What's new
Van's Air Force

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

General Engine for all RV's query

S

Sallcock

Member
All - has anyone looked at or actually installed one of these engines - its from a Veloce airplane web site

https://aerovolare.com/intro/

Would like to know if anyone has an opinion - it may help us considering the current delays with the Lycoming suite of engines

Thoughts ?

:)
 
First I’ve heard of this offering.
Looks very similar to the old Javolin Ford V6 belt driven drive conversions of decades ago.
 
General Engine for all RV's query AeroVolare

I just looked at their website. I do not consider this to be an alternative to a Lycoming engine. Why? How many engines are flying? How many total airborne hours have the engines accumulated? I also think it's a bit cheeky to have the background picture on the website as a radial aircraft engine.
 
Sallcock said:
All - has anyone looked at or actually installed one of these engines - its from a Veloce airplane web site

https://aerovolare.com/intro/

Would like to know if anyone has an opinion - it may help us considering the current delays with the Lycoming suite of engines

Thoughts ?

:)
Click to expand...

With the recent very vociferous discussions about RV resale values due to the other manufacturing problem, if you put in any non Lycoming engine into your RV10, it will result in a significant reduction of the resale value. I think given the high build cost of your RV, you may want to put this into consideration.
 
Last edited:
50-60% more horsepower, and yet *better* bsfc, than an O-360? Someone's grasp of physics is out to lunch here.
 
Aeromomentum?

The website has the exact same style as the one for aeromomentum.
But it appears to be Wisconsin based and not out of Florida.
They also both use Luga props from Ukraine.
So quite some similarities. I’d be curious how far the connection goes.

I’ve been thinking about an aeromomentum for my RV9 but a lot of the videos of aeromomentum powered RV12s disappeared from the internet which is odd. A little worrying when the Internet starts “forgetting” about things.
If I were OP I’d ask some questions about what the connection to aeromomentum is.

I’d be a little concerned about being able to get a Luga prop with the engine. The supply chain for that might be a little tough and I think there is quite a high domestic demand for props right now in Ukraine.
 
Weight is probably dry (no coolant), and likely doesn't include weight of water radiator (and pipes). Looks really tall and thus hard fit to RV cowls. Dual ignition? EFI redundancy?
 
Need we be reminded that the first aircraft engines where water cooled. Then we got smarter. The whole idea of dealing with radiators, pumps, hoses, etc…. isn’t appealing to me.
It also sets me back when the first introduction of an inventor is “Doctor” so and so. If you don’t work on my body, you’re not a doctor. You just have a doctorate, which can be had online. (Not to take too much away from the inventor. I’m sure he is a smart guy.)
 
Folks found out long ago that liquid cooled engines are more efficient. The aircraft industry will eventually catch on.
 
When the website talks about the "Gen V" small-block and all its lovely tech, and then shows pics of the early-80's Gen I V6, you gotta wonder just how sharp these 'engineers' are. It's quite obvious the engine shown has an ignition distributor, and is the pre-1985 style with perimeter valve cover bolts through the sheet metal valve covers. Included below is real Gen V V-6.

Capture.JPG Capture1.JPG

GM-4.3L-V-6-LV1-engine-001-720x300.jpg
 
swjohnsey said:
Folks found out long ago that liquid cooled engines are more efficient. The aircraft industry will eventually catch on.
Click to expand...

Eventually, perhaps. You can find articles dating back dozens of years of those that tried. Lots of great looking concepts , but none took off (literally).

It appears that there are quite a few still trying. Maybe there will be an adoptable one at some point but for whatever reason, there haven’t been any commercially successful unless I missed something. Some of the newer ones state how “popular” there product is, but….. where?
 
hgerhardt said:
When the website talks about the "Gen V" small-block and all its lovely tech, and then shows pics of the early-80's Gen I V6, you gotta wonder just how sharp these 'engineers' are. It's quite obvious the engine shown has an ignition distributor, and is the pre-1985 style with perimeter valve cover bolts through the sheet metal valve covers. Included below is real Gen V V-6.

View attachment 53273 View attachment 53274

View attachment 53275
Click to expand...

That PSRU design looks about as elegant as a soup sandwich! TLAR engineering at its worst!

Skylor
 
As far as I am aware, Mark Kettering from Aeromomentum is the design principle of the actual twin engine plane referenced on the website. It was also the reason why Aeromomentum decided to develop the AM20T high HP turbo engine. Therefore strange to see an alternate engine now being offered for the airplane. With a belt drive no less. Marketed by a "DR" in natural healing...
 
We're prepping an ECU for Jamie Fettig at this time for the prototype going on a test stand sometime soon. This is based on the later GM LV3.

Of course there is lots to prove here and nobody can be sure how this will all turn out. It's a tough nut to crack as we've seen historically.

It's good to see several new engine packages and gearboxes under development currently given the high cost and several year lead times on Lycoming engines now.

The first company to do this right may be able to launch a niche market. They'll need good product support to go along with a reliable and durable engine package.

As always, I discourage new startups in this field from posting product info until they at least have a prototype running and preferably flying for a few hundred hours at minimum.

This isn't as easy as it looks.
 
Last edited:
Hilarious responses!
But in all seriousness, alternative engines are great for gearheads who want to spend a lot of time tinkering. But if your goal is to get in the air sooner, stick with the tried and true. Even those that have a proven track record are almost certain to take you longer than waiting however many months for a Lyc. Heck just making a cowl fit (or more likely, having to design / build one from scratch) for one of these few-offs can be a many months project.
 
rv6n6r said:
Hilarious responses!
But in all seriousness, alternative engines are great for gearheads who want to spend a lot of time tinkering. But if your goal is to get in the air sooner, stick with the tried and true. Even those that have a proven track record are almost certain to take you longer than waiting however many months for a Lyc. Heck just making a cowl fit (or more likely, having to design / build one from scratch) for one of these few-offs can be a many months project.
Click to expand...

The aim is to produce something reliable and durable at a far lower cost than a Lycoming. Given the cost for Lycomings now, the price point part gets easier to meet by the month.

The wait for some new Lycomings may be up to 4 YEARS now- not months.

Fly on with your Lyc if that's your preference, let others more adventurous dare to challenge the status quo.

Just talked to one of my customers today with an auto conversion. 100 flight hours so far with no issues. A fraction of the cost of a 540 plus more power. Will see in a few hundred more hours how it's performing.
 
What's a "cylander"?

I can't believe that made it past editing and spell check; but at least there's two less of them (whatever they are).
 
rv6ejguy said:
The aim is to produce something reliable and durable at a far lower cost than a Lycoming. Given the cost for Lycomings now, the price point part gets easier to meet by the month.

The wait for some new Lycomings may be up to 4 YEARS now- not months.
Click to expand...
Latest information I have is 14 months, but you may know better than I.
That said I was only addressing that part of it, since the OP had indicated he was looking for a way to get into the air faster. Price, performance, reliability, etc. are all things worthy of debate, I'm just offering a reality check on the extra time / effort that's likely to take.
 
rv6n6r said:
Hilarious responses!
But in all seriousness, alternative engines are great for gearheads who want to spend a lot of time tinkering. But if your goal is to get in the air sooner, stick with the tried and true. Even those that have a proven track record are almost certain to take you longer than waiting however many months for a Lyc. Heck just making a cowl fit (or more likely, having to design / build one from scratch) for one of these few-offs can be a many months project.
Click to expand...

Definitely true - also for those that want to be able to launch into a 1000-mile cross country. You don't want to have any lingering doubts about the ability of the powerplant to just keep going for hours on end, over questionable terrain/weather. It's one thing to buzz around in the local area with a truly "experimental" powerplant , quite another to really trust it and put faith in it like a Lycoming.
 
I dunno, with all the stuck valves we see on pretty new, $50K+ 390 Lycs... oh never mind.;)
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
Definitely true - also for those that want to be able to launch into a 1000-mile cross country. You don't want to have any lingering doubts about the ability of the powerplant to just keep going for hours on end, over questionable terrain/weather. It's one thing to buzz around in the local area with a truly "experimental" powerplant , quite another to really trust it and put faith in it like a Lycoming.
Click to expand...

It has taken a fair bit of time and engineering, but I for one actually feel more safe behind the Subaru on my Jodel than behind the continental on my Fly Baby. The former has given met 700+ hours without missing a single beat, which I cannot say of the latter.

It has been quite an endeavour to get to this point with the Subaru though. Indeed not to be treated as a simple no-brainer replacement...
 
Lufthans said:
It has taken a fair bit of time and engineering, but I for one actually feel more safe behind the Subaru on my Jodel than behind the continental on my Fly Baby. The former has given met 700+ hours without missing a single beat, which I cannot say of the latter.

It has been quite an endeavour to get to this point with the Subaru though. Indeed not to be treated as a simple no-brainer replacement...
Click to expand...

In the right hands, with the right mindset and tinkering, absolutely it can be done. For the large majority of the flying world however....
 
No idea about the viability of this alternate engine solution, but the tone of this conversation reminds me of those I've had with NASA employees talking about SpaceX.
 
Low Pass said:
No idea about the viability of this alternate engine solution, but the tone of this conversation reminds me of those I've had with NASA employees talking about SpaceX.
Click to expand...

May sound similar but that's where any similarity ends in the vast majority of these cases. Comparing a well funded, managed, administered program from R&D through validation to some of the scary alternative powerplant offerings we've seen here is not very valid.

There was reason to be skeptical at first given the history of such start-ups. One billionaire was able to create a viable product. Two other recent ones have not. I still hang out with my former NASA counterparts; so I stay informed of that industry whether I like it or not. SpaceX had nearly as much upmass last year as every other launching company/agency/government combined. They are a true market disrupter.

There are some interesting PPs in development (as usual). I am rooting for them.

Anyone here wish to be launched on a rocket made by Viking? Me neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top