Anti-Alternative-Engine Forum?

[Rotary10-RV]

I think Doug et all should rename this forum what it is, the Anti-Alternative-Engine Forum. Most of the posts here are from Lyc drivers telling all the alternative guys what idiots they are or how they are detracting from their flying, perception, or peace-of-mind (pick one). It amazes me how some of these guys appoint themselves the alternative thought police. If an alternative engine provider has 300 satisfied customers and 5 dissatisfied ones there must be some sort of alterior motive. (ignoring the fact that bad press hurts them too) The attitude is sad.
Bill Jepson

 

[rv6ejguy]

I think Doug et all should rename this forum what it is, the Anti-Alternative-Engine Forum. Most of the posts here are from Lyc drivers telling all the alternative guys what idiots they are or how they are detracting from their flying, perception, or peace-of-mind (pick one). It amazes me how some of these guys appoint themselves the alternative thought police. If an alternative engine provider has 300 satisfied customers and 5 dissatisfied ones there must be some sort of alterior motive. (ignoring the fact that bad press hurts them too) The attitude is sad.
Bill Jepson

Aw heck, were are used to it. There are 10,000+ members on VAF so if 5 vocal ones hack at us all the time, that ain't bad I figure. There is always a lot of entertainment value for everyone and maybe all these posts actually do some good by making people think a bit.

Can't blame most for liking their Lycs. They do the job too and are the recommended engine for RVs. It's basically a Ford vs. Chevy thing.

Anyway we get all the attention and it makes us feel special. The shuttle driver in Idaho Falls thought we were pulling her leg that my RV had a car engine in it and flew all the way from Canada to Reno and back last year. Some sort of weird Canadian humor. I also remember a very attractive lady and her daughter at a fly-in a couple years ago wanting to sit in the "pretty yellow airplane with the car engine in it". They just weren't interested in any of the Lycoming ones. Some people just have very good taste.

 

[N395V]

It's a lot better than it used to be.

 

[TSwezey]

Remember the good old days of educating George? The purpose of experimentals is to experiment. I enjoy it. If you don't want to experiment go strap on a lyco but don't come crying to me when you can't get fuel in future for your plane.

 

[airguy]

Remember the good old days of educating George?

I got a good laugh out of that one, I do remember those days. I can't chuckle too much though, I've been taken to task myself on here a few times for some crazy ideas. I would like to think I've matured a bit since then with regard to engineering flight systems...

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Neither Fish Or Fowl

Rotax 912 drivers are used to it. They're not "traditional" engines, and are looked upon with great skepticism by the Lyclone crowd. However, they aren't "alternative" engines either since we can basically order a complete engine in a box, and they aren't really accepted by the "alternative" crowd.

So, instead, we focus on with flying our airplanes, regardless of whether some others think they sound like chainsaws, because in reality, most people comment on how quiet the 912 is....

I'd say build what you want and don't sweat what other people think about it. There are other things to worry about, like whether to build a slider or tip-up, tailwheel or nosegear ...

TODR

 

[SteinAir]

Remember the good old days of educating George? The purpose of experimentals is to experiment. I enjoy it. If you don't want to experiment go strap on a lyco but don't come crying to me when you can't get fuel in future for your plane.

Ha! I remember those days and never got one of the coveted neon "I'm not GMCjetpilot" T-Shirts at OSH!

I won't even get in the middle of the rest of the debate!

Cheers,
Stein

 

[N395V]

I won't even get in the middle of the rest of the debate!

Stein,

You realize that you and I are 2 of only a few who have the only true traditional aircraft engines, don't you?

 

[SteinAir]

Stein,

You realize that you and I are 2 of only a few who have the only true traditional aircraft engines, don't you?

You're right about that, even though yours is a Wright I won't hold that against you - hehehe!

Cheers,
Stein

PS - I guess It's typical "yours is bigger than mine" syndrome!

 

[Mike S]

So, are you round engine guys forgetting the "Flyer" had a 4cyl inline, water cooled engine???

And, I suspect an investigation of the chain drive to the props just might reveal a PSRU.

 

[Danny7]

Rotax 912 drivers are used to it. They're not "traditional" engines, and are looked upon with great skepticism by the Lyclone crowd. However, they aren't "alternative" engines either since we can basically order a complete engine in a box, and they aren't really accepted by the "alternative" crowd.

So, instead, we focus on with flying our airplanes, regardless of whether some others think they sound like chainsaws, because in reality, most people comment on how quiet the 912 is....

I'd say build what you want and don't sweat what other people think about it. There are other things to worry about, like whether to build a slider or tip-up, tailwheel or nosegear ...

TODR

yeah, how many 912/914's are in service?

 

[SteinAir]

So, are you round engine guys forgetting the "Flyer" had a 4cyl inline, water cooled engine???

And, I suspect an investigation of the chain drive to the props just might reveal a PSRU.

Ha! Not at all....after all many round engines have their own PSRU (planetary) drive, and most of them are supercharged....in fact mine is "super" supercharged because it has a bigger blower in it than factory - ooops....probably shouldn't have said that! Add to that the fact that our crankshafts are bolted together, have no traditional camshaft, only have one main rod bearing, one main crank journal and it starts to sound pretty weird, eh?!? There is one cool thing most of the engines have on the accessory case though - that being the "gun synchronizer" pad.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[Geico266]

yeah, how many 912/914's are in service?

Over 24,000 in 21 years of production.

In fact, there are more Rotax engines flying world wide than any other engine. The 914 is the engine of choice in the US Predator program accumulating over 300,000+ hours in the Iraq war theater alone.

 

[Vlad]

Thread sounds provocative needs at least 10 pages to prove it. I know somebody who is very interested in car engine. I translated him every bit of VAF discussion on the subject. Thanks God he doesn't know English

 

[Geico266]

Thread sounds provocative needs at least 10 pages to prove it. I know somebody who is very interested in car engine. I translated him every bit of VAF discussion on the subject. Thanks God he doesn't know English

I knew it! Vlad is a Russian spy!

 

[SteinAir]

Over 24,000 in 21 years.

In fact, there are more Rotax engines flying world wide than any other engine.

Hi Larry,

Are you sure about that, out of 320,000+ Lyco's built, a large number of them are still certainly flying....

Only about 20,000 more to go and they'll be close to the number of R985's radials produced by P&W...who also made well over 120,000 R2800's. The Russians also made a huge pile of the M14 variant engines as well. If I recall my facts correctly, I think the M14 holds the glorious record to which you're attempting to credit to rotax.

It also wasn't too long ago that GE delivered their 18,000th CFM56 (but they have made many, many more jets as have P&W too). There are even more PT6's out there too.

Anyway, not saying anything good or bad about the rotax, just that the numbers are what they are....

Cheers,
Stein

 

[Gary 40274]

LYC driver

OK I know up front I am going to get flamed, but here goes. My issue with some of the folks that try alternitive engines is that they do not do the required engineering and testing before they market a product, endanger their own life or take other folks up for a ride and endanger them.

I think it would be great if we could find an economical alternitive to the Lycosauris. So far we have had some success, Rotax for one is now getting TBO's up closer to the certified engines. Subbi's seem to a reliable engine, but the reduction unit is not yet bullet proof. It is great that there may be other options.

The fact is that most alternitive engines have their max power at too high an RPM for propeller efficiency. It seems to me that it might be smart to design the engine to run at the appropriate RPM. Another issue is that internal combustion engines have a power pulse that is tough on reduction units and it has been tough to overcome those inherent issues.

Some folks take short cuts and think that its wise and sane to just go and try something without any detailed engineering. That is just asking for trouble. It is tough enough to solve all the problems of alternitive engines without trying to take short cuts and loosing fine people.

My hat goes off to those willing to invest the time $$ and effort to find another way. Research however takes lots of time and effort. I have often wondered if the word research was born because the "search" didn't solve the problem so you had to "research".

Keep up pushing the envelope, but please do it safely!

Gary Specketer
Tech Counselor

 

[Geico266]

Hi Larry,

Are you sure about that, out of 320,000+ Lyco's built, a large number of them are still certainly flying....


Cheers,
Stein

I'm not sure how Rotax is counting them, maybe flying at any one time? But the fact came from Eric Tucker, Mr.Rotax. He states these facts during his seminars. Rotax has made some 250,000+ aircraft engines since the 70's.

 

[Jconard]

I don't think most people here are anti experimentation or alternative engine per se.

What I objected to is the constant, talking points recitation wherein unsubstantiated claims of certain "package" manufacturers were blindly repeated.

Can Ross put together a package that will fly pretty well....sure. Could Dan??

In the same sentence on the other thread Ross said that Dan was impatiently wanting an UNREADY package, AND that Jan was excited to get it to Oshkosh to sell some more....Heck by the time it was flying it didn;t even have a prop control...it had the equivalent of a flap switch....

It is the marketing of half baked, and grossly misrepresented packages to unsuspecting masses, by folks with a financial interest that bothers me.

I have said many times that the day that I can get an equally fast package, on the same fuel, for less cost, and a couple hundred have made 2,000 hours, I will do it too.

But each system and control in a piston airplane power system has been refined and thought out for decades to minimise load, and standardize emergency response. For example...in an emergency go-around its all levers forward. A RV-9 was directly lost because the Jan electronic prop controller would not operate that way, and I suspect that the funky controller in Dan's plane created all sorts of wierd scenarios for him.

If you are going to do something new, you must start all over and consider each operation, at each flight phase, and design simplicity and intuitive control into the system.

Hundreds of people have relied on representations by one or more vendors in particular. These vendors hold themselves out to the public as experts, and they are trusted to be experts. Pilots rely on their claims to have tested and validated the products they sell, and to have designed them and tested them to be as reliable as aviation equipment. Time and again the representations turn out to be outright falsification....thankfully the only thing most people loose is many thousands of dollars.

In the end there were two people in Dan's plane when much of his illegal flight occured...and the copilot was a self proclaimed expert, on whose representations Dan relied at every step. Including the representation that the plane was ready to go and the engine package ready to leave Florida...at the time it had a non tested turbo, a non functioning prop controller, and without having ever perofrmed an accurate W&B....Heck the performance numbers from the Florida period were used to brag on a website (and claim superior performance in an effort to sell packages) without disclosing to the public that there was a catastrophic failure of the turbocharger on that very flight. When questioned on this forum by this author the failure was denied.

In sum there is no anti-alternative bias, there is a propaganda bias. That is to say, I can't stand propaganda.


P.S. I would love a radial...

 

[rv6ejguy]

GMC T-shirts????

Ha! I remember those days and never got one of the coveted neon "I'm not GMCjetpilot" T-Shirts at OSH!

I won't even get in the middle of the rest of the debate!

Cheers,
Stein

Stein, Are you pulling our collective legs here? Did these T-shirts actually exist? Why wasn't I informed?

On to the rest of the discussion. Yes, well there have been far more geared aero engines built than direct drive engines since the world began so it can be done reliably. What is needed today is some solid applied engineering and testing to make bolt on gearboxes as reliable as the integrated ones from years past. Fortunately we have Autoflight in NZ doing just that. These are the ones to have in the under 300hp range IMO. We also look forward to what Bud Warren is doing in the US and there is another box under development in the US NW that is being developed with hydraulic prop governor for up to 400hp. We have RWS for the Wankel guys with a good track record on gearboxes.

The engine vendors who have been selling snake oil have had their just rewards in my view and shot themselves in the foot. Too many broken promises, delays and poor service to ever come back in a big way. We'll have to look at new companies again like Geared and MPS. They seem to have the mindset to do it right.

I'm encouraged with companies like Titan Aircraft who are working with good people to perfect the Suzuki and Honda V6 engine packages for the T51 replica with new gearboxes. The Rotax engines are just too much money now and are a little short on performance and realism. The Suzuki is a factory approved engine for this airframe and I think the Honda will be soon as well. This is the best way to go- getting an airframer on board to help develop alternate engine packages. In the case of the T51, the Lycoming engines just don't fit and the LOM has not caught on much over here.

I've said this many times before though, never take vendors claims at face value and never be the first to plunk down money with an unsecured deposit. Hundreds have been burned in the past. Wait a bit, talk to customers flying the stuff and wait some more. You want to hear good things about performance, reliability, cost and customer service before you'd want to switch from a Lycoming in most cases. Even the best companies may have a few bugs to work out after release (just like Lycoming come to think of it).

Not defending any vendors here but to set a couple things straight here, it was a supercharger dump valve controller which didn't on the one incident, not a prop controller. The turbo was lost due to a $5 check valve failure on the oil supply line to the turbo. It simply seized from lack of oil. Since changed I understand. R&D often lunches some components in testing and most vendors are not keen on disclosing these facts. I'd be the first to agree that most vendors have rushed products to market far before there were adequately tested. They are now paying the price for these mistakes and so are their customers unfortunately.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with a variable pitch prop setup sans C/S controller. I use one and hundreds of others do every day. Many MT electric C/S owners also use manual mode for takeoff. Works just fine. You hydraulic prop guys just can't seem to get your heads wrapped around that one.

So I guess we look to the future and also to some of the successful DIY conversions flying and there are lots of those. Copy what works and don't stray too far outside the proven box on systems is my advice.

 

[MNForrest]

All about it

OK - how about converting a high output outboard motor? Take an Evinrude 250HP E-tec for example. Two stroke. Tons of torque. Light weight to power ratio. Built to run at sustained RPM's around 4,000-4,500 producing full power the whole time. Oil injected. Will run inverted all day. Compact. Reliable. Self contained.

Any takers? I can get you a brand new engine for about $12,000. Full warranty and all! What you do with it after delivery is up to you!

Forrest

 

[frankh]

Not quite

When a homebuilt airplane goes down it jacks up everybody's insurance rates and does the perception that "homebuilt airplanes are dangerous" no good at all.

Remember North Las Vegas trying to ban experimantals?

We owe it to the collective good to keep ourselves safe so I personally have a bit of a hard time with the "Hey I can do what I WANT in aviation", even though it does fit with my moderate republican belief system.

There is no doubt that there are a LOT of half baked auto conversions out there..i had one that tried to kill me three times until I (yes me the builder) re-engineered the cylinder heads to make the package safe...With no responsibility taken by the manufacturer.

Now when it was fixed it was a quite delightful engine but getting there was not fun but I am not opposed to auto conversions per se'e

Now the lYc is no doubt the "best available now" engine, there are a few upgrades that are nice to bring it out of the 1940's (electronic igntions and losing the mechanical fuel pump) but it is without question a very reliable, fuel efficient and capable of running on any fuel that an auto engine can.

Thats hard to beat but I sure wouldn't want to stop auto converters trying..as long as thy don't go killing themselves.

Farnk

 

[Kyle Boatright]

No need for an anti-anything forum.

That said, there are those of us who feel the need to provide the reality check that there is no free lunch and you shouldn't go bolting a homebrewed whizz-bang 2000 to the front of your RV unless you are prepared for a long development cycle. By the time you eventually have an engine/gearbox/prop combo with respectable performance and reliability, you'll likely have huge investments in time, frustration, and possibly money.

Many builders (and not just RV guys) have invested their hearts and souls into alternative engines only to have their best efforts dashed.

 

[Danny7]

OK - how about converting a high output outboard motor? Take an Evinrude 250HP E-tec for example. Two stroke. Tons of torque. Light weight to power ratio. Built to run at sustained RPM's around 4,000-4,500 producing full power the whole time. Oil injected. Will run inverted all day. Compact. Reliable. Self contained.

Any takers? I can get you a brand new engine for about $12,000. Full warranty and all! What you do with it after delivery is up to you!

Forrest

I'd stick it back in a boat, where it has an unlimited amount of water to do the cooling. no fun to try and change the cooling from pure water cooled to water/ air.

 

[John Clark]

Time and money...

No need for an anti-anything forum.

That said, there are those of us who feel the need to provide the reality check that there is no free lunch and you shouldn't go bolting a homebrewed whizz-bang 2000 to the front of your RV unless you are prepared for a long development cycle. By the time you eventually have an engine/gearbox/prop combo with respectable performance and reliability, you'll likely have huge investments in time, frustration, and possibly money.

Many builders (and not just RV guys) have invested their hearts and souls into alternative engines only to have their best efforts dashed.

Well stated Kyle. We shouldn't be anti-development, but sometimes I can't help but offer up a little experience or history on this subject. Given enough time and money, you could power an airplane with almost anything. Time and money being the key. We have to admit that most of us on this forum aren't really flying "experimental" airplanes, we are flying kit-built airplanes with nearly certified powerplants. The experimental moniker coming from the FAA regulations, not the reality of the device. I am guilty as charged, and I'm very happy with the results.

John Clark
EAA Flight Advisor
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[N395V]

Are you pulling our collective legs here? Did these T-shirts actually exist? Why wasn't I informed?

I think there was only one and somebody actually was wearing it at OSH last year or the year before.

You weren't informed because we all thought it was you.

 

[John Clark]

Cool water...

I'd stick it back in a boat, where it has an unlimited amount of water to do the cooling. no fun to try and change the cooling from pure water cooled to water/ air.

Some years ago a friend of mine built an SCCA sports racer powered by a 6 cylinder Mercury outboard. The thing went like stink, for a few minutes. The cooling issue was never cured, the last version had a huge aluminum radiator. As Danny7 said, you need at least a lake to provide a supply of cool water.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[flion]

I pretty much agree with Kyle. That said, cut us 'Lycoming' guys a bit of a break; my engine is experimental, built by myself (albeit at the Superior shop) and my ignition is anything but traditional. Also, I appreciate the efforts of the other non-traditionalists out there, even if it's not for me. I've helped a friend with his Lancair Propjet, which uses a Walters engine (definitely not a 'traditional' US engine and the Propjet itself is a IV-P modified for a turboprop) and the result has been very satisfactory. There have also been a number of successful alternative-powered RVs. Heck, putting aside engines for a moment, if a certain person hadn't felt like experimenting with his Playboy, there wouldn't even be such a thing as an RV and then there are the people who've pushed the RV envelope in other directions (the Chard -6, Bowhay's -6 on floats, and so on). I may opine that the 'Lyclones' are a more known territory, certainly easier to install, but as long as a builder knows that he's getting into unknown territory I don't see a problem with alternative engine experimentation.

 

[rv6ejguy]

I pretty much agree with the consensus here. Alternate engines will involve more work and sometimes more tears too. Mine was a bear for the first year and I look back now and think how stupid I was on certain aspects.

Randy Crothers with the ultra fast 7A has spent a couple years fiddling around too, modifying, tweaking, breaking things and done some rushed landings shall we say. He's thought of giving up but once he sampled the performance, it's tempting to keep going just a bit more... Hopefully he is on the near final configuration and we can all copy his work!

 

[DanH]

Time to lighten up a tad. Let me tell you the grasshopper story.

Some years ago I built this contraption:



About 30 hours into Phase 1 found me climbing away from Craig Field at Selma. A beautiful hard blue day, helmet and goggles, a new biplane...what could be better? I was peering out across the Alabama River lowlands, picking a pasture-to-pasture flight path toward home, when a big 'ole grasshopper came flying back past the cockpit. I thought "Hmmm, look at that, a grasshopper at 1500 feet."

About 20 seconds later three more came past in formation. I thought "Huh?"

Shortly thereafter, an entire squadron of grasshoppers came past the cockpit all in a row....and the engine reved to near redline. What I thought right then is not suitable for a family forum.

Yeah, the grasshoppers were 8mm HTD belt teeth. I was now flying a custom made toothless cog belt PSRU, in a double bay biplane with more wire drag than a chain link fence. Yes, I got back to the runway. Ron Collins was flying chase with my L-4, so we jumped in it, flew home, got a new belt and tools, flew back, and spent a long, hot afternoon installing new grasshoppers.

Sometimes I'm so dumb.

 

[jrs14855]

VENEDEV

When Jurgis Kairys pulled up vertical on takeoff with the tail about ten feet off the ground the announcer said "I B-E-L-I-E-V-E in Venedev. I have seen Jurgis do this several times. I think the M14P is the second best engine ever built, close behind the Pratt and Whitney 985. I call the M14 the "Shakoi Jakoi" but in fact a good prop balance makes it very smooth. An out of balance prop will shake the fillings out of your teeth. A couple of big pluses for the M14 for acro, the oil pressure never drops even slightly regardless of what you do with the airplane. The M14 has never broken a crankshaft as far as I know.

 

[pierre smith]

The truth is.....

.....that a lot of us, me included, are just lazy. I was in a hurry to fly and the easiest and quickest way was a Lyc.

Heck, I ran a Mazda RX-7 for 25 years until it was so weak it wouldn't start without pushing it with my truck. It never failed me or broke down and was the absolutely most reliable vehicle I'd ever owned.

I wouldn't know where to start converting it to an airplane engine...see, the easy way for me is what I did.

Thanks for the engineering, guys like Ross, et al,

 

[rv6ejguy]

Pay Attention Kid

That is a great story Dan. I have a few of those "ignorance is bliss" stories myself. Fortunately we are still both here to tell them.

I had an old gunsmith/ machinist friend years back. A very, very smart and talented guy. One of his favorite sayings was "ya have to pay attention kid". Since he was older than all of his friends, everyone was a "kid". If you screwed up doing or making something it was because you were not paying attention. Simple as that. Still true to this day 30+ years later.

I was always surprised how slow I reacted to warning signs of a looming problem on various occasions looking back on the event. I finally learned if something is not normal and predictable, you land NOW because it is only going to get worse. Hindsight is such a useful tool, assuming you survive.

Here is one of my stories of slow and poor decision making during extended flight testing, (after what you call Phase 1 in the US) still sorting out occasional phantom cooling issues seemingly related to the thermostat:

It was a beautiful sunny winter day, OAT around -10C, (no grasshoppers about). The climb rate was mighty with two aboard and light fuel. We leveled off at 6500 feet (2500 AGL) over the airport. My Dad was flying and I was writing down numbers from a myriad of pressure and temperature probes. Started getting a little chilly so I opened up the heater valve fully. Ahhhh nice warm air came flooding in. Gotta like liquid cooled engines for that I thought.

A couple minutes passed. Little specks of moisture appeared on the windshield. Hmmm that's funny, it is severe clear and -10 outside. Then a slight odor of coolant started creeping in. Hmmm never done that before. All other temps in the green still but coolant suddenly up to 110C- unusual for these conditions. Ok coolant temps are falling a bit now, inlet and outlet from rads- to be expected with the heater valve open in such cold conditions. Suddenly the heater air goes stone cold. Fussy brain leaps into action finally.

I ask for control, pull the power way back and tell my Dad we've just lost all the coolant. I radio ATC and ask to come down to land but don't relay any info about our predicament, they approve a descent and steer me way out, away from the airport. Rats, I'm like number 5 and heading away from the runway. Should I declare an emergency? No we'll be fine. Oh, oh coolant temps are way low (no coolant touching the probes but the oil temp is now 110C and climbing. Not good. Should I declare an emergency now? Oil temp is 120C, power is at idle, we are coming down at almost 1000 fpm.

Ok they let us make the turn to final about 3 miles out, number 3 or so. Oil temp 125C. The engine builder in me pictures the inside of the engine, specifically the expanding pistons and exhaust valve seats. I silently pray that the bores are expanding at the same rate as the pistons. This is a long 3 miles, come on, come on. No point calling now since we are headed towards the runway anyway and just have to wait to get there. Finally touch down, do a very fast taxi back to the hangar and shut down the Sube and coast down the last decline. Pull the airplane the rest of the way into the hangar. It just reeks of coolant outside and the belly is awash in the stuff.

Once I'm down, I'm thinking how slow I was to react and how stupid I was not to at least ask for an immediate landing or declare the emergency. I never forgot the second part and asked for two immediate landings right after takeoff in the coming months with smells in the cockpit (one was a fair oil leak from a split turbo oil drain line).

The post analysis showed what likely happened. I had restricted the thermostat bypass hose down to 1/4 inch ID looking at another issue. When I popped open the heater control, the -10 coolant trapped in the core hit the 'stat and shocked it closed right now. The Subaru uses a very massive 'stat bulb so it takes a bit to warm it up. The 1/4 orifice was not allowing much coolant to hit the bulb so it just remained closed. The thing boiled over and puked out 3-4 quarts in about 120 seconds. (those little droplets on the windshield and the slight odor).

This was the third coolant loss event with the thermostat in place so out it came, bypass was plugged and it's been happy ever since. Subaru shuts off air to the heater core in the car but always circulates coolant through the core. My seemingly harmless change to their design was the root cause to all these problems. Many lessons learned the slow, hard way.

Oil analysis, compression, leakdown and visual bore inspection showed that the Sube did not seem to suffer any ill effects. 11 minutes without coolant. Pretty tough little engine but the cold conditions were probably a major factor in this. Never took it apart and oil consumption remained almost nil for the next 50 hours.

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

I'm developing my own powerplant with a lot of input from this forum and others. I want to build it and I know what I am getting into.
I'm also reading about problems that may pertain to my individual aircraft. I get upset when Mr Knowit-all tells someone here that they have no right...but I get over it. The usefull stuff can't be bought at any price. This forum and the others like it need to be available.
I'm not re-inventing the wheel here. I'm doing a unique variation on a theme, and much work has been done ahead of me. I would be foolish if I didn't pay attention to the advice freely given by those intrepid and generous builders who have gone before.
I leave out fancy interiors and heavy or expensive items that don't relate to what I'm doing, and I don't change Van's airframe, or exceed his design power limits.
I know that I will be plenty busy with my powerplant, dealing with a modified airframe would be foolish. In an experiment, change only one thing at a time.
Also: Kelly Johnson said it best: "Add lightness and simplicate"
Right now my engine runs great. I'm doing more work on the airframe, then back to the engine for better cooling, and so it goes until ....well, I guess it will never actually be done, even after it flies off the tether time.

 

[TSwezey]

You will always be tinkering with it. But I like tinkering with things.