Author: "ajhauter" <ajhauter@...> Time: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:29 am PDT Link
The Predator Aviation engine package web site claims on weight: 538
lbs. (complete, wet) (within 10 lbs of Lycoming 180 hp IO-360 4
cylinder complete with CS prop and all accessories). This makes
sense, GM was going after a low weight corvette V8 made with
alluminum alloys. The latest corvette engine LS2 has even more power
and less weight.
There was an article in the last issue of Custom Planes. The
article mentions some pretty nice features for the Predator's LS1
conversion, including:
fuel injected with eight independent ignition systems
plenty of power to spare - on the RV-7, 50% cruise at 200 mph
indicated flows at 8 gph
liquid cooled
TBO believed to be 5000 hours
claims that GM designed this engine to operate like an airplane
engine - full power.
aj
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann@c...>
wrote:
> The LS1 engine is a veryl heavy engine, I looked at it 6 months
ago because
> of the power, but the engine weight was so high that afraid of the
weight
> and balance aspect. Though I'd possible have the fastest landing
speed in
> the world, the epitome of a nose roller, and definitely backwards
from a
> tailwheel first landing. Imagine the pleasure of touching down on
the nose
> wheel first. YYiiippppeeeeee.
> Bob K
> _____
>
> From: Rick Sked [mailto:heeder777@y...]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:50 PM
> To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RV10] RV-10 cost + Predator Aviation
> There goes my home based business!!
>
> Check out the overhead, shop and delivery costs. Labor is not too
bad at 36K
> could live nicely if you could build and sell two a year!!
>
> Nice looking package though, I am still leaning towards the
Lycoming. It
> will be interesting to see what develops with this setup. Great car
> engine....I am still unsure about conversions, Ignorance is bliss
is
> suppose.
>
> Rick
> 40185
>
> eric_panning <eric_panning@y...> wrote:
> Predator aviation is proposing to build an RV-10 for you for
$157,000
> complete. I have attached a link to there excel spreadsheet whuch
> may be of interest to all. They have broken down the cost per
item,
> avionics, etc. Might be useful to compare with your own
numbers....
>
> www.predatoraviation.com/documents/RV-10.xls
>
> There is an interesting article about the Predator package in one
of
> the current kitplanes magazines. They have a 400 HP Corevette
LS1
> conversion available for the RV7A and are working on one for the
RV-
> 10 (~ 29,000).
>
> Web site is thin on data. Listed power for the LS1 engine
conversion
> is 375 HP at 4400 rpm. This is not stock. I believe stock is ~
320
> HP for the LS1 and more for the LS6 (405) at 6000 rpm.
>
> Another interesting claim is full power fuel consumption is 12 to
15
> gallons per hr. At 15 gal/hr and 375HP, this is a BSFC of 0.24.
> There is no way this can be true for a 4 cycle internal combustion
> engine.
>
> The article has more details than the website. For example, they
are
> using the Ivo Magnum prop with electric control and the reduction
> ratio is 1.53 to 1. They also mentioned that they can use 87
octane
> autogas. LS1 compression ratio stock is over 10 to 1. It is
> unlikely you would be able to get away with 87 octane autogas at
high
> power settings.
>
> I think that they should state the real power levels and provide
> details on their flying RV7 platform. If W/B work out then it may
be
> workable for some. Taken a high HP auto motor and limiting power
to
> ~ 200 to 260 HP might be reasonable. A number of auto conversions
> target the max HP of the engine.
>
> My engine opinions:
> 1. IO-540 best option for max performance
> 2. Cont. 210 excellent choice for great performance/better value
> 3. Deltahawk best for economy, range, and performance at alitude.
> Only option so far worth time and effort to refine the FWF package.
>
> If ECI comes out with a IO-540 package then this will pull market
> share from 2 and 3.
>
> I don't think there is a viable 4 now but perhaps with more time,
and
> data, the field will get bigger....
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129hqqka9/M=295196.4901138.6071305.30011
76/D=gr
>
oups/S=1705340085:HM/EXP=1093782756/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http
:/compa
> nion.yahoo.com> click here
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
> :HM/A=2128215/rand=879001309
> _____
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/1yWplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "eric_panning" <eric_panning@...> Time: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:20 pm PDT Link
Listed weight of an IO-360A2 is 362 lbs with installations weighing ~
360 lbs. Predator implies that the IO-360 weighs 528 lbs with prop.
I think it is unlikely that you will find many props that weigh 528-
360 = 160+ lbs....
I skimmed the article in custom planes and saw the numbers but I'm
not sure I buy them for reasons stated above and before. I wish an
organization like CAFE focused on some of these engines options....
They are using the LS1 as the base engine. I believe this is 320 HP
so they must have mods. You can buy an LS1 crate engine for ~ 6,000
from General motors. The IVO Magnum prop (variable pitch electric)
is ~ $2300. You might want to read up on these props in HP
applications.... So, based on their price they are adding 21,000 in
value for reduction drive, mount, A/C, etc.
As to their RV-10 building program.... Assuming that one individual
could build two planes a year, he would be making 60 to 70k before
taxes.... I think there is likely a rare subset of builders who
could build that fast full time. If they did build that fast, would
you want it? If they built over many years, do you think they would
stay at it if they were clearing 20,000 per year? Hmmm.... I'll pass -
even if it was legal (for you to register).
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "ajhauter" <ajhauter@y...> wrote:
> The Predator Aviation engine package web site claims on weight: 538
> lbs. (complete, wet) (within 10 lbs of Lycoming 180 hp IO-360 4
> cylinder complete with CS prop and all accessories). This makes
> sense, GM was going after a low weight corvette V8 made with
> alluminum alloys. The latest corvette engine LS2 has even more
power
> and less weight.
>
> There was an article in the last issue of Custom Planes. The
> article mentions some pretty nice features for the Predator's LS1
> conversion, including:
>
> fuel injected with eight independent ignition systems
> plenty of power to spare - on the RV-7, 50% cruise at 200 mph
> indicated flows at 8 gph
> liquid cooled
> TBO believed to be 5000 hours
> claims that GM designed this engine to operate like an airplane
> engine - full power.
>
> aj
>
> --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann@c...>
> wrote:
> > The LS1 engine is a veryl heavy engine, I looked at it 6 months
> ago because
> > of the power, but the engine weight was so high that afraid of
the
> weight
> > and balance aspect. Though I'd possible have the fastest landing
> speed in
> > the world, the epitome of a nose roller, and definitely backwards
> from a
> > tailwheel first landing. Imagine the pleasure of touching down
on
> the nose
> > wheel first. YYiiippppeeeeee.
> > Bob K
> > _____
> >
> > From: Rick Sked [mailto:heeder777@y...]
> > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:50 PM
> > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [RV10] RV-10 cost + Predator Aviation
> > There goes my home based business!!
> >
> > Check out the overhead, shop and delivery costs. Labor is not too
> bad at 36K
> > could live nicely if you could build and sell two a year!!
> >
> > Nice looking package though, I am still leaning towards the
> Lycoming. It
> > will be interesting to see what develops with this setup. Great
car
> > engine....I am still unsure about conversions, Ignorance is bliss
> is
> > suppose.
> >
> > Rick
> > 40185
> >
> > eric_panning <eric_panning@y...> wrote:
> > Predator aviation is proposing to build an RV-10 for you for
> $157,000
> > complete. I have attached a link to there excel spreadsheet
whuch
> > may be of interest to all. They have broken down the cost per
> item,
> > avionics, etc. Might be useful to compare with your own
> numbers....
> >
> > www.predatoraviation.com/documents/RV-10.xls
> >
> > There is an interesting article about the Predator package in one
> of
> > the current kitplanes magazines. They have a 400 HP Corevette
> LS1
> > conversion available for the RV7A and are working on one for the
> RV-
> > 10 (~ 29,000).
> >
> > Web site is thin on data. Listed power for the LS1 engine
> conversion
> > is 375 HP at 4400 rpm. This is not stock. I believe stock is ~
> 320
> > HP for the LS1 and more for the LS6 (405) at 6000 rpm.
> >
> > Another interesting claim is full power fuel consumption is 12 to
> 15
> > gallons per hr. At 15 gal/hr and 375HP, this is a BSFC of 0.24.
> > There is no way this can be true for a 4 cycle internal
combustion
> > engine.
> >
> > The article has more details than the website. For example, they
> are
> > using the Ivo Magnum prop with electric control and the reduction
> > ratio is 1.53 to 1. They also mentioned that they can use 87
> octane
> > autogas. LS1 compression ratio stock is over 10 to 1. It is
> > unlikely you would be able to get away with 87 octane autogas at
> high
> > power settings.
> >
> > I think that they should state the real power levels and provide
> > details on their flying RV7 platform. If W/B work out then it
may
> be
> > workable for some. Taken a high HP auto motor and limiting power
> to
> > ~ 200 to 260 HP might be reasonable. A number of auto conversions
> > target the max HP of the engine.
> >
> > My engine opinions:
> > 1. IO-540 best option for max performance
> > 2. Cont. 210 excellent choice for great performance/better value
> > 3. Deltahawk best for economy, range, and performance at
alitude.
> > Only option so far worth time and effort to refine the FWF
package.
> >
> > If ECI comes out with a IO-540 package then this will pull market
> > share from 2 and 3.
> >
> > I don't think there is a viable 4 now but perhaps with more time,
> and
> > data, the field will get bigger....
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129hqqka9/M=295196.4901138.6071305.30011
> 76/D=gr
oups/S=1705340085:HM/EXP=1093782756/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http
> :/compa
> > nion.yahoo.com> click here
> > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
> > :HM/A=2128215/rand=879001309
> > _____
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/1yWplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "maxwelltl54" <heirloomi@...> Time: Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:37 pm PDT Link
I find all of these potential engine options very exciting. I will
not even start building for a couple of months so it will be a long
while before I need an engine. But I am following these alternatives
very closely and I find them very exciting. The Lycomings are great,
proven, etc., but some of these alternatives have some very appealing
possibilities. I guess the Subaru is probably the most proven
alternative but the diesels, the turbines, and the other auto
conversions such as the Predator are leading edge, risky, but
definitely have great possibilities. Predator obviously has an RV7
flying with their engine so they must have worked out the W&B to at
least a great degree. I agree that what we now know doesn't sound
quite right but there is a lot we don't know. There is certainly no
harm in holding them or anyone to the data, but I like to give them
the benifit of the doubt. Again, if they have an airplane flying,
they must have worked out a lot of the issues.
I think the arguments that we need an alternative to the Lycoming
engines is certainly valid. No doubt the Lycomings are proven
performers but they are old technology. While technology advancement
doesn't necessarily resolve all issues, it certainly can take care of
a lot of the issues and provide new features and functionality. These
conversions, although pricey compared to their 4 wheel counterparts,
certainly have a lot of potential and the total cost of ownership
over the life of the airplane appears to be better than the Lycoming
solution. At least that is what the information we are being given
seems to indicate.
The present price points cannot be compared to purchasing an auto
engine at our local Chevy dealership because these start-up companies
are trying to recoup their engineering and development costs.
Selling one, two, or even a dozen engines is very very expensive;
especially if one enjoys eating and paying his/her bills during the
startup period. Also, there is really no reason at the present to
sell them for any less. There aren't a lot of choices out there so it
makes sense to start the price point out close to what current
solutions cost. As more of these solutions become available there
will be downward pressure on all prices including those for old
reliable Lycomings. Even if the new solutions are not for everyone,
we can all benefit by the competitive prices they can create.
I will say that as a new builder and a squeeky tight-arse scrooge, I
have more heartburn knowing I will have to pay $18K to have a
Lycoming overhauled 3000 hours down the road then paying what appears
to be high pricing for one of these solutions. It seems to me that
the current solutions we have get us going, coming, and in between.
I do indeed think these are exciting times. Putting one of these
alternatives in a plane is not unlike those experiences of the first
airplane builders. Yes there are risks and we aren't quite sure what
we are going to end up with, but boy it is exciting non-the-less. At
least we have these companies trying them for us first. If they have
planes flying with their engines, then they have addressed a lot of
the issues. Can you imagine being the very first to put a new
plane/engine combination in the air that nobody has ever tried before?
I am not an engineer nor do I profess to know the challenges in
putting a diesel/auto/turbine on a small aircraft at 10K plus
altitudes. Nor do I profess to understand the challenges involved
with propeller driven flight verses wheel driven propulsion. But I
can say that the reliability of the present crop of auto engines with
their 100,000 mile between spark plug change reliability seems like a
very logical solution to me. Todays crop of engines are simply
amazingly reliable. I cannot recall the last time I heard of a well
maintained automotive engine just outright failing. Most problems
are due to poorly maintained batteries, lack of oil changes,
peripheral failures such as alternators, air conditioning,
transmissions, and other outside items. Engines just very rarely
fail. And most of the failures that do occur can be directly traced
to owner neglect. Engines just don't fail that often anymore so why
not put them on a plane. Again, I don't know all of the
ramifications of putting an auto engine on a plane but people like
Jan Eggenfellner seem to know quite a bit about it and are producing
some very good solutions.
I am both bummed because I am not well on my way to flyin my own
plane and gratified that I don't have to make a decision on an engine
right now. By the time I need an engine there will be some experience
with these options and hopefully the market will stabilize with a few
good solutions. Yes, I will never buy without proven performance
numbers, but I am very excited about the possibilities. Yes, very
excited, indeed!
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/1yWplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "townsetm" <yooper@...> Time: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:41 am PDT Link
If you threw a few more exclamation points in there, we could call
you the new "James"! : )
TDT
40025
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "maxwelltl54" <heirloomi@a...> wrote:
> I find all of these potential engine options very exciting. I will
> not even start building for a couple of months so it will be a long
> while before I need an engine. But I am following these
alternatives
> very closely and I find them very exciting. The Lycomings are
great,
> proven, etc., but some of these alternatives have some very
appealing
> possibilities. I guess the Subaru is probably the most proven
> alternative but the diesels, the turbines, and the other auto
> conversions such as the Predator are leading edge, risky, but
> definitely have great possibilities. Predator obviously has an RV7
> flying with their engine so they must have worked out the W&B to at
> least a great degree. I agree that what we now know doesn't sound
> quite right but there is a lot we don't know. There is certainly no
> harm in holding them or anyone to the data, but I like to give them
> the benifit of the doubt. Again, if they have an airplane flying,
> they must have worked out a lot of the issues.
>
> I think the arguments that we need an alternative to the Lycoming
> engines is certainly valid. No doubt the Lycomings are proven
> performers but they are old technology. While technology
advancement
> doesn't necessarily resolve all issues, it certainly can take care
of
> a lot of the issues and provide new features and functionality.
These
> conversions, although pricey compared to their 4 wheel
counterparts,
> certainly have a lot of potential and the total cost of ownership
> over the life of the airplane appears to be better than the
Lycoming
> solution. At least that is what the information we are being given
> seems to indicate.
>
> The present price points cannot be compared to purchasing an auto
> engine at our local Chevy dealership because these start-up
companies
> are trying to recoup their engineering and development costs.
> Selling one, two, or even a dozen engines is very very expensive;
> especially if one enjoys eating and paying his/her bills during the
> startup period. Also, there is really no reason at the present to
> sell them for any less. There aren't a lot of choices out there so
it
> makes sense to start the price point out close to what current
> solutions cost. As more of these solutions become available there
> will be downward pressure on all prices including those for old
> reliable Lycomings. Even if the new solutions are not for
everyone,
> we can all benefit by the competitive prices they can create.
>
> I will say that as a new builder and a squeeky tight-arse scrooge,
I
> have more heartburn knowing I will have to pay $18K to have a
> Lycoming overhauled 3000 hours down the road then paying what
appears
> to be high pricing for one of these solutions. It seems to me that
> the current solutions we have get us going, coming, and in between.
>
> I do indeed think these are exciting times. Putting one of these
> alternatives in a plane is not unlike those experiences of the
first
> airplane builders. Yes there are risks and we aren't quite sure
what
> we are going to end up with, but boy it is exciting non-the-less.
At
> least we have these companies trying them for us first. If they
have
> planes flying with their engines, then they have addressed a lot of
> the issues. Can you imagine being the very first to put a new
> plane/engine combination in the air that nobody has ever tried
before?
>
> I am not an engineer nor do I profess to know the challenges in
> putting a diesel/auto/turbine on a small aircraft at 10K plus
> altitudes. Nor do I profess to understand the challenges involved
> with propeller driven flight verses wheel driven propulsion. But I
> can say that the reliability of the present crop of auto engines
with
> their 100,000 mile between spark plug change reliability seems like
a
> very logical solution to me. Todays crop of engines are simply
> amazingly reliable. I cannot recall the last time I heard of a
well
> maintained automotive engine just outright failing. Most problems
> are due to poorly maintained batteries, lack of oil changes,
> peripheral failures such as alternators, air conditioning,
> transmissions, and other outside items. Engines just very rarely
> fail. And most of the failures that do occur can be directly traced
> to owner neglect. Engines just don't fail that often anymore so
why
> not put them on a plane. Again, I don't know all of the
> ramifications of putting an auto engine on a plane but people like
> Jan Eggenfellner seem to know quite a bit about it and are
producing
> some very good solutions.
>
> I am both bummed because I am not well on my way to flyin my own
> plane and gratified that I don't have to make a decision on an
engine
> right now. By the time I need an engine there will be some
experience
> with these options and hopefully the market will stabilize with a
few
> good solutions. Yes, I will never buy without proven performance
> numbers, but I am very excited about the possibilities. Yes, very
> excited, indeed!
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/1yWplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: Rick Sked <heeder777@...> Time: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:19 pm PDT Link
I think that exclamation points would help along with some grossly misspelled words and lack of punctuation. At that point you would have achieved "McClowdom" The multiple use of the word "excited" immediately qualified you for apprenticeship in this Zen. ;D
Now don't get all uspet James....We luiv yur psts!!!
Rick
40185
townsetm <yooper@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
If you threw a few more exclamation points in there, we could call
you the new "James"! : )
TDT
40025
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "maxwelltl54" <heirloomi@a...> wrote:
> I find all of these potential engine options very exciting. I will
> not even start building for a couple of months so it will be a long
> while before I need an engine. But I am following these
alternatives
> very closely and I find them very exciting. The Lycomings are
great,
> proven, etc., but some of these alternatives have some very
appealing
> possibilities. I guess the Subaru is probably the most proven
> alternative but the diesels, the turbines, and the other auto
> conversions such as the Predator are leading edge, risky, but
> definitely have great possibilities. Predator obviously has an RV7
> flying with their engine so they must have worked out the W&B to at
> least a great degree. I agree that what we now know doesn't sound
> quite right but there is a lot we don't know. There is certainly no
> harm in holding them or anyone to the data, but I like to give them
> the benifit of the doubt. Again, if they have an airplane flying,
> they must have worked out a lot of the issues.
>
> I think the arguments that we need an alternative to the Lycoming
> engines is certainly valid. No doubt the Lycomings are proven
> performers but they are old technology. While technology
advancement
> doesn't necessarily resolve all issues, it certainly can take care
of
> a lot of the issues and provide new features and functionality.
These
> conversions, although pricey compared to their 4 wheel
counterparts,
> certainly have a lot of potential and the total cost of ownership
> over the life of the airplane appears to be better than the
Lycoming
> solution. At least that is what the information we are being given
> seems to indicate.
>
> The present price points cannot be compared to purchasing an auto
> engine at our local Chevy dealership because these start-up
companies
> are trying to recoup their engineering and development costs.
> Selling one, two, or even a dozen engines is very very expensive;
> especially if one enjoys eating and paying his/her bills during the
> startup period. Also, there is really no reason at the present to
> sell them for any less. There aren't a lot of choices out there so
it
> makes sense to start the price point out close to what current
> solutions cost. As more of these solutions become available there
> will be downward pressure on all prices including those for old
> reliable Lycomings. Even if the new solutions are not for
everyone,
> we can all benefit by the competitive prices they can create.
>
> I will say that as a new builder and a squeeky tight-arse scrooge,
I
> have more heartburn knowing I will have to pay $18K to have a
> Lycoming overhauled 3000 hours down the road then paying what
appears
> to be high pricing for one of these solutions. It seems to me that
> the current solutions we have get us going, coming, and in between.
>
> I do indeed think these are exciting times. Putting one of these
> alternatives in a plane is not unlike those experiences of the
first
> airplane builders. Yes there are risks and we aren't quite sure
what
> we are going to end up with, but boy it is exciting non-the-less.
At
> least we have these companies trying them for us first. If they
have
> planes flying with their engines, then they have addressed a lot of
> the issues. Can you imagine being the very first to put a new
> plane/engine combination in the air that nobody has ever tried
before?
>
> I am not an engineer nor do I profess to know the challenges in
> putting a diesel/auto/turbine on a small aircraft at 10K plus
> altitudes. Nor do I profess to understand the challenges involved
> with propeller driven flight verses wheel driven propulsion. But I
> can say that the reliability of the present crop of auto engines
with
> their 100,000 mile between spark plug change reliability seems like
a
> very logical solution to me. Todays crop of engines are simply
> amazingly reliable. I cannot recall the last time I heard of a
well
> maintained automotive engine just outright failing. Most problems
> are due to poorly maintained batteries, lack of oil changes,
> peripheral failures such as alternators, air conditioning,
> transmissions, and other outside items. Engines just very rarely
> fail. And most of the failures that do occur can be directly traced
> to owner neglect. Engines just don't fail that often anymore so
why
> not put them on a plane. Again, I don't know all of the
> ramifications of putting an auto engine on a plane but people like
> Jan Eggenfellner seem to know quite a bit about it and are
producing
> some very good solutions.
>
> I am both bummed because I am not well on my way to flyin my own
> plane and gratified that I don't have to make a decision on an
engine
> right now. By the time I need an engine there will be some
experience
> with these options and hopefully the market will stabilize with a
few
> good solutions. Yes, I will never buy without proven performance
> numbers, but I am very excited about the possibilities. Yes, very
> excited, indeed!
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/1yWplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV10/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/