I just received the latest issue of Kitplanes (May 2009) and to my surprise, there are a couple of articles on alternative aircraft engines. I read the first one by Larry Simpson, which describes his building experiences with a RV-7A. He and his wife spent four years building and engineering the installation of a Eggenfellner Subaru H6 engine.
His first flight "lasted a total of 17 seconds, and the second half of it was unpowered. A basic electrical design flaw that was entirely my responsibility resulted from my miscalculating the power requirements of the Subaru engine computer during sustained full-power operation. A critical circuit breaker popped just as I passed about 80 feet. A long runway and lots of dead-stick practice as a glider pilot made this practically a non-event."
In my opinion this particular alternative aircraft engine installation, despite the builders' skill and dedication does not have any of the qualities that I desire. It doesn't appear to be any cheaper than a conventional Lycoming IO-360. The reliability of the custom firewall forward is unproven and it seems to weigh quite a bit more than a conventional Lycoming installation. When I consider all the time and effort that went into alternative engine, I wonder why anyone would do this? I suspect the builders could have been flying a proven engine two years sooner with a lighter plane and a heavier wallet. I admire their dedication, but I think life is too short for people to spend doing one-off installations of alternative engines that are not significantly cheaper than conventional aircraft engines.
I believe that the VW and Corvair conversions offer what I am looking for - significant savings, demonstrated reliability (100's to 1000's of installations) with available firewall forward packages. Of course, these engines are limited to 70 hp for the VW and 100 for the Corvair. I'll have to content myself with finding a small plane that can be powered by one of these.
No comments:
Post a Comment