Good point. The highest cost item of owning and operating my airplane when factored per hour is hangar rent. Although given what's going on with engine part prices, the reserve for engine overhaul might overtake that.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Engine prices pricing you out?
- Thread starter Kmdpilot
- Start date
- Status
Good point. The highest cost item of owning and operating my airplane when factored per hour is hangar rent. Although given what's going on with engine part prices, the reserve for engine overhaul might overtake that.
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Yep. The quest for better (or the pressure to keep up with the Joneses) can really ratchet up the price from what the mission dictates.
Says the guy with two under-equipped RV's (at least by today's standards).
I sold my RV7A kit and bought a flying RV9A. Part of the reason was the engine I wanted went up 10K in less than 12 months.... the other part was I decided I'd rather fly than build. It didn't hurt that kit prices had gone up so much I made a few bucks selling what I had compared to what I bought it for.
One of the things I enjoyed the most when building my airplane was to see just how much I could end up with for the least cost, ie, nothing wasted on unnecessary so-called "upgrades". There's no skill required to write a check, but figuring out how to maximize value is a fun challenge. And, I think the end result is more rewarding.
The price of our engines used in RV aircraft are priced just like everything else and get adjusted for inflation.
Back when I was building my RV-6, I came across a wrecked Tri-Pacer airplane with an O-320 160-HP engine core for $2,600. (Time frame would be early 1990s.) I thought it was a good deal. At the time I purchased the core, I could have purchased a NEW Lycoming 320 160-HP engine for $12,000 from Van's. Several years after I purchased the engine, it was rebuilt to new specs with new cylinders and I had $12,000 in the cost of everything. Had I purchased the new engine, I would have had finance charges as I did not have that much cash on hand so I saved the cost of finance charges.
Today on March 14, 2023, that $12,000 engine from Van's would cost me $40,100.
Most parts I purchase for the airplane now are four times the price I paid when I built the airplane. The engine is just under four time what it cost when I built the airplane.
It is my opinion, the people assembling and manufacturing the parts for our Lycoming engines deserve to make a living wage that gives them a decent standard of living.
Just this retired guys opinion.
Back when I was building my RV-6, I came across a wrecked Tri-Pacer airplane with an O-320 160-HP engine core for $2,600. (Time frame would be early 1990s.) I thought it was a good deal. At the time I purchased the core, I could have purchased a NEW Lycoming 320 160-HP engine for $12,000 from Van's. Several years after I purchased the engine, it was rebuilt to new specs with new cylinders and I had $12,000 in the cost of everything. Had I purchased the new engine, I would have had finance charges as I did not have that much cash on hand so I saved the cost of finance charges.
Today on March 14, 2023, that $12,000 engine from Van's would cost me $40,100.
Most parts I purchase for the airplane now are four times the price I paid when I built the airplane. The engine is just under four time what it cost when I built the airplane.
It is my opinion, the people assembling and manufacturing the parts for our Lycoming engines deserve to make a living wage that gives them a decent standard of living.
Just this retired guys opinion.
CPI calculator
Using the official CPI calculalator, $12000 in 1990 is $28300 today,
somewhat short of $40000.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Using the official CPI calculalator, $12000 in 1990 is $28300 today,
somewhat short of $40000.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
What makes you think that the price increases are going to the workers? One statistic over which there is little debate: The ratio of CEO pay to workers' pay in 1970 was about 10:1. Today it's closer to 100:1. But I see no evidence that they're any smarter, or work any harder, now compared to then.
Monopolies are bad but..
I'm still glad we can build a RV-10 with the same performance and capability as a $900k-$1.1m Cirrus for less than 1/3 the cost. Heck, 20 year old 182s are going for $400k+. So it's still "relatively" affordable to build vs buy certified. The problem is the Cirrus is $1.1m and people are buying them, driving the cost of everything up, AND the engine manufacturers have a monopoly.
It would be great if someone developed a 260-300hp alternative engine like UL power is doing for smaller airframes. They have an automotive racing background and are making good things happen because they are interested in aviation. They are building clean sheet designs vs trying to adapt automotive tech. They're using their racing knowledge to build quality aviation specific products. Unfortunately, they don't have a 260HP option or I would definitely have a look.
Considering modern manufacturing tech and CNC milling, I'm surprised there aren't Lyclones out there? Is there that much difference between a genuine Lyc crank and say a company producing quality racing crankshafts? How hard is it to mill an improved Lyclone case from billet aluminum? Seems like where there's a will, there's a way, and market demand should support this sort of thing.
The market is small and we're a pretty opinionated, surprisingly fragmented group. As far as I can tell, the only way an alternative engine happens is if we find a wealthy enthusiast who's willing to fund the development and testing (of what?). Or alternatively find a way to crowd-fund, crowd-source a solution that is a viable alternative to the big manufacturers.
Does the pilot community have enough critical mass, expertise and will power to pull it off, or are we just venting?
I'm still glad we can build a RV-10 with the same performance and capability as a $900k-$1.1m Cirrus for less than 1/3 the cost. Heck, 20 year old 182s are going for $400k+. So it's still "relatively" affordable to build vs buy certified. The problem is the Cirrus is $1.1m and people are buying them, driving the cost of everything up, AND the engine manufacturers have a monopoly.
It would be great if someone developed a 260-300hp alternative engine like UL power is doing for smaller airframes. They have an automotive racing background and are making good things happen because they are interested in aviation. They are building clean sheet designs vs trying to adapt automotive tech. They're using their racing knowledge to build quality aviation specific products. Unfortunately, they don't have a 260HP option or I would definitely have a look.
Considering modern manufacturing tech and CNC milling, I'm surprised there aren't Lyclones out there? Is there that much difference between a genuine Lyc crank and say a company producing quality racing crankshafts? How hard is it to mill an improved Lyclone case from billet aluminum? Seems like where there's a will, there's a way, and market demand should support this sort of thing.
The market is small and we're a pretty opinionated, surprisingly fragmented group. As far as I can tell, the only way an alternative engine happens is if we find a wealthy enthusiast who's willing to fund the development and testing (of what?). Or alternatively find a way to crowd-fund, crowd-source a solution that is a viable alternative to the big manufacturers.
Does the pilot community have enough critical mass, expertise and will power to pull it off, or are we just venting?
Last edited:
rmartingt
Well Known Member
If you can even find a hangar. But apparently around here the trend is to force "little guys" out of the hangars or even demolish said hangars, in order to make room for the big jets. Why spend money building more hangars when you can just jack up the rent on the existing ones?
It's even better when you lose your spot on the hangar list because the lady who was in charge of that kept multiple lists and you were on the one that didn't get copied over when she left
The problem is the certified market. There isn't enough business in homebuilts to make significant savings in this area, so it drives you to making certified parts, and that means going the PMA route (where you have to make it exactly like the original part, with all the old processes and everything) or the TC/STC route ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$). Then there's the inherent problem with aerospace manufacturing of low product volumes coupled with the "manual QC of everything is the only possible path to quality" mindset. Take two otherwise-identical widgets produced for automotive and aerospace applications. The automotive part will be produced at a fraction of the cost, with far fewer defects, much greater reliability, and in volumes several orders of magnitude larger than the aerospace part that is individually QC'ed with a full paper trail.
I once watched two videos--one of Chevy's engine production line, and one of the Lycoming production line. The difference was obvious.
Interesting editing
We can opine about CEO salary, corporate greed, etc, and stray even further from the topic. However, a post that shows a factor for the devaluation of $US which increases the price of everything, backed by data taken directly from the Federal Reserve's website is deleted. I'll assume this one won't stay long either.
We can opine about CEO salary, corporate greed, etc, and stray even further from the topic. However, a post that shows a factor for the devaluation of $US which increases the price of everything, backed by data taken directly from the Federal Reserve's website is deleted. I'll assume this one won't stay long either.
Maybe identifying the right automotive bottom end is the way to go then? Something that can handle high continuous HP. Use high-quality parts designed for racing/tuning and then de-rate the package. So the job becomes more manageable focusing on the design of a reliable reduction drive, redundant ignition and fuel supply.
I stumbled on this article yesterday. Cool engine. https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/blueprint-engines-four-cylinder-crate-engine-ls-head/ You read about these guys tuning all sorts of stuff and getting 1000hp out of it in their back garage.
Seems like there's a lot of brain power in these forums and with a coordinated effort it could get done. I'm a marketing guy and would donate my time to help get people aligned and something new off the ground. But my interests are selfishly in an IO-540 replacement
rmartingt
Well Known Member
Well now that's the trick, isn't it? Lots of people want replacements for their certified, air-cooled, spark-ignited, direct-drive engines. But selecting an automotive bottom end is about step 19 of the process, assuming your decision tree even takes you that route--and it's a very, very steep hill to climb.
Are you aiming for the certified market (for potentially more sales opportunities, but with $$$$$$$ and lots of time in certification just for the engine--let alone installation), or just experimental (much smaller market, but no cert costs)?
How big is your potential market? Bear in mind that annual homebuilt completions are on the order of about 1000-1500 aircraft per year, and that's everything from a Breezy or Pietenpol up to an RV-10 or a Lancair. Any particular engine will only fill a fraction of that completion rate. You might pick some up as retrofits at overhaul but you'll lose some to folks who want (or need, depending where they live) traditional engines. At the very best case and being really optimistic, I see a brown-number potential market for perhaps 200 or so of a given model/class of engine per year--and that only after the engine is widely accepted as reliable and mature and desirable by most of the market.
I won't even get into the costs of proper R&D, development of builder-friendly FWF packages, etc. That's really the biggest problem with the idea of replacing our engines--something new would be great, but the time and money expenditure is substantial and you're looking at minuscule production runs. Unfortunately, unless you can find a sugar daddy to eat all your R&D and NRE, any practical alternative is not going to wind up much cheaper. Just look at the prices for ULPower engines; they're in at least the same zip code as a Lycoming. Try to skimp on any of that and you fail out of the market; for obvious reasons nobody wants an unreliable engine, and installing your replacement shouldn't be any more difficult than installing the plans engine. Any FWF package that begins "go to the junkyard...", or involves machining or welding is right out.
Doing all that stuff right is not a part-time hobby or even an open-source collaborative effort type of thing. It would basically be several people's full time job for a couple years.
There's an interesting thread in the Alt Engine Forums about a RV9 with a 200HP turbo Yamaha. I think if prices keep rising, the desire and market demand may generate alternatives. As a diesel and Wankel engine fan, I'm always watching those. I love my M57 powered BMW, but there's no way to squeeze an M57 into my RV6.
The big hitch in the giddy-up on the alternative engines are the gearboxes required if you want to turn the engine faster than the prop. Gearboxes are finicky animals, and require a good torsional vibration analysis to keep them from shedding teeth, and those are difficult (and expensive) to do properly. If you go through the history of them you'll find a lot more problems related to cooling (installation) and gearboxes (torsional) than you do with the engine itself. I'm not going to throw rocks at the Yamaha (or any other) but I'm definitely going to look VERY carefully at the cooling setup and gearbox design.
JwWright57
Well Known Member
Yes the prices on the Rotax package is crazy now. I wouldn’t be able to afford to build my 12 with these prices. Vans Rotax kit is now 42k (plus a lot of tax)
I paid 36k for mine (which was the cost of my new Honda Ridgeline truck in 2017) in 2020. Just crazy how little you get for so much $$$$
I paid 36k for mine (which was the cost of my new Honda Ridgeline truck in 2017) in 2020. Just crazy how little you get for so much $$$$
Came across this "Corvette engine in a Cessna 172" article a while back
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/september/pilot/engine-technology
Here's their website
https://corsairpower.com/
Last I read, the principal of the company was disappointed in the market. It seems he gave the market everything they said they wanted (liquid cooled, low initial cost, low operating cost, easy starting, flight proven) and had very little interest.
Lots of people have or are trying auto engine conversions, including some very smart people that did all the right design and testing...and...few sales.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/september/pilot/engine-technology
Here's their website
https://corsairpower.com/
Last I read, the principal of the company was disappointed in the market. It seems he gave the market everything they said they wanted (liquid cooled, low initial cost, low operating cost, easy starting, flight proven) and had very little interest.
Lots of people have or are trying auto engine conversions, including some very smart people that did all the right design and testing...and...few sales.
Suggest you read the latest EAA magazine. Article on a guy building a B-29 as an engine test bed. He has created a belt drive reduction system and it looks like he plans to sell them some day. He has been using Honda L engines. An interesting read. This approach would seem to address all of the issues you mention, if it can handle the power from larger engines. They have been using belt drives for super chargers for decades. From what I understand, the supercharger cosnumes around a 1/3 of the extra HP it produces to drive it and some of the extreme versions are adding over 300 HP. So it may be possible.
Last edited:
Last I read, it was heavier than an equivalent Lycoming, and literally no piston single is designed to incorporate the radiators or airflow systems necessary for a liquid-cooled engine so you need to design your own firewall forward kit for it. Factor all that in, and the cost to resolve it brings it back the cost of a Lycoming or more, so again you're no better off financially and you have a unicorn aircraft that has compromised resale value as a result.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
I knew this would turn to automotive engines. Ugh. It has been done and the results are known. In the 160HP on up range the results are known, not a big cost savings if any, longer build and customization, heavier and slower (with special exceptions). Yes, heavier, slower and often iffy in reliability primarily due to janky PSRU's (Prop Speed Reduction Units). For decades I heard of the Lycoming killer. Seen them all come and go. They all produced a plane that was either way too heavy, too slow, unreliable, or was inefficient. In the end the alternative cost as much as a Lycoming (pre "Panorama" pre Inflation). Nuff said. So with "real" aircraft engines costing more will there be a resurgence in Mazda, Subaru, Honda, Suzuki (car), Mitsubishi, Ford, Chevy... I have seen them all. Plus most important the RV is designed for the Lyc. or Rotax in the case of the RV12. To "convert" a car engine and put it in RV will add countless hours and require customizing of all kinds. This adds to build cost. Then you will need to tinker with it for ever. Bolt a Lyc up and go fly... known, reliable, proven performance.
I have changed my opinion a little regarding Automotive engines, at least in low HP engines, 100HP category give or take a 20 HP, some automotive conversions, but some of the above draw backs still exist, like PSRU reliability. I have softened on this mostly because Lycoming and Continental have slim pickings in this class with Lyc O-235 (115HP/125HP) and the Continental O-200 (100HP/110HP) which is approved for SLSA's actively marketed in SLSA's as the O-200D (light weight). However it is expensive, but so is a Rotax. Due to LSA's there are many planes made for the +/- 100HP engine. However a RV-8 or RV-10, no. They were made for 180HP plus and a Lycoming. If you want to use a 80-100HP Honda, Suzuki, Mitsubishi Car engine build a Zenair.
Except for the RV-12 we need 150HP min to 160, 180, 200, 210, 250 HP engines, e.g., (I)O320, (I)O360, (I)O540. I will say there is NO automotive conversion that can compete with the O320 in the 150-170HP class, or O360 in the 170-210HP class, or O540 in the 250-300HP class.
I am still dogmatic, firm, stubbornly in the camp there is nothing better overall for aircraft than a Lycoming for sub 210 HP Kit planes, or Lycoming or Continental in the higher HP kit planes (RV10, Lancair Legacy). I still say there is no car engine conversion that is as good. In an airplane water cooling, EFI, EI and PSRU are NOT necessarily positives as they are in cars. #1 the PSRU is source of catastrophic failure and many have and will. #2 They are electrically dependent and many lose power because the electrical juice goes away. Even the new $1.2M Diamond D62 with two 180HP Merc diesels has already had a few dual flame outs due to battery issues in it's short service life. I will admit it seems like at least one was stupid pilot trick time. Mechanical Fuel Injection/Carb, Mechanical fuel pump, Mags has charm and works. HOWEVER to be "Modern" you can install EFI and EI on a Lycoming. EI is easy, and with a P-Mag you can maintain your Lycoming's independence from electricity. I know you can run back up batteries, dual alternators and switches and circuits to assure higher electrical reliability. "Modern" as they say. Sometimes KISS is better.
"MODERN" is a pet peeve of mine when people discuss an alternative to a Lycoming. Red Bull Air races, Reno Sport Class all Lyc or Continental dominate. Not a car conversion among them. The Falcon V12 is a custom engine and still is an also ran to a Lyc or Continental. Most automotive engine conversions are not aerobatic and don't produce as good of power to weight ratio as a Lycoming. The claimed HP of automotive conversions never materializes in actual performance. Add the extra drag when adapting water cooling to an airframe designed for down draft air cooling makes car engine planes slower. Down draft air cooling is very efficient with low cooling drag, all optimized over the last 100 yrs. Yes water cooling is better technically for piston to cylinder wall clearance and keeping the exhaust valves cooler, IN A CAR. In a plane going 190 mph not so much of an advantage. We have plenty of air, albeit hot day climbs must be "managed". Besides Lycs are AIR and OIL cooled. So we have liquid cooling. This is how we carry heat away from the exhaust valve and cool the heads, oil and air.
When I got into EAA and building a plane it was right before the explosion of PMA part Lycoming clones. Prices for a new OEM genuine Lycoming I recall were under $30,000, a lot of money back then (and still is today). Then prices leveled off and even dipped as Superior and ECI started making PMA parts, and eventually made every part of the engine, which lead to them selling complete Lycoming clone engines to Kit plane builders. I recall a 180HP O360 for $25,000 at one time not that long ago. In that case NEW was the way to go. We enjoyed that for a decade or two. Then the "panorama" and geo political/economy/self inflicted reasons we now have 1970's inflation. It does suck. However even if a Lyc is now almost twice the price from 10 yrs ago, my opinion, it does not make a car engine conversion more desirable. To paraphrase Meatloaf: I'll do anything for flying but I won't do that. Ha ha.
Even after you build your plane, you have high fuel cost in part due to committing energy suicide for "reasons". Hanger, maintenance and Insurance? Another blow to affordability of private aircraft ownership. If there is a will there is a way. I wrote in this thread in an earlier post there is USED and DIY overhauls. There are partnerships in a project (cut cost in half). There is buying an older flying RV or Certified plane rough around the edges with faded paint and dated panel, and TLC it back to pride and joy status. It can be done. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY A NEW ENGINE. But as far as Car engines "ALAG" (if it) Ain't Lycoming (I) Ain't Going.
I have changed my opinion a little regarding Automotive engines, at least in low HP engines, 100HP category give or take a 20 HP, some automotive conversions, but some of the above draw backs still exist, like PSRU reliability. I have softened on this mostly because Lycoming and Continental have slim pickings in this class with Lyc O-235 (115HP/125HP) and the Continental O-200 (100HP/110HP) which is approved for SLSA's actively marketed in SLSA's as the O-200D (light weight). However it is expensive, but so is a Rotax. Due to LSA's there are many planes made for the +/- 100HP engine. However a RV-8 or RV-10, no. They were made for 180HP plus and a Lycoming. If you want to use a 80-100HP Honda, Suzuki, Mitsubishi Car engine build a Zenair.
Except for the RV-12 we need 150HP min to 160, 180, 200, 210, 250 HP engines, e.g., (I)O320, (I)O360, (I)O540. I will say there is NO automotive conversion that can compete with the O320 in the 150-170HP class, or O360 in the 170-210HP class, or O540 in the 250-300HP class.
I am still dogmatic, firm, stubbornly in the camp there is nothing better overall for aircraft than a Lycoming for sub 210 HP Kit planes, or Lycoming or Continental in the higher HP kit planes (RV10, Lancair Legacy). I still say there is no car engine conversion that is as good. In an airplane water cooling, EFI, EI and PSRU are NOT necessarily positives as they are in cars. #1 the PSRU is source of catastrophic failure and many have and will. #2 They are electrically dependent and many lose power because the electrical juice goes away. Even the new $1.2M Diamond D62 with two 180HP Merc diesels has already had a few dual flame outs due to battery issues in it's short service life. I will admit it seems like at least one was stupid pilot trick time. Mechanical Fuel Injection/Carb, Mechanical fuel pump, Mags has charm and works. HOWEVER to be "Modern" you can install EFI and EI on a Lycoming. EI is easy, and with a P-Mag you can maintain your Lycoming's independence from electricity. I know you can run back up batteries, dual alternators and switches and circuits to assure higher electrical reliability. "Modern" as they say. Sometimes KISS is better.
"MODERN" is a pet peeve of mine when people discuss an alternative to a Lycoming. Red Bull Air races, Reno Sport Class all Lyc or Continental dominate. Not a car conversion among them. The Falcon V12 is a custom engine and still is an also ran to a Lyc or Continental. Most automotive engine conversions are not aerobatic and don't produce as good of power to weight ratio as a Lycoming. The claimed HP of automotive conversions never materializes in actual performance. Add the extra drag when adapting water cooling to an airframe designed for down draft air cooling makes car engine planes slower. Down draft air cooling is very efficient with low cooling drag, all optimized over the last 100 yrs. Yes water cooling is better technically for piston to cylinder wall clearance and keeping the exhaust valves cooler, IN A CAR. In a plane going 190 mph not so much of an advantage. We have plenty of air, albeit hot day climbs must be "managed". Besides Lycs are AIR and OIL cooled. So we have liquid cooling. This is how we carry heat away from the exhaust valve and cool the heads, oil and air.
When I got into EAA and building a plane it was right before the explosion of PMA part Lycoming clones. Prices for a new OEM genuine Lycoming I recall were under $30,000, a lot of money back then (and still is today). Then prices leveled off and even dipped as Superior and ECI started making PMA parts, and eventually made every part of the engine, which lead to them selling complete Lycoming clone engines to Kit plane builders. I recall a 180HP O360 for $25,000 at one time not that long ago. In that case NEW was the way to go. We enjoyed that for a decade or two. Then the "panorama" and geo political/economy/self inflicted reasons we now have 1970's inflation. It does suck. However even if a Lyc is now almost twice the price from 10 yrs ago, my opinion, it does not make a car engine conversion more desirable. To paraphrase Meatloaf: I'll do anything for flying but I won't do that. Ha ha.
Even after you build your plane, you have high fuel cost in part due to committing energy suicide for "reasons". Hanger, maintenance and Insurance? Another blow to affordability of private aircraft ownership. If there is a will there is a way. I wrote in this thread in an earlier post there is USED and DIY overhauls. There are partnerships in a project (cut cost in half). There is buying an older flying RV or Certified plane rough around the edges with faded paint and dated panel, and TLC it back to pride and joy status. It can be done. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY A NEW ENGINE. But as far as Car engines "ALAG" (if it) Ain't Lycoming (I) Ain't Going.
Last edited:
Needs to be direct drive, or you add too much weight and reliability problems with the gearbox.
Belts would help a lot with the torsional issues - but you can only put a maximum of about 15 horsepower through a single belt if you want it to live very long. That gets to be quite a lot of pulley involved for something like an RV-10.
Not to derail this thread further, but there are piston helicopters that put 180 horsepower through a single belt, so it seems like it can be done.
Bulls vs Bears.
I think Lycoming is great, but I don't buy the idea that it's the perfect engine. Better solutions are waiting to be created. And monopiles suck and stifle innovation. And competition is good for us. Demand exists. And engine, material and manufacturing tech is advancing rapidly.
For example, check out what Koenigsegg is doing with Freevalve technology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cFfM3r510. It essentially eliminates the valvetrain. Lighter, more efficient, more control over the combustion cycle, more power. Think about that in an aviation application. No cam, no gears, no pushrods, no lifters, more compact etc.
It just comes down to willpower, approach and $$$$. Design, prototyping and testing aside, I think clean sheet engine companies simply underestimate the cost to get it over the finish line. Bad or naïve business planning. Or bad designs.
Until an engine has proof of reliable operation and support in the field, the only reason buyers might consider a clean sheet design over the incumbent is cost savings. Risk vs reward. A new engine builder needs to be prepared to sell at a major discount to get enough engines in the air to prove the design. Or look at other markets like UAVs to prove out the reliability without risking lives.
What buyers struggle with is, how much of a discount is enough to stray from the proven design? The primary motivator when choosing an engine is obviously reliability and safety. New buyers will be test pilots until there are tens of thousands of hours flown. In higher HP ranges, this class of engine is for traveling with passengers and IFR machines where risk is even less tolerated than sport classes.
It then comes down to, how many engines need to be flying around, and how many hours is enough hours to convince buyers that you have a reliable design? This is totally subjective, but personally knowing there are 100+ engines in the field flying reliably and making headway toward a TBO number would be enough to convince me it’s a good idea. 100 seems like a psychologically convincing number whether it has any statistical relevance or not. So basically heavily discounting and supporting the first 100 motors needs to be part of the cost calculation. Otherwise people will just buy new, old stuff.
Finally, there will no doubt be changes needed over time and the question is, how challenging/costly will it be to have something corrected when a problem does arise? Even the big two are not immune. Counterweight clips?
So how much money would a program like that take? $50m, $100m, $250m? If the government is really interested in eliminating lead, lowering emissions and increasing efficiency, $250m is a mouse fart. The cost of $8-10 per gallon 100UL is incentive enough to create demand for engines that run on $3-4 mogas.
I think Lycoming is great, but I don't buy the idea that it's the perfect engine. Better solutions are waiting to be created. And monopiles suck and stifle innovation. And competition is good for us. Demand exists. And engine, material and manufacturing tech is advancing rapidly.
For example, check out what Koenigsegg is doing with Freevalve technology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cFfM3r510. It essentially eliminates the valvetrain. Lighter, more efficient, more control over the combustion cycle, more power. Think about that in an aviation application. No cam, no gears, no pushrods, no lifters, more compact etc.
It just comes down to willpower, approach and $$$$. Design, prototyping and testing aside, I think clean sheet engine companies simply underestimate the cost to get it over the finish line. Bad or naïve business planning. Or bad designs.
Until an engine has proof of reliable operation and support in the field, the only reason buyers might consider a clean sheet design over the incumbent is cost savings. Risk vs reward. A new engine builder needs to be prepared to sell at a major discount to get enough engines in the air to prove the design. Or look at other markets like UAVs to prove out the reliability without risking lives.
What buyers struggle with is, how much of a discount is enough to stray from the proven design? The primary motivator when choosing an engine is obviously reliability and safety. New buyers will be test pilots until there are tens of thousands of hours flown. In higher HP ranges, this class of engine is for traveling with passengers and IFR machines where risk is even less tolerated than sport classes.
It then comes down to, how many engines need to be flying around, and how many hours is enough hours to convince buyers that you have a reliable design? This is totally subjective, but personally knowing there are 100+ engines in the field flying reliably and making headway toward a TBO number would be enough to convince me it’s a good idea. 100 seems like a psychologically convincing number whether it has any statistical relevance or not. So basically heavily discounting and supporting the first 100 motors needs to be part of the cost calculation. Otherwise people will just buy new, old stuff.
Finally, there will no doubt be changes needed over time and the question is, how challenging/costly will it be to have something corrected when a problem does arise? Even the big two are not immune. Counterweight clips?
So how much money would a program like that take? $50m, $100m, $250m? If the government is really interested in eliminating lead, lowering emissions and increasing efficiency, $250m is a mouse fart. The cost of $8-10 per gallon 100UL is incentive enough to create demand for engines that run on $3-4 mogas.
Last edited:
To add to the drift, he probably meant typical automotive belt. Hoping to recall everything correctly but I believe some of the Hughes/Hillers light copters utilized 8 V belts. A set was very expensive as only sold as a set as the allowable tolerances were pretty exact; thought being each belt had to get the same loading. This worked OK for a pretty narrow rpm band. Application as a PRSU solves a set of issues with different issues. Back to the main programming.
Many types of belts beyond V belts, though I believe the guy in the article was using 6 or 8 of those; He was playing with cub power levels. The ones used on the big superchargers are about 4" wide and cogged. Believe they can transfer 100's of HP. From my understanding cogged belts and pulleys can transfer A LOT more power than a V belt, as they don't rely upon tension to do the work. Just look at the harleys. Some of those are pushing 150+ HP with a cogged rubber belt to transfer it to the wheel. The wide belts would push the prop out a few more inches, but most of the auto engines are heavier and need more arm out front anyways. Chains are a semi-realistic option as well. They have been spinning to 3000 RPM for decades as timing chains. Weight is an issue, but resolves the torsional issues. Gears are obviously a more refined approach, but EAB history has shown us it is quite difficult to properly engineer. I suspect that someone will step back in time with one of these options if the market were to heat up a bit. Right now the market is minuscule due to the past failures. Even the most capable home builders won't touch the stuff. But if Lycoming continues down it's current path of stiff increases every few months, I do believe that will change. Lets not forget all the guys building new clean slate designs that couldn't get to market due to their cost being higher than Lyc. Won't be long before they are competitive with a new io-360. I suspect they are out revising business plans and searching new investors based upon the rapidly escalating costs for Lyc's.
Last edited:
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
Last edited:
Seriously? Ecking out the last 0.xx% efficiency or power for the duration of a race is a little different from making a bullet proof engine and related systems. There was a pneumatic valve demonstrator aircraft engine ~ 30 years ago. Great raves about it's relative performance. No one wanted gtheir lives to rely on something that complex. By the time redundancy is added to the control of all those proportional valves, is anything saved/is it still worth it?
Supply and demand is still a large factor in play. In this market, demand FAR OUTWEIGHS supply, hence the ability for Lyc to charge whatever they want. If the demand dries up, prices WILL fall. If the Lyc increases mirrored the inflation rate, of course, I would not say that. However, it appears that the Lyc increases are well beyond double the inflation rate and show no signs of slowing down eventhough inflation has. Can't really blame then when there is a line out the door equal to a one year wait. Very different story when people stop buying.
I remain of the belief that the astronomical growth in EAB aviation over the last two years is a bulge as opposed to the new normal. However, that is just an opinion. Time will tell. General Aviation seems to have pretty big up / down swings when you look back.
Larry
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
No one said or implied perfect. However it is the purposes built aircraft engine with the might of all USA engineering and manufacturing going back to the 30's. Not only experience and multi million dollar advanced manufacturing with capabilities of making their own forged pistons, sodium filled valves, best steel materials and processes, castings, nitrate coated cylinders, with QC testing including scanning electron microscope, manuals, network of parts and services they get it wrong sometimes, but car engines can be lemons. Many of these car conversions for airplane companies BTW are selling used engines. Just a thought.
All aviation designs are compromises, even the RV and Lycoming.
Yes the optimistic always something better. Better than what? Cheaper to buy and operate, lighter, more power, more reliable and easier to install with less cooling drag? I am waiting. I have waited literally for 35 years.
I joined EAA about 1987 about 2 years after I got my initial pilot certificate. I had already been reading Kit Plane magazine and fascinated with the Lancair and Glasair. I saw many new aircraft kits come and go since. Many kits exaggerating their predicted performance before the first one flew. Then I came across Van's and loved it was metal and the fact published performance matched what they actually did. At the same time I started looking at alternative "modern" better engines. One after another the modern car engine either never materialized, came and went or some were just awful or worse. In the mean time we are stuck with the old fashion dumb dinosaur Lycoming that can make 160HP to 250HP continuous all day, every day, day after day, past 2000 hour TBO without breathing hard. Stupid aircraft engine... Pewee. Ha ha.
To paraphrase Richard Van Grunsven. He actually said this as best I remember:
"The best engine conversion is to convert $XX,XXX into a Lycoming."
Van.
Obviously he evolved having a Rotax in the RV12. To sell a SLSA by agreement with the LSA manufactures (LSA's are not certified by FAA) must have a Rotax, Jabiru or Continental O200. All the approved SLSA engines are low powered 80-100HP engines not derived from a car engine.
Some RV12 (and Zenair) builders have used Aeromomentum, ULPower and Viking. The key to success is the company that sells the conversion sells FWF package for your specific model plane, with engine mount, systems, cowl. Otherwise you are on your own. This is where the conversion runs into problems unless the builder is a talented scratch build designer and fabricator. This is where the exception to the rule comes in. There have been some good conversions, compromise to be sure as all things are, but pretty good. It took 1000's of hours to get there over and above bolting a Lyc on.
Last edited:
Apparently I'm the marketing/business guy getting flamed by a pack of rabid aerospace engineers for wanting more. Referencing Freevalve wasn't meant to be taken literally but simply an example of innovation in engine tech.
The point is two or three companies have us by the short hairs. Something better is out there and will eventually come to market providing more value for the money.
At some point, someone with a vision and enough backing will take advantage of an opportunity.
FWIW, I'm buying an IO-540 for my RV-10 project.
I think this engine looks really promising but hope they have the capital to prove reliability. https://flyadept.co.za/. Being a new, unproven design, pricing is totally out of line unfortunately. Once proven they could charge the same or more than a Lyc if the fuel savings justifies it.
The point is two or three companies have us by the short hairs. Something better is out there and will eventually come to market providing more value for the money.
At some point, someone with a vision and enough backing will take advantage of an opportunity.
FWIW, I'm buying an IO-540 for my RV-10 project.
I think this engine looks really promising but hope they have the capital to prove reliability. https://flyadept.co.za/. Being a new, unproven design, pricing is totally out of line unfortunately. Once proven they could charge the same or more than a Lyc if the fuel savings justifies it.
Last edited:
I'm not really sorry about referencing "conversions." With enough demand and profit, something WILL come along. Rotax, Allison, Rolls Royce and others have built working PSRUs. I currently have a "flying" O-360 as soon as I finish the oil pump AD the previous owners ignored for decades and another pickled for rebuild, so it won't likely be me. I'm just saying that when demand and financial motive finally hit a tipping point, there will be another alternative. Conversion or clean build. There are a few trying to gain traction, but I don't think the motivation is there yet for them to be major contenders.
I'm not going to talk about greed, etc. We are all "greedy"... or want our "fair share." However you want to put it. Either way, you have to pay to play. If you want a Lycoming (or anything), get your checkbook out.
I'm not going to talk about greed, etc. We are all "greedy"... or want our "fair share." However you want to put it. Either way, you have to pay to play. If you want a Lycoming (or anything), get your checkbook out.
Let us step back in time for a minute....
In 1998 a basic rule of thumb was your "basic build" would price out like this... Broken down in thirds. Airframe QB 1/3. Motor 1/3. Panel paint and prop 1/3.
So today, the prices off of Van's site is.... 7A QB....$54,000.00. O360 $40,000.00. That should leave $47,000.00 for panel, prop, and paint.
From Van's site in 1998....
It's called inflation and it has been going on forever, and will continue. We thought prices were high back then.
In 25 years, you will laugh at the price you paid for your lycoming.
Oh, and avgas was $1.80..... If you can't afford the motor, you will have a hard time affording your aviation future. You will spend $20,000.00 in fuel flying your first 375 hours.
It's not the price of the shotgun...... it's the price of the shells over the life of the gun.
In 1998 a basic rule of thumb was your "basic build" would price out like this... Broken down in thirds. Airframe QB 1/3. Motor 1/3. Panel paint and prop 1/3.
So today, the prices off of Van's site is.... 7A QB....$54,000.00. O360 $40,000.00. That should leave $47,000.00 for panel, prop, and paint.
From Van's site in 1998....
It's called inflation and it has been going on forever, and will continue. We thought prices were high back then.
In 25 years, you will laugh at the price you paid for your lycoming.
Oh, and avgas was $1.80..... If you can't afford the motor, you will have a hard time affording your aviation future. You will spend $20,000.00 in fuel flying your first 375 hours.
It's not the price of the shotgun...... it's the price of the shells over the life of the gun.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
...and the 1975 magazine articles were awash with stories of "the skyrocketing cost of aviation", and probably cited the $4k for that Lycoming as compelling evidence. "Four thousand bucks for just an engine!?" Why, 10 years ago you could buy a flyable P-51 for that!
Now an even different take: look at the prices of avionics in the magazine ads of 1975. Absolutely insane! The cost of avionics has come WAY down since then, so there is an offset.
And back to the cost of the 540. You 10 drivers did that. Before your horde came along 540's were almost worthless.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
You are comparing a 100 HP ROTAX to a Turbine engine (P&W, Rolls, Allison)? Yes gear boxes work but, Rotax has some specific inspections and overhauls. Also the 912 is 80-115 HP. The 915 Si is 135. The gear box is also not aerobatic. There have been issues but pretty good. Point taken PRSU's can work. It does add weight, maintenance and failure point. It also makes having a hydraulic prop harder or impossible.
However the history of PSRU's on car engine conversions is not so great. One of the big converters have had a few PSRU's puke. The issue with piston engines is torsional vibration and the power pulse vs a turbine that has no power pulse.
Some radial piston engines are geared (planetary in line with crankshaft), the gears are integrated into the engine case. The crank of a radial engine is very compact in axial direction. It has different harmonics and power pulse than in-line crankshaft engine. Rotax did it but it is a relatively small low HP engine.
Both Continental and Lycoming had geared engines. They are a little finicky and long out of production. Continental GO300 (175HP) in C-172. Rockwell Commander had two Lyc IGSO-540's (380HP) or GSO-480's (340HP). Those geared supercharged monsters were not fun to maintain. Rockwell went to TPE331 turboprops.
Cars use flex plates, hydraulic torque converters, flywheels and clutches to couple to the transmission. The weight is very high in airplane terms.
It is not that PSRU's can't be done or have never been done. It is just why? A direct drive large bore engine seems to be the right configuration.
rocketman1988
Well Known Member
Disagree
I have owned several gear driven aircraft, a C-175 and a C-421 to name a couple. The proplem with the GO-300 in the C-175 had NOTHING to do with the geared engine; instead it was a cooling problem. Fix the cooling problem and the engine was as reliable and trouble free as the O-300, while making 30 more hp. The GTSIO-520s on the C-421 were also very reliable, if you operated them the way they were designed to be operated. In fact, when I sold the airplane, the engines were 100 hours past TBO and the guy that bought it ran them another 800 hours!
When it comes to auto conversions, yes, I think there is more work to be done. I also think that making it work will take a new airframe, as well...one that is designed for the dimensions, hp, and cooling requirements of the liquid cooled engine. Trying to shoe horn one into a traditional air cooled airframe, well, I think it is counter productive.
I am guessing that the $70k+ prices and 18 month lead times for a lycosaurus are likely going to motivate development of alternative engines...which will lead to progress and that is a good thing.
The use of the ancient lycoming engines has a lot to do with them being affordable, easy to obtain, and proven over time. Currently, the first two are no longer the case, and people will start to seek out other options. Whether it is a small T-prop, jet, auto conversion, electric, or some other alternative engine remains to be seen. The point is, people are starting to look elsewhere.
This is experimental aviation, after all...
I have owned several gear driven aircraft, a C-175 and a C-421 to name a couple. The proplem with the GO-300 in the C-175 had NOTHING to do with the geared engine; instead it was a cooling problem. Fix the cooling problem and the engine was as reliable and trouble free as the O-300, while making 30 more hp. The GTSIO-520s on the C-421 were also very reliable, if you operated them the way they were designed to be operated. In fact, when I sold the airplane, the engines were 100 hours past TBO and the guy that bought it ran them another 800 hours!
When it comes to auto conversions, yes, I think there is more work to be done. I also think that making it work will take a new airframe, as well...one that is designed for the dimensions, hp, and cooling requirements of the liquid cooled engine. Trying to shoe horn one into a traditional air cooled airframe, well, I think it is counter productive.
I am guessing that the $70k+ prices and 18 month lead times for a lycosaurus are likely going to motivate development of alternative engines...which will lead to progress and that is a good thing.
The use of the ancient lycoming engines has a lot to do with them being affordable, easy to obtain, and proven over time. Currently, the first two are no longer the case, and people will start to seek out other options. Whether it is a small T-prop, jet, auto conversion, electric, or some other alternative engine remains to be seen. The point is, people are starting to look elsewhere.
This is experimental aviation, after all...
Not really. Many on this site built their RV"s between 1975 and 1998. During that time, Lycoming price increased by 500%....
during that 23 year period.During the next 25 years from 1998 to current day, the same Lycoming increased by 200%.......
You had it too good for too long, and you didn't even know it.....
ECI helped keep Lycoming prices at bay during this period..
Pilotjim77
Well Known Member
Not really. Many on this site built their RV"s between 1975 and 1998. During that time, Lycoming price increased by 500%....
During the next 25 years from 1998 to current day, the same Lycoming increased by 200%.......
You had it too good for too long, and you didn't even know it.....
ECI helped keep Lycoming prices at bay during this period..
I don't blame Lycoming. They're doing what any smart business would do. I just wish supply could keep up with demand. It's like trying to buy a stainless Rolex these days. Two year waiting lists and then the grey market buyers take everything they can and sell it online with an 80% mark up.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Yep. You know. They were not bad. The GO300 was smooth. I had some time with that engine in buddies Cessna. As far as C421 a freight company on the field had one with geared engines. My friend flew for that company, but he flew other planes in the fleet, not the C421. Only select pilots were allowed to fly the C421. As you said you had to operate the geared Lyc as designed. I recall no abrupt power reductions, unloading the prop or certain power settings flight conditions. I assume it was due to gear lash and not wanting to slap the gear train as the reason.
The problem with all those geared engines now, is finding a shop that will overhaul them. Many shops won't overhaul them or can't.
Geared is fine but it comes with "extra" characteristics or charm, direct drive does not. The beauty of course is geared allows you to make more HP at higher engine RPM, with better prop efficiency spinning it slower, but it comes with trade offs.
rvanstory
Well Known Member
This thread is a great reminder of how blessed my life is! When life’s concerns are about the cost and wait times of airplanes and Rolex’s, you know you have it pretty good! Burdens are all about perspective. I’ll gladly choose rising airplane and Rolex costs over the burdens many others have in life! Some day it may change, so for now I’ll “enjoy” these burdens while they last.
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Indeed. "First world problems". Plenty of people cant even afford to eat.
We are now living the "good old days". Fly while you can!
We are now living the "good old days". Fly while you can!
Plummit
Well Known Member
Continental's parallel valve Titan engines do give the others price competition and are stroked so the power to weight ratio is better. They also have some innovative improvements to the original Lyco designs. Lead time is still and issue but it's coming down.
Examples YO360A1A Standard $42,600, Thunderbolt $47,600 HP 180
Titan low compression OX370ADD7U8H $45,259 HP 184
YIO360A1B6 Standard $53,650, Thunderbolt $58,650 HP 200
Titan high compression IOX370CDSD1U8H $47,571 HP 195
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
Pilotjim77
Well Known Member
It’s not a “life concern.” It’s an observation about prices and supply/demand.
Amazing how much they can raise the price in 4 years.
[email protected]
Well Known Member
The money supply has been increased by about 60% the last few years. What do you think is going to happen. I mentioned to a friend (he owns several wineries) that the used value of RV10’s has been skyrocketing. He replied “Your RV10 is worth the same as it always has been. It’s just that the money is worth so much less.”
ronrapp
Well Known Member
That is exactly right. Houses, cars, planes, they're all worth the same. It's just that the thing we use to measure their value -- the US dollar -- is worth far less. If incomes keep up with inflation, then no problem. We're just using different numbers. But that doesn't usually happen when inflation really takes off.
I've often wondered what will happen when the average person stops seeing a $20 bill as 20x as valuable as a $1 bill and starts seeing them both for what they really are: small rectangular green pieces of paper.
I've often wondered what will happen when the average person stops seeing a $20 bill as 20x as valuable as a $1 bill and starts seeing them both for what they really are: small rectangular green pieces of paper.
That is a pretty simplistic view to a complex problem. While inflation can come from currency over supply, it can just as easily come from too low of an interest rate and the Fed has held this very low for well over a decade. It is also relative to the value of money in other parts or the globe that we trade with. On the subject of home prices, that is way more than inflation. We had two back to back years with 25-30% increases in home prices. WAY beyond the CPI or any other measure of inflation. I don't see how you can attribute the meteoric rise in home prices to be tied to money supply.
- Status
