CAD/CAM and computerization in combination with stiff government efficiency regulation and competitive pressures has changed automotive engines so much in the past 10 to 15 years. Double or more power and better efficiency. Meanwhile, Lycoming is the only game in town for light aircraft with its 1950's and earlier origins. Maddening...
you prolly dont care but does anyone know a way to log back into an Instagram account? I somehow forgot the account password. I appreciate any tips you can give me
@Harley Bronson Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and im in the hacking process atm. Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
Again, my high praises for your work doing this UA-cam channel. As history reflects, piston aircraft engine development actually ended at the close of world war two. Since then, the emphasis has been redirected to materials engineering for durability issues, weight reduction and fuel economy. The air cooled engine in principal offered combat survivability because of the vulnerability of combat aircraft to ground fire in that (the golden bee bee could)sever a coolant line and thus the engine could not run very long and the aircraft was lost, in single engine aircraft. Now the issue is pushing more power from less displacement. The byproduct of heat has to be dispersed in a controlled manner so liquid cooling is the most practical approach. Remember, Viking does not use antifreeze for coolant. They use another liquid with properties that will not boil (or turn to a gas state of matter) until a much higher temperature than water or antifreeze. Lastly, the whole scheme of running an aircraft from a non-traditional aircraft engine manufacturer is based on the economy of scale. Traditional aircraft engine manufactures produce a very small percentage of the total internal combustion engines in annual production. A single production run of Honda or Mitsubishi may well exceed all traditional aircraft engine manufacturers combined. So, it makes sense that they can produce at much lower costs (micro economics 101). Certified aircraft engine manufacturers will not disappear. They offer well proven products and maintain very intimate relationships with aircraft manufacturers. The body of regulation and insurance demands that their products are used to protect the public and the industry as a whole. This is not an apples to apples comparison between certified aircraft engine manufactures and experimental/light sport engine suppliers. It really comes down to affordability and access to current technologies. By selecting a non-certified aircraft engine for your non-certified aircraft you (the builder/buyer) are somewhat avoiding the regulatory costs and poor economy of scale of aircraft certified engines. Overall, no manufacturer/reseller of non-certified aircraft engines is actually selling their engines at a low enough cost to open aviation to all such as making automotive available and reasonable for nearly all. That may never happen because our educational system and government mentality has not evolved. We seem to be more interested as a nation in making cannabis available than encouraging our people to soar high with aviation.
Mr Shi quite right. Piston powered aircraft owners are being held hostage by the airframe/engine manufactures dictatorship. In some respects, the situation is similar to the people of Cuba and their old cars. Why do aviators put-up with this crap? Most of us don't drive 40+ year old cars. Most of us fly 40+ year old airplanes.
Unfortunately, you are not legally allowed to use an Automotive engine in a Cessna 150, as the aircraft is certified with a Continental O-200. Any engine change you have to go through a huge number of hoops to get an Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) generated, otherwise you violate the Type Certificate, and thusly, the Airworthiness certificate becomes void. I have had my A&P (Airframe and Powerplant license) since 2006, and have been working at a Flight school since 2015.
@@Skyfighter64 Thanks for the reply. It seems unproductive to replace with 60 year old technology when newer engines are way more efficient and much less than $22,000,00 cdn!
Ron Champagne unfortunately, that is just how FAA regulations work. for any manufactured, certified aircraft, changes have be FAA approved. Fortunately, experimental aircraft sidestep some of these regulations, like needing 2 separate ignition systems.
Uh, I’m an A+P too, and they COULD use an automotive engine on a 150 - BUT, it would have to go experimental. We used to have an experimental Cessna 172.
This is a great review. I would like to add that no motor knows what it is in. But aircraft motors have not been successful in cars. Saying this the modern car designed motor works in anything you put it in and it is the leading in technology , efficiency , light weight technology and not to mention easy access for parts and best price. I like what Viking is doing.
Not quite correct. Stick a prop out on the end of the crankshaft brings on many problems. A big problem is the crank loaded well past its design. Again I use the corvair. Add a 5th bearing you get a good 100-120hp engine.
You take things as they come, support comes at the cost of.... uh cost! Plain and simple, I cant afford to fly certified engines, I cant even to fly professionally converted engines. If I'm going to fly itll be on my labor.
I forget the guys name but he has a UA-cam channel where he put a Chevy Ls3 all aluminum V8 into his Zenith aircraft....he has 450 +horsepower....these Auto engines are manufactured in the Miiions how many Rotax engines are made comparably speaking ?
@@jpag8764 I'll have to look around to find the link; but there's a guy on youtube that put a LS3 in a Zenith similarly to this guy who put a Ford 302 v8 in his Zenith. ua-cam.com/video/rCNnEgRkdXc/v-deo.html
You should use a tiny honda I-Dtec 1.5/1.6 diesel. Get really good fuel mileage. Or a High Performance Viking using a K20c or K24. They could fly a 5-6 people plane. Especially twin-engine design would be very fast and reliable.
Good video but the guy is a little too sales type for my liking. I would love to know the design choices that let Rotax to choose a hybrid cooling design. Given that it’s a modern engine I’m sure it wasn’t legacy design. So why was it done? I can appreciate how that could induce failure points but without a discussion of the benefits it feels a little one sided.
The liquid cool is required because without it the engine would overheat. I’m not sure why rotax just liquid cool the heads and not the cylinders too like the car and bike engines, but it probably comes down to being lighter than a full liquid cool (cars and bikes need it cos they don’t always have airflow in cars and bikes). Full air cooled plane engines are mostly 2ci per hp Viking Yamaha and rotax are much higher power / cubic inch than that, so they need liquid cool
Remember that Rotas also use oil cooling and that makes quite a difference, cooling the really hot parts of the engine, i.e. the heads, it is more forgiving on cooling setup. Jabiru engines from Australia also have a liquid cooled head kit which has improved their reliability.
@@thebikespot9177 it’s not redundant, because without the coolant it overheats. But I think I did figure it out. 1. It eliminates the head gasket coolant passage ways which is a common failure. 2. Less weight because less coolant and a smaller radiator is needed that if the engine where solely water cooled.
Th rotax engine was designed in the late 70-s early 80's. Electronic engine management was not good then so it was designed around a carburettor. Most of the cooling required for an engine is in the head, valves, detonation, so cooling the cylinders was not necessary. Because the Rotax is smaller and a more efficient high revving engine it has less surface area for cooling, so liquid is ideal. You also already have air flow in a plane so relocating all of the cooling to a radiator is not needed. The Rotax is ideal NA with EFI, but once you put a turbo on, a completely enclosed liquid cooled engine is better. Not entirely because of cooling, but because the actual engine is stronger and can handle the combustion and torsional forces better. All Engines use oil cooling also and air cooling to a degree. Aircraft engines Rotax and Lycoming derived from radial engines with individual cylinders, which derived from large displacement single cylinders which came from steam cylinders. The important part of liquid cooling is its fast response to temperature change while maintaining a stable temperature. Air cooling is neither able to absorb or dissipate heat as quickly. And yes, this man is just selling what he can, not what is good. Variable valve timing as no place in an aircraft engine with a narrow rpm range. I have watched many of his videos and he has little knowledge of his own product.
what about the Ford ST 3 Cylinder 1.5 turbocharged engine. this looks like a serious contender! is Viking, or other Auto conversion operations, looking at this engine?
There's way more engineering and designing going into Automotive then there is aircraft... overall when it comes to engines. Look at the new variable compression variable valve timing 2.0l . It makes anywhere from 240 horsepower up to 280 horsepower. It is 8:1 compression and 14:1 compression. Has pretty much flat torque curve from like 1500 RPM up. Volkswagen make a 1.4 liter that makes 180 horsepower it has variable valve timing direct injection.... also has a flat torque curve. They now make automobile engines that you have to do nothing too except for change the oil for the first 100k miles.... can you say that about any aircraft engine?
I do have a serious question, as I gather data in my quest to eventually own the plane of my dreams (Custom Long-EZ), I know the norm for such a plane are O-320's (140-160HP, depending on exact model), but I am considering a 200HP Turbocharged Automotive conversion (Ideally, in my head, I imagine 200HP all the way to 20K, and my maximum service ceiling of 25K), but more importantly, I want also a Constant speed propeller. Now on to my actual question: Since Auto conversions are geared, and don't run off of the crankshaft directly, it seems a standard hydraulic model would be out of the question, more important in my mind, however, is how a geared automotive conversion would respond. It probably is a complete non-factor, and I'm thinking too hard about it, but if anyone has information that might be useful, I would appreciate it.
Read the comments I and nickolas wrote, with the link in nickolas post, to this video. Your chances of finishing the aircraft and having a good flying airplane with an aircraft engine are far greater, than any auto conversion you can dream up. Weight and drag are two factors. Trying to figure out where to put a radiator and duct, where it's efficient is difficult. The designers, whether it's a Van's RV or Rutan's long-ez, are around air-cooled horizontally-opposed 4 cylinders. And yes the water cooling in the gear reduction adds weight and complexity and drag. You're truly way out on your own and you're going to add 100's and 100's of hours of build time, and you're not going to save any money. The auto conversion guys constantly say how great their conversions are, but after reading these for 30 years, you don't see them taking over the world or meeting the claims. Some deserve credited for effort and good results ( near aircraft engines), but those are few and far between, but required far more work and technical resources to achieve it. For awhile it was the rotary engines were the best, but they're kind of boutique rarity. A nice guy in Florida supported them with drives and help. He at least flew what he made in an RV4. He is out if the business. Rotary engines themselves have drawbacks, not the least of which is poor fuel economy. There have been two other companies that made very sophisticated wankel designs for aircraft, but neither of them got any traction. Then there was the Subaru conversion, like the one that eggenfellener sold to mostly Van's Aircraft customers. He folded, left everybody holding the bag. Eggenfellner Subaru powered RVs sell for a lot less than a lycoming per planes. They're slower, heavier and there's nothing superior about them over a Lycoming powered RV. Oh, what he charged for them was as more than a Lycoming with all the extras needed. Again he was in this business before and completely folded, and now he's starting up a new company with Honda engines. Run don't walk. You also indicate you want to do some custom design. Unless you have incredible talent, resouces, CAD, fabrication ability (machine shop, composite fabrication) and ability to research and use engineering data, I would stick with a Rutan design with Lyc, fixed prop. If you really want a Canard airplane. I understand the velocity, cozy are all very good airplanes. Their size would lend more room for an auto engine. LongEZ is a great plane, but small and has real limits to how much weight you can put for power plant. As far as constant speed props and hydraulics you're right you would probably end up needing an electric prop on auto conversion. However some reduction drives have incorporated a hyd prop governor and hollow shaft. More weight and complexity (and size). If you're talking about a longEZ, chances are you're really looking at a fixed pitch prop, just for weight reasons. However the path to least resistance would be a lycoming with a hydraulic prop if CS prop is a must. There are composite constant speed props that are lighter than a metal Hartzell, but never lighter than a fixed wood prop. Best to get on LongEZ forums. See what has been done. Forget about turbocharging, flying at flight level 250. Anything over 18,000 feet is IFR. You would have to certify and equip for that, expensive. What you're talking about is pressurized turbocharged aircraft (Lancair or P210) or turboprop or turbojet performance. Trust me normally aspired Lycoming with reserve power that's in light low drag aircraft, has reserved horsepower, can easily fly up to 18,000 feet efficiently. Some IO320's are making 170hp now. Of course above 18000 ft its Class A airspace and requires an IFR Flight Plan. Is that how you're going to use this fun little light sport aircraft? Are you going to put an IFR panel in and heated pitot? Most of my general aviation flying is below 12,000 feet unless there's really good winds higher up, and then I go on oxygen. Typical Cruise altitude is between 8000 and 12500 feet. That allows you to be at Full Throttle well below 75% power lean for maximum economy. Unless you have endless time and money for your custom long-ez that can fly at 25,000 feet with an auto engine and turbo charger, a real tall order, Stick to the designers plans and keep it light and simple. A Long EZ is made to be a light efficient aircraft using a lower horsepower engine. You're completely changing that, and you'll probably end up with something that you'll never finish or do it will do nothing well. Last there's an ambitious project Raptor Aircraft, that's on UA-cam. See link below. They're using a turbocharged diesel Audi engine in a velocity canard type design, but it total custom. Look at their catalog of videos and how much work they're putting into this. It's pressurized as well. Google Raptor aircraft, look at their website as well. Tell me what you think. ua-cam.com/video/yVC5qmYRdsk/v-deo.html
@@markhathaway9456 You have to prove they "get the best". I'll say the single lever control of TIO550 Continental in an almost 1/2 $million$ new Cirrus, is very cool, wonderful, awesome. It's way too expensive and I can operate an IO550 with 3 controls (throttle, mixture, prop) almost as efficiently. However the "workload" is higher. I can handle it. The Jet I fly has FADEC. Single control still the same as any non FADEC Jet... However FADEC has benifit in ease of maintenance and protection of expensive turbojet engines... and there is some efficiency improvement. With huge fuel burn of a jet any tiny increase in efficiency is a lot of fuel, for a plane that 1000's of hours a year. A GA plane that flies 100 hours the pay back of FADEC is questionable from an economics analysis standpoint. Also it is hard to beat the Farm Tractor Hammer technology of Mags and a mechanical fuel system *100% independent of electrical system*. My RV7 has a Carb and one Electronic Ignition and one Mag. It flys like a bat out of hell and gets high 20's Gal/Miles in cruise, better than most cars while going over 3x the speed. Would FADEC be a quantum change in my planes performance and efficiency? No. Would I like FADEC? Yes but I'll take the $10K (or more) and buy fuel and fly more :-). Better fly now before AOC bans flying for the common people. Only elite Gov can fly in the future...
@@gmcjetpilot That's a lot of information. Thanks a lot. Since you fly an RV7 I'll also ask what you think of the RV-14 RV-14a. I think they've hit the sweet spot on a lot of aesthetics and practical things.
@@markhathaway9456 join VAF forum and ask. There are no bad RV's.. it depends on your mission and wallet. If you are 6'2" and 250 lbs get an RV 14. If you're six feet or less, under 200 lbs, the RV7 is perfect for Side By Side 2Plc. Now your girlfriend or wife, that's a different story. Frankly a lot of RV pilots fly solo 95% of the time, so RV 3 or an RV4 for RV8 are really a great airplanes. I built and flew an RV 4. Fantastic airplane. Put 900 hours on her before I sold her. Fantastic airplane. How much money do you have? RV14 is built on the larger heavier more expensive angle valve IO390 210 horsepower (experimental) engine. The RV3/4/6/7/8 can fly nicely with 320 to 360 (160-180HP) Lycoming. Bigger engine more fuel. $5/gal... Lyc fuel burns from 6-12 Gal/Hr (econ to max cruise). Do the math. However even a big engine can be throttled way back at lean of peak.... still small engine less fuel burn... which is axiomatic.
@@Wingnut353 That's with a transmission, halfshaft assembly and full accessories, they're less than 300 pounds without the transmission. The Honda V6 that Titan aircraft uses in their T-51 only weighs 416 pounds, ready to fly.
You wouldn't want to use the 2.4, its internal geometry is all wrong for use in aircraft, you'd want to use the K20A. The K24 is very undersquare (which gives it high piston speeds) and it has a very short rod to stroke ratio, which places high side loads on the cylinders/pistons. It was designed to make power at low revs, which is not what you want in an aircraft engine, as it will spend most of its time at relatively high rpm.
Yeah, I remember when an RV-10 was destroyed, because the pilot was overwhelmed and/or distracted with all of his auto-conversion issues. No thank you. Thankfully it wasn’t on the planned trip with family the following day. Love my simple IO-540, 10.5-14.0 gph and all.
What EXACTLY is YOUR subject? Once you state it, I will run ALL over it. Then we will sell a 130 engine to someone you hate and provide them with 10 years of free service :)
You talk about your engine has to run at 5300 at take off change that. Order a 12 blade propeller and the blades at 14 inches wide each blade, that will give the maximum air flow and alot of pulling power. Don‘t need to run your engine so high in the R.P.M‘s. Tell the propeller manufacturer these specifications you will be happy with that when you get it on your airplane
I am not an engineer. but it looks like that setup would have too much load for your engine to make that propeller spin since its "catching" so much air. youre an idiot sir.
it has one... that's the shiny cnc'd bit on the front of the viking, the crank goes through a 3 gear reduction ... which is sort of a transmission, it just doesn't ever "shift"
Was thinking about the possibility of using an autoconversion engine back in a car. 0 experience just food for thought but this kinda crushed that thought lmao.
The engine requires high rpm to develop the horsepower needed for acceptable aircraft performance. However, that same high rpm exceeds the propeller’s efficient operating speed. So, there is a gear reduction drive to keep both the engine and prop at useful rpms. The alternative is high torque at low rpm engines, such as the legacy Continental and Lycoming engines. Lots of cubic inches of engine displacement for a given horsepower so that there is ‘surplus’ of low rpm torque in the rpm range required by the prop. The reason automobiles have transmissions is the engine has widely varying loading, and horsepower/torque requirements. The aircraft when flying has a more constant load to maintain cruise flight and necessarily operates at a higher percentage of peak horsepower than does the typical automobile. However, the nearest thing to a transmission on piston aircraft engines is the constant speed propeller. When the aircraft is operating at a lighter load (speed and/or weight), the CS prop allows engine rpm reduction while maintaining a ‘cruise pitch’ propeller blade angle or vice versa, such as during the take off run. With a CS prop, the pilot selects the best combination of engine manifold pressure (throttle setting) and propeller speed (blade pitch angle) to suit the circumstances.
The 915 is a disaster. It was designed for the drones. The auto conversions are not for the "future:????? The 915 is for some future development for a LSA aircraft manufacturer too stupid to see the bologna. 540000 wires, several computers, heat sensitive fuel pumps with shields, coolant radiators, oil radiators, air cooled cylinders, external oil tanks, exhaust pipes from 4 corners, intake pipes from every cylinder and a host of other junk that is ONLY there to satisfy the USA government drone factories. Why do you thing the ECU is made HERE? www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/News/2015-Cal-Yr/CS/FY15CSNR34-Rotax.aspx Why is the ECU not really available to homebuilders ? Even though it is US tax money funding it? The Rotax 915 in the Sling aircraft at the 2018 Oshkosh was a total nightmare. Could not even conceive a maintenance schedule. Wires galore, coolers mounted directly to the bottom cowling (how could you lower it ) The inline 4 cylinder engines are lightyears ahead of this nightmare.
Less that 160HP, almost 50K and a 1200 TBO....Granted, imagine that TBO will increase with time. Not a Rotax fan, but atleast they are trying to come up with new products. I just think that price completely misses the audience they are trying to attract.
Viking Aircraft Engines Haha dramatic much? The 915 iS seems to be working quite well for Sling and many others. Trent Palmer has one in his Kitfox STi and today he called it, “the best piston aircraft engine in all of GA.” Like I said, it will be interesting to see where these auto conversions go in the future. There’s just not enough hard data to support their reliability in aircraft yet.
and tremt palmer got grounded because the ehaust valve stem is sodium filled and there was a manufacturing mistake in them. his exhaust valves need replaced. all 915 aare grounded .@@andrewmorris3479
Just sitting here thinking... you know... a 1.6L ecoboost engine produces 190 hp... is direct injected and turbocharged... only weighs 250lbs... they put those engines in damn near everything so they're cheap... I would think it would be well worth throwing a constant rpm prop onto one with a direct gear drive... it would make one hell of a light sport aircraft setup. (Crate engines being appx 7K). I'd throw a dry sump setup on there, a large oil reserve can... call it a day.
@@PistonAvatarGuy the Continental 0-470 weighs 391 pounds. The 3.0 TDI weighs 483. Almost 100 pounds heavier but will burn 5.5 gph or less. Also there's over 100 hp increase with the TDI swap.
@@bladenrexroth2555 A 3.0 TDI with a PSRU strong enough to handle the torque pulses that it produces, plus a cooling system, is going weigh around 550 pounds and will make about the same amount of power as an 0-470. Lugging extra weight around also has basically the same effect as reducing engine power. Every percent you increase the weight of an aircraft requires power to increase by the same percentage in order to maintain the same performance. Cessna dropped all of its diesel offerings due to that harsh reality.
@@bladenrexroth2555 More weight = less range when the same amount of power is being produced. More power requires more fuel. Aircraft designers aren't dumb, there's a reason that diesels never caught on as aircraft power plants.
What the hell? Did he claim that "many people choose the engine first and then pick an aircraft around the engine"? Does anyone even know anyone who did that? I mean seriously did anyone ever say "I don't really care what I fly as long as it has zippy banger engine in it"?
Please don't deal with this company. Look up Eggenfellner. See post below from nicholas. He had a Subaru conversion business aimed at Van aircraft designed for Lycoming. He sold many and then folded. Problems galore and poor support, heavy weight, lower performance, lower resale. In general best advice for 99% of people get a lycoming (320, 360), continental (200) or rotax (912, 914). Rotax is my last choice. Lycoming, Continental and Rotax all have countless hours of experience and a company notifying you of any issues. These Auto conversions you're pretty much all on your own. If you want to tinker and play with it (not fly) and take a little extra risk (lower reliability) and deal with a reduction drive, then yeah maybe an auto conversion is for you. But you're not going to save money. You will have lower performance with same or higher fuel burn. You're definitely not going to save time. It's much simpler, easier, more reliable, safer, with better performance if you just buy an aircraft engine. The cost of a new Lycoming has come way down, because they're not a monopoly anymore. Companies make experimental clones of Lycoming. To me the perfect small low horsepower engine is probably the Continental 200 or Lycoming 320. Direct drive, no radiator, known mature aircraft engines. They will be lighter, less drag, less maintenance and safer.
OMG its on, We can do this all day. Your post came in on my email, I cant find it here ? Lets move on. I took some notes. 68 years old & tired. Been in a plane all my life. My dad was a great pilot & A&P fantastic school teacher. also on the piper design team many years ago. Made me a piper kid. I hate anything piper ! official solo in 1967 PA17 really I stole it one day & got caught ! Ok You say ww2 tech helped Lycoming ? I don't see it. 1937 lyc was blowing head gaskets till into and after the war. Piper was so fed up continental was pushed into the 4 cyl market. The big 2 are the only game in town. Over the years I have seen many examples of bad engineering. I worked at Alphin Aircraft for years. Largest rebuilder on the east coast .Everything you can imagine came through the door. So 2000 hr tbo, unrealistic ,Guys just don't take care of a engine to get there. Auto engine better in cars. Except for the corvair we agree.I am not a huge fan but it does work, Water cooling I was a fan. now not so much. Just cooling the head does not solve much. Rotax. I don't like them at all. O235. I have one in a tailwind N31039. I hate it. Heavy. Just does not run well. Its ok not great. ? I know that's a little ify ? You can step up to a 320 or 360 than the cost gets out of control. The 540s What else is there. Chevy LS That wont work. I do believe we are stuck. Your thoughts ? Pauley
@@pauleyplay I'm 10 years younger and in airplanes all my life . My Dad was in Airforce, and I have a degree in mechanical engineering, worked for Boeing. ATP airline pilot (737, 757, 767), built two kit planes RV4 and 7. You keep saying all the experiance you have. I guess you know all. Sorry it does not sound like it. You say untrue cliches. When you say 2000 hours TBO is unrealistic, I know you are blowing smoke. 1937 is way before the small Horz opposed Lyc 4 bangers. Blown head gasket? Please. Do you know how a modern (since 1955) Lycoming is put together? O-320 (1953) and O-360 (1955). BTW Lycoming heads screw onto the jug by the way. I had 2300 hrs on two O320's on my PA23-160 (piper Apache) running fine with great compression. It flew every day, that is why. Good luck picking an engine. Do as you like. You get what you pay for. With you skills you could get a salvaged engine and overhaul it yourself. I agree O-235 is not the best, a O-320 has 45Hp to 65Hp more for not much more weigh. PS I bought a used O360, 600 hours on first rebuild from first run out, for $3500. I and friend tore it down. Sent out crank, rods, case out. Jugs were fine, put in new parts,as needed. Had about $12,500 into it, including carb rebuild. Add $3000 for electronic ignition about $15k. $5000 for governor and hartzell CS prop. $20K. My RV7 cruises at 190 mph true at 8500 feet, and tops 212 mph sea level, 100% power. My fuel burn man be 7 to 6.5 gph or less econ cruise, and still fo 170-180 mph. That is +26 mpg. Going slow cost more. Cheers.
@@gmcjetpilot We see aviation different, OK. 1937 was first year for 4 cyl that had HEAD gaskets, That engine was still used in the J3 &PA15 in 1946. Just saying not much has changed. Apache was my dads favorite N1145P N1455P. We all received our twin ratings it Yes I can rebuild anything, just as you say look how much it cost. I believe many builders struggle with 20K & up for a engine.I totally agree you get what you pay for. I believe our market is much to small for much R&D. Anything new cost way to much.
Packard-Merlin V12 that powered the P-51 used a gear reduction would you claim that engine is not reliable? If you want to just fly don't build an experimental aircraft buy a certified aircraft. Experimental aircraft are just that experimental the engine used in them is also experimental there isn't any right or wrong engine to use.
You posted the certifed auto engine, go down to the auto makers and put your certifed sticker on all the engines. The word certifed IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENGINE THAT YOUR TO USE IN THE AIRPLANE.
@@Truzakar its better to go with specialized engines instead of hacked car engines I believe. There are 2 ignition points in aircraft certified engines which make them safer as compared to car engines having single spark plug for single cylinder, better engine performance at constant rpm near about 2700 to 3000 rpm in most cases, better torque management and directly connected propeller shaft ...
@@engineeringresponse4406 The unreliability of mechanical ignition system is only reason aircraft engines need to have two ignition systems in the first place!
@@PistonAvatarGuy car engines are designed to run on surface where you can put your car on the side in case of problem, while failure of aircraft engine means a miserable death .....
Choose your motor before identifying the mission or airframe? That’s doesn’t make sense. How would you know your weight, HP, fuel efficiency, fuel type, constant prop systems, etc requirements? You’d end up compromising your mission and choice to airframe to reflect the motor you purchased. Backwards for sure.
Ah, yes, Jan Eggenfellner. Y'all should read up on his history. I'd never buy a thing from that man. Go read about his history with Subaru conversions.
Eggenfellner seem have been able to overcome that past he claims he has sold over 750+ engines. I would not be surprised with the supply chain issues we are having many are turning to him because he is the only one who can ship. I saw on another video getting a titan engine right now no ETA even after waiting 6-8 months still no ETA on shipping an engine. Although I noticed his prices are getting high up in the high 18k range not lot different then buying a Lycoming core and having it rebuilt. He sources engines from salvage vehicles for 1-2 thousand dollars then tacks on 12-13k in profit the end user gets a used engine for 18k. His Bankruptcy with the Subaru engine business I hear less and less about as time passes.
Auto engines run for many thousands of hours between scheduled overhauls.. Aircraft engines run maybe 1,000 hours between scheduled overhauls... its kinda a no brainer... $50k air cooled turd or a modern water cooled fuel injected engine that makes double the horsepower at ¼ the price...
Sort-of.. aircraft engines are run near their limits much more regularly than car engines (in cars). Race cars, even using street-spec engines, get overhauled about once a year at least. It’s about stress, not just build quality and tech.
@@aisu8481 you cruise at 100% power? My regular daily driver Subaru crosstrek cruises at 90'ish mph at about 60% power (3.5k rpm)... And got 150k miles on it before finally needing an alternator... The rest of the engine still runs as new after replacing said alternator... I just change the oil every 5kmiles.... I beat the shit out of my vehicles, they see 100% power every time I take off from a stop sign/light... And go to the race track regularly for track days (expert run group)
@@toadamine I’m saying if you put a car engine in an airplane, it’s going to see higher load for every hour than it does in a car. You’re talking about a track day every time you fly. Even track days have braking zones, and cool-down breaks after each 20 minute session (bar the optional final hour that Chin does) and engines see a lot of wear there. Imagine 5-10 minutes of full throttle, nonstop, in your car, every time you leave the house. Warm up and boom, full throttle the whole way to work. That’s climbing in a 172. Followed by eh, roughly 60% power, whereas a car gets to coast and use lighter inputs. Car engines do 10 reps of squats. Aircraft engines do wall squats for an hour or more, spare a couple stalls and random descents. Totally different animals.
@@toadamine geez, you’re still missing the point. Because it doesn’t matter what you’re using, you still need to overhaul it in a shorter than normal interval, if it’s used as an airplane engine.
pull over in an aircraft... maybe you should see the P-51 Voodoo "Pulling over" at ground level to break the speed record. For reliability in a car engine, maybe search for a low compression engine, it won't be pushing too hard on itself to selfdestruct, can easily last 30 years with proper maintenance and will only be pusing a small capacity of it's real power.
You have no clue of the risks involved, assuming you are even a pilot you are the stereotypical ignorant and superstitious pilot that doesn't have a clue how the mechanical side of aviation works.
Automotive engines were not designed for constant high revs. High RPM. I am sorry I disagree with Viking and all automotive engine users except for one, the Corvair engine as it is air cooled boxer engine and revs reduced to around 3K per minute max. Otherwise horses for courses and I would very much prefer a Lycoming in my aircraft to any auto engine .! I have seen Lycoming engines run for 20 minutes or so after catastrophic enteral damage only to see you safely on ground before quitting.! Show me an auto engine that can do that. .!
How many automotive engines ever suffer from any kind of catastrophic damage in the first place? That's the thing here, LyContisaurus engines are EXTREMELY unreliable when compared to modern automotive engines.
I highly suggest researching further than UA-cam video’s on the Viking engine! Jan makes a lot of wonderful claims about the Viking that are just not true... Honda makes a excellent automotive engine but that does not automatically make them an excellent aircraft engine! There is a lot more that goes into a certified engine than just Engine technology, and I would like to see Viking even make the ASTM standards required for Light Sport! The Rotax engine is by far a superior aircraft engine and Jan claiming the Viking is superior based on Honda’s technology is a joke! Research Eggenfellner Engines www.vikingenginesissues.com
Another Viking engine Kool-Aid drinker eh? The safety numbers speak for themselves Paul. If you want to mount a Honda Engine from a wrecked vehicle with minimum R&D to make it an aircraft engine... be my guest! Good Luck with that... just be prepared and practice your off airport landing skills! Jan is nothing more than a snake oil salesman...
@@flynic3 You do have a point with the Viking. Not my first choice ! I may be looking at this issue from a different experience. I have been flying all my life. I have more than I care to remember off field excursion's over the years. All have been in certified engines. As a A&P I have seen engine tech or lack of for 60+ years. The big two are not very good. They have not changed much since the thirties. Seems to me most common sense engine conversions are somewhat better than what we have now. Example at the far end. The corvair. With the fifth bearing and very carful assembly results in a engine at least as good as any comparable Lycoming. I believe you and I are not very far apart in our thoughts
Paul Van Tries I am not saying that Lycoming and Continental do not have their Failures, and I would agree with you on the design evolution being stagnant. That being said, The R&D or lack there of on the Viking engine does not even come close to that of Rotax, Lycoming and Continental. I am all for using new design idealogogy as long as it goes through the proper R&D to make it an aircraft engine. Slapping off the shelf parts onto a Honda engine from a wrecked vehicle, and claiming it is superior is absolutely insanity! Jan could not even get these engines to pass ASTM standards... So what makes them superior? The Honda engine technology is excellent, but that does not automatically make it a superior Aircraft engine as he likes to claim! I would agree with you completely about the Corvair from Wyse or Wesseman, and If I were to go the Auto Conversion route... That would be my first choice.
In the experimental world it's actually pretty common. Other experimental aircraft builders I've spoken to have said the same thing. It's part of the freedom of building yourself.
You guys ever heard that there is no replacement for dispacement. All these motors are trash...Companies have spend decades trying to design an engine that provides better power, efficiency, or weight than an air cooled Lycoming or Continental. The only one who has come close is Rotax and after having flown 10 hours behind one, I'll stick to standard motors...
So a less than 200 cubic inches motor that has to turn 5500 RPM to make power that is turboed and they are saying 2500 TBO (maybe, they hope). 24 valve with overhead cams?! Gear Box.... LOL Oh and I've used Rotax's dry sump motors. I'll never own a plane that I have to turn the prop over 20 times just the check my oil levels....and 86K price tag?! No thanks...I'll take a IO-550 with a TN kit from tornado alley. I would like electric waste gate and dual self powering electronic ignition. There are a dozen engine companies that have been trying to make these things work for decades...They all keep blowing through deadlines, getting sold and bought. The problem is they are too complicated and expensive to make, usually too heavy, and the benefits are marginal at best. So they never reach a break even point. Look at the diesel trainers everyone tried. Cessna only made their diesel 172 for a year, and it was so expensive, it didn't make sense. Even for flight schools that are doing 1500 hours a year on them. In bigger planes, once the motors get to a certain price a PT-6 starts to look really good, and they almost ALWAYS make TBO. On the MORE program they are running them to 8000 hours before overhaul. I'll say it again. Big displacement standard config gas motors are the way to go.
@@tstanley01 Incoming wall of text (Engine design is complicated, who knew?). You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just stuck in the past. The Adept Airmotive engine represents what's possible with modern gasoline engines. Compare the weight to any Lycoming or Continental engine. $86k is cheap when compared to the $100k+ that you'd have to pay for a FADEC LyContisaurus engine with the same performance. "There are a dozen engine companies that have been trying to make these things work for decades...They all keep blowing through deadlines, getting sold and bought." What are you talking about? The engines DO work, they're being sold right now and have been flying for years. The failure of these companies doesn't stem from any issues with the engines (except in the case of Eggenfellner's Subaru engines, which were also problematic in cars, they were just a flawed design), it comes from the fact that there just isn't a whole lot of demand for experimental aircraft engines in general. Business is always slow, in other words. On high rpm engines: Rotax engines are plenty reliable, most issues with them stem from the fact that they use carbs, but they now offer models with EFI. Piston speeds are what matter, that's where most of the stress comes from, and they can be kept quite low with modern engine designs. On OHC, mutli-valve engines: OHC, multi-valve engines have been powering some of the highest performance aircraft in the world for over 80 years, they're plenty reliable. Mustangs, Spitfires, P-38s, P-40s, etc, all use OHC engines and have 4 valves per cylinder. OHC engines also power basically ALL of the most reliable and longest lasting cars on the road. On geared engines: ALL of the most powerful piston aircraft engines use PSRUs, from the Merlin to the R-3350. Here's a cut and paste from another discussion, I really don't feel like rewriting it. It should explain why you can read about LyContisaurus engines having catastrophic failures pretty much every week. The quoted text is from the guy that I was talking to. "The short of it is the simple truth that if you want reliability you need either under-stressed designs... like a big air cooled hulk with lots of displacement and low rotational speed." Contrary to what most people believe, a reliable, under-stressed, air cooled piston engine doesn't exist in the aviation world. Despite their reduced complexity, air-cooled engines have extremely poor reliability when compared to modern water-cooled engines, this is because the cooling of individual engine parts is wildly inconsistent and because their cooling capacity is very limited, requiring the pilot to manage the fuel mixture in order to keep temperatures within limits. The big, air cooled, direct-drive aircraft engines are not under-stressed, they're always right on the edge of catastrophic failure due to their poor cooling performance and because of the high torque pulses which are a result of their large displacement, along with a lack of inertia in their rotating assembly to smooth out those huge torque pulses (which is due to their low rotational speed). Making an engine drive the propeller directly also requires heavy, huge displacement engines which must be built in a very flimsy manner in order to make them light enough for aircraft use. The added complexity of a PSRU actually increases reliability, which is why all of the most powerful aircraft engines had a PSRU. "Or a very sophisticated design with very extreme materials." No, water cooling and PSRUs eliminate the requirement for exotic materials because water cooling keeps everything consistently cooled and because it's easier to make smaller parts stronger without using exotic materials. Using a PSRU allows for the use of lower a displacement engine, which makes use of smaller components. The one issue that the Honda engines have which there is no way to work around (without completely redesigning the engine or dramatically lowering displacement) is high piston speeds, and that is something which produces stress, wear and inefficiency. The longer the stroke, the greater the distance a piston must travel for each rotation of the crankshaft, which means that a piston in an engine with a longer stroke must move faster than it would in an engine with a shorter stroke at a given rpm. With stronger rods and pistons, reliability wont be an issue in the Honda engines, but efficiency and longevity will be. An engine designed for aircraft use will typically keep the mean piston speed below ~12 m/s, but the Viking engines are around 16 m/s (which really isn't that bad, just higher than it should be). For comparison, at 5,800 rpm, a Rotax 915 iS will have a mean piston speed of 11.8 m/s. All in all, I'd trust a converted Honda engine over a LyContisaurus engine any day and, really, efficiency is even pretty good on the Viking engines, They burn 0.4 lb/hp-hr at full power, which is better than what LyContisaurus engines burn at cruise. I guess my rant could be better summed up by saying that the Viking engines are a major improvement over air cooled engines, despite the fact that they're not perfectly optimized for aircraft use.
@@tstanley01 Made some corrections to the first part of my comment. I'm involved in too many conversations at once here, I lost track of who you were. I agree that Adept Airmotive probably wont be successful, but, again, that has nothing to do with their engine design, it has to do with how costly it is to bring a new engine to market and how little product is moved in GA. It's always going to be a large investment with a slow return, and most investors don't like that. Diesels don't make sense for aircraft because they're inherently more expensive than gasoline engines and much, MUCH heavier, so they drastically reduce the performance of any aircraft that they're installed in.
You are the only person on the planet that I have met that says adding a gear box to an engine makes them more reliable. Apparently you have never flown a 421 or a rotax for that matter. Even taxiing is a pita because unless you have a load on the motor you get gear chatter and can damage them. In fact the engine monitor on the Rotax I have flown starts screaming at you if the RPM drops below 1800 rpm. At that rpm it rolls way too fast, even at gross weight. So you are always running at higher than idol RPM and having to ride the brakes. It is added complexity with no real upside. The reason people put overhead cams in motors isn't for reliability or power generation. It is so they will idle better while still being able to flow air over a wider range of RPM. Neither of which is important in an aircraft engine, because you can design them to operate at an optimal RPM range that typically doesn't vary more than a few 100 RPM. As far as them being in the longest running engines on the roads....18 wheelers use a conventional cam. So do most light and medium sized trucks. Those are typically the longest running engines on the road that are used for commercial work, where reliability, cost and ease of maintenance is important. In fact, my experience with high performance, small displacement, fire breathing engines has been that the bottom ends hold up fine. It is always the cams, timing chains, phenolic tensioners, and high pressure direct injection fuel pumps that give you problems. I am not saying there aren't things we can improve. Electronic ignitions are great. When you do a mag check on a system running a EI and a Mag, the RPM doesn't even dip when grounding the Mag because the EI works so well. Self powered EI should be certified for dual use instead of having to have atleast one mag. FADEC is fine also, but it should allow for manual parameters. Some days I want to run LOP, some days ROP, some days I want to run the motor out at 2600 RPM. Some days I have passengers in the back without headsets and want to turn them back to 2300 RPM. Fully automatic FADEC is like removing the tach from a F1 car and only have a shift light. Real pilots know how to operate their systems properly. Another thing I don't like about the Rotax is that they don't have mixture control, you can't even run the cylinders dry during shut down. To me that is a safety feature. Having to turn the prop on that thing to prime the oil knowing the cylinders have fuel in them a little scary. Water cooling is fine, but again, a properly baffled air cooled engine runs well within limits and doesn't add any new systems that need to be maintained. A well tuned a36 with a TN kit and good baffles will run up to 25000", running at 93% power and still be well within temperature limits. That is where we need to go. George and his group have gathered more information on GA piston engines than anyone on the planet, and you don't see them designing overly complicated motors that gain nothing and only add cost and complexity. They are building components and accessories for tradition engines that make them run better, longer and with more power. He is so busy they can't build stuff fast enough. EPS and all the rest can't even get through certification. Aircraft owners are trying to get the most amount of performance with the least amount of moving parts. Everything is so expensive,. So unless you have a dang good reason to add or complicate a system, we don't want it.
CAD/CAM and computerization in combination with stiff government efficiency regulation and competitive pressures has changed automotive engines so much in the past 10 to 15 years. Double or more power and better efficiency. Meanwhile, Lycoming is the only game in town for light aircraft with its 1950's and earlier origins. Maddening...
you prolly dont care but does anyone know a way to log back into an Instagram account?
I somehow forgot the account password. I appreciate any tips you can give me
@Noel Trace Instablaster :)
@Harley Bronson Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and im in the hacking process atm.
Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Harley Bronson it worked and I now got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D
Thank you so much, you saved my ass :D
@Noel Trace happy to help xD
Again, my high praises for your work doing this UA-cam channel. As history reflects, piston aircraft engine development actually ended at the close of world war two. Since then, the emphasis has been redirected to materials engineering for durability issues, weight reduction and fuel economy. The air cooled engine in principal offered combat survivability because of the vulnerability of combat aircraft to ground fire in that (the golden bee bee could)sever a coolant line and thus the engine could not run very long and the aircraft was lost, in single engine aircraft.
Now the issue is pushing more power from less displacement. The byproduct of heat has to be dispersed in a controlled manner so liquid cooling is the most practical approach. Remember, Viking does not use antifreeze for coolant. They use another liquid with properties that will not boil (or turn to a gas state of matter) until a much higher temperature than water or antifreeze.
Lastly, the whole scheme of running an aircraft from a non-traditional aircraft engine manufacturer is based on the economy of scale. Traditional aircraft engine manufactures produce a very small percentage of the total internal combustion engines in annual production. A single production run of Honda or Mitsubishi may well exceed all traditional aircraft engine manufacturers combined. So, it makes sense that they can produce at much lower costs (micro economics 101).
Certified aircraft engine manufacturers will not disappear. They offer well proven products and maintain very intimate relationships with aircraft manufacturers. The body of regulation and insurance demands that their products are used to protect the public and the industry as a whole. This is not an apples to apples comparison between certified aircraft engine manufactures and experimental/light sport engine suppliers. It really comes down to affordability and access to current technologies. By selecting a non-certified aircraft engine for your non-certified aircraft you (the builder/buyer) are somewhat avoiding the regulatory costs and poor economy of scale of aircraft certified engines. Overall, no manufacturer/reseller of non-certified aircraft engines is actually selling their engines at a low enough cost to open aviation to all such as making automotive available and reasonable for nearly all. That may never happen because our educational system and government mentality has not evolved. We seem to be more interested as a nation in making cannabis available than encouraging our people to soar high with aviation.
Mr Shi quite right. Piston powered aircraft owners are being held hostage by the airframe/engine manufactures dictatorship. In some respects, the situation is similar to the people of Cuba and their old cars. Why do aviators put-up with this crap? Most of us don't drive 40+ year old cars. Most of us fly 40+ year old airplanes.
Everything you said was great but I got confused by the cannabis comment.
Hong is saying making marijuana available 'shows-up on the radar screen' while general aviation is close to zero interest for the public
"soar high" ha ha I found the pun!
@@donjohnston3776 that is natural ... everyone is smoking but only few are flying.
love the rat rod colors he used on this zenith
thank you
can you use that kind of engine in aerobatic type??
Need that VTEC in my 172
Constant speed propeller
Gonna keep it over 6k tho
Hi
B20 Turbo! Lol
You will feel the bulkhead pulling away from you.@@OMACMedicFiveZero
Sony guts! Lol! Sabra Price is Right on SNL with Tom Hanks!
I have a 2.2l in-line 4 with 147hp f22 Honda it’s the most reliable engine I’ve ever had can I use it on a kit plane
How about using an aircraft engine for a car? I wanna see an aircraft flat 4 in avw vanagon!
Have you explored the Yamaha 988 turbo used in their snowmobile?
These are mad interesting
Hi Jay, what do you thing would be the best auto conversion for a Cessna 150 That I plan to also install a stall kit?
Unfortunately, you are not legally allowed to use an Automotive engine in a Cessna 150, as the aircraft is certified with a Continental O-200. Any engine change you have to go through a huge number of hoops to get an Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) generated, otherwise you violate the Type Certificate, and thusly, the Airworthiness certificate becomes void.
I have had my A&P (Airframe and Powerplant license) since 2006, and have been working at a Flight school since 2015.
@@Skyfighter64 Thanks for the reply. It seems unproductive to replace with 60 year old technology when newer engines are way more efficient and much less than $22,000,00 cdn!
Ron Champagne unfortunately, that is just how FAA regulations work. for any manufactured, certified aircraft, changes have be FAA approved. Fortunately, experimental aircraft sidestep some of these regulations, like needing 2 separate ignition systems.
Uh, I’m an A+P too, and they COULD use an automotive engine on a 150 - BUT, it would have to go experimental. We used to have an experimental Cessna 172.
@@jondavey5407 thats what I thought. The certified plane loses its certification and is forever more an experimental.
This is a great review. I would like to add that no motor knows what it is in. But aircraft motors have not been successful in cars. Saying this the modern car designed motor works in anything you put it in and it is the leading in technology , efficiency , light weight technology and not to mention easy access for parts and best price. I like what Viking is doing.
Not quite correct. Stick a prop out on the end of the crankshaft brings on many problems. A big problem is the crank loaded well past its design. Again I use the corvair. Add a 5th bearing you get a good 100-120hp engine.
Thanks. Great
i would put a ls7 in a piper super cub sor do ls swaps on a beechcraft baron g58 or king air 350
So how much is a Honda conversion engine?
They have different engine sizes, but according to their website, the Viking 130 costs about $11,000. www.vikingaircraftengines.com/new-products
So are pushrod engines bad for planes
Hi
I have a 200 kg aircraft which is the right engine for it
What do you need from horsepower ??
I think a Rotax will be great (Weights 93 kg) with a 100 hp (75 kw) power rating for the upper end.
@@heathbauerle2787 thanks
I suspect, there might be support issues with these engine installations...
You take things as they come, support comes at the cost of.... uh cost! Plain and simple, I cant afford to fly certified engines, I cant even to fly professionally converted engines. If I'm going to fly itll be on my labor.
I think I wanna k20t my eventual sail cruiser.
I forget the guys name but he has a UA-cam channel where he put a Chevy Ls3 all aluminum V8 into his Zenith aircraft....he has 450 +horsepower....these Auto engines are manufactured in the Miiions how many Rotax engines are made comparably speaking ?
Quinton P. Young III Zenith doesn't make anything that can handle a 450hp LS3
@@jpag8764 I'll have to look around to find the link; but there's a guy on youtube that put a LS3 in a Zenith similarly to this guy who put a Ford 302 v8 in his Zenith. ua-cam.com/video/rCNnEgRkdXc/v-deo.html
Aluminum big block V8... about 600-800hp... looking at building a ⅔-¾'ish scale BF109....
You should use a tiny honda I-Dtec 1.5/1.6 diesel. Get really good fuel mileage. Or a High Performance Viking using a K20c or K24. They could fly a 5-6 people plane. Especially twin-engine design would be very fast and reliable.
Good video but the guy is a little too sales type for my liking. I would love to know the design choices that let Rotax to choose a hybrid cooling design. Given that it’s a modern engine I’m sure it wasn’t legacy design. So why was it done?
I can appreciate how that could induce failure points but without a discussion of the benefits it feels a little one sided.
The liquid cool is required because without it the engine would overheat. I’m not sure why rotax just liquid cool the heads and not the cylinders too like the car and bike engines, but it probably comes down to being lighter than a full liquid cool (cars and bikes need it cos they don’t always have airflow in cars and bikes).
Full air cooled plane engines are mostly 2ci per hp Viking Yamaha and rotax are much higher power / cubic inch than that, so they need liquid cool
Remember that Rotas also use oil cooling and that makes quite a difference, cooling the really hot parts of the engine, i.e. the heads, it is more forgiving on cooling setup. Jabiru engines from Australia also have a liquid cooled head kit which has improved their reliability.
Redundancy? In aviation is quite common to have backup components for each and every system in case of a failure
@@thebikespot9177 it’s not redundant, because without the coolant it overheats.
But I think I did figure it out.
1. It eliminates the head gasket coolant passage ways which is a common failure.
2. Less weight because less coolant and a smaller radiator is needed that if the engine where solely water cooled.
Th rotax engine was designed in the late 70-s early 80's. Electronic engine management was not good then so it was designed around a carburettor. Most of the cooling required for an engine is in the head, valves, detonation, so cooling the cylinders was not necessary. Because the Rotax is smaller and a more efficient high revving engine it has less surface area for cooling, so liquid is ideal. You also already have air flow in a plane so relocating all of the cooling to a radiator is not needed. The Rotax is ideal NA with EFI, but once you put a turbo on, a completely enclosed liquid cooled engine is better. Not entirely because of cooling, but because the actual engine is stronger and can handle the combustion and torsional forces better. All Engines use oil cooling also and air cooling to a degree. Aircraft engines Rotax and Lycoming derived from radial engines with individual cylinders, which derived from large displacement single cylinders which came from steam cylinders. The important part of liquid cooling is its fast response to temperature change while maintaining a stable temperature. Air cooling is neither able to absorb or dissipate heat as quickly. And yes, this man is just selling what he can, not what is good. Variable valve timing as no place in an aircraft engine with a narrow rpm range. I have watched many of his videos and he has little knowledge of his own product.
Any intelligent aircraft designer starts with the engine
Unless it is the A10... Hehehe
what about the Ford ST 3 Cylinder 1.5 turbocharged engine. this looks like a serious contender! is Viking, or other Auto conversion operations, looking at this engine?
Could someone build a hellcat powered hellcat?
Why you don‘t you use a V6 car engine in the airplanes?
People do requires a gear reduction unit to slow down the prop which can't turn high RPM.
There's way more engineering and designing going into Automotive then there is aircraft... overall when it comes to engines. Look at the new variable compression variable valve timing 2.0l . It makes anywhere from 240 horsepower up to 280 horsepower. It is 8:1 compression and 14:1 compression. Has pretty much flat torque curve from like 1500 RPM up. Volkswagen make a 1.4 liter that makes 180 horsepower it has variable valve timing direct injection.... also has a flat torque curve. They now make automobile engines that you have to do nothing too except for change the oil for the first 100k miles.... can you say that about any aircraft engine?
I do have a serious question, as I gather data in my quest to eventually own the plane of my dreams (Custom Long-EZ), I know the norm for such a plane are O-320's (140-160HP, depending on exact model), but I am considering a 200HP Turbocharged Automotive conversion (Ideally, in my head, I imagine 200HP all the way to 20K, and my maximum service ceiling of 25K), but more importantly, I want also a Constant speed propeller.
Now on to my actual question: Since Auto conversions are geared, and don't run off of the crankshaft directly, it seems a standard hydraulic model would be out of the question, more important in my mind, however, is how a geared automotive conversion would respond. It probably is a complete non-factor, and I'm thinking too hard about it, but if anyone has information that might be useful, I would appreciate it.
Read the comments I and nickolas wrote, with the link in nickolas post, to this video. Your chances of finishing the aircraft and having a good flying airplane with an aircraft engine are far greater, than any auto conversion you can dream up.
Weight and drag are two factors. Trying to figure out where to put a radiator and duct, where it's efficient is difficult. The designers, whether it's a Van's RV or Rutan's long-ez, are around air-cooled horizontally-opposed 4 cylinders. And yes the water cooling in the gear reduction adds weight and complexity and drag.
You're truly way out on your own and you're going to add 100's and 100's of hours of build time, and you're not going to save any money.
The auto conversion guys constantly say how great their conversions are, but after reading these for 30 years, you don't see them taking over the world or meeting the claims. Some deserve credited for effort and good results ( near aircraft engines), but those are few and far between, but required far more work and technical resources to achieve it.
For awhile it was the rotary engines were the best, but they're kind of boutique rarity. A nice guy in Florida supported them with drives and help. He at least flew what he made in an RV4. He is out if the business. Rotary engines themselves have drawbacks, not the least of which is poor fuel economy. There have been two other companies that made very sophisticated wankel designs for aircraft, but neither of them got any traction.
Then there was the Subaru conversion, like the one that eggenfellener sold to mostly Van's Aircraft customers. He folded, left everybody holding the bag. Eggenfellner Subaru powered RVs sell for a lot less than a lycoming per planes. They're slower, heavier and there's nothing superior about them over a Lycoming powered RV. Oh, what he charged for them was as more than a Lycoming with all the extras needed. Again he was in this business before and completely folded, and now he's starting up a new company with Honda engines. Run don't walk.
You also indicate you want to do some custom design. Unless you have incredible talent, resouces, CAD, fabrication ability (machine shop, composite fabrication) and ability to research and use engineering data, I would stick with a Rutan design with Lyc, fixed prop.
If you really want a Canard airplane. I understand the velocity, cozy are all very good airplanes. Their size would lend more room for an auto engine. LongEZ is a great plane, but small and has real limits to how much weight you can put for power plant.
As far as constant speed props and hydraulics you're right you would probably end up needing an electric prop on auto conversion. However some reduction drives have incorporated a hyd prop governor and hollow shaft. More weight and complexity (and size).
If you're talking about a longEZ, chances are you're really looking at a fixed pitch prop, just for weight reasons. However the path to least resistance would be a lycoming with a hydraulic prop if CS prop is a must. There are composite constant speed props that are lighter than a metal Hartzell, but never lighter than a fixed wood prop. Best to get on LongEZ forums. See what has been done.
Forget about turbocharging, flying at flight level 250. Anything over 18,000 feet is IFR. You would have to certify and equip for that, expensive. What you're talking about is pressurized turbocharged aircraft (Lancair or P210) or turboprop or turbojet performance.
Trust me normally aspired Lycoming with reserve power that's in light low drag aircraft, has reserved horsepower, can easily fly up to 18,000 feet efficiently. Some IO320's are making 170hp now.
Of course above 18000 ft its Class A airspace and requires an IFR Flight Plan. Is that how you're going to use this fun little light sport aircraft? Are you going to put an IFR panel in and heated pitot?
Most of my general aviation flying is below 12,000 feet unless there's really good winds higher up, and then I go on oxygen. Typical Cruise altitude is between 8000 and 12500 feet. That allows you to be at Full Throttle well below 75% power lean for maximum economy.
Unless you have endless time and money for your custom long-ez that can fly at 25,000 feet with an auto engine and turbo charger, a real tall order, Stick to the designers plans and keep it light and simple. A Long EZ is made to be a light efficient aircraft using a lower horsepower engine. You're completely changing that, and you'll probably end up with something that you'll never finish or do it will do nothing well.
Last there's an ambitious project Raptor Aircraft, that's on UA-cam. See link below. They're using a turbocharged diesel Audi engine in a velocity canard type design, but it total custom. Look at their catalog of videos and how much work they're putting into this. It's pressurized as well. Google Raptor aircraft, look at their website as well. Tell me what you think.
ua-cam.com/video/yVC5qmYRdsk/v-deo.html
@@gmcjetpilot What do you think of FADEC engine systems to get best performance for the engine and fuel economy?
@@markhathaway9456 You have to prove they "get the best". I'll say the single lever control of TIO550 Continental in an almost 1/2 $million$ new Cirrus, is very cool, wonderful, awesome. It's way too expensive and I can operate an IO550 with 3 controls (throttle, mixture, prop) almost as efficiently. However the "workload" is higher. I can handle it. The Jet I fly has FADEC. Single control still the same as any non FADEC Jet... However FADEC has benifit in ease of maintenance and protection of expensive turbojet engines... and there is some efficiency improvement. With huge fuel burn of a jet any tiny increase in efficiency is a lot of fuel, for a plane that 1000's of hours a year. A GA plane that flies 100 hours the pay back of FADEC is questionable from an economics analysis standpoint. Also it is hard to beat the Farm Tractor Hammer technology of Mags and a mechanical fuel system *100% independent of electrical system*. My RV7 has a Carb and one Electronic Ignition and one Mag. It flys like a bat out of hell and gets high 20's Gal/Miles in cruise, better than most cars while going over 3x the speed. Would FADEC be a quantum change in my planes performance and efficiency? No. Would I like FADEC? Yes but I'll take the $10K (or more) and buy fuel and fly more :-). Better fly now before AOC bans flying for the common people. Only elite Gov can fly in the future...
@@gmcjetpilot That's a lot of information. Thanks a lot. Since you fly an RV7 I'll also ask what you think of the RV-14 RV-14a. I think they've hit the sweet spot on a lot of aesthetics and practical things.
@@markhathaway9456 join VAF forum and ask. There are no bad RV's.. it depends on your mission and wallet. If you are 6'2" and 250 lbs get an RV 14. If you're six feet or less, under 200 lbs, the RV7 is perfect for Side By Side 2Plc. Now your girlfriend or wife, that's a different story. Frankly a lot of RV pilots fly solo 95% of the time, so RV 3 or an RV4 for RV8 are really a great airplanes. I built and flew an RV 4. Fantastic airplane. Put 900 hours on her before I sold her. Fantastic airplane. How much money do you have? RV14 is built on the larger heavier more expensive angle valve IO390 210 horsepower (experimental) engine. The RV3/4/6/7/8 can fly nicely with 320 to 360 (160-180HP) Lycoming. Bigger engine more fuel. $5/gal... Lyc fuel burns from 6-12 Gal/Hr (econ to max cruise). Do the math. However even a big engine can be throttled way back at lean of peak.... still small engine less fuel burn... which is axiomatic.
Have you ever thought about checking out the Honda 2.4 engine?
It weighs 412lbs....
@@Wingnut353 That's with a transmission, halfshaft assembly and full accessories, they're less than 300 pounds without the transmission. The Honda V6 that Titan aircraft uses in their T-51 only weighs 416 pounds, ready to fly.
You wouldn't want to use the 2.4, its internal geometry is all wrong for use in aircraft, you'd want to use the K20A. The K24 is very undersquare (which gives it high piston speeds) and it has a very short rod to stroke ratio, which places high side loads on the cylinders/pistons. It was designed to make power at low revs, which is not what you want in an aircraft engine, as it will spend most of its time at relatively high rpm.
Yeah, I remember when an RV-10 was destroyed, because the pilot was overwhelmed and/or distracted with all of his auto-conversion issues. No thank you. Thankfully it wasn’t on the planned trip with family the following day. Love my simple IO-540, 10.5-14.0 gph and all.
Gearbox is everything on auto conversion.
when do you talk about the subject...
1:06 3:06 4:30
What EXACTLY is YOUR subject? Once you state it, I will run ALL over it. Then we will sell a 130 engine to someone you hate and provide them with 10 years of free service :)
@@eggenfellner Thanks, but I stay with UL. They just provide data not lber l..bla..sell socks..
What happens when you have too much power?..you become powerfull...haha
How come they don't talk about diesel engines? Diamond is running them
too heavy...
You talk about your engine has to run at 5300 at take off change that. Order a 12 blade propeller and the blades at 14 inches wide each blade, that will give the maximum air flow and alot of pulling power. Don‘t need to run your engine so high in the R.P.M‘s. Tell the propeller manufacturer these specifications you will be happy with that when you get it on your airplane
I am not an engineer. but it looks like that setup would have too much load for your engine to make that propeller spin since its "catching" so much air. youre an idiot sir.
Why can't the engine have a transmission to operate at lower RPMs.
it has one... that's the shiny cnc'd bit on the front of the viking, the crank goes through a 3 gear reduction ... which is sort of a transmission, it just doesn't ever "shift"
Was thinking about the possibility of using an autoconversion engine back in a car. 0 experience just food for thought but this kinda crushed that thought lmao.
The engine requires high rpm to develop the horsepower needed for acceptable aircraft performance. However, that same high rpm exceeds the propeller’s efficient operating speed. So, there is a gear reduction drive to keep both the engine and prop at useful rpms. The alternative is high torque at low rpm engines, such as the legacy Continental and Lycoming engines. Lots of cubic inches of engine displacement for a given horsepower so that there is ‘surplus’ of low rpm torque in the rpm range required by the prop.
The reason automobiles have transmissions is the engine has widely varying loading, and horsepower/torque requirements. The aircraft when flying has a more constant load to maintain cruise flight and necessarily operates at a higher percentage of peak horsepower than does the typical automobile. However, the nearest thing to a transmission on piston aircraft engines is the constant speed propeller. When the aircraft is operating at a lighter load (speed and/or weight), the CS prop allows engine rpm reduction while maintaining a ‘cruise pitch’ propeller blade angle or vice versa, such as during the take off run. With a CS prop, the pilot selects the best combination of engine manifold pressure (throttle setting) and propeller speed (blade pitch angle) to suit the circumstances.
The Rotax 915 iS is the best piston aircraft engine out there right now IMHO but it will be cool to see where these auto conversions go in the future.
The 915 is a disaster. It was designed for the drones. The auto conversions are not for the "future:????? The 915 is for some future development for a LSA aircraft manufacturer too stupid to see the bologna. 540000 wires, several computers, heat sensitive fuel pumps with shields, coolant radiators, oil radiators, air cooled cylinders, external oil tanks, exhaust pipes from 4 corners, intake pipes from every cylinder and a host of other junk that is ONLY there to satisfy the USA government drone factories. Why do you thing the ECU is made HERE? www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/News/2015-Cal-Yr/CS/FY15CSNR34-Rotax.aspx Why is the ECU not really available to homebuilders ? Even though it is US tax money funding it? The Rotax 915 in the Sling aircraft at the 2018 Oshkosh was a total nightmare. Could not even conceive a maintenance schedule. Wires galore, coolers mounted directly to the bottom cowling (how could you lower it
) The inline 4 cylinder engines are lightyears ahead of this nightmare.
Less that 160HP, almost 50K and a 1200 TBO....Granted, imagine that TBO will increase with time. Not a Rotax fan, but atleast they are trying to come up with new products. I just think that price completely misses the audience they are trying to attract.
Viking Aircraft Engines Haha dramatic much? The 915 iS seems to be working quite well for Sling and many others.
Trent Palmer has one in his Kitfox STi and today he called it, “the best piston aircraft engine in all of GA.”
Like I said, it will be interesting to see where these auto conversions go in the future. There’s just not enough hard data to support their reliability in aircraft yet.
and tremt palmer got grounded because the ehaust valve stem is sodium filled and there was a manufacturing mistake in them. his exhaust valves need replaced. all 915 aare grounded .@@andrewmorris3479
m kramer Yep, hopefully the can release new valves soon and get these engines back in the air.
Just sitting here thinking... you know... a 1.6L ecoboost engine produces 190 hp... is direct injected and turbocharged... only weighs 250lbs... they put those engines in damn near everything so they're cheap... I would think it would be well worth throwing a constant rpm prop onto one with a direct gear drive... it would make one hell of a light sport aircraft setup. (Crate engines being appx 7K). I'd throw a dry sump setup on there, a large oil reserve can... call it a day.
..u really don't want to be sit in a plane over a Ecoboost engine.. oh Boy.. numbers os performance on ground doesn't mean will be the same up there..
I've been looking at using the Audi 3.0 tdi swap for a Cessna 170/180
Good luck, the engine weighs a ton.
@@PistonAvatarGuy the Continental 0-470 weighs 391 pounds. The 3.0 TDI weighs 483. Almost 100 pounds heavier but will burn 5.5 gph or less. Also there's over 100 hp increase with the TDI swap.
Also increases flight distance by at least 400 nm
@@bladenrexroth2555 A 3.0 TDI with a PSRU strong enough to handle the torque pulses that it produces, plus a cooling system, is going weigh around 550 pounds and will make about the same amount of power as an 0-470. Lugging extra weight around also has basically the same effect as reducing engine power. Every percent you increase the weight of an aircraft requires power to increase by the same percentage in order to maintain the same performance. Cessna dropped all of its diesel offerings due to that harsh reality.
@@bladenrexroth2555 More weight = less range when the same amount of power is being produced. More power requires more fuel. Aircraft designers aren't dumb, there's a reason that diesels never caught on as aircraft power plants.
Auto engines are awesome these days
Most plane engines are old and out of date
What the hell? Did he claim that "many people choose the engine first and then pick an aircraft around the engine"? Does anyone even know anyone who did that? I mean seriously did anyone ever say "I don't really care what I fly as long as it has zippy banger engine in it"?
Please don't deal with this company. Look up Eggenfellner. See post below from nicholas. He had a Subaru conversion business aimed at Van aircraft designed for Lycoming. He sold many and then folded. Problems galore and poor support, heavy weight, lower performance, lower resale. In general best advice for 99% of people get a lycoming (320, 360), continental (200) or rotax (912, 914). Rotax is my last choice.
Lycoming, Continental and Rotax all have countless hours of experience and a company notifying you of any issues. These Auto conversions you're pretty much all on your own. If you want to tinker and play with it (not fly) and take a little extra risk (lower reliability) and deal with a reduction drive, then yeah maybe an auto conversion is for you. But you're not going to save money. You will have lower performance with same or higher fuel burn. You're definitely not going to save time.
It's much simpler, easier, more reliable, safer, with better performance if you just buy an aircraft engine. The cost of a new Lycoming has come way down, because they're not a monopoly anymore. Companies make experimental clones of Lycoming. To me the perfect small low horsepower engine is probably the Continental 200 or Lycoming 320. Direct drive, no radiator, known mature aircraft engines. They will be lighter, less drag, less maintenance and safer.
OMG its on, We can do this all day. Your post came in on my email, I cant find it here ? Lets move on. I took some notes. 68 years old & tired. Been in a plane all my life. My dad was a great pilot & A&P fantastic school teacher. also on the piper design team many years ago. Made me a piper kid. I hate anything piper ! official solo in 1967 PA17 really I stole it one day & got caught ! Ok You say ww2 tech helped Lycoming ? I don't see it. 1937 lyc was blowing head gaskets till into and after the war. Piper was so fed up continental was pushed into the 4 cyl market. The big 2 are the only game in town. Over the years I have seen many examples of bad engineering. I worked at Alphin Aircraft for years. Largest rebuilder on the east coast .Everything you can imagine came through the door. So 2000 hr tbo, unrealistic ,Guys just don't take care of a engine to get there. Auto engine better in cars. Except for the corvair we agree.I am not a huge fan but it does work, Water cooling I was a fan. now not so much. Just cooling the head does not solve much. Rotax. I don't like them at all. O235. I have one in a tailwind N31039. I hate it. Heavy. Just does not run well. Its ok not great. ? I know that's a little ify ? You can step up to a 320 or 360 than the cost gets out of control. The 540s What else is there. Chevy LS That wont work. I do believe we are stuck. Your thoughts ? Pauley
@@pauleyplay I'm 10 years younger and in airplanes all my life . My Dad was in Airforce, and I have a degree in mechanical engineering, worked for Boeing. ATP airline pilot (737, 757, 767), built two kit planes RV4 and 7.
You keep saying all the experiance you have. I guess you know all. Sorry it does not sound like it. You say untrue cliches. When you say 2000 hours TBO is unrealistic, I know you are blowing smoke.
1937 is way before the small Horz opposed Lyc 4 bangers. Blown head gasket? Please. Do you know how a modern (since 1955) Lycoming is put together? O-320 (1953) and O-360 (1955). BTW Lycoming heads screw onto the jug by the way.
I had 2300 hrs on two O320's on my PA23-160 (piper Apache) running fine with great compression. It flew every day, that is why. Good luck picking an engine. Do as you like. You get what you pay for. With you skills you could get a salvaged engine and overhaul it yourself.
I agree O-235 is not the best, a O-320 has 45Hp to 65Hp more for not much more weigh.
PS I bought a used O360, 600 hours on first rebuild from first run out, for $3500. I and friend tore it down. Sent out crank, rods, case out. Jugs were fine, put in new parts,as needed. Had about $12,500 into it, including carb rebuild. Add $3000 for electronic ignition about $15k. $5000 for governor and hartzell CS prop. $20K. My RV7 cruises at 190 mph true at 8500 feet, and tops 212 mph sea level, 100% power. My fuel burn man be 7 to 6.5 gph or less econ cruise, and still fo 170-180 mph. That is +26 mpg. Going slow cost more.
Cheers.
@@gmcjetpilot We see aviation different, OK. 1937 was first year for 4 cyl that had HEAD gaskets, That engine was still used in the J3 &PA15 in 1946. Just saying not much has changed. Apache was my dads favorite N1145P N1455P. We all received our twin ratings it Yes I can rebuild anything, just as you say look how much it cost. I believe many builders struggle with 20K & up for a engine.I totally agree you get what you pay for. I believe our market is much to small for much R&D. Anything new cost way to much.
@@pauleyplay Fair enough Paul. All the best. Good luck with your project.
Packard-Merlin V12 that powered the P-51 used a gear reduction would you claim that engine is not reliable? If you want to just fly don't build an experimental aircraft buy a certified aircraft. Experimental aircraft are just that experimental the engine used in them is also experimental there isn't any right or wrong engine to use.
You posted the certifed auto engine, go down to the auto makers and put your certifed sticker on all the engines. The word certifed IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENGINE THAT YOUR TO USE IN THE AIRPLANE.
What are the rpm engines running the max time?? Car engines are ruined running max rpm all the time ..
Education he said 5400 at climb and 4800 at cruise for both. That’s high
@@Truzakar That's the same for the Rotax 912.
@@Truzakar its better to go with specialized engines instead of hacked car engines I believe. There are 2 ignition points in aircraft certified engines which make them safer as compared to car engines having single spark plug for single cylinder, better engine performance at constant rpm near about 2700 to 3000 rpm in most cases, better torque management and directly connected propeller shaft ...
@@engineeringresponse4406 The unreliability of mechanical ignition system is only reason aircraft engines need to have two ignition systems in the first place!
@@PistonAvatarGuy car engines are designed to run on surface where you can put your car on the side in case of problem, while failure of aircraft engine means a miserable death .....
Choose your motor before identifying the mission or airframe? That’s doesn’t make sense. How would you know your weight, HP, fuel efficiency, fuel type, constant prop systems, etc requirements? You’d end up compromising your mission and choice to airframe to reflect the motor you purchased. Backwards for sure.
Because most of the people building these aircraft have no idea what they are doing.
Ah, yes, Jan Eggenfellner. Y'all should read up on his history. I'd never buy a thing from that man. Go read about his history with Subaru conversions.
Eggenfellner seem have been able to overcome that past he claims he has sold over 750+ engines. I would not be surprised with the supply chain issues we are having many are turning to him because he is the only one who can ship. I saw on another video getting a titan engine right now no ETA even after waiting 6-8 months still no ETA on shipping an engine. Although I noticed his prices are getting high up in the high 18k range not lot different then buying a Lycoming core and having it rebuilt. He sources engines from salvage vehicles for 1-2 thousand dollars then tacks on 12-13k in profit the end user gets a used engine for 18k. His Bankruptcy with the Subaru engine business I hear less and less about as time passes.
Auto engines run for many thousands of hours between scheduled overhauls..
Aircraft engines run maybe 1,000 hours between scheduled overhauls... its kinda a no brainer... $50k air cooled turd or a modern water cooled fuel injected engine that makes double the horsepower at ¼ the price...
Sort-of.. aircraft engines are run near their limits much more regularly than car engines (in cars).
Race cars, even using street-spec engines, get overhauled about once a year at least.
It’s about stress, not just build quality and tech.
@@aisu8481 you cruise at 100% power? My regular daily driver Subaru crosstrek cruises at 90'ish mph at about 60% power (3.5k rpm)... And got 150k miles on it before finally needing an alternator... The rest of the engine still runs as new after replacing said alternator... I just change the oil every 5kmiles.... I beat the shit out of my vehicles, they see 100% power every time I take off from a stop sign/light... And go to the race track regularly for track days (expert run group)
@@toadamine I’m saying if you put a car engine in an airplane, it’s going to see higher load for every hour than it does in a car.
You’re talking about a track day every time you fly. Even track days have braking zones, and cool-down breaks after each 20 minute session (bar the optional final hour that Chin does) and engines see a lot of wear there.
Imagine 5-10 minutes of full throttle, nonstop, in your car, every time you leave the house. Warm up and boom, full throttle the whole way to work.
That’s climbing in a 172.
Followed by eh, roughly 60% power, whereas a car gets to coast and use lighter inputs.
Car engines do 10 reps of squats. Aircraft engines do wall squats for an hour or more, spare a couple stalls and random descents.
Totally different animals.
@@aisu8481 then why aren't race cars all using old air cooled airplane engines? 😂
@@toadamine geez, you’re still missing the point.
Because it doesn’t matter what you’re using, you still need to overhaul it in a shorter than normal interval, if it’s used as an airplane engine.
don't forget auto engines aren't made to run flat out all day! you can't just "pull over" at 10k feet. reliability is everything!
They are meant to run far longer than it will take to empty your planes fuel tank. You also don't run them 'flat out' that is why you have a gear box.
You have info from 20 years ago
pull over in an aircraft... maybe you should see the P-51 Voodoo "Pulling over" at ground level to break the speed record. For reliability in a car engine, maybe search for a low compression engine, it won't be pushing too hard on itself to selfdestruct, can easily last 30 years with proper maintenance and will only be pusing a small capacity of it's real power.
Get a diesel. They are good for long distance and constant running. An i4 TDI or A CDI would do the trick. And you wont guzzle as much fuel
Okay, so I decided to give an automotive engine a try, for my upcoming aircraft .. at price of life risk ...
Stay on the couch
If you can't handle an engine failure just stay on the couch
You have no clue of the risks involved, assuming you are even a pilot you are the stereotypical ignorant and superstitious pilot that doesn't have a clue how the mechanical side of aviation works.
Automotive engines were not designed for constant high revs. High RPM. I am sorry I disagree with Viking and all automotive engine users except for one, the Corvair engine as it is air cooled boxer engine and revs reduced to around 3K per minute max. Otherwise horses for courses and I would very much prefer a Lycoming in my aircraft to any auto engine .!
I have seen Lycoming engines run for 20 minutes or so after catastrophic enteral damage only to see you safely on ground before quitting.! Show me an auto engine that can do that. .!
How many automotive engines ever suffer from any kind of catastrophic damage in the first place? That's the thing here, LyContisaurus engines are EXTREMELY unreliable when compared to modern automotive engines.
@@PistonAvatarGuy EXTREMELY unreliable .! Totally untrue.
@@Andaluxsystems Compared to turbine engines and modern automotive engines, they definitely are.
Andaluxsystems Auto engines are used in Marine applications and handle the RPM with no problem.
The Corvair DISASTER ua-cam.com/video/_FW8E_zlspI/v-deo.html
I highly suggest researching further than UA-cam video’s on the Viking engine! Jan makes a lot of wonderful claims about the Viking that are just not true... Honda makes a excellent automotive engine but that does not automatically make them an excellent aircraft engine! There is a lot more that goes into a certified engine than just Engine technology, and I would like to see Viking even make the ASTM standards required for Light Sport! The Rotax engine is by far a superior aircraft engine and Jan claiming the Viking is superior based on Honda’s technology is a joke! Research Eggenfellner Engines www.vikingenginesissues.com
Nonsense ! Prove your point ?
Another Viking engine Kool-Aid drinker eh? The safety numbers speak for themselves Paul. If you want to mount a Honda Engine from a wrecked vehicle with minimum R&D to make it an aircraft engine... be my guest! Good Luck with that... just be prepared and practice your off airport landing skills! Jan is nothing more than a snake oil salesman...
@@flynic3 You do have a point with the Viking. Not my first choice ! I may be looking at this issue from a different experience. I have been flying all my life. I have more than I care to remember off field excursion's over the years. All have been in certified engines. As a A&P I have seen engine tech or lack of for 60+ years. The big two are not very good. They have not changed much since the thirties. Seems to me most common sense engine conversions are somewhat better than what we have now. Example at the far end. The corvair. With the fifth bearing and very carful assembly results in a engine at least as good as any comparable Lycoming. I believe you and I are not very far apart in our thoughts
Paul Van Tries I am not saying that Lycoming and Continental do not have their Failures, and I would agree with you on the design evolution being stagnant. That being said, The R&D or lack there of on the Viking engine does not even come close to that of Rotax, Lycoming and Continental. I am all for using new design idealogogy as long as it goes through the proper R&D to make it an aircraft engine. Slapping off the shelf parts onto a Honda engine from a wrecked vehicle, and claiming it is superior is absolutely insanity! Jan could not even get these engines to pass ASTM standards... So what makes them superior? The Honda engine technology is excellent, but that does not automatically make it a superior Aircraft engine as he likes to claim! I would agree with you completely about the Corvair from Wyse or Wesseman, and If I were to go the Auto Conversion route... That would be my first choice.
Well said, I believe you & I have common ground. Honda being my least favorite. maybe Suzuki !!
The advice to choose the engine first and decide on the aircraft is seriously flawed
and biased.
In the experimental world it's actually pretty common. Other experimental aircraft builders I've spoken to have said the same thing. It's part of the freedom of building yourself.
@@mojogrip Checkout advice by the EAA and sites by builders with umpteen years of experience.
Why?
Worst case ,,,,,,, A nice glass table
@@mojogrip Well said ,always more than one choice !
You guys ever heard that there is no replacement for dispacement. All these motors are trash...Companies have spend decades trying to design an engine that provides better power, efficiency, or weight than an air cooled Lycoming or Continental. The only one who has come close is Rotax and after having flown 10 hours behind one, I'll stick to standard motors...
Adept Airmotive.
So a less than 200 cubic inches motor that has to turn 5500 RPM to make power that is turboed and they are saying 2500 TBO (maybe, they hope). 24 valve with overhead cams?! Gear Box.... LOL Oh and I've used Rotax's dry sump motors. I'll never own a plane that I have to turn the prop over 20 times just the check my oil levels....and 86K price tag?! No thanks...I'll take a IO-550 with a TN kit from tornado alley. I would like electric waste gate and dual self powering electronic ignition.
There are a dozen engine companies that have been trying to make these things work for decades...They all keep blowing through deadlines, getting sold and bought. The problem is they are too complicated and expensive to make, usually too heavy, and the benefits are marginal at best. So they never reach a break even point. Look at the diesel trainers everyone tried. Cessna only made their diesel 172 for a year, and it was so expensive, it didn't make sense. Even for flight schools that are doing 1500 hours a year on them. In bigger planes, once the motors get to a certain price a PT-6 starts to look really good, and they almost ALWAYS make TBO. On the MORE program they are running them to 8000 hours before overhaul. I'll say it again. Big displacement standard config gas motors are the way to go.
@@tstanley01 Incoming wall of text (Engine design is complicated, who knew?). You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just stuck in the past. The Adept Airmotive engine represents what's possible with modern gasoline engines. Compare the weight to any Lycoming or Continental engine. $86k is cheap when compared to the $100k+ that you'd have to pay for a FADEC LyContisaurus engine with the same performance.
"There are a dozen engine companies that have been trying to make these things work for decades...They all keep blowing through deadlines, getting sold and bought."
What are you talking about? The engines DO work, they're being sold right now and have been flying for years. The failure of these companies doesn't stem from any issues with the engines (except in the case of Eggenfellner's Subaru engines, which were also problematic in cars, they were just a flawed design), it comes from the fact that there just isn't a whole lot of demand for experimental aircraft engines in general. Business is always slow, in other words.
On high rpm engines: Rotax engines are plenty reliable, most issues with them stem from the fact that they use carbs, but they now offer models with EFI. Piston speeds are what matter, that's where most of the stress comes from, and they can be kept quite low with modern engine designs.
On OHC, mutli-valve engines: OHC, multi-valve engines have been powering some of the highest performance aircraft in the world for over 80 years, they're plenty reliable. Mustangs, Spitfires, P-38s, P-40s, etc, all use OHC engines and have 4 valves per cylinder. OHC engines also power basically ALL of the most reliable and longest lasting cars on the road.
On geared engines: ALL of the most powerful piston aircraft engines use PSRUs, from the Merlin to the R-3350.
Here's a cut and paste from another discussion, I really don't feel like rewriting it. It should explain why you can read about LyContisaurus engines having catastrophic failures pretty much every week. The quoted text is from the guy that I was talking to.
"The short of it is the simple truth that if you want reliability you need either under-stressed designs... like a big air cooled hulk with lots of displacement and low rotational speed."
Contrary to what most people believe, a reliable, under-stressed, air cooled piston engine doesn't exist in the aviation world. Despite their reduced complexity, air-cooled engines have extremely poor reliability when compared to modern water-cooled engines, this is because the cooling of individual engine parts is wildly inconsistent and because their cooling capacity is very limited, requiring the pilot to manage the fuel mixture in order to keep temperatures within limits. The big, air cooled, direct-drive aircraft engines are not under-stressed, they're always right on the edge of catastrophic failure due to their poor cooling performance and because of the high torque pulses which are a result of their large displacement, along with a lack of inertia in their rotating assembly to smooth out those huge torque pulses (which is due to their low rotational speed). Making an engine drive the propeller directly also requires heavy, huge displacement engines which must be built in a very flimsy manner in order to make them light enough for aircraft use. The added complexity of a PSRU actually increases reliability, which is why all of the most powerful aircraft engines had a PSRU.
"Or a very sophisticated design with very extreme materials."
No, water cooling and PSRUs eliminate the requirement for exotic materials because water cooling keeps everything consistently cooled and because it's easier to make smaller parts stronger without using exotic materials. Using a PSRU allows for the use of lower a displacement engine, which makes use of smaller components.
The one issue that the Honda engines have which there is no way to work around (without completely redesigning the engine or dramatically lowering displacement) is high piston speeds, and that is something which produces stress, wear and inefficiency. The longer the stroke, the greater the distance a piston must travel for each rotation of the crankshaft, which means that a piston in an engine with a longer stroke must move faster than it would in an engine with a shorter stroke at a given rpm. With stronger rods and pistons, reliability wont be an issue in the Honda engines, but efficiency and longevity will be. An engine designed for aircraft use will typically keep the mean piston speed below ~12 m/s, but the Viking engines are around 16 m/s (which really isn't that bad, just higher than it should be). For comparison, at 5,800 rpm, a Rotax 915 iS will have a mean piston speed of 11.8 m/s.
All in all, I'd trust a converted Honda engine over a LyContisaurus engine any day and, really, efficiency is even pretty good on the Viking engines, They burn 0.4 lb/hp-hr at full power, which is better than what LyContisaurus engines burn at cruise.
I guess my rant could be better summed up by saying that the Viking engines are a major improvement over air cooled engines, despite the fact that they're not perfectly optimized for aircraft use.
@@tstanley01 Made some corrections to the first part of my comment. I'm involved in too many conversations at once here, I lost track of who you were. I agree that Adept Airmotive probably wont be successful, but, again, that has nothing to do with their engine design, it has to do with how costly it is to bring a new engine to market and how little product is moved in GA. It's always going to be a large investment with a slow return, and most investors don't like that.
Diesels don't make sense for aircraft because they're inherently more expensive than gasoline engines and much, MUCH heavier, so they drastically reduce the performance of any aircraft that they're installed in.
You are the only person on the planet that I have met that says adding a gear box to an engine makes them more reliable. Apparently you have never flown a 421 or a rotax for that matter. Even taxiing is a pita because unless you have a load on the motor you get gear chatter and can damage them. In fact the engine monitor on the Rotax I have flown starts screaming at you if the RPM drops below 1800 rpm. At that rpm it rolls way too fast, even at gross weight. So you are always running at higher than idol RPM and having to ride the brakes. It is added complexity with no real upside. The reason people put overhead cams in motors isn't for reliability or power generation. It is so they will idle better while still being able to flow air over a wider range of RPM. Neither of which is important in an aircraft engine, because you can design them to operate at an optimal RPM range that typically doesn't vary more than a few 100 RPM. As far as them being in the longest running engines on the roads....18 wheelers use a conventional cam. So do most light and medium sized trucks. Those are typically the longest running engines on the road that are used for commercial work, where reliability, cost and ease of maintenance is important. In fact, my experience with high performance, small displacement, fire breathing engines has been that the bottom ends hold up fine. It is always the cams, timing chains, phenolic tensioners, and high pressure direct injection fuel pumps that give you problems. I am not saying there aren't things we can improve. Electronic ignitions are great. When you do a mag check on a system running a EI and a Mag, the RPM doesn't even dip when grounding the Mag because the EI works so well. Self powered EI should be certified for dual use instead of having to have atleast one mag. FADEC is fine also, but it should allow for manual parameters. Some days I want to run LOP, some days ROP, some days I want to run the motor out at 2600 RPM. Some days I have passengers in the back without headsets and want to turn them back to 2300 RPM. Fully automatic FADEC is like removing the tach from a F1 car and only have a shift light. Real pilots know how to operate their systems properly. Another thing I don't like about the Rotax is that they don't have mixture control, you can't even run the cylinders dry during shut down. To me that is a safety feature. Having to turn the prop on that thing to prime the oil knowing the cylinders have fuel in them a little scary. Water cooling is fine, but again, a properly baffled air cooled engine runs well within limits and doesn't add any new systems that need to be maintained. A well tuned a36 with a TN kit and good baffles will run up to 25000", running at 93% power and still be well within temperature limits. That is where we need to go. George and his group have gathered more information on GA piston engines than anyone on the planet, and you don't see them designing overly complicated motors that gain nothing and only add cost and complexity. They are building components and accessories for tradition engines that make them run better, longer and with more power. He is so busy they can't build stuff fast enough. EPS and all the rest can't even get through certification. Aircraft owners are trying to get the most amount of performance with the least amount of moving parts. Everything is so expensive,. So unless you have a dang good reason to add or complicate a system, we don't want it.