engine choices

The Lycoming 180 hp O-360 with parallel valve cylinders is the most common used engine in a Patrol. I have not yet seen a non-traditional engine flying in a Patrol. Someone was building a Patrol with a Warner Radial engine.
 
I'm using a Superior O-360 engine and will be going to Houston in August to actually build my engine along side a factory technician. The completed engine is then dyno tested and optionally broke in. The reason I chose Superior is that it has good reviews. The people at American Champion aircraft really like them. I also will be doing dual electronic P-Mags.
 
I do not want to dissuade you from going to a so called alternate engine for the aircraft you choose to build. But before you make that choice it is important to understand what it entails. You have not posted anything about your background, so if my post is redundant forgive me. Generally speaking the non-traditional engines are water cooled and there are advantages to that over the air cooled Lycoming / Contin. variants. But the additional drag created from forcing air through the radiators affects your aircraft's performance. So much so it out weighs the advantages of water cooled engines. For a given horsepower, again general speaking, the water cooled engine will drive the aircraft at a lower airspeed than the same horsepower air cooled engine. There may be exceptions, but i don't think that applies to the Viking. You may not care that your aircraft is slower than someone else's given the same horsepower engine. But in bush planes performance and acceleration are pretty important given the typical mission.

One of the advantages of choosing a Lycoming/ Contin. for the Bearhawk aircraft line is several folks on this forum can assist you when you get stuck on some aspect of the engine installation. At your home airfield there is probably a few A&Ps that can help diagnose engine problems. Not so for the Viking, you would be kind of on your own trying to figure out how to make it work. Some folks love that kind of challenge, maybe you are one of them.

There are several aircraft that have installed Viking engines; Sonex, Zeneth and Vans. I suggest you go to their websites and read the comments, questions and issues. I come to the Bearhawk community from the Vans Aircraft community. When I was building my RV-7 I was committed to installing a Eggenfellerner Subaru engine. For a variety of reasons I changed my mind and installed a Lycoming O-360. Some of the reasons that led me to that decision are:

1. There seemed to be a lot of extra work involved in engineering the installation. Lots of folks were trying and it seemed like many of them were having more than a few problems.
2. The reduced performance for the same horsepower didn't seem to make sense given the work involved.
3. It would have extended my build time significantly.
3. I read too many threads about folks pulling their alternative engine that wasn't working at all, or at least not well as they had hoped, and installing Lycomings. That is a lot of money to invest in the project. Shortly after I finished my aircraft a guy on the field pulled his Subaru engine out of his flying aircraft and installed a Lycoming.

I hope this helps and doesn't come off the wrong way. You should build the aircraft you want for the mission you plan on flying. If that includes an alternative engine, go for it.
 
thanks for all the comments so far. BG you did not come off the wrong way all information is helpful. as far as back ground I will be a first time builder. really not decided for sure on the patrol but it is in the top two. the cabin with is a big thing for me. the other top list is the zenith 750 super duty. again with the bubble doors fairly roomy. both with an excellent pay load.
 
The biggest differences between those two are cruise speed and build time. The Patrol is around 25 mph faster but will take a little longer to build. That and the seating arrangement.
 
jaredyates said:
The biggest differences between those two are cruise speed and build time. The Patrol is around 25 mph faster but will take a little longer to build. That and the seating arrangement.
Click to expand...

Well, that and the fact that the poor little Zenith is (ahem) less "attractive" than the Patrol... One guy painted polka dots all over his CH-750, and when you asked him about it, he joked that it was covering up the scratches from people touching it with a ten-foot pole! A really good friend of mine owns a CH-750, and he jokes that the wing doesn't really create lift, the earth just repels it because it's so ugly! His plane has the Jabiru 3300 (120 HP) and it cruises at 80-85 knots. He says if he runs it flat-out, it will hit 90 knots. But he mostly flies around 75-80 knots with the engine just loafing along. Of course, the other flying machine he owns is a powered parachute that takes off at 35 mph, climbs at 35 mph, cruises at 35 mph, and lands at 35 mph, so to him, the CH-750 is his "travelling" aircraft.

Different strokes for different folks!
 
I wasn't going to put it in these words exactly, figuring the cosmetic points were self-evident... But this too.
 
There are two Zenith 750s recently built in our chapter and another underway. First time builders got them in the air in two years (no paint) and seem happy with them. Personally I can't get beyond the cosmetics, and if building a two seater I would definitely want the tandem configuration.
 
I talked with a couple of the guys at Aeromomentum at SNF. I asked them how many total engines they had running and they said 200. Mostly in airboats. They quipped that airboat sales skyrocketed with the popularity of "Duck Dynasty". Their smaller engines might be a good fit for an LSA.

I used to like the idea of alternative engines, and still do if they work. A good compromise for me is a Lycoming with modern fueling and ignition. That ended up being my choice.
 
Man I have to agree with you guys, my friend that suggested I build the LSA at first suggested the Zenith 601 but like you guys I could not get over the cosmetics of it. Im sure it is a great airplane and the Zenith company is a very good company in the way they support their builders. I have never heard anything but good things about Zenith. If they had a airplane with more pleasing lines I would own one.
 
Svyolo I like that idea, a Lycoming with a modern ignition and fuel system. On your set up, are you still using both plugs per cylinder? I understand one of the problems with magnetos is that they do not make a spark hot enough to support full combustion in the cylinders (which is why 2 plugs per cylinder) and that is why the plugs foul so often in those engines. I would be interested in your take on this.
 
We do not know each other because I have not formerly joined the "family" yet. I WILL be building a 4 place (Kit) just as soon as I chase the 3/4 finished GP-4 out of the hangar to make room. In the meantime, let me say that I have followed many of your contributions and very much agree with most of what you think/say. As a retired welder, I liked your comments comparing TIG and GAS. I agree with your choice of Superior for example. But I would like to mention a possible consideration you may want to be aware of on the ignition system.

There is nothing wrong with "P-mags" (or any of the other electronic ignition systems) as far as they go. But there is a possibility that Tim Roehl at GAMI (Ada, OK) will "consider" offering GAMI's P.R.I.S.M. Ignition System for Experimentals this Fall. He would not commit to me, but he was more positive in our last conversation than ever before. Of course, GAMI's interest is an STC for Standard Category Aircraft, but I just wanted you and any other Bearhawk brothers (and sisters, of course) to be aware that this system may become available on a somewhat limited basis for us.

PRISM (Pressure Reactive Intelligent Spark Management) is intended to provide electronic ignition against a cylinder combustion chamber pressure paradigm that actually protects your engine from undetectable (in aircraft) detonation. If you visit the GAMI website (ancient history) and checkout "PRISM", realize that they have made some changes since that account was written. If you are interested, please talk with Tim or George Braley (and with OSH coming, bad timing now!) for the latest details and to register your interest. Or visit them in OSH - these are the folks who brought us GAMIJECTORS.

As I understand it, their installation only replaces one (1) magneto and that results full time in all your normal combustion occuring on one set of plugs activated by the PRISM unit. The magneto remains grounded until you need to test it (mag drop) or in an emergency. Their system fits 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Detonation....say Bye-Bye!!
 
I've been following the GAMI P.R.I.S.M development from a distance since I attended the Advanced Pilots Course, where it was mentioned "in passing"... It sounds like a fantastic system if/when they decide to offer it to the public. If/when it becomes available, I would definitely give it strong consideration (assuming a reasonable price, of course).
 
Electronic ignitions create a much hotter spark and at a higher voltage than mags. A big advantage is
that you can use automotive spark plugs. At annual most guys just put in a new set of plugs. To say nothing about a “modern” concept like spark advance.
 
I see some info about an automotive 220 HP conversion for certified aircraft by “Corsair” anyone know anything about them and whether they would be an option?
 
It is my understanding that the Rotax 912 is so light that the engine mount would have to be extended quite a bit forward to maintain CG limits. If correct, the longer mount would result in a "Cyrano De Bergerac" look that might be less than aesthetically pleasing – to put it charitably.
 
Jim, that makes perfect sense for a 4 or 5 place. Looks like plans call for a shortened engine mount for the Companion due the more forward CG in the design. So if you put a 915iS with a constant speed prop on a companion it should balance out nicely and have a lower cost fuel and lower fuel burn than the standard LyConti’s
 
A 915 would be a good performer due to the power and weight ratio. The cost to open the box is the higgest hurtle. You can burn a lot of fuel before reaching the same investment.
 
500AGL said:
A 915 would be a good performer due to the power and weight ratio. The cost to open the box is the higgest hurtle. You can burn a lot of fuel before reaching the same investment.
Click to expand...

Sure it is more expensive upfront, but the performance far outweighs the traditional options.
 
Mark, if I was going to build a Companion, it would for sure have a Rotax, now would it be the 915 or the new *** to be announced at OshKosh?
 
The 915 is only 145hp. Most people opt for a I/O-360 at 180-200hp on the patrol, and I would assume on the companion as well.

If you're operating almost exclusively above 6500ft, then the 915 would make sense since you'd have equal HP about there and more than the lycomings higher.
 
Lets see real data. Both for the CG change and cost analysis of fuel/engine purchase over a 2000 hour period of operation.
 
I understand the altitude issue, and there is value in the Rotax. But even with the Rans S21, where the company owner and designer is an outright Rotax fan, 95% or more of the S21 kits are being sold with Titan 340 engines or mounts for such.
The Aircam is a phenomenal aircraft for its mission, and is designed around the 912/914 engines. But holy man have you priced one?

I’m a believer in both modern technology (EFI, EMags, EIS) and also a believer in cubic inches. But at the end of the day you balance your mission to the value of the chosen engine against your wallet.
I drive diesel pickups, but not for better fuel mileage as that would not offset the purchase cost delta. I drive them for the power, reliability, and drive ability they offer. Those items justify the cost increase.

In a heavy hauling places to go people to see bushplane, the Rotax isn’t my choice, or my wallets. 🤪
 
500AGL said:
I understand the altitude issue, and there is value in the Rotax. But even with the Rans S21, where the company owner and designer is an outright Rotax fan, 95% or more of the S21 kits are being sold with Titan 340 engines or mounts for such.
The Aircam is a phenomenal aircraft for its mission, and is designed around the 912/914 engines. But holy man have you priced one?

I’m a believer in both modern technology (EFI, EMags, EIS) and also a believer in cubic inches. But at the end of the day you balance your mission to the value of the chosen engine against your wallet.
I drive diesel pickups, but not for better fuel mileage as that would not offset the purchase cost delta. I drive them for the power, reliability, and drive ability they offer. Those items justify the cost increase.

In a heavy hauling places to go people to see bushplane, the Rotax isn’t my choice, or my wallets. 🤪
Click to expand...

Rans dumped the Rotax 915 due to cooling issues on the then max manifold temperature of 120*. Rotax raised it to 176* a few months ago, so the challenges Randy was having are not an issue any longer. For flatlanders/low elevation guys the Titan is fine, where I live not so much.
 
yes like Mark said Warner plans scrapped. And Ron is flying his patrol behind a lyc 360. Was given a ride last November, what a blast
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top