Engines, aircraft vs converted

[scottessex]

Mike I would be interested in your redrive arragement on your ECOtech.
It seems that if it were that easy everyone would be doing it. I am not after
who is best bla bla my point was that now that the older engines are actually cheaper than a rotax 2 stroke, can we expect to see them showing up? I am all for new technology, but I usually wait for the price to come down....I still don't have a smart phone..
When you can pick up a proven used lycoming for way less than 10K why would you spend 30K on a rotax? at least the ones of us on a budget?

 

[cburg]

What oil are you running? I’ve heard synthetic blends are consumed at a much higher rate. Reportedly the consumption goes way down with a change of grade. I’m running Phillips 20-50 with CamGuard.

I am grateful that I don’t have to deal with magnetos and points in my cars and motorcycles any more.

My BMW M Roadster is on her second set of spark plugs at 90,000 miles and pulls smoothly from 1,000 rpm to 6,800 RPM.

I personally rebuilt the magnetos on The Predator with the help of a very old person when we first installed the IO 320 and then paid someone a lot to go through them at 500 hours.

I have cleaned the spark plugs twice in 600 flight hours.

I have to adjust the mixture manually.

She gets vapor lock when she is hot and requires a specific starting procedure.

The advance is fixed.

I do a magneto check every time before I fly.

Our Lycoming is a low compression engine but still has a specific consumption very close to the most modern engines.

In my short experience with flying Subarus on gyroplanes I have had two electrical related night engine outs and had to replace a drive belt.

The EJ 22 burned 12% more than our IO-320 Lycoming and the EJ 25 18% more flying a gyroplane of similar weight. The claimed horsepower of the EJ25 is more than the IO-320 and yet the Predator performs significantly better than the SparrowHawk in both climb and top speed.

It is my observation that the installed weight of the Subaru is at least 50 pounds more than the IO-320 Lycoming of similar horsepower.

I love the service I have had from my second hand rebuilt to service limits Lycoming.

I don’t like that the Lycoming burns and leaks oil at the rate of a quart in seven hours.

I don’t like it that I will have to rebuild the magnetos again in 500 hours.

Thank you, Vance

 

[All_In]

One last thought, and I'm out of this well worn groove,
has anyone beside Anthony Spagnoletti done an auto-conversion,
using an engine made after 2010? Just sayin, MODERN TECHNOLOGY.

Good morning Mike.

With an aircraft my main concerns are power to weight ratio and dependability with redundant systems for the lowest cost.

Other than cost I do not see ANY advantage in using a junk yard modern engine designed for an automobile and if you are talking about a brand new car engine then I do not see it costing less than a proven, tested USED Lyc.
Modern engines have many electronic sensors, like mass air flow each sensor is another failure point and on my auto, sand buggies, Baja racers, and motorcycles I've had to replace many of these sensors.
Its not a big deal when the engine stops on the road because a sensor went out but it not OK in the air.

It seems to me that even having to add a reduction drive to use an engine not designed for aircraft RPM continual use is just adding another failure point while running the auto engine at a constant higher RPM than it was designed for. Once 10 engines and there reduction drives are running failure free for over 500 hours I may trust one to 500 hours.

Maybe you could point out the dependability advantage, cost savings, redundancy system, or performance advantages so I could understand why it would be a more reliable engine than an engine designed and tested for million of hours.

 

[cburg]

I’m a minimalist…which admittedly runs counter to the whole notion of flying as a hobby…too which I can only say that I am conflicted in this regard.

On my day job for 40 years I’ve worked with some of the most complex systems there are, and have to deal with constant breakdowns and malfunctions. When co-workers ask “why do we have so MANY problems”? I answer “why do we have so FEW problems”, given the thousands of complex interdependent systems.

I yearn for simplicity…that’s why I fly a trike and gyro (almost as simple).

To me every extra piece, part and device is another point of failure. Can’t remember who it was that said “it can’t break if you don’t put it on”.

Good morning Mike.

With an aircraft my main concerns are power to weight ratio and dependability with redundant systems for the lowest cost.

Other than cost I do not see ANY advantage in using a junk yard modern engine designed for an automobile and if you are talking about a brand new car engine then I do not see it costing less than a proven, tested USED Lyc.
Modern engines have many electronic sensors, like mass air flow each sensor is another failure point and on my auto, sand buggies, Baja racers, and motorcycles I've had to replace many of these sensors.
Its not a big deal when the engine stops on the road because a sensor went out but it not OK in the air.

It seems to me that even having to add a reduction drive to use an engine not designed for aircraft RPM continual use is just adding another failure point while running the auto engine at higher RPM than it was designed for. Once 10 engines and there reduction drives are running failure free for over 500 hours I may trust one to 500 hours.

Maybe you could point out the dependability advantage, cost savings, redundancy system, or performance advantages so I could understand why it would be a more reliable engine than an engine designed and tested for million of hours.

 

[PW_Plack]

I suspect either Lycoming or Continental, if not both, are probably looking closely at gasoline direct injection. It would allow bumping up the compression ratios while becoming compatible with 87 octane unleaded fuel, and with general aviation now one of the few remaining sources of lead in the air, the pressure will grow.

 

[Vance]

Buying a used Lycoming is a gamble.

Buying a used Lycoming is a gamble.

What oil are you running? I’ve heard synthetic blends are consumed at a much higher rate. Reportedly the consumption goes way down with a change of grade. I’m running Phillips 20-50 with CamGuard.

I am running Aero Shell 15-50 Chuck.

She probably leaks as much as she burns.

Each time I address a leak she seems to develop one or two more.

Part of getting emissions down on automobiles was to make them warm up faster and burn less oil so they have seals on the valve guides and they work much harder on cylinder wall stability and piston ring design. These efforts are absent on the Lycoming.

I am still learning about our Lycoming and I am certain it would be possible to get her to stop leaking. I have seen it done. It is not a priority for me. She just marks her spot.

She sat for a number of years before I took possession of her and used more oil when I began using her than she does now.

Her compression and oil analysis are good and when I inspect her filter at oil changes I have yet to see any visible contamination.

I have no reason to imagine she will not go to 2,000 hours. Even at 50kts average speed that will be 115,000 miles.

I figure $3.50 per hour for my engine maintenance reserve. It would be twice that for a factory new Lycoming.

Someday I will need to go through my fuel system with its unknown history and the boost pump I bought new makes a terrible noise but appears to work just fine.

Buying a used Lycoming is a gamble because it is expensive to rebuild if it doesn’t work out.

My aversion to financial risk is a large part of what keeps Mariah Gale from having an IO-540. They are not much more expensive than an IO-320 but a mistake is very expensive with the six cylinder engine.

A friend of mine had an inelegant landing and destroyed his RV when he seized a valve guide on his 150 horsepower Lycoming O-320 so please understand I am not suggesting the ubiquitous Lycoming 290,320,360 is without its faults or risks.

My personal preference is the IO-320.

Thank you, Vance

 

[cburg]

Vance,

Thanks for the info. I've read that people see a big drop in consumption when changing from Shell 15-50.

Chuck

I am running Aero Shell 15-50 Chuck.

She probably leaks as much as she burns.

Each time I address a leak she seems to develop one or two more.

Part of getting emissions down on automobiles was to make them warm up faster and burn less oil so they have seals on the valve guides and they work much harder on cylinder wall stability and piston ring design. These efforts are absent on the Lycoming.

I am still learning about our Lycoming and I am certain it would be possible to get her to stop leaking. I have seen it done. It is not a priority for me. She just marks her spot.

She sat for a number of years before I took possession of her and used more oil when I began using her than she does now.

Her compression and oil analysis are good and when I inspect her filter at oil changes I have yet to see any visible contamination.

I have no reason to imagine she will not go to 2,000 hours. Even at 50kts average speed that will be 115,000 miles.

I figure $3.50 per hour for my engine maintenance reserve. It would be twice that for a factory new Lycoming.

Someday I will need to go through my fuel system with its unknown history and the boost pump I bought new makes a terrible noise but appears to work just fine.

Buying a used Lycoming is a gamble because it is expensive to rebuild if it doesn’t work out.

My aversion to financial risk is a large part of what keeps Mariah Gale from having an IO-540. They are not much more expensive than an IO-320 but a mistake is very expensive with the six cylinder engine.

A friend of mine had an inelegant landing and destroyed his RV when he seized a valve guide on his 150 horsepower Lycoming O-320 so please understand I am not suggesting the ubiquitous Lycoming 290,320,360 is without its faults or risks.

My personal preference is the IO-320.

Thank you, Vance

 

[cburg]

Here a a few posts:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date Mar 2002
Location Graham, TX
Posts 12,750
Blog Entries2 I was using Aeroshell straight weight in summer and 15w50 in winter. So was my Dad and many of my customers. My Dad noticed he had more blow-by and an oily belly when running the 15w50. He quized the Aeroshell guys at Sun & Fun and they told him that the sythetic additives that they add to 15w50 are thinner than the mineral based oils and tend to leak out or blow out a little more. We all switched to Phillips 20w50 which s mineral based and have noticed a dryer belly and still have the benifits of multi viscosity in the winter. Steve Pierce

"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
Henry Ford Reply With Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-01-2006, 08:06 PM #4 CRANMAN View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries View Classified Ads


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date Sep 2003
Location FLORIDA/WISCONSIN
Posts 161 I noticed the same thing Steve. Tried one oil change with the Shell multi. Went back to Phillips on both planes. Better oil pressure and less oil consumption.

Vance,

Thanks for the info. I've read that people see a big drop in consumption when changing from Shell 15-50.

Chuck

 

[scottessex]

Can’t remember who it was that said “it can’t break if you don’t put it on”.

It was Kelly Johnsons philosophy (Kelly Johnson of Lockheed, SR-71, U-2 etc.)
Not to change the subject, but the lycoming style engines designed in the 1940's and 50's are loose sloppy low RPM engines, just like my old Harley, it would burn/spit synthetic oil to about 1qt every 500 miles. I started running Aeroshell 100 and it ran great! so sometimes mixing technologys is not a good thing.
Dumb question.....could a lycoming be made lighter by removing the magneto's and replacing with an electronic ignition? or is this like mixing technology again?

 

[brett s]

This one looks interesting, doesn't need an external power source unlike the other ones I recall seeing in the past:
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/eMagIgnition.php

Magnetos are dirt-simple, but I've had several failures - good thing you have two of them...

 

[PW_Plack]

...the lycoming style engines designed in the 1940's and 50's are loose sloppy low RPM engines, just like my old Harley, it would burn/spit synthetic oil to about 1qt every 500 miles...

I suspect they're also a little loose to deal with the less precise temp regulation of air cooling.

If they were water-cooled and tight, we'd still want them to use low RPM and large displacement to make their power. Not needing a reduction drive is a good thing!

 

[barnstorm2]

I guess what bugs me is the total disregard, for modern technology.
It's been my experience that these opinions often come from those with no real world engine experience.

Apples and Oranges.

You are talking about "modern CAR technology." That technology is NOT being designed for the stress, vibrations, reliability, mounting, resonance, cooling, stresses and RPM for aircraft operations and turning a prob not a tranny in a nice vibration dampened cage with fewer weight restrictions.

That is like saying why are we not using all of this modern Apple technology in our Oranges?

There are modern technologies being implemented in aircraft engines but it takes more time and money.

You CAN buy modern technology aircraft engines, it is just few of us have the
money to put it in a gyro or small heli.

Your real question is: Why are we not using modern CAR tech in Experimental Aircraft?

The Answer " from those with real world engine experience" is: They fail to convert a large percentage of the time, and after getting the conversion done (properly), you are close or at the cost of a used purpose built aircraft engine.

"New Technology" is only good if it can not only match but exceed reliability, performance and cost, and for one-off's that is not happening.

I got to walk out of a farmer's field because the modern fuel-injected, water-cooled, High-RPM, High-HP, High-compression engine in the gyro I was flying had a oil pickup tube that was not designed and tested to take propeller vibrations and resonance.

The tube stressed, broke off, fell into the oil pan and catastrophically failed, junking the engine and stopping the flight early.

....an 0-320 I am working on, 4 new cylinderscost:$4500.00,

For an aircooled lycoming that is basically a complete new multi-thousand hour engine. Not bad. Cases and cranks last a long, long time.

A whopping 160hp at a numbing 2700 rpm... whoo-hoo.:bored:

That is GOOD.

If they were water-cooled and tight, we'd still want them to use low RPM and large displacement to make their power. Not needing a reduction drive is a good thing!

BINGO!

The Elephant in the room is the REDRIVE. The weight, power-loss, heat, oil use, prop-vibration stresses, COST and reliability of re-drives takes away much if not all of the "converted" engine's advantages.

.

 

[All_In]

...
Dumb question.....could a lycoming be made lighter by removing the magneto's and replacing with an electronic ignition? or is this like mixing technology again?

Not dumb at all there is a great deal of room for improvement Paul pointed out what may be next.
I feel as long as you have two for redundancy no problem. Of course Mag's make their own electricity and is why they are on there, no battery no problem.

For true redundancy aircraft manufactures have multiple sensors that vote on which sensors are most likely providing valid data and which are not.
For an automobile or aircraft engine your modifying to be truly redundant every critical sensor would have to be designed in a similar way if you really wish dependability with electronics in aviation and a backup battery!

So you would need at least 3 voting sensors for everything yet only 2 electronic ignition systems. Also the voting is done by a mcu 'micro processing unit' and you would need it to be redundant too.

I would want 3 voting mcu's!

 

[cburg]

In my case I wanted an aircraft without an electrical system since I live in inside the Mode-C Veil. The weight I save on battery, transponder and starter motor is a bonus for me. I find the hand-propping easy and sort of fun.

Apples and Oranges.

The Elephant in the room is the REDRIVE. The weight, power-loss, heat, oil use, prop-vibration stresses, COST and reliability of re-drives takes away much if not all of the "converted" engine's advantages.

.

 

[Early Bird Dave]

I don't know of any pilot who has had an engine out in a Lyc except one brand new one that they left a key out of the oil pump!
They have run them out of gas... that's it!

John, you need to get out more.
I've seen or been told of 4 or 5 in the last year + between St Aug and Wauchula airports.
I agree that they are reliable powerplants, but we have had our share of engine failures with beach landings or tree top bendings and the lucky ones have used the superior glide ratios and made it in deadstick. (Engine seize, Wauchula)
We recently had a plane go into a house in Palm Coast killing 3 on board. (4 to 6 weeks ago) Plane reported engine trouble before going down. (Beech Bonanza)

Nothing man makes is perfect!

 

[All_In]

I don't know of any pilot who has had an engine out in a Lyc except one brand new one that they left a key out of the oil pump!
They have run them out of gas... that's it!

John, you need to get out more.
I've seen or been told of 4 or 5 in the last year + between St Aug and Wauchula airports.
I agree that they are reliable powerplants, but we have had our share of engine failures with beach landings or tree top bendings and the lucky ones have used the superior glide ratios and made it in deadstick. (Engine seize, Wauchula)
We recently had a plane go into a house in Palm Coast killing 3 on board. (4 to 6 weeks ago) Plane reported engine trouble before going down. (Beech Bonanza)

Nothing man makes is perfect!

To be fair I have heard and read the NTSB accident reports.

How many of those were caused because of bad maintenance?

I said I do not KNOW anyone who has had an engine out except one.
Now this is from 1974 to 2013 that my brother has been an I.A. and run a Piper repair center and then his own repair station.

Knock on wood here...

My brother and none of his customers except one has had an engine out in any aircraft he has maintained. Now he has had engines that ingested valves and spit them out and other problems but he has NEVER had any of the aircraft he has maintained have a forced landing.

Now I realize that just because I'm alive now doesn't mean I'm going to live forever or that Greg's record will remain.

I do believe maintenance makes a BIG difference and that a anal mechanic who makes owners change things when they are close but before meeting minimum specks and change valves that hang up continually on compression tests because his experience tells him the guide has a problem or the value and THEY INSPECT it makes all the difference in the world.

We have just been either really really lucky or Greg really is a good mechanic and these engines are very dependable with good maintenance.

 

[cburg]

That’s a good point. We’ve all heard stories of guys having massive (aircraft) engine component failures and the thing still keeps running enough to get them safely on the ground.

he has had engines that ingested valves and spit them out and other problems but he has NEVER had any of the aircraft he has maintained have a forced landing.

 

[cbonnerup]

All,
the following is from another board that I follow, from a person who's opinions I respect - if that means anything.
Seems like this is the season to discuss such things.

"It is a great question. One I had to ponder it for a while. My thoughts are too long for email so I put them on my blog:"
https://jdfinley.com/what-happened-to-the-subaru-aircraft-engine/

Chris

 

[cburg]

Good article...

If I would have had a Soob in my Quickie Tri-Q2 like him, I would have kept mine. My Revmaster failed to impress…but a wonderful airplane (for a small pilot).

All,
the following is from another board that I follow, from a person who's opinions I respect - if that means anything.
Seems like this is the season to discuss such things.

"It is a great question. One I had to ponder it for a while. My thoughts are too long for email so I put them on my blog:"
https://jdfinley.com/what-happened-to-the-subaru-aircraft-engine/

Chris