REFLECTOR: Alternative Engines

Sun Oct 23 16:40:55 CDT 2011

Jim I agree I run my boat at well over 85% power most of the time . Bare footing usually takes
all the power a boat can handle.

I would argue the cost issue .  In time I will see how my install works out. But the  cost of my 
install is well below a certified engine. My engine is box stock to keep the cost down .
I think the same as  most plane owners do that full throttle on any engine is  not good for longevity . 
So the argument of longevity will have to be played out. 

Engineering time , yes has been more. But what an Education I have gotten .Priceless

My reasons for the auto install where

1) Easy starting Hot /Cold                   Mine starts within seconds of the turn of the key hot or cold.
2) I know car engines and have beat up on a few. They always held together.
3) Cost      My cost is below a CAE

4) I always hated the idea that the aircraft engine manufacturers  send out what car makers call "recalls" 
         but have you pay for there issues.

5) Once every thing is worked out I can drop a whole new engine in the plane for $5k at rebuild time.

It is looking like the Blinking oil light is a wiring issue. Oil pressure still not sure . Gauge reads the right pressure.
I may change the oil pump . $50 cost. Another good reason for auto engines , parts do not brake my bank.

I do not have a web site of my plane but if you would like Pictures I would be happy to send them along.
Just send me you email 

Thanks all for your kind words. 

Ron

PS the Velocity twin was looking good  they say they will have it at sun and fun.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Agnew 
  To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list 
  Cc: cbarber at texasattorney.net 
  Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:33 PM
  Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Alternative Engines

  Chris, I somewhat agree with your 20% auto engine usage, however many auto engines have been converted for marine use and I can assure you thay are running far in excess of 20%, more likely 70-85% cruise. There are marine auto engines producing 400-750 HP!

  Jim

  James F. Agnew
  Jim_Agnew_2 at Yahoo.Com
  Tampa, FL
  Velocity 173 Elite Aircraft Completed & Flying

    From: Al Gietzen <alventures at cox.net>
    To: 'Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list' <reflector at tvbf.org>
    Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 1:08 PM
    Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Alternative Engines

    I have never heard anyone say that the certified engines are so unreliable that they were installing an auto engine.
    Actually my primary reason for chosing to go with an alternative engine was reliablility. After some friends with certified aircraft engines (CAE) had experienced a broken crankshaft, dropped valves that blew cylinders, and expensive overhauls that had to be overhauled again in less than 500 hours; I knew there had to be a better way. Other priorities were better power to weight ratio, smooth operation, lower maintainance costs. 
    After extensive research of the alternatives I chose to go with a 3-rotor (20B) rotary. 
    My conclusion was that I would probably not chose an automotive piston engine over a CAE on the basis of long -term reliability; but I'll leave that as an open question. I agree with you that doing an alternative engine installation is more difficult and time consuming than installling a CAE.  I likely would not have done it if I had not had a scientific and engineering background as well as hands-on mechanics experience. Bad design and installation can obviously lead to bad results. I also agree that an alternate engine installation done optimally may not save you any money.  De-bugging issues during the initial test phase was also more than typical of a CAE.
    The results of my efforts was an engine that was always easy starting; was smoother, quieter, more powerful, considerably lower operating costs (mogas), and simple easy maintainance. If it ever gets to overhaul time it will cost less than 1/10 that of a CAE.  Performance actually improved slightly over the first 100+ hours, and it was very reliable for the 215 hors that I flew it.
    Any time I fly in another Velocity, or other small aircraft with a CAE; I come away with the assurance that what I had was a considerable improvement.
    Long-term reliability is still to be proven.

    Al

    With auto engines many times that is the case. They give up and install a certified engine. Auto engines aren't designed for extended high power output and don't do well with the power pulses driving a prop. A typical car engine loafes along at less then 20% power most of it's life. I've known people who have had RX7 auto's. The engines just don't seem to have the durability of a recip. One friend of mine was driving his home with 60,000 miles when the engine just quit. A rotor seal failed with no prior symptoms. W!  ith a 4 cyl engine, 1 bad cyl will not make the engine quit. Again without experimentation, we wouldn't be as far as we are with homebuilts. Be careful with an auto conversion, there are many people who have had bad experiences with them. Just my 2 cents from a crusty old A&P.
    ---- Chris Barber <cbarber at texasattorney.net> wrote:
    > With today's first flight using an alternative engine and then another
    > chiming in that he too is using an alternative engine, I was wondering how prevalent alternative engines are in the Velocity community. I have always assumed Lyc and Connie's were so well established that I was pretty much the only one using an alternative. I know Al Getzen, like me is using a rotary....uh, but Al is actually flying.  I guess I have always figured everyone but me has the money to just cut a check for a new certified fire breather.
    >
    > I guess my head is so far in the alt eng community it seems more are
    > attempting.....and with better product and the blessing of the Internet, succeeding.
    >
    > Just curious
    >
    > Chris Barber
    > Houston
    > Velo SE
    > Rotary 13b 2 rotor turbo
    > Dynon Skyview EFIS/monitor
    > RWS PSRU & electronics
    >
    > Sent from my iPhone 4 _______________________________________________
    > To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
    >
    > Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
    > user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
    > Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
    > Check old archives:
    > http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html

    _______________________________________________
    To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector

    Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
    user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
    Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
    Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html 

    _______________________________________________
    To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector

    Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
    user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
    Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
    Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector

  Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
  user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
  Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
  Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20111023/f2d598c5/attachment.htm>