blend. 

Lycoming does not yet support their engine running on gasoline w/

ethanol, although it will likely burn it just fine.



 	  Quote: 	
		   It is called range. Higher fuel consumption equals significantly

 shorter fuel range, unless you put in aux tanks with that debate.


	


    At OSH this year a company is demonstrating their new gas/electric

hybrid aircraft engine.  Another example of automotive inspired ideas

being modified for use in aviation.  It supposedly gives an additional

40 hp for takeoff.  No idea if it helps with gas mileage, but I can see

adaptions of it where it might.



    Very cool stuff!  It just gets better every year!  



 	  Quote: 	
		   Who wants to change engines every 1000-1500 hours? Who pays for that

 labor?




	


    An auto engine overhaul is about 1/10 the cost of a Lycoming

overhaul, so I would overhaul engines every 1000 hours versus 2000 

hours.  I think that works out to something like at least $15k savings

for every 2000 hours?  That will buy lots of fuel, even at .5 BSFC.  



    Even better, if I can put in a brand new engine every 1000 hours

instead of an overhauled engine every 2000 hours, that attracts me even

more.  It is about $5k for a new auto engine, and somewhere around $20k

to overhaul a Lyc to new specs.  Presuming the auto engine would even

need to be replaced at 1000 hours, that is still about a $10k cost

savings, and you get a new engine instead of a "used" one.



    I suppose the same person that pays for the labor to replace the Lyc

every 2000 hours would pay for the auto engine replacement every 1000. 

Would there be another choice for having someone else pay with either

the Lyc or auto engine?



-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

cj(at)popstudios.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:38 am Post subject: Auto Power

Hey Bobby - 



Thanks for contributing with the information.  Of course the argument will rage on, but I applaud true experimentation and innovation.  As with anything, there are pros and cons, and the bonus of building is that we get to make those decisions, do research, and have debates.  I ended up going Lyc, but in the beginning, I was 100% positive that I'd be doing something alternative.  After much soul searching and research, I made the decision that was best for me.  A big part of the decision was the time investment.  My girlfriend would rather be flying than sitting around while I tinker, and in her mind there's already been too much tinkering!  Anyway, I hope to see your bird around sometime.  I appreciate you coming out from lurking to add some info.

cj



On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		        <![endif]-->   Clean  Clean  DocumentEmail              MicrosoftInternetExplorer4  <![endif]--> st1\:* { 	BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui) }  <![endif]--> (at)font-face { 	font-family: SimSun; } (at)font-face { 	font-family: (at)SimSun; } (at)page Section1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin: 35.4pt; mso-footer-margin: 35.4pt; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun } LI.MsoNormal { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun } DIV.MsoNormal { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun } A:link { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } A:visited { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } P { 	FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0cm; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } PRE { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; tab-stops: 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt } SPAN.EmailStyle19 { 	FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; mso-style-type: personal-reply; mso-style-noshow: yes; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial } SPAN.SpellE { 	mso-style-name: ""; mso-spl-e: yes } DIV.Section1 { 	page: Section1 }    /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:10.0pt; 	font-family:"Times New Roman";}  <![endif]-->  Paul,

 

I have a rotary powered RV10 in phase 1 with about 20 hours on it. So far no major issues. It’s the RX8 two-rotor engine with a small super charger. It’s producing about 238 hp and closely matches Van’s estimates for the 235 hp engine. No fuel flow data yet but should be between .45 and .55 BSFC. I’m running richer because of the super charger and the 100 +F degree days here in Texas.  But I’m also running 93 octane auto fuel so it’s a little easier on the wallet than 100LL.  My FWF probably coast about 18K but I made several items several times. My engine was a 0 time crate engine and I paid $5000 for it with several mod’s mostly to remove internals not needed for aviation. Several others are putting 3 rotor, 20B’s in RV-10’s. They will see between 260 and 300 hp depending on intake design and porting. There’s also a nice twin turbo Subaru RV-10 that should be close to completion. He’s a second- time RV and Subaru offender. Ross? 

 

If you have an interest you should do the research. Then if anyone can talk you out of it you shouldn’t do it. If someone can talk you into it then you also shouldn’t do it. It will add years to your build time and may not save you any money. Saving money on the engine block is not a good reason to pursue an alternative. The total cost of ownership and flying can be less expensive then a Lyc.  http://www.flyrotary.com/ is a good resource for learning about auto conversions. Its rotary related but things like cooling and fuel systems have almost become standard regardless of the alternative engine. Our rotary group has had several first flights this year. I am very fortunate to have two other flying rotary’s here in Austin TX. One Lancair ES and an RV-7A.  

 

I will not debate the merits of alternative engines on this site but I will debunk a few things that were stated as absolute.

 

BSFC better than .41.   Piston and rotary engines average about .5 BSFC. But who cares if you run at least 50% auto fuel.

 

Alternative engine FWF’s are heaver. While this is usually true it’s not set in stone.  There are a few flying examples of lighter installations. 

 

2000 hr TBO.  Who cares if you can buy 3-4 new engines for the price of a lyc overhaul. We have several rotaries with over 1000 hrs. One should be close to 3000.  I have no data on the Chevy’s or Subi’s.

 

RV-10 Cowl.   Egg’s got one for the Subi. Extreme Composites has a base cowl for the Rotary. You have to add your own cooling inlets. This allows the builder more options for heat exchanger placement.  Not sure who makes the subi cowl but Extreme composites makes cowls for the F1 rocket and other aviation fiberglass parts. 

 

 

I will also confirm a few things that have been said and add a few more. 

 

Your FWF will likely take more time than the airframe.

Your personal Phase 1 will likely be more than 100 hrs. 

Flight testing will carry more risk. 

Your electrical system needs to be bullet proof. 

Your resale value will be lower. No problem if you plan to keep the plane at least 10 years. The money you save on fuel will make up most of the difference.

Your own your own for service and repairs. No dropping it off at the repair shop. 

Dan’s accident was a tragedy and a blow to everyone on this list. But lyc’s and cont’s also fail. The rotary powered lancair ES driver here in Austin keeps a chunk of steel in is hanger. If ask him why he chose to put an alternative engine in his plane he will hand it to you. It’s what’s left of a Lyc piston that exited the cowl. Fortunately they had turned back to the airport about 30 seconds before the engine came apart. Just made the runway. We have another rotary owner with the same story. 

 

 

Bobby Hughes 

 

 

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

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:46 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





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/contribution



	
	




 [quote][b]

Kelly McMullen

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

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:40 am Post subject: Auto Power

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Dj Merrill<deej(at)deej.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		      One minor difference is that both Mazda and Subaru have designed and

 support their engines running on gasoline with a 10% ethanol blend.

 Lycoming does not yet support their engine running on gasoline w/

 ethanol, although it will likely burn it just fine.


	


Lycoming and Continental don't support mogas with ethanol because the

FAA prohibits its use, for good reason.

Higher vapor pressure than pure mogas, by at least a full point, and

very absorbtive of any humidity/moisture.

Also, mogas does attack some formulations of Proseal. I'm sure you

want to redo your tanks.

 	  Quote: 	
		      An auto engine overhaul is about 1/10 the cost of a Lycoming

 overhaul, so I would overhaul engines every 1000 hours versus 2000

 hours.  I think that works out to something like at least $15k savings

 for every 2000 hours?  That will buy lots of fuel, even at .5 BSFC.  

Good luck on doing a full, competent overhaul for $2000. I've done
	


enough auto engines to know that isn't happening today.

I can certainly do a Lycoming for less than $20K unless major

components are worn out.



 	  Quote: 	
		      I suppose the same person that pays for the labor to replace the Lyc

 every 2000 hours would pay for the auto engine replacement every 1000.

 Would there be another choice for having someone else pay with either

 the Lyc or auto engine?


	


Whether you pay for the labor or do it yourself, you are still looking

at a good 40 hours worth of work.

No where are you accounting for the cost of overhauling the PSRU every

500 hours or so, and the cost of removing and installing it.



The choice is certainly yours, just don't go in with blinders.

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

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:52 pm Post subject: Auto Power

On 07/31/2009 02:31 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Lycoming and Continental don't support mogas with ethanol because the

 FAA prohibits its use, for good reason.

   


	


    Automotive gasoline with ethanol is not prohibited by the FAA in

experimental aircraft.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Higher vapor pressure than pure mogas, by at least a full point, and

 very absorbtive of any humidity/moisture.

   

    If using automotive fuel, you are supposed to test every time to
	


ensure you are using a good "batch".  A pain, but not difficult or time

consuming, and it is rare to get a batch that does not pass.  With the

full recirculating fuel system in an automotive conversion, the

humidity/moisture is not as much of a concern as with the Lycoming.  By

the time you are ready to crank the engine, the fuel pumps have already

remixed the fuel and it just gets burned, same as in the car.  When

flying, the fuel is constantly being remixed as well, so less concern of

separation at altitude.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Also, mogas does attack some formulations of Proseal. I'm sure you

 want to redo your tanks.

   


	


    No worries about that in my Sportsman - one piece tanks, no

proseal!    The fuel system components and engine in my aircraft are

all compatible with the use of automotive fuel containing ethanol. 



    I do not know about compatibility with Proseal, so anyone

contemplating the use of mogas with ethanol in tanks using proseal

should research it and verify.  It is possible that those already

running automotive conversions in their RVs have done this, so that may

be a good place to start the research.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good luck on doing a full, competent overhaul for $2000. I've done

 enough auto engines to know that isn't happening today.

 I can certainly do a Lycoming for less than $20K unless major

 components are worn out.

   


	


    Even if it were 3k for the engine overhaul, still a far cry from

$15k to $20k.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Whether you pay for the labor or do it yourself, you are still looking

 at a good 40 hours worth of work.

 No where are you accounting for the cost of overhauling the PSRU every

 500 hours or so, and the cost of removing and installing it.

   


	


    Curious, where are you getting the 500 hours for TBO of the PSRU? 

Also, where did you get the 1000 hours for overhauling an automotive

engine?  I'm very interested in any data that you have that would

validate those TBO figures.  Thanks!



    The cost of removing and reinstalling the auto engine from the

airframe, in terms of dollars or time, is about the same as with the

Lyc, so I'd consider that a wash.  If I'm replacing the engine and PSRU

(not overhauling them), it is simply a matter of reinstalling, so no

time spent on the overhaul itself.  If overhauling, the time involved

should also be similar to the time to overhaul the Lyc, so again a wash.



    A brand new PSRU is about $4500.  I do not know the cost of the

overhaul, but let's say maybe $3k to replace the internals.  If you have

a more exact number we can recalculate.  If we estimate high at a $3k

engine overhaul and $3k PSRU overhaul, that is a total of about $6k.  So

you could overhaul the automotive setup 3 times for approximately the

same cost as overhauling the Lyc once.



-Dj

Display posts from previous:

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