Ok guys, keep those prices coming. I am collecting all I can get right now and will let you have the results.
What is available where and for how much is the idea.
To mdoerr:
One of these? Looks promising, being certified now.
Link
From what I have heard the Porsche engine was prime example of excellent engineers being way too arrogant to appreciate and take into account even the basics of what is needed to make an aero engine work. I don’t remember any specifics now, but basic stuff like torsional vibration between engine.propeller escaped them. To some extent the same thing happened to the SMA diesel engine. Developed by the leading top brains in engine technology at the time, the Renault F1 engine team. Still the SMA eat propeller for breakfast due to torque pulses from those huge diesel pistons. Now, if they only made it 6 cylinders (for the same output), the SMA would have had much better prospects.
Even Rotax had to give up on their 6 cylinder 2-300 HP engine. That one did work just fine, but they didn’t see how to make money selling it. That may change though, the Adept engine looks almost like a copy of the Rotax.
Markus,
quite a few engines in fact ARE UL91 approved. My stone age O360 for instance is (as opposed to Mogas) and without STC or any other thing. I can simply go and fuel it and do so at a slightly cheaper rate than I fuel with Avgas.
Likewise, the Rotax and other Mogas certified products CAN fly significantly cheaper than those who NEED Avgas 100LL. Why should they not.
Diesel, we’ve discussed this over and over. Diesel would be bigger today than it is if it had not been thrown back by the confidence crisis with Thielert, but Diesel is coming. I visited both SMA and Continental/Thielert in FHA, the large SMA diesel is about 1 – 1.5 years from release I’d think, we now do have Diesels covering the lower segment up to about 200 hp and we will get 300 to 400 hp in the near future.
We also do not need to forget one bit: The US is one market, Europe a totally other market. Outside Europe, apart from Australia and S-Africa, Jet A1 is the only reliably available fuel.
The US has not really felt the monumental impact of the fuel costs as we have in Europe. For Europeans, Mogas with up to 30% cheaper price or UL91 with 15% and let alone Jet A1 which is again up to 40% cheaper than Avgas it has a huge impact. Therefore, products which allow compatibility with these fuels may well sell better in Europe than they do in the US, not unlike it is with fuel efficient cars.
We need to stay open minded. To claim that 100LL is still the cats a$$ is not reflecting the present. It is here out of necessity, partly technological necessity partly due to technology being capable but not being certified for other fuels and partly because of old habit. However, when we do see how large a share of planes and pilots have emigrated into MOGAS or Diesel, they are not a quantité négligable, not by any standard.
I was asking for a certified engine, not vaporware.
Look for Zoche aero engines, they are nearly done with certification for 30 years.
Let’s assume we have an engine, next is the STC to fit to an existing plane or to certify a new plane.
I can see all the 10s of thousand conversions. All the Thielert C172s and the SMA C182s and the masses of Rotax C150/152s. All cheap and affordable. Lycoming and Continental must be out of business by now.
The real world keeps proving you wrong though, doesn’t it? The reality is that designing engines with both light weight and simplicity dictates high quality fuels like 100LL. Automotive engines require less of both light weight and simplicity than aircraft engines, especially given that aircraft engines are a non-disposable product where planned obsolescence hasn’t yet reared its ugly head. And a non-disposable world is in reality, now, the only kind of world that functions economically for GA aircraft. Get used to that, because it isn’t going to change.
Really. Please, educate yourself: Heard about Link
200 HP at 108 kg (238 lbs), runs on any fuel, 0.54 kg/HP
Heard about Link
125 HP at 78.5 kg, runs on any fuel, 0.63 kg/HP
Heard about Link
150 HP at 84 kg, runs on any fuel, 0.56 kg/HP
And of course there are tens of thousands of flying Jabirus and Rotaxes that is proving you wrong.
Lycoming AEIO-580-B1A: 315 HP at 204 kg, 0,65 kg/HP This is the best power to weight ratio Lycoming.
All these new engines are available now, and they runs circles around Lycomings and Continentals. They also run on any everything from mogas to 100LL.
The US has not really felt the monumental impact of the fuel costs as we have in Europe. For Europeans, Mogas with up to 30% cheaper price or UL91 with 15% and let alone Jet A1 which is again up to 40% cheaper than Avgas it has a huge impact. Therefore, products which allow compatibility with these fuels may well sell better in Europe than they do in the US, not unlike it is with fuel efficient cars.
That situation was created by taxation: taxes on fuel in Europe drove down demand for aviation gasoline, and that drove up prices and that further drove down volume. The reality is that European demand would buy a niche engine for Europe, with slightly better fuel economy achieved by sacrificing power/weight ratio, but sold at a mass market price. That’s not going to happen.
The fact is that I can overhaul an existing 300 HP 100LL-burning aircraft engine for about $15,000 in parts and machine work from multiple competing suppliers, and do it 3 or 4 times. That’s the underlying realty that makes people keep buying them, and why I described the situation as being one that utilizes fuel quality to provide both simplicity and light weight simultaneously for a high powered engine.
The best high power reciprocating engines in an economic sense are actually radials, but they leak and need more attention so the flat engines took over up to about 350 HP, with turbines going from there. Most of the smaller flat engines can already burn auto fuel or 80/87, as Mooney Driver explained, its when you stretch up to over 250 HP or so you start to need 100LL for a practical, light reciprocating engine. Then there is a slight gap in the middle between say 400 HP and 600 HP where there might be some opportunity.
Get over it, its not going to change.
LeSving
Where are all the planes fitted and refitted with these nice engines?
Btw: none of these engines are in the 230 to 300hp range.
Not even a modern Cirrus is available with one of your engines.
Educate me. I’m happy to learn. What engine is ready with STC for my Commander oder Peter’s TB20?
This thread illustrates why European GA is in such a mess.
One group of pilots is happy to shaft another group, on the I am allright Jack! principle.
91UL is not going to penetrate the European market – even if it does well in small pockets of GA like perhaps Norway. This is because it isn’t economical for an airfield to carry two different but similar fuels. Even if it sold them 50/50 that means buying only half the volume of each, which means they pay more for it, and the differential was so small to start with so there is no point.
TOTAL tried to push UK airports into making that decision (in TOTAL’s favour of course) and failed.
Lycoming AEIO-580-B1A: 315 HP at 204 kg, 0,65 kg/HP This is the best power to weight ratio Lycoming.
Might be but it will outlast the Rotax by a long way 
Also piston GA cruise speeds are so far into parasitic drag that weight is not very important in affecting economy (MPG). Rotaxes do well in artificially regulation-created weight categories.
My IO540-C4D5D can burn 91UL and if it was significantly cheaper I would buy it. But it isn’t. So I have just got back from EDNY and filled up with about £300 of 100LL
Rotaxes do well in artificially regulation-created weight categories.
The little Rotax is actually a pretty good design if what you need is 80-100 HP and don’t mind a disposable engine that will be economically beyond repair at 2000 hrs, versus perhaps 8000 hours for a Lycoming. Scaling up is the real issue though: unless you want a 12 cylinder 300 HP engine, you’re going to have bigger cylinders than a Rotax, even running at 5000 rpm with a gearbox. That drives up the octane requirement, particularly with 2 large valves per cylinder and simple actuation.
Rotax tried a higher power aero engine, the V6 with chain driven overhead cams and higher rpm, but it was obviously never going to compete economically. As I understand it they stopped spending money on further development before they got the bugs worked out well enough to allow a flight test program.
Where are all the planes fitted and refitted with these nice engines?
Well, your question was one about engine design, weight, simplicity, power and the ability to run on lower octane fuel. I have showed you all of these in several real world examples. For your last question: Zlin is already selling Cubs with MW. UL Power is Belgian, their engines are experimental. They are mostly used on experimental aircrafts in the US. The 6 cylinder 200 HP engine is brand new, but is being mounted on several RVs right now, maybe they are already in the air now, not sure. Their smaller engines are already flying, a couple of hundred already. You know, aviation is more than Cirrus, much more.
