Author: "jaybrinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@...> Time: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:22 am PST Link
After running across this
http://www.smaengines.com/en/avantages.shtml,
I asked... "so what about non-Lycoming engines"?
Here's the response from Van's:
As of this writing the only engine we have full testing on is the IO-
540... (LYC)... we anticipate it's variants (carbureted versions in
the 235 -260 hp range will all work... we are in the next year
going to give the Continental 210 hp IO-360 ES a try we think...
stay tuned... no other engines are planned at this time... however,
by the end of next year we may look at others...
Author: "Lance" <lryahoo@...> Time: Wed Nov 5, 2003 11:55 am PST Link
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "jaybrinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@y...>
wrote:
> After running across this
> http://www.smaengines.com/en/avantages.shtml,
> I asked... "so what about non-Lycoming engines"?
>
> Here's the response from Van's:
>
> As of this writing the only engine we have full testing on is the
IO-
> 540... (LYC)... we anticipate it's variants (carbureted versions
in
> the 235 -260 hp range will all work... we are in the next year
> going to give the Continental 210 hp IO-360 ES a try we think...
> stay tuned... no other engines are planned at this time...
however,
> by the end of next year we may look at others...
As Van's builds its second and third RV10 (the second is under
construction, and they will likely build a third to validate the
QuickBuild kit), I'm quite sure they'll want to try it with the 210hp
and 235hp-class engines. The numbers they're expecting for a 210hp-
class motor are still mighty attractive.
One thing to remember is that OFFICIALLY Van's cannot recommend non-
aircraft engines, no matter how good they may be. Automotive engine
conversions, for example, can be outstanding choices if done
correctly (the IF is the key factor). However, given the "land of the
lawsuit" mentality we have to contend with, Van's as the airframe
manufacturer cannot expose itself to increased liability by
recommending non-aircraft engines. They have enough headaches, I'm
sure, just from the airframe itself without having to contend with
litigation arising from engine issues.
That being the case, what Van's says on the record and what they
would be very, very interested in seeing may be two different things.
There are viable choices out there which merit looking into.
My personal choice will be a Subaru 212hp 3.0-liter H6 motor,
normally aspirated, in a complete ready-to-mount kit from Jim
Eggenfellner. My reasoning comes down to this:
1. It's cheaper to buy new than an aircraft motor
2. It's MUCH cheaper to fuel
3. It's MUCH MUCH cheaper to maintain and overhaul
4. It doesn't matter if lead av-gas is phased out
5. It retains more power at altitude
6. It's much easier and faster to install
7. It runs smoother and quieter than a traditional aircraft engine
8. It produces less pollution
9. It starts more easily
10. It weighs less
11. Its flight operation is much simpler (less work for the pilot to
have to do)
The downside of the Subaru conversion:
1. It's "the path less travelled"
2. While demonstrated to be reliable, the Subaru doesn't have the
millions of air hours of the Lycoming/Continental family
3. Auto gas isn't available at some airports
4. Subaru mechanics won't be available at airports
5. Its liquid cooling system is an additional system to maintain
Your mileage may vary.
Author: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@...> Time: Wed Nov 5, 2003 4:25 pm PST Link
>--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "jaybrinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@y...>
>wrote:
> > After running across this
> > http://www.smaengines.com/en/avantages.shtml,
> > I asked... "so what about non-Lycoming engines"?
> >
> > Here's the response from Van's:
> >
> > As of this writing the only engine we have full testing on is the
>IO-
> > 540... (LYC)... we anticipate it's variants (carbureted versions
>in
> > the 235 -260 hp range will all work... we are in the next year
> > going to give the Continental 210 hp IO-360 ES a try we think...
> > stay tuned... no other engines are planned at this time...
>however,
> > by the end of next year we may look at others...
>
>As Van's builds its second and third RV10 (the second is under
>construction, and they will likely build a third to validate the
>QuickBuild kit), I'm quite sure they'll want to try it with the 210hp
>and 235hp-class engines. The numbers they're expecting for a 210hp-
>class motor are still mighty attractive.
>
>One thing to remember is that OFFICIALLY Van's cannot recommend non-
>aircraft engines, no matter how good they may be. Automotive engine
>conversions, for example, can be outstanding choices if done
>correctly (the IF is the key factor). However, given the "land of the
>lawsuit" mentality we have to contend with, Van's as the airframe
>manufacturer cannot expose itself to increased liability by
>recommending non-aircraft engines. They have enough headaches, I'm
>sure, just from the airframe itself without having to contend with
>litigation arising from engine issues.
>
>That being the case, what Van's says on the record and what they
>would be very, very interested in seeing may be two different things.
>There are viable choices out there which merit looking into.
>
>My personal choice will be a Subaru 212hp 3.0-liter H6 motor,
>normally aspirated, in a complete ready-to-mount kit from Jim
>Eggenfellner. My reasoning comes down to this:
>
>1. It's cheaper to buy new than an aircraft motor
>2. It's MUCH cheaper to fuel
>3. It's MUCH MUCH cheaper to maintain and overhaul
>4. It doesn't matter if lead av-gas is phased out
>5. It retains more power at altitude
>6. It's much easier and faster to install
>7. It runs smoother and quieter than a traditional aircraft engine
>8. It produces less pollution
>9. It starts more easily
>10. It weighs less
>11. Its flight operation is much simpler (less work for the pilot to
>have to do)
>
>The downside of the Subaru conversion:
>
>1. It's "the path less travelled"
>2. While demonstrated to be reliable, the Subaru doesn't have the
>millions of air hours of the Lycoming/Continental family
>3. Auto gas isn't available at some airports
>4. Subaru mechanics won't be available at airports
>5. Its liquid cooling system is an additional system to maintain
>
>Your mileage may vary.
Indeed! The powerplant choices truly boggle the mind. I went through the
whole issue years ago on my RV8 project. No matter what approach I took,
nothing available at that time ('99) offered a true solution that satisfied
my needs....except Lycoming. As a first time builder, I didn't want to
venture into the powerplant engineering field. I wanted something that was
proven, available, and serviceable anywhere if it should crap out while on a
long trip. With four years of flying time on my O-360, and having to
replace all four jugs, I seriously want something better...from a cost vs.
value standpoint. The top ends on Lycosaurs are so utterly fickle and
subject to such severe extremes of temperature. No wonder they crack and
burn oil so much. Still, the things will keep running barring a major
mechanical failure, loss of spark or fuel. You can fly for months with head
cracks and never even know it. I probably did just that!
Jan's Subaru engines are truly wonderful powerplants. They are the closest
thing out there to a true plug-and-play firewall forward installation. As
for your pro and con comments above, most are quite accurate. I have heard
a Subie locally overhead while I was working on my RV. It was installed in
an RV-9A. It was loud as hell for some reason. I don't know if the exhaust
system was bad, or the prop installed was causing all the racket. So, I
can't say for sure that I agree with it being quieter than a Lycoming. This
same a/c had an off airport landing due to fuel system problem...vapor lock
or something. I don't know if it was plumbed per specs or not, so exactly
why it had a problem is unclear. Until these two issues are understood (by
me), I won't go with a Subie for the RV10. It also boils down to
horsepower. I want lots of ponies. Period. 212hp without at least turbo
normalizing up to 12,000' just won't haul the airplane around as it should.
I live in Albuquerque, where density altitudes can exceed 8,000' during the
summer. Another common issue with the automotive derivatives is the lack of
oil supply to drive a hydraulic prop. We do have electrically driven
constant speed props, but they are costly. So, we are then cutting into our
savings realized from the purchase of a "cheaper" automotive engine. It's
just not all that it seems up front, but I see a terrific trend to really
get these Subies, Mazdas, Fords, etc, into the mainstream with true
user-friendliness and flexibility for multiple aircraft uses.
I looked into that SMA engine and something on the front page specs struck
me as rather odd....max "operating altitude" is 12,500 feet??? Why? Here
in the west, you would be centerpunching terra firma in certain areas
without being able to get to at least 14,000'.
I'll be very interested in seeing how the next Van's RV10 does with a
smaller engine. I also think they should give it to me for a while to wring
it out here during the summer!
Until the car engines can drive a hydro prop, and provide 250hp without
redlining or requiring boost to do so, I'm remaining in the Lycosaur
camp...as painful and expensive as it has been to date.
Great comments folks.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 40051
_________________________________________________________________
Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
Author: "Gary Seaton" <seatonconsulting@...> Time: Wed Nov 5, 2003 5:52 pm PST Link
Lance:
By Spring or Summer 2004 Subaru's 3.0 H6 engine will be reworked to produce
245hp. The engine will be offered in both the 2005 Legacy and Outback
models. Posts on various Subaru forums attribute the power boost primarily
to the introduction of Variable Valve Timing (VVT).
Go to "www.subaru-global.com/lineup/outback/data_sheet/" for specs. (Sorry,
don't know how to create a live link.)
If 245hp isn't enough for your -10, then wait until 2006 when a twin-turbo
3.0 will be introduced with the B11S, putting out 400hp. Jan Eggenfellner's
skunk works should be plenty busy for a few more years.
Gary Seaton
Corrales, NM
>From: "Lance" <lryahoo@a...>
>Reply-To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
>To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [RV10] Re: RV-10 Engines
>Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:01:53 -0000
>
>--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "jaybrinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@y...>
>wrote:
> > After running across this
> > http://www.smaengines.com/en/avantages.shtml,
> > I asked... "so what about non-Lycoming engines"?
> >
> > Here's the response from Van's:
> >
> > As of this writing the only engine we have full testing on is the
>IO-
> > 540... (LYC)... we anticipate it's variants (carbureted versions
>in
> > the 235 -260 hp range will all work... we are in the next year
> > going to give the Continental 210 hp IO-360 ES a try we think...
> > stay tuned... no other engines are planned at this time...
>however,
> > by the end of next year we may look at others...
>
>As Van's builds its second and third RV10 (the second is under
>construction, and they will likely build a third to validate the
>QuickBuild kit), I'm quite sure they'll want to try it with the 210hp
>and 235hp-class engines. The numbers they're expecting for a 210hp-
>class motor are still mighty attractive.
>
>One thing to remember is that OFFICIALLY Van's cannot recommend non-
>aircraft engines, no matter how good they may be. Automotive engine
>conversions, for example, can be outstanding choices if done
>correctly (the IF is the key factor). However, given the "land of the
>lawsuit" mentality we have to contend with, Van's as the airframe
>manufacturer cannot expose itself to increased liability by
>recommending non-aircraft engines. They have enough headaches, I'm
>sure, just from the airframe itself without having to contend with
>litigation arising from engine issues.
>
>That being the case, what Van's says on the record and what they
>would be very, very interested in seeing may be two different things.
>There are viable choices out there which merit looking into.
>
>My personal choice will be a Subaru 212hp 3.0-liter H6 motor,
>normally aspirated, in a complete ready-to-mount kit from Jim
>Eggenfellner. My reasoning comes down to this:
>
>1. It's cheaper to buy new than an aircraft motor
>2. It's MUCH cheaper to fuel
>3. It's MUCH MUCH cheaper to maintain and overhaul
>4. It doesn't matter if lead av-gas is phased out
>5. It retains more power at altitude
>6. It's much easier and faster to install
>7. It runs smoother and quieter than a traditional aircraft engine
>8. It produces less pollution
>9. It starts more easily
>10. It weighs less
>11. Its flight operation is much simpler (less work for the pilot to
>have to do)
>
>The downside of the Subaru conversion:
>
>1. It's "the path less travelled"
>2. While demonstrated to be reliable, the Subaru doesn't have the
>millions of air hours of the Lycoming/Continental family
>3. Auto gas isn't available at some airports
>4. Subaru mechanics won't be available at airports
>5. Its liquid cooling system is an additional system to maintain
>
>Your mileage may vary.
_________________________________________________________________
Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus
scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now!
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Author: "jaybrinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@...> Time: Thu Nov 6, 2003 12:14 pm PST Link
...snip
> I looked into that SMA engine and something on the front page
> specs struck me as rather odd....max "operating altitude" is
> 12,500 feet??? Why? Here in the west, you would be centerpunching
> terra firma in certain areas without being able to get to at
> least 14,000'.
If you look at the engine performance chart, the SMA has the same
>12,000' performance limitations as others. I can't speak to the
accuracy of the statement in the text.
> Brian Denk
> RV8 N94BD
> RV10 40051
Author: "Lance" <lryahoo@...> Time: Sat Nov 8, 2003 8:26 pm PST Link
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Seaton" <seatonconsulting@h...>
wrote:
> Lance:
>
> By Spring or Summer 2004 Subaru's 3.0 H6 engine will be reworked to
produce
> 245hp.
245 horsepower. I can get behind that. Never mind the drool...
Given that I won't be ready for an engine any time before mid-2005 at
the very earliest, that might just be the answer. It would also give
Subaru a year to work out any issues with the increased output, and
give the Eggenfellner folks and Grand Rapids (the manufacturer of the
recommended engine monitor for Eggenfellner kits) time to adapt their
kits.
> If 245hp isn't enough for your -10, then wait until 2006 when a
twin-turbo
> 3.0 will be introduced with the B11S, putting out 400hp. Jan
Eggenfellner's
> skunk works should be plenty busy for a few more years.
400 would likely be more power than is really good for the airframe
(it would become possible to flirt with the never-exceed speed in
level flight), not to mention the heating issue of the turbos. I'm
sure the engine kit would be near 40,000 bucks too... more than the
airframe kit.
Man, I want that QuickBuild kit so bad it hurts.
But who knows :) All kinds of interesting things could happen between
now and then. A pressurized RV-11 to put the Lancair IV/P into its
place, maybe? A twin-engine aircraft from Van's? Me winning the
lottery?