What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Alternative Engine Marketing

Status
Not open for further replies.
N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
Let me start this thread by asking the moderators to delete any post that bashes alternative engines. That horse has been pounded into dust and we don?t need to go there.

I would like to ask what it would take for you to install an alternative ?Packaged? engine in your plane.

Are you looking at price, weight, fuel consumption, power, reliability, what exactly?

Don?t just answer with reliability and weight. Tell us what your measure of ?reliability? is and what is acceptable weight to you. i.e.: It must run to a 5000 hour TBO like the turbine I fly at work and it is OK to weigh 50 pounds more than a comparable Lycoming.

In my case, it is the three legged stool. Reliability, weight, and price. I enjoy building but I also enjoy flying. Once it is done, I don?t want to have to spend three hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. If I wanted that, I would have built a helicopter.

The installed weight should be the same or less than a comparable Lycoming. I can always add weight, if needed, but it is difficult to remove weight.

Price is something that drives me crazy with the alterative engine builders. Whenever a new engine package hits the market they always seem to be priced more than a comparable Lycoming. It seems to me they should be about half the price, at least at first. This will get a number of engines out there and once they prove their value, then they can raise the price.
 
Proven Reliability

Let me start by saying that I have a real interest in engines, and applaud those that venture into alternative engine development. I used to play with small British "A" series engines, with a goal not of reliability but horsepower so am not entirely unfamiliar with engine design adn development although in a very amatuer and low budget way.
For an aircraft, the choice of an "alternative" engine must always be measured against what it is an alternative to - in our case, a Lycoming or Lycoming clone.
So, for those who are not simply looking to be "experimental" in the best traditions of our hobby and so not driven simply by the desire to see what is possible, the benchmark is a Lycoming.
Someone on this list described the Lycoming as a "Lycosaurus" in the sense of being excellently adapted to its purpose (rather than simply being ancient), so more like a crocodile. I think that is right. A Lycoming has had decades of development, proven and recorded service history within the discipline of a regulatory regime that requires issues to be indentified, published and parts with a proven provenance. And all of this with the primary imperative of safety and reliability.
The result is an expensive, conservatively designed and reliable aircraft engine. It is a known quantity and so has a predictable value at all stages of its life cycle. Parts are available and easily sourced. If one vendor goes under, there are others.
For me, proven reliability is key and the primary measure against which alternatives will be judged. It is trite to say that it is one thing to play with engines that may blow up in a car, and another in aircraft. We have responsibilities to ourselves, our sport, our families and those on the ground. Not at all to say that considering alterntives is in any way irresponsible, but it is a serious matter that needs a thoughtful and careful appoach.
Other factors, like price, vendor confidence, resale value, parts availability, repairability, all weigh in the mix (and likely to the disadvantage of present alternatives).
Technological advances and maximum power are not priorities for me, although having said that the engine I chose is a Superior with roller rockers, fuel injection and one electronic ignition, one mag. Technological advances that actually improve performance if available without compromising the basic requirement of reliability certainly have appeal.
For me, an alternative (to a Lycoming) engine is not out of the question, but given what I consider important I anm not aware of any alternative that at this point in time comes close to a Lycoming or clone.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit



For me, an alte
 
As someone who is traditionally not a big fan of alternative engines, maybe because of ignorance and some experience with an Egg., let me ask this. What is the downside of installing a traditional Lycoming? I'm building an RV-7 and considering all options. I've lost an oil line in a C-150 once and had to make a forced landing, but that wasn't the fault of the engine (mechanic overtighened a hose clamp which put a hole in it). I'm looking at an IO-360 which is pretty fuel efficient, reliable, proven, not terribly expensive to operate and supported long-term by the manufacturer. I know the initial investment is indeed more costly than most alternative engines. What other negatives are there for a Lycoming? I definetly support research and improvement, that's why we are experimental. Not to mention we don't know how long the EPA will let us have 100LL.
 
Deciding on an alternative would be easy for me. Just give me ONE big plus, and no negatives, and I'd switch in a heartbeat. Whether it is TBO, fuel burn, weight, real reliability, cost, whatever, if there are no negative (like lower TBO, lower resale, or higher weight) I would be happy to switch. Not only have I not been able to find an alternative without big negatives, I haven't found one with significant pluses. All things considered, the Lyc is way ahead IMHO. And I started my build with the idea of using a Subaru engine!

Bob Kelly
 
It's really a simple equation. It has to have the same reliability as a Lycoming but cost less to acquire and maintain. No one is going to pay more for an alternative at double the reliability because the current reliability is sufficient. And only a few will spend less for less reliability because the risk equation doesn't make sense.

In essence, I want to spend less and not pay with my life for doing so.
 
I really considered an EGG. I think the concept is great. If someone is really interested in making one work, I say go for it. I decided on a Lyclone as it gave me the ability to have a tried and true design, still with a little bit of an "experimental" flavor to it.

I'll bet you someone someday soon, will figure out how to make an electric powerplant fit in an RV and will are start getting on or throwing stones at that bandwagon.
 
The gearbox is what scares me. I know we have many geared engines in service from the major companies, and they all have millions of hours (aka reliability) of experience to learn how to build them. A new shop building a new gearbox worries me - and we've all seen the heartburn that Eggenfelner went through with his gearboxes.

Avoiding a gearbox means running at prop RPM, which means high displacement, which means either running a Lyclone (which is becoming the new definition of "alternative" with a lot of people) or a turbodiesel. The turbodiesel is very attractive to me for several reasons, but there is not currently anyone offering a REASONABLE package on the experimental market.

I can see paying some additional margin (within reason) for an alternative engine, whether that's money to purchase it or time to modify the installation. I can deal with that in order to gain something else, such as the ability to run on fuels other than 100LL, or to have turbonormalizing, or to have quick/easy/cheap rebuilds at TBO.

Speaking of TBO - [RANT ON] What the heck was Thielert thinking with a TBR??? [/RANT]
 
Efficiency

Would be a key factor for me. I was really eyeing the DeltaHawk, and I hope that they are successful, but I started my build knowing quite well that they may not have something on the market by the time I was ready for it. Initially, their engine price was comparable, weight was comparable, and the fuel flow was lower (with better future availability), and speed potential at altitude is higher. But now that they're quoting a $62,000 firewall forward price (minus prop), that's the final nail in the coffin for me. I like the idea of direct drive and no valvetrain- it SEEMS it should be VERY reliable, but only time will tell, and at $62k, I think it's going to be a long time before there's a significant number in the field:(
 
TCONROY said:
As someone who is traditionally not a big fan of alternative engines, maybe because of ignorance and some experience with an Egg., let me ask this. What is the downside of installing a traditional Lycoming?
Click to expand...

A number of things really:

1. The fuel system isn't hydraulically correct. The auto market went to tank mounted pusher pumps long ago and we haven't had a lick of problems with vapor lock since.

2. They are wildly inefficient. Static timing a 540 cubic inch engine to get 260 HP on 100 octane fuel isn't that great when it would be trivial to make more HP on an engine half the size using 93 octane if it was water cooled and could rev.

3. The size of the engine combined with the thermal expansion causes cracks and other things to happen over time. Some engines are worse than others.

4. A liquid cooled engine doesn't have to deal with a huge temp delta meaning that the machined parts have WAY tighter tolerances which results in better wear.

5. A liquid cooled engine is far better for winter operation since you get a real heater, and you can use a freeze plug heater to prewarm the engine. Plug it in like you car, start it up and your good to go.

6. The lycoming injection system is great in that it doesn't require electricity, but hot starts are a pain because of vapor lock. High pressure fuel injection is far better.

7. Liquid cooled engines can be run on the ground without fear of cooling if they are designed correctly, Also, there is no worry about shock cooling the engine.

8. Playing with the cowl flaps, mixture, climb speed and other things to manage cyl temps wouldn't be a factor on a liquid cooled engine.

There are more but in a nutshell, the difference between a liquid cooled and air cooled engine is pretty huge. Look at any industry where there are both liquid and air cooled engines and you will find that the performance and reliability are tremendously better for the liquid engines. Comparing a lycoming to a modern auto conversion is like comparing a VW bug engine to a 4cyl honda.

All these things said, I bought a lycoming. Here is why:

1. I couldn't find a gearbox that correctly dealt with vibration that was well proven. Designing a gearbox is extremely difficult to do. Those that don't know exactly what the resonance rpm is with a given engine and prop combo didn't do it correctly. Saying that you have bushings, clutches, couplers, or whatever doesn't cut it. EVERYTHING vibrates and has a resonance frequency, and if you operate in that range, then it will come apart sooner or later.

Also, saying that the gearbox has 2000 hours on it doesn't mean anything if you don't know where it resonates at. One guy could fly it around at 2620rpm for decades, and the next guy could fly it at 1721rpm for 2 hours and have it fail.

2. Nobody has a good package that has extensive testing on a specific prop, gearbox, and engine. Many test the engine, gearbox, and prop separately which doesn't make sense. Most PSRU vendors say you can run any prop and engine you want as long as it bolts up, which is bogus. Egg probably tests the combo more than anyone else, and he has his fair share of PSRU failures as well.

3. The prop choices stink. I want a real hydraulic constant speed. I think I can run this on a geared drives PSRU, but that is a heavy setup with the v8, and from what I understand the subaru version wasn't tested on a subaru, rather an adapter that was bolted to a v8. Even then, I want to know the vibration characteristics of the prop, engine, and PSRU as a unit. When I emailed geared drives, I was told that it doesn't vibrate, which is wrong.

4. There aren't that many options for fuel system controllers that have redundancy. I know that Ross's units are reliable, and that adding the fault tolerance would likely add more points of failure, but it does make it tough to sell to an airplane guy that is used to having redundancy in this area.

At the end of the day it really came down to the PSRU. If you go look at those that take an engineering approach to the PSRU (EPI) then you will see that it's not trivial to build one of these and that for small engines it is usually cost and weight prohibitive. It seems that those that are cranking out smaller PSRU units are ignoring or ignorant of the vibration problems.

On the other hand, the lycoming is such a 50's way of doing things that has it's own problems.

What I would really love is a 300 cubic inch 6 cyl rotax. If they can make a 82.5ci engine produce 100hp on 87 octane, then imagine what they could do with 300ci. I also like their water cooled heads, air cooled cyl, and oil cooled case design. It makes the cooling system much smaller while keeping most of the benefits to liquid cooling.

It's unfortunate that the exchange rate (taxes though inflation) has this engine over $26k now. With the level of spending our government has, I suspect it will only get worse.

schu
 
Demonstrated reliability

Reliability is number one for me, and the reliability needs to be demonstrated. I would want to see a history of reliability on a number of airframes with greater than 500 hours of trouble-free operation without the need for significant upgrades or modifications to make it work.

I don't want to have any part in an alternative engine experiment. I've made about 60 off-field landings in sailplanes, and have learned enough to know that I want to avoid that risk in airplanes as much as possible.

Of course, the weight and horsepower must be approprate for the aircraft being considered, there needs to be at least one compelling advantage over a Lycoming, and the price should be reasonable.
 
Last edited:
I'd be curious how a long-stroke all aluminum small block v8 would do in direct drive. An LS7 has a longer stroke than an O-320 (4" - so mean piston speeds should be reasonable at airplane rpms and I think a 4.3" stroke crank is available) and in car form makes 230+hp at 2800rpm. It stands to reason that if it were tuned specifically to run at its best between say 2200-3000rpm that you could boost that figure substantially. IIRC all-up the LS7 weighs just under 400lbs. Not a slam dunk by any means, but could potentially compete with an IO-540 if it were all setup. The R&D to tune the engine for optimal constant low-rpm efficiency would not be insignificant. The electronic aspects are also significant - I suspect that a major downfall for many auto-conversions are ECU's programed designed for automotive use. Developing the programing to optimize for aircraft use would also be very intensive I'd think.

Another as of yet unexplored (to my limited knowledge) alternative option might be adapting outboard boat motor powerheads. Some are very sophisticated and they tend to be fairly compact and light as well as operation at continuous high-power settings. Something like yamaha's 300hp, 3.3L direct injection 2-stroke V6 might make an interesting option. It would almost certainly need gear reduction to fly an RV, but I suspect that the starting point may be sufficiently light and compact to allow the reduction without becoming too heavy.
 
Last edited:
Two main issues

Bill and Schu said everything I would have said. In review of all data, there is nothing a suby package offers as an advantage. NOTHING.

Reliability and a solid company are the main issues for me. That reliability must be based thousands of hours, not hundreds.

What I'd really like to see is a small turbine for this sized plane. Now that would be great.
 
testing and engineering

first of all,
i'd like to point out that i'm among the most technology-friendly change-is-good minded people out there.
however with a lot of due diligence and making sure that the change is for the better... so, please don't put me in the conservative "do it like it's always been done" corner.

to make a long story short, i no longer see attractive and feasible alternatives to a lycoming / clone (with fuel injection and electronic ignition) for the RV application anytime in the near future.
in fact, i would go as far as claiming that if we ever install an alternative it will probably be an electric engine with whatever power generation/storage technology that could be available at the time.

i've been following the experimental (and engine) scene since about 2000, which makes it almost 10 years. and in that time, many projects have come and gone, and very few actually made it into the air. of these, NOT ONE had an overall / convincing advantage to the lycosaurus. we've closely evaluated the egg subaru offerings, talked a quite a bit with mistral (rotary) and have actual operating experience with the certified thielert centurion 135 jet-a1 turbodiesels and flown some rotax. deltahawk showed such a bad attitude at osh that they won't make it far other than maybe in a few military drones IMHO.

rotaxes are unfortunately out because they're too weak for the high perfomance RV's. also it's notable that there were big names (honda and rotax/bombardier) working on projects in the rv power class that never made it beyond initial steps.

thielert, despite lots of engineering and even certification has/had more than teething troubles which still linger. overweight, underperforming and expensive parts that until recently only went to 300hrs tbo (vs the promised 1000+hrs). besides, they never catered to experimentals, had poor business practices and went bancrupt once. yet it's what i would consider the most mature "alternative" engine in the field. the problems are well known and under control (with parts-tbo) and overall reliability, field experience, fuel consumption and simplified control are certainly acceptable or even somewhat better than with lycomings.

mistral has an interesting project in the works, and on the positive note takes a very thorough, well tested and engineered approach. also there is a lot of potential in the operation / maintenance / weight/power ratio areas.
however, over all the years, only a handful have flown so far and fuel consumption apparently doesn't hold what they were hoping for and the while being expensive for the buyer, the company had to slow development for financial reasons...

finally, the egg subaru conversions approached the problem from the other side. trial and error all the way with the user base as the guinea pigs and R&D dept. and i have to admit, he got pretty far that way with a number of them flying, a number of evolutionary steps and certainly many lessons learned along the way... intermediate result so far: heavier, more expensive, less performance, cooling issues requiring cowling mods etc..., psru mandatory recalls that the user has to pay for etc. etc... the issues have been beaten to death (as in another thread noted) and i would actually commend egg for even getting so far! quite an achievement compared to other projects that never even took off...

many others have tried and so far failed (unfortunately, would love to have true alternatives/competition). so the first question you should ask yourself is: what can you do different/better than the others that boost your chances for success?!

so, to get back to your question regarding marketing of alternatives:
- solid testing and engineering
- baseline lycoming/clone has got to be the benchmark for performance/weight
- fuel consumption, maintenance and simplified operation (start, single lever control etc...) being the main selling points.
- not more expensive than a lycoming (total cost = purchase, fuel, maintenance etc...)

my opinion:
the most promising approach for now is to perfect the lycoming base as it has proven itself over many years and with many failures/little success from competing designs. PMAG ignition, ECI fuel injection/horizontal sump, light speed, silverhawk etc... are all good examples how the lycoming base is being improved only widening the gap to the nextbest alternative.

sorry that it got a bit long ;-)

rgds, bernie
 
BikePilot said:
I'd be curious how a long-stroke all aluminum small block v8 would do in direct drive. An LS7 has a longer stroke than an O-320 (4" - so mean piston speeds should be reasonable at airplane rpms and I think a 4.3" stroke crank is available) and in car form makes 230+hp at 2800rpm. It stands to reason that if it were tuned specifically to run at its best between say 2200-3000rpm that you could boost that figure substantially. IIRC all-up the LS7 weighs just under 400lbs. Not a slam dunk by any means, but could potentially compete with an IO-540 if it were all setup. The R&D to tune the engine for optimal constant low-rpm efficiency would not be insignificant. The electronic aspects are also significant - I suspect that a major downfall for many auto-conversions are ECU's programed designed for automotive use. Developing the programing to optimize for aircraft use would also be very intensive I'd think.
Click to expand...

The LS7 at 3,000 rpms makes about 240-250 hp. Chances are you would have to use a four blade prop to get a little more power out of the engine. I have a very reliable ECU in my plane that could easily run the LS7. But it would be a somewhat suitable option for the RV-10. Could be built for under $20,000.
 
Last edited:
Belted?

A lot info about the egg, but what about these guys-
http://www.beltedair.com/
At least you get rid of the gear box-to a big belt.

But I would agree with all the other issues as listed above.
The only gain is at overhaul time- the engine cost of parts are a fraction of Lyc parts.

I've been involved with a friends Kitfox conversion from a rotax to a EA-81 suby.
What an "Experimental" learning experience:D. From large radiator to larger!- then experiments with the radiator shroud- then a custom glassed up cowl, etc, etc. That was fun, but I would rather spend more time flying.
 
Last edited:
TSwezey said:
The LS7 at 3,000 rpms makes about 240-250 hp. Chances are you would have to use a four blade prop to get a little more power out of the engine. I have a very reliable ECU in my plane that could easily run the LS7. But it would be a somewhat suitable option for the RV-10. Could be built for under $20,000.
Click to expand...


That makes sense. Its not so much the reliability of the ECU that I'd worry about so much as the programming parameters. I'd imagine that optimizing for flight would be very different from optimizing for car use (where epa regs are an issue as well). I also suspect that quite a lot more power could be developed at 3k or less rpm if the engine itself were tuned for it (cam, valve size, porting, intake tract, exhaust headers, etc). Given the huge power it makes at 7k rpm, surely significant low-rpm power has been sacrificed. I'm a very long way off from building but do very much enjoy thinking about these things. Thanks for indulging me!
 
Guys, let's keep this thread focused on what would get you to buy an alt engine, not the merits of one particular engine package, lest we get back into the same old discussions.

Thanks
 
"Nuff Said"

f1rocket said:
It's really a simple equation. It has to have the same reliability as a Lycoming but cost less to acquire and maintain. No one is going to pay more for an alternative at double the reliability because the current reliability is sufficient. And only a few will spend less for less reliability because the risk equation doesn't make sense.

In essence, I want to spend less and not pay with my life for doing so.
Click to expand...

This is the BEST post on the subject I have ever read. I agree with Randy.
 
Many years ago, when I started learning to be an engineer, I was taught that airplanes are generally designed around particular engines, or at least specific engine parameters, such as weight, power output, and specific fuel flow. If you change any of these, you are going to be struggling with an airframe that is off its "design point", and will almost always lose in one area what you gain in another (Go faster, lose range for instance). In general terms, I don't care what the nameplate says on the engine, or if it runs on Avgas, Diesel, Jet A or squirrel feed.....if it matches the airframe, then I look at other parameters, such as reliability and cost.

A long way of saying that I am open to any new engine, but since the RV was base-lined with a Lycoming, I have to start with that as a benchmark. I have top get as least as much power, reliability, and life out of any alternative as I would with a Lyclone - and it shouldn't cost any more. Improve any of those parameters (and prove it with testing), and I'm all ears.

Paul
 
N941WR said:
Guys, let's keep this thread focused on what would get you to buy an alt engine, not the merits of one particular engine package, lest we get back into the same old discussions.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Cost, period (assuming the same reliability as a Lycoming).

The only thing wrong with a Lycosarus is the price. $20K+ for a new 150HP engine is simply obscene and does not correlate to the price per pound of machinery of any other product in my home or life

My entire Toyota only cost $16,000 and it has an engine PLUS a transmission, suspension, body, interior, air conditioner, power windows, cruise control, etc., etc.

Heck, I'd be happy with a $10,000 Lycoming clone made in China.

Yes, I know there are inescapable economic reasons why Lycomings are so expensive. But I don't have to like it.
 
I am waiting for a briggs and straton for $400 that ace hardware can overhaul for $100. Seriously, to me its about someone's willingness to tinker. The challenge of making a auto converion work is very tempting. There are many who have done it and I applaud them. I just want to fly. If I build another plane I am definately going to consider the alternatives. But its not about being completely reliable because nothing is one hundred percent. Its about the perseverance to make it work.
 
I find it hilarious, but slightly sad that people want something new and exciting in the engine market that costs less than an existing Lycoming.

Well, back in the real world the driver for low prices is volume, so anyone competing with a Lycoming that's been around for more than half a century isn't going to have that for a long time

Therefore, new things, exciting things, better things, will cost more money, until volume sales are established (or at least predicted with some certainty)

As an aside, why would you start a business to make a technology product cheaper? The only people who do that are the me-too's who copy other peoples ideas and even then, the only way it's possible is to create volume, which experimental aviation really doesn't have.
 
Andy_RR said:
I find it hilarious, but slightly sad that people want something new and exciting in the engine market that costs less than an existing Lycoming.

Well, back in the real world the driver for low prices is volume, so anyone competing with a Lycoming that's been around for more than half a century isn't going to have that for a long time

Therefore, new things, exciting things, better things, will cost more money, until volume sales are established (or at least predicted with some certainty)

As an aside, why would you start a business to make a technology product cheaper? The only people who do that are the me-too's who copy other peoples ideas and even then, the only way it's possible is to create volume, which experimental aviation really doesn't have.
Click to expand...

It's precisely because of the volume problem that I think the only real chance any alternative engine has is to be based on a largely unmodified automotive engine.
 
I think for me the major attraction to alternative engines (well, thinking about them anyway) is that I've liked to tinker with engines since I built up a YZ80 bike from parts when I was 11yrs old in my mom's laundry room. I also quite like the idea of a motor with a larger power reserve. I realize its not easy or perhaps possible to achieve, but how great would it be if you had a 300hp motor the size and weight of an O-320 that you'd then run at 40% power most of the time (or something along those lines). I realize that there is resistance to building such that its easy to break VNE, but I'm used to riding bikes that'll go 160mph on roads with 55mph speed limits... just a different frame of mind I think.

JHines said:
Yes, I know there are inescapable economic reasons why Lycomings are so expensive. But I don't have to like it.
Click to expand...

Is there a common wisdom on what these are? I'd imagine that production volume is pretty low compared to some automotive engines but still that doesn't seem enough to fully explain it (anyone know how many 360's are made per year?). Has lyc been spending a ton on defending law suits (none have made it into any of my case books for what that's worth)? Surely R&D isn't too much given the general stability of design over the better part of the past century.

The design is simple enough in concept, but I wonder if major parts are not engineered for efficiency of production. If a company without the path dependencies of lyc were to build a simple, air cooled aircraft engine from a clean slate could the same be achieved for less costs by paying more attention to simplifying production? I guess Jabiru did this with smaller engines to some extent and they aren't cheap (though perhaps better than a comparable IO-240).
 
Part of the problem in marketing alternative engines is that the vendors try to convince their customers that the package is truly a bolt on a go type of thing when in fact there is much more development required in most cases.

If they would be more truthful and market to those people with more of an aptitude and desire to make an alternative engine work, we would not see as much negative attitude about them.

Much of the disappointment and anger toward alternative engine development can be tracked back to the customers expectations that were based on what they were told before they put up there hard earned cash.

If vendors would just be up front about the fact that the customers are actually doing the testing of the products being sold, there would probably be fewer, but happier customers using them.
 
Newbie

I have been looking at the Subaru E6 for my RV 9A and have come to decision to stay with a Lycoming. I based this on looking at a lot of posting from some very unhappy people from this group. I tryed to look at both sides of an issue and weigh things out. I believe I am doing the right thing! What do you guys think?

Ray Brunet
 
Last edited:
Ray'SRV9APROJECT said:
Newbie

I have been looking at the Subaru E6 for my RV 9A and have come to decision to stay with a Lycoming. I based this on looking at a lot of posting from some very unhappy people from this group. I tryed to look at both sides of an issue and weigh things out. I believe I am doing the right thing! What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Best decision you could ever make............in regards to building a Van's RV!
Now go ahead and buy a constant speed prop too!

L.Adamson --- RV6A/Lyc 0360/ Hartzell CS
 
The main driver for me to look at an alternative engine was to get away from 100LL. That means either mogas, or diesel. The diesel is intriguing but is just not a market-ready option at this time. For mogas I could either run a convert, or a Lyclone with 8.7:1 pistons. I chose the Lyclone (probably ECI) route because of a much lower learning curve and requirement for modification to do the install.
 
I think some are confusing longevity and reliability. I'd have no issue with an engine that run 500hrs. reliably if it's priced right.

If the price, reliability (not longevity), and performance equation is better than "standard" engine, I'd switch in a heartbeat. If alternative engines were so great, they wouldn't be alternative but the standard.
 
I'd love for an alternative engine to beat the Power/weight of a Lyc, while still being reliable. Most fail at both. I don't mind developing my own FWF, since I'm kinda decent at that stuff.
 
Ray'SRV9APROJECT said:
I based this on looking at a lot of posting from some very unhappy people from this group.
Click to expand...

Hi Ray,
That is pretty much what you will see here. Most of the guys that run Subarus are over on the Flysoob and Subenews Yahoo lists. I invite you to come on over if you want to hear some other perspectives. We have lots of people that are very happily flying with their Subarus.

-Dj
 
deej said:
Hi Ray,
That is pretty much what you will see here. Most of the guys that run Subarus are over on the Flysoob and Subenews Yahoo lists. I invite you to come on over if you want to hear some other perspectives. We have lots of people that are very happily flying with their Subarus.
Click to expand...

But first.............read this. It's a detailed description of why the owner/builder removed his expensive Egg Subie installation after just 6.8 hrs.
Lycoming/Lycoming clones don't need "support" groups & special forums dedicated to keeping the firewall forward partially flyable. Scroll down to the article.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2009/4-2009-RVator.pdf

I'm repeating this again................just because a good friend and fellow builder went through the exact same problems listed in this article. Both our aircraft were inspected and passed on the same weekend. By the time my plane had 107 hrs (one years time), his had only 19............due to serious cooling problems, modifications, and replacement of an expensive gearbox unit.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Once again, we seem to be unable to be a welcoming community for folks who actually understand the pros and cons and choose to experiment with their eyes open.

It's unfortunate that original thinkers get chased away from VAF. I hope that they will come back!

Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top