What are the thoughts on Powersport Aviation? I have been talking with Ray from Powersport, and they sound like they'll be producing engines again in the next 2-5 months judging by response at OSH. I'm impressed.
Any thoughts??
Powersport Aviation
Powersport Aviation
Ok any of you rotor heads out there...
What are the thoughts on Powersport Aviation? I have been talking with Ray from Powersport, and they sound like they'll be producing engines again in the next 2-5 months judging by response at OSH. I'm impressed.
Any thoughts??
What are the thoughts on Powersport Aviation? I have been talking with Ray from Powersport, and they sound like they'll be producing engines again in the next 2-5 months judging by response at OSH. I'm impressed.
Any thoughts??
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
...but to add something else, I think I prefer the PowerSport engine over the Egg engine lately.
Egg seems to be kind of secretive and peculiar when it comes to sharing information. Jan seems to prefer a "I already invented the wheel and now you need to buy it from me" attitude. I know there are other people doing Soob conversions, but he is pretty much the guy with the recipie.
How many PS engines are flying in RV's?
Drawbacks are obviously a non-standard design and an inherent "unfamiliarity" problem with A&P's as you tour the country. This is one reason why I don't want an auto conversion engine.
CJ
Egg seems to be kind of secretive and peculiar when it comes to sharing information. Jan seems to prefer a "I already invented the wheel and now you need to buy it from me" attitude. I know there are other people doing Soob conversions, but he is pretty much the guy with the recipie.
How many PS engines are flying in RV's?
Drawbacks are obviously a non-standard design and an inherent "unfamiliarity" problem with A&P's as you tour the country. This is one reason why I don't want an auto conversion engine.
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
-
Spike
- Chief Rivet Banger
- Posts: 4013
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
- Contact:
Interesting that you mention that John. I would think that this would not be a concern based upon the decision to use an auto conversion. If someone puts a Subaru (or whatever else) in their plane I take that to mean that they dont care at all about the use of A&P's for powerplant support.Captain_John wrote: Drawbacks are obviously a non-standard design and an inherent "unfamiliarity" problem with A&P's as you tour the country. ...
-- John
http://www.rivetbangers.com - Now integrating web and mail!
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
Current Build: 2 years into a beautiful little girl
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
Well, the way I see it... a facility (typically larger ones, not mom and pop FBO's) isn't too fond of letting Joe Blow into their hangar to use their stuff, occupy their space and basically get in the way when they can have a paying customer with a plane they are familiar with in there instead.
With a Lycosaurus they are more willing to be there, shoulder to shoulder with you working on it and you throw them a bone in the end and all is hunky dory.
True, with a conversion, you are dependent upon yourself in a remote facility and you best know that engine inside and out.
You know, they are in business for a reason.
Just my honest opinion and the way I see it.
CJ
With a Lycosaurus they are more willing to be there, shoulder to shoulder with you working on it and you throw them a bone in the end and all is hunky dory.
True, with a conversion, you are dependent upon yourself in a remote facility and you best know that engine inside and out.
You know, they are in business for a reason.
Just my honest opinion and the way I see it.
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
I am in the boat of sailors who will work on my engine when it needs work. That really appeals to me. Shop rates are outrageous at all but the smallest of mom and pop airports. The auto conversion just makes sense to me. My opinion only.
There are very few PS engines flying currently. I think there are three or four customer RV's flying and one Velocity, and two company airplanes.
I do agree (obviously) that the PS package is better than the Egg CJ. From what I've heard, your assessment of Jan is accurate! But, both are great packages.
There are very few PS engines flying currently. I think there are three or four customer RV's flying and one Velocity, and two company airplanes.
I do agree (obviously) that the PS package is better than the Egg CJ. From what I've heard, your assessment of Jan is accurate! But, both are great packages.
When I was making my engine decision for my 6 I looked at auto conversions, specifically the Subaru and the Powersport conversion. When I compared the finished costs, ready to turn the prop costs, I went with the conventional ’50 aircraft engine. The airframe was designed around the Lyc. all the metal CS props are tested on the Lyc for vibration harmonics, and now there are many options for new zero-time experimental 0/I0 360’s on the market.
As far as working on your engine yourself, I would argue that working on the Lyc vs. an auto conversion is easier. Most everything is easily accessible and of a simple design. I’ve seen a few Subaru installations and there is not much room to work on anything. I am not against any of the options, just my thoughts. When the money was almost equal, I wanted something which was tried and proven over 50 to 60 years. Plenty of support anywhere in the Country from the Mom and Pop’s to the big FBO’s, and it’s still easy to work on by myself.
Just my opinion,
Dale
CJ, how much fun was your arrival at Osh?
As far as working on your engine yourself, I would argue that working on the Lyc vs. an auto conversion is easier. Most everything is easily accessible and of a simple design. I’ve seen a few Subaru installations and there is not much room to work on anything. I am not against any of the options, just my thoughts. When the money was almost equal, I wanted something which was tried and proven over 50 to 60 years. Plenty of support anywhere in the Country from the Mom and Pop’s to the big FBO’s, and it’s still easy to work on by myself.
Just my opinion,
Dale
CJ, how much fun was your arrival at Osh?
Golf Delta
-
jimrobinette
- Class E
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Haymarket, VA
- Contact:
Dale,
When I first started looking at homebuilding many years ago, I was very interested in an auto converstion due to my having worked in an auto shop while in high school. Thought it would be easy. Like you, once I looked closely at the final cost, I found it wasn't much different from the lyco's.
The final straw that sent me to the lyc side was a few years ago when an old man I used to work for in that shop said "would you put your car (Honda S2000: 2.0L, non-turbo 4 cyl, 240HP, 9000 RPM redline) engine in that Chevy pickup over there?" Of course the answer was no, even though the car engine had more power. Different engines are desigened for different applications within the auto industy. The difference beween the auto and aircraft industry is much greater.
Take care,
Jim
When I first started looking at homebuilding many years ago, I was very interested in an auto converstion due to my having worked in an auto shop while in high school. Thought it would be easy. Like you, once I looked closely at the final cost, I found it wasn't much different from the lyco's.
The final straw that sent me to the lyc side was a few years ago when an old man I used to work for in that shop said "would you put your car (Honda S2000: 2.0L, non-turbo 4 cyl, 240HP, 9000 RPM redline) engine in that Chevy pickup over there?" Of course the answer was no, even though the car engine had more power. Different engines are desigened for different applications within the auto industy. The difference beween the auto and aircraft industry is much greater.
Take care,
Jim
Not to argue, but I (and many others) believe that the rotary, in particular, is almost better suited to aviation than it is the automobile. There are issues-particularly cooling, I won't deny that, but when they get resolved, and they will-look at Powersport, the rotary will be in a class by itself in terms of reliability, performance, power, and efficiency.
I will not knock lycoming. They are great engines, well engineered, and good at what they do (I've had two of them, and they were near perfect!). But, this is experimental aviation. I may end up with an airplane with an engine that I hate (won't happen), and can't fly because I've blown all my money (might happen) and can't afford a lyc, but I am happy trying to make something better than it is, and more dependable. Mere opinions, and mine at that.
I don't want an argument in this thread, because there is no answer here. Everyone has their opinion, and there are other places to argue the auto conversion topic. I simply want input from those with information on Powersport engines, or other rotary conversions.
Everybody has been really cool so far on this thread, and I appreciate that very much, I just wanted to stop any argument before it get's started. We have our differences of opinion. 'Nuff said.
I will not knock lycoming. They are great engines, well engineered, and good at what they do (I've had two of them, and they were near perfect!). But, this is experimental aviation. I may end up with an airplane with an engine that I hate (won't happen), and can't fly because I've blown all my money (might happen) and can't afford a lyc, but I am happy trying to make something better than it is, and more dependable. Mere opinions, and mine at that.
I don't want an argument in this thread, because there is no answer here. Everyone has their opinion, and there are other places to argue the auto conversion topic. I simply want input from those with information on Powersport engines, or other rotary conversions.
Everybody has been really cool so far on this thread, and I appreciate that very much, I just wanted to stop any argument before it get's started. We have our differences of opinion. 'Nuff said.
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
Chad,
No argument here. Personally, any auto conversion I believe has more and better technology than the Lycosaurus.
Dale,
GA Camping and Parking were both full at the time of my arrival. Compund that with poor visibility on tuesday morning and I was forced to land at KMWC (Milwaukee). It turned out to be a good decision, as we got the last rental car on the field and nailed down some real cushy digs on the lake not far from the field. The commute was not bad and the week was a great time!
Soooo, no OSH arrival stories... but we still had a great time.
An old timer I spoke to in Vintage camping said, "Just fly in. They will find a place to put you when you land". Next time I think I just may do that!
CJ
No argument here. Personally, any auto conversion I believe has more and better technology than the Lycosaurus.
Dale,
GA Camping and Parking were both full at the time of my arrival. Compund that with poor visibility on tuesday morning and I was forced to land at KMWC (Milwaukee). It turned out to be a good decision, as we got the last rental car on the field and nailed down some real cushy digs on the lake not far from the field. The commute was not bad and the week was a great time!
Soooo, no OSH arrival stories... but we still had a great time.
An old timer I spoke to in Vintage camping said, "Just fly in. They will find a place to put you when you land". Next time I think I just may do that!
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Chad,
No argument on my part either. I just wanted to express my concern to a fellow builder. I too liked the powersport engines. I started talking to them at Osh back in the mid to late 90â€s and I am not aware of many flying. There may be, I’m just not aware. One major concern with auto engines vs. aircraft engines is the continuous high power requirement required in an airplane rather than a car. Most auto engines are not designed to operate under this continuous high power/high stress environment. But mostly, I wanted to caution you to be sure to look at total costs and modifications which may be required to utilize an alternative engine. A lot of costs can sneak up on you after you make the initial purchase. Modified engine mounts, cowling modifications, spinners and backplates, props, exhaust systems, noise, weight and balance issues just to name a few. I’m sure you have already looked into these and have a good handle on them, but there may be some new builders also reading this thread that need to be aware of these issues. I agree with you, this should be an educating experience, no arguments here.
CJ,
Glad to hear you had a good trip. I’ve never flow in from the east, always the west and every time it’s been in a homebuilt, classic, or antique, i.e. never had to worry about parking space. Sounds like you ended up with a nice set up. Hopefully next year I’ll have the opportunity to meet some of you easterners!!
Dale
No argument on my part either. I just wanted to express my concern to a fellow builder. I too liked the powersport engines. I started talking to them at Osh back in the mid to late 90â€s and I am not aware of many flying. There may be, I’m just not aware. One major concern with auto engines vs. aircraft engines is the continuous high power requirement required in an airplane rather than a car. Most auto engines are not designed to operate under this continuous high power/high stress environment. But mostly, I wanted to caution you to be sure to look at total costs and modifications which may be required to utilize an alternative engine. A lot of costs can sneak up on you after you make the initial purchase. Modified engine mounts, cowling modifications, spinners and backplates, props, exhaust systems, noise, weight and balance issues just to name a few. I’m sure you have already looked into these and have a good handle on them, but there may be some new builders also reading this thread that need to be aware of these issues. I agree with you, this should be an educating experience, no arguments here.
CJ,
Glad to hear you had a good trip. I’ve never flow in from the east, always the west and every time it’s been in a homebuilt, classic, or antique, i.e. never had to worry about parking space. Sounds like you ended up with a nice set up. Hopefully next year I’ll have the opportunity to meet some of you easterners!!
Dale
Golf Delta
Thanks Dale. I appreciate the comments. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't going to turn in to an argumentative thread.
I agree with the costs sneaking up on you. That's main reason I am curious about Powersport. A good friend of mine is building his rotary through Tracy Crook's method and insight, and is right on target money-wise, with a fully installed running engine coming in at just under $15k, using a Renesis Rotary from an RX-8. This install coming in at that price vs. about $30k for the full Powersport package is huge! The big benefit of that higher cost is that it is a firewall forward kit, and insurance will be much easier to obtain. Most will insure FWF kits, without any gripes. Do it yourself installs are a little harder and more expensive to insure. It's doable, but harder and more $$.
I agree with the costs sneaking up on you. That's main reason I am curious about Powersport. A good friend of mine is building his rotary through Tracy Crook's method and insight, and is right on target money-wise, with a fully installed running engine coming in at just under $15k, using a Renesis Rotary from an RX-8. This install coming in at that price vs. about $30k for the full Powersport package is huge! The big benefit of that higher cost is that it is a firewall forward kit, and insurance will be much easier to obtain. Most will insure FWF kits, without any gripes. Do it yourself installs are a little harder and more expensive to insure. It's doable, but harder and more $$.
-
jimrobinette
- Class E
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Haymarket, VA
- Contact:
Chad,
No argument intended, wanted or implied! In fact, you will not find a more ardent believer that the only industry that is close to GA engines in lack of innovation and advancement is NASCAR. They are still using carbs on their race cars in 2005! Toyota had to build and engine from scratch when they entered, as they didn't have any production engines that were fed by carbs! They had to take a step back to get into racing in NASCAR. Usually a car bulder gets into racing to improve its product, such as in F1.
I only wish we could move past the Lycosaurus. The problem is, as you say, they do the job great! The reason they do the job great is they were designed for that application. If you could show me a proven engine designed in my lifetime (last four decades) for an airplane other than lycoming (and knockoffs), I would be the first to jump in line, even if the cost was SLIGHTLY more than a lycoming type. A perfect example of this is the Deltahawk, designed from the ground up as an aircraft engine, and after all these years, is just now starting production. I hope like hell they succeed.
I pilot EP-3E signals reconnaissance aircraft for the Navy. When we switched to a digital, computer based system it was designed around the Unix software. With software you need hard drives. No problem, especially as the commercial variants were a factor of 10-15 times cheaper than the MIL-SPEC version and have an awesome MTBF rate. The only problem we found out was that the commerical drives (like in your computer) were failing after only a hundred hours of use. Turns out they weren't designed to handle the vibration of a four engine turbo-prop. You really don't want your mission systems failing when you are off the coast of China with an F-6/7/8 on your wing! That reinforced what the old man at the shop told me about engines.
Being the layman, as simple as turbines are, I don't understand why they are not cheaper. That is the true ideal engine for an airplane. But given what is available, I agree that the Mazda is the closest thing for aircraft available. I had an '89 RX7 and loved it. Smooth as silk. If only Mazda would design a Wankle for aircraft....
Keep pushing the envelope, but when my butt is on the line, I want a proven item designed for aircraft. Especially when it is the second most important item on the aircraft (I view flight controls as the most important!).
While I didn't have anything to offer on Powersport engines, I was just passing along a point that an old car mechanic passed to me. Again, wasn't trying to aruge, and I hope you didn't take it that way.
Take care,
Jim
No argument intended, wanted or implied! In fact, you will not find a more ardent believer that the only industry that is close to GA engines in lack of innovation and advancement is NASCAR. They are still using carbs on their race cars in 2005! Toyota had to build and engine from scratch when they entered, as they didn't have any production engines that were fed by carbs! They had to take a step back to get into racing in NASCAR. Usually a car bulder gets into racing to improve its product, such as in F1.
I only wish we could move past the Lycosaurus. The problem is, as you say, they do the job great! The reason they do the job great is they were designed for that application. If you could show me a proven engine designed in my lifetime (last four decades) for an airplane other than lycoming (and knockoffs), I would be the first to jump in line, even if the cost was SLIGHTLY more than a lycoming type. A perfect example of this is the Deltahawk, designed from the ground up as an aircraft engine, and after all these years, is just now starting production. I hope like hell they succeed.
I pilot EP-3E signals reconnaissance aircraft for the Navy. When we switched to a digital, computer based system it was designed around the Unix software. With software you need hard drives. No problem, especially as the commercial variants were a factor of 10-15 times cheaper than the MIL-SPEC version and have an awesome MTBF rate. The only problem we found out was that the commerical drives (like in your computer) were failing after only a hundred hours of use. Turns out they weren't designed to handle the vibration of a four engine turbo-prop. You really don't want your mission systems failing when you are off the coast of China with an F-6/7/8 on your wing! That reinforced what the old man at the shop told me about engines.
Being the layman, as simple as turbines are, I don't understand why they are not cheaper. That is the true ideal engine for an airplane. But given what is available, I agree that the Mazda is the closest thing for aircraft available. I had an '89 RX7 and loved it. Smooth as silk. If only Mazda would design a Wankle for aircraft....
Keep pushing the envelope, but when my butt is on the line, I want a proven item designed for aircraft. Especially when it is the second most important item on the aircraft (I view flight controls as the most important!).
While I didn't have anything to offer on Powersport engines, I was just passing along a point that an old car mechanic passed to me. Again, wasn't trying to aruge, and I hope you didn't take it that way.
Take care,
Jim
cjensen wrote:Not to argue, but I (and many others) believe that the rotary, in particular, is almost better suited to aviation than it is the automobile. There are issues-particularly cooling, I won't deny that, but when they get resolved, and they will-look at Powersport, the rotary will be in a class by itself in terms of reliability, performance, power, and efficiency.
I will not knock lycoming. They are great engines, well engineered, and good at what they do (I've had two of them, and they were near perfect!). But, this is experimental aviation. I may end up with an airplane with an engine that I hate (won't happen), and can't fly because I've blown all my money (might happen) and can't afford a lyc, but I am happy trying to make something better than it is, and more dependable. Mere opinions, and mine at that.
I don't want an argument in this thread, because there is no answer here. Everyone has their opinion, and there are other places to argue the auto conversion topic. I simply want input from those with information on Powersport engines, or other rotary conversions.
Everybody has been really cool so far on this thread, and I appreciate that very much, I just wanted to stop any argument before it get's started. We have our differences of opinion. 'Nuff said.
Thanks Jim, and I did not take it as an argument. I was just hoping to stay away from it, and we did.
The only thing that'll sway be away from rotary power is Innodyn. IF they do get their butts in gear, AND produce what they preach, I may get in line for one of those, even considering the cost. We'll see what happens.
The only thing that'll sway be away from rotary power is Innodyn. IF they do get their butts in gear, AND produce what they preach, I may get in line for one of those, even considering the cost. We'll see what happens.
-
SonoraMike
- Class G
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:08 pm
Powersport Aviation
>> If only Mazda would design a Wankle for aircraft....
ok I'll bite - what would the distinguishing characteristics of a Wankel for aviation be, and how would it differ from the current Mazda rotary offerings? honest question, since I can't answer the question I'll ask it.
MikeD
Submitted via email
ok I'll bite - what would the distinguishing characteristics of a Wankel for aviation be, and how would it differ from the current Mazda rotary offerings? honest question, since I can't answer the question I'll ask it.
MikeD
Submitted via email
-
captain_john
- Sparky
- Posts: 5880
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: KPYM
Chad,
Check this one out:
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forum ... eadid=1473
You may have seen it already.
CJ
Check this one out:
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forum ... eadid=1473
You may have seen it already.
CJRV-7
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
Garmin G3X with VP-X & a TMX-IO-360 with G3i
It's all over but the flying! 800+ hours in only 3 years!
thanks CJ, i hadn't seen that yet. i am so far from being ready for an engine, that i'd be afraid of it sitting too long, and needing work before i could even install it.
i DO appreciate the thought! i'm really interested in Mistral and Powersport packages too, so i'm just gonna keep it open for now.
thanks!
i DO appreciate the thought! i'm really interested in Mistral and Powersport packages too, so i'm just gonna keep it open for now.
thanks!