"Primitive" Aircraft Engine Technology

Brewing Master » Home Brew » "Primitive" Aircraft Engine Technology

Categories: Home Brew

Question:

I stand corrected on my rolling spin. Never done that before…

Response:

writes: I’ve heard about as alternator that mounts in the vacuum pump pad. Having a second alternator seems to make an all electric panel sound safer…

Yes sir, it’s about $400 and puts out 7amp if I recall correctly. Available from B & C Specialty. Planning on one with my installation. http://www.bandcspecialty.com/parts.html Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Response:

Only 7 amps? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: I’ve heard about as alternator that mounts in the vacuum pump pad. Having a second alternator seems to make an all electric panel sound safer… Yes sir, it’s about $400 and puts out 7amp if I recall correctly. Available from B & C Specialty. Planning on one with my installation. http://www.bandcspecialty.com/parts.html Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Response:

You??? Superman??? ROFL! I don’t recall Superman as being bald and nasty! No, you and Muzzleloader are more like the corpse from "Weekend at Bernie’s" and military 115/130 Avgas mixed with Kaopectate. ‘Pastor’ Dave

Response:

That’s why we privileged folk on the experimental side use Ellison or Airflow Performance fuel systems, Lightspeed or Rose ignitions and B&C alternators and starters. And all electric cockpits. It’s amazing to me that we HAD reliable (wet) vacuum pumps and abandoned them because they were "messy."

Yes exactly, Richard, which is why I have a Delco 10SI alternator on my BD-4. I’m at the Cutting edge of 80’s technology now. Whoo Hoo. It’s a couple of pounds lighter than the hugely expensive motorola with external regulator that came out, and puts out 90 amps to boot. I can swap it out every year with a fresh rebuilt for a whopping $35, no lie. I had given some thought to one of the newer style super-lightweight automotive alternators, but cost was still a factor with these. I also have an LSE Plasma II CDI ignition, and a SkyTech starter. But alas I still have that $%#dam dry vacuum pump.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – agreeing with Bob is almost as bad as feeding trolls! <g Oh my, will he be tough to tolerate now! BOb was so gleeful about this new convert that he started celebrating! With Muzzleloader…. Oh well. D. Pure Urban legend, Doug. Muzzleloader and I are like…. Superman and Kryptonite. BOb Urban You??? Superman??? ROFL! I don’t recall Superman as being bald and nasty! No, you and Muzzleloader are more like the corpse from "Weekend at Bernie’s" and military 115/130 Avgas mixed with Kaopectate. ‘Pastor’ Dave

Look who is talking! You have lost none of your rare flavor and aroma, buddy. Barnyard BOb

Response:

Dave Anderson opined: I also have an LSE Plasma II CDI ignition, and a SkyTech starter. But alas I still have that $%#dam dry vacuum pump.

Have they repealed the laws of ugly, draggy and unpretty venturis, yet? If not, they work fine if you can stay out of ice and care not to set your vacuum DG until well under way. <g P.S. There are electric AND air powered vacuum pumps. Barnyard BOb – just say NO to progress

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Only 7 amps? writes: I’ve heard about as alternator that mounts in the vacuum pump pad. Having a second alternator seems to make an all electric panel sound safer… Yes sir, it’s about $400 and puts out 7amp if I recall correctly. Available from B & C Specialty. Planning on one with my installation. http://www.bandcspecialty.com/parts.html

Correction … it is rated at 8 amps at 3500 rmp (alternator) but then what do you expect from a 3 lb alternator? Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Response:

Lot’s of griping about old-timey technology misses the mark badly. (Although bitching about cost seems more reasonable). Aircraft piston engines have evolved (developed) to the point that they are pretty much the peak of perfection – for the roll [sic] of spinning a propeller at flying speeds.

Several factors at work here. Due to propellors being bolted directly to the crank, the engines are rpm limited, generally no faster than 2,750 rpm, or the prop tips get very noisy and thrust suffers. **Aside: During WWII, ALL the big, high powered aero engines used reduction drives.** Because direct drive engines cannot be spun fast, the only way to develop adaquate power is to go big with cubic inch displacement. It turns out that big cylinders wuffing away at low rpm are pretty efficient, more efficient than little cylinders spinning faster. The BSFC of typical Lycos and Conts is inevitably lower than those of high revving small cylindered auto engines, any spark ignited auto engine, even the newest ones with computer controlled ignition, timing and fuel injection. So if direct drive engines are already efficient and have gone through commercial certification, which is very costly and each engine must be certified for each installation in each make and model of airplane, what would be the reason for developing an entirely new engine? The Zoche people are facing a huge uphill battle in bringing their revolutionary air cooled two stroke diesel to the market. Apparently they have backers who like spending lots of money. Efficiency isn’t the issue, and never was, it has always been COST. If Lycomings and Continentals were reasonably priced, why bother with the hassle of converting an auto engine? I sure wouldn’t be doing it. But when I looked at prices and tried to find a reasonable used aircraft engine, I felt I did not know enough to avoid being screwed. There are LOTS of parts for ex airboat engines to be had and one guy had acres of Franklin parts he was willing to let me paw through to find what worked for me, but I’d have to really understand what I was doing to come up with a reliable engine that way. On the other hand, I know auto engines and everyone, even he most remote backwoods machine shop can work on them. Unfortunately, most builders do not have a background in engine mechanics/assembly so building an auto engine is simply not an option for them. I don’t recommend it for everyone. But I spent 9 years making a living as an auto mechanic so building an engine is something I’m comfortable with. Corky Scott

Response:

Thank you, thank you. Faint praise from you is praise none the less! Like MacArthur said, "I have returned!" ‘Pastor’ Dave

Response:

Look who is talking! You have lost none of your rare flavor and aroma, buddy. Barnyard BOb Thank you, thank you. Faint praise from you is praise none the less! Like MacArthur said, "I have returned!" ‘Pastor’ Dave

Hi Pastor, Glad to see you back. I’ve been wondering how things went with your dinged landing gear when you landed on HF’s hanger after that midair with the BBQ hitch? As I recall you were in pain and of course little Tommy Cooper wasn’t there to do his usual victory roll. Where are those guys when you really need them? <G Gary Thomas

Response:

Thank you, thank you. Faint praise from you is praise none the less! Like MacArthur said, "I have returned!" ‘Pastor’ Dave

Welcome back, Parson Pincus, you ol’ poet laureate you.

Response:

So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one? Richard!!!! Please stop talking like that. Saying words like that, and agreeing with Bob is almost as bad as feeding trolls! <g Oh my, will he be tough to tolerate now! Jim in NC

Huh? When did I lose troll status? Barnyard BOb

Response:

agreeing with Bob is almost as bad as feeding trolls! <g Oh my, will he be tough to tolerate now! BOb was so gleeful about this new convert that he started celebrating! With Muzzleloader…. Oh well. D.

Pure Urban legend, Doug. Muzzleloader and I are like…. Superman and Kryptonite. BOb Urban

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I totally agree. The lyc or continental case and cylinders are not really lagging the materials and technology in your average auto engine. Crank, cam, pistons, poppet valves, cylinders, they all work together to suck squeeze pop fooey with pretty much the same configuration and materials on both cars and airplanes. The thing that irks me is the state of the accessories. The fuel injection/carbs, mag ignition, and alternator/generator systems are all at the cutting edge of 1930’s technology. Ok the alternators are maybe cutting edge of 1970’s, but they are ridiculously priced. And the worst offender is the vacuum pump. I have a bunch of warnings from my vac pump manufacturer telling me to replace it every 500 hrs. That’s scary. Why oh why are we killing ourselves yearly with vacuum pump failures? Is it that hard of a problem to solve? Can’t someone please engineer a more reliable pump?

There are better pumps. My 1962 172 has the original pump on it and it still works fine. It is the old "WET" pump. They must cost too much or something assa9 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see the current offering of certified reciprocating aircraft engines as a species of power that has evolved to fit a particular niche. Lot’s of griping about old-timey technology misses the mark badly. (Although bitching about cost seems more reasonable). Aircraft piston engines have evolved (developed) to the point that they are pretty much the peak of perfection – for the roll of spinning a propeller at flying speeds. Converted autoengines might sometimes be a better choice for a given airframe (KR, Sonari, Parasol, Corby, etc were designed specifically FOR the VW engine). Problem is, they are NOT aircraft engines and have to be "converted" to power a plane. The conversion process could be as simple as adding a prop hub to the crank for a small VW, or a complex PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit may be needed. The bottom line (as I said elsewhere) is cost and availability. But there are a lot of other lines that need careful consideration – one of the most important of which is weight. I’ve seen a lot of VW, Soob, Geos, etc adapted to power light planes. Some work better than others, but they have all flown – at least some. But having given this line some thought for the past few days, I think I can see BOb’s point: that to develop any of these adaptations to the same level of reliability/cost/(and MOST important) weight would indeed cost a fortune (or two). My previous point was that there will always be risks involved in leaving the ground. How much risk we take depends somewhat on the circumstances. For my parasol, the risks involved in an engine failure are small. Light weight, slow touch down speed = low energy state. Single ignition, converted VW is affordable and has sufficient power to make the plane a lot of fun to fly. The reliability issue will take time to research – with this particular engine. Your milage may vary. My Tailwind, tho, has less wing area, twice the weight, and a second seat for some unsuspecting fool to come along. I bought an O-290-D2 to go on it. Heavy, small wings, fast landing = high energy state. The consequences of an engine failure (especially with a passenger)are high enough that a single ignition or home brew engine is out of the question for this airplane (my opinion only). BOb’s point. In addition, the small wings will fly better with a lighter load. A heavier engine will hurt climb performance and limit payload, and increase landing speed. So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Response:

minor: roll = role Something about roll and spinning in the same sentence…. Anyway if you think that piston aircraft engines are the "peak of perfection" than you have some bad data. Piston aircraft engines are not efficient, have short life spans, produce way too much heat. They expand and contract at alarming rates and are way too expensive and on and on. They are here because it’s what people know and are used to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Converted autoengines might sometimes be a better choice for a given airframe (KR, Sonari, Parasol, Corby, etc were designed specifically FOR the VW engine). Problem is, they are NOT aircraft engines and have to be "converted" to power a plane. The conversion process could be as simple as adding a prop hub to the crank for a small VW, or a complex PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit may be needed. The bottom line (as I said elsewhere) is cost and availability. But there are a lot of other lines that need careful consideration – one of the most important of which is weight. I’ve seen a lot of VW, Soob, Geos, etc adapted to power light planes. Some work better than others, but they have all flown – at least some. But having given this line some thought for the past few days, I think I can see BOb’s point: that to develop any of these adaptations to the same level of reliability/cost/(and MOST important) weight would indeed cost a fortune (or two). My previous point was that there will always be risks involved in leaving the ground. How much risk we take depends somewhat on the circumstances. For my parasol, the risks involved in an engine failure are small. Light weight, slow touch down speed = low energy state. Single ignition, converted VW is affordable and has sufficient power to make the plane a lot of fun to fly. The reliability issue will take time to research – with this particular engine. Your milage may vary. My Tailwind, tho, has less wing area, twice the weight, and a second seat for some unsuspecting fool to come along. I bought an O-290-D2 to go on it. Heavy, small wings, fast landing = high energy state. The consequences of an engine failure (especially with a passenger)are high enough that a single ignition or home brew engine is out of the question for this airplane (my opinion only). BOb’s point. In addition, the small wings will fly better with a lighter load. A heavier engine will hurt climb performance and limit payload, and increase landing speed. So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Response:

I’ve heard about as alternator that mounts in the vacuum pump pad. Having a second alternator seems to make an all electric panel sound safer… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I totally agree. The lyc or continental case and cylinders are not really lagging the materials and technology in your average auto engine. Crank, cam, pistons, poppet valves, cylinders, they all work together to suck squeeze pop fooey with pretty much the same configuration and materials on both cars and airplanes. The thing that irks me is the state of the accessories. The fuel injection/carbs, mag ignition, and alternator/generator systems are all at the cutting edge of 1930’s technology. Ok the alternators are maybe cutting edge of 1970’s, but they are ridiculously priced. And the worst offender is the vacuum pump. I have a bunch of warnings from my vac pump manufacturer telling me to replace it every 500 hrs. That’s scary. Why oh why are we killing ourselves yearly with vacuum pump failures? Is it that hard of a problem to solve? Can’t someone please engineer a more reliable pump? I see the current offering of certified reciprocating aircraft engines as a species of power that has evolved to fit a particular niche. Lot’s of griping about old-timey technology misses the mark badly. (Although bitching about cost seems more reasonable). Aircraft piston engines have evolved (developed) to the point that they are pretty much the peak of perfection – for the roll of spinning a propeller at flying speeds. Converted autoengines might sometimes be a better choice for a given airframe (KR, Sonari, Parasol, Corby, etc were designed specifically FOR the VW engine). Problem is, they are NOT aircraft engines and have to be "converted" to power a plane. The conversion process could be as simple as adding a prop hub to the crank for a small VW, or a complex PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit may be needed. The bottom line (as I said elsewhere) is cost and availability. But there are a lot of other lines that need careful consideration – one of the most important of which is weight. I’ve seen a lot of VW, Soob, Geos, etc adapted to power light planes. Some work better than others, but they have all flown – at least some. But having given this line some thought for the past few days, I think I can see BOb’s point: that to develop any of these adaptations to the same level of reliability/cost/(and MOST important) weight would indeed cost a fortune (or two). My previous point was that there will always be risks involved in leaving the ground. How much risk we take depends somewhat on the circumstances. For my parasol, the risks involved in an engine failure are small. Light weight, slow touch down speed = low energy state. Single ignition, converted VW is affordable and has sufficient power to make the plane a lot of fun to fly. The reliability issue will take time to research – with this particular engine. Your milage may vary. My Tailwind, tho, has less wing area, twice the weight, and a second seat for some unsuspecting fool to come along. I bought an O-290-D2 to go on it. Heavy, small wings, fast landing = high energy state. The consequences of an engine failure (especially with a passenger)are high enough that a single ignition or home brew engine is out of the question for this airplane (my opinion only). BOb’s point. In addition, the small wings will fly better with a lighter load. A heavier engine will hurt climb performance and limit payload, and increase landing speed. So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Response:

All true enough, but they are also low rpm, high torque, and lighter than most other engines for the amount of power. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see the current offering of certified reciprocating aircraft engines as a species of power that has evolved to fit a particular niche. Lot’s of griping about old-timey technology misses the mark badly. (Although bitching about cost seems more reasonable). Aircraft piston engines have evolved (developed) to the point that they are pretty much the peak of perfection – for the roll of spinning a propeller at flying speeds. minor: roll = role Something about roll and spinning in the same sentence…. Anyway if you think that piston aircraft engines are the "peak of perfection" than you have some bad data. Piston aircraft engines are not efficient, have short life spans, produce way too much heat. They expand and contract at alarming rates and are way too expensive and on and on. They are here because it’s what people know and are used to. Converted autoengines might sometimes be a better choice for a given airframe (KR, Sonari, Parasol, Corby, etc were designed specifically FOR the VW engine). Problem is, they are NOT aircraft engines and have to be "converted" to power a plane. The conversion process could be as simple as adding a prop hub to the crank for a small VW, or a complex PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit may be needed. The bottom line (as I said elsewhere) is cost and availability. But there are a lot of other lines that need careful consideration – one of the most important of which is weight. I’ve seen a lot of VW, Soob, Geos, etc adapted to power light planes. Some work better than others, but they have all flown – at least some. But having given this line some thought for the past few days, I think I can see BOb’s point: that to develop any of these adaptations to the same level of reliability/cost/(and MOST important) weight would indeed cost a fortune (or two). My previous point was that there will always be risks involved in leaving the ground. How much risk we take depends somewhat on the circumstances. For my parasol, the risks involved in an engine failure are small. Light weight, slow touch down speed = low energy state. Single ignition, converted VW is affordable and has sufficient power to make the plane a lot of fun to fly. The reliability issue will take time to research – with this particular engine. Your milage may vary. My Tailwind, tho, has less wing area, twice the weight, and a second seat for some unsuspecting fool to come along. I bought an O-290-D2 to go on it. Heavy, small wings, fast landing = high energy state. The consequences of an engine failure (especially with a passenger)are high enough that a single ignition or home brew engine is out of the question for this airplane (my opinion only). BOb’s point. In addition, the small wings will fly better with a lighter load. A heavier engine will hurt climb performance and limit payload, and increase landing speed. So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I totally agree. The lyc or continental case and cylinders are not really lagging the materials and technology in your average auto engine. Crank, cam, pistons, poppet valves, cylinders, they all work together to suck squeeze pop fooey with pretty much the same configuration and materials on both cars and airplanes. The thing that irks me is the state of the accessories. The fuel injection/carbs, mag ignition, and alternator/generator systems are all at the cutting edge of 1930’s technology. Ok the alternators are maybe cutting edge of 1970’s, but they are ridiculously priced. And the worst offender is the vacuum pump. I have a bunch of warnings from my vac pump manufacturer telling me to replace it every 500 hrs. That’s scary. Why oh why are we killing ourselves yearly with vacuum pump failures? Is it that hard of a problem to solve? Can’t someone please engineer a more reliable pump?

We HAD a more reliable pump. It was called a wet vacuum pump, and engine oil circulated through it. There was an oil separator to remove the oil from the outgoing air, but some of the oil mist inevitably ended up on the airplane’s belly. In our Pride of Ownership, we could not abide this, so we demanded more "advanced" technology, and got the dry pump that wears out in no time at all. There are many parallels to this in other products we use everyday. "New and Improved" is not always true. Dan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Look again Dave. You will find that there many additions to the "accessories" that are now available for both power and other options. The Aerosance FADEC system has now been STC’d for most production engines and aircraft which replaces the mags and old fuel systems with fully computerized ignition and metered fuel injection systems. No need for tht mixture control system in the future. They are also proceeding on a single control system to incorporate the prop controls. The vacuum pump was made obsolete by electric gyros and more recently by fully electronic EFIS systems. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Response:

I see the current offering of certified reciprocating aircraft engines as a species of power that has evolved to fit a particular niche. Lot’s of griping about old-timey technology misses the mark badly. (Although bitching about cost seems more reasonable). Aircraft piston engines have evolved (developed) to the point that they are pretty much the peak of perfection – for the roll of spinning a propeller at flying speeds. Converted autoengines might sometimes be a better choice for a given airframe (KR, Sonari, Parasol, Corby, etc were designed specifically FOR the VW engine). Problem is, they are NOT aircraft engines and have to be "converted" to power a plane. The conversion process could be as simple as adding a prop hub to the crank for a small VW, or a complex PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit may be needed. The bottom line (as I said elsewhere) is cost and availability. But there are a lot of other lines that need careful consideration – one of the most important of which is weight. I’ve seen a lot of VW, Soob, Geos, etc adapted to power light planes. Some work better than others, but they have all flown – at least some. But having given this line some thought for the past few days, I think I can see BOb’s point: that to develop any of these adaptations to the same level of reliability/cost/(and MOST important) weight would indeed cost a fortune (or two). My previous point was that there will always be risks involved in leaving the ground. How much risk we take depends somewhat on the circumstances. For my parasol, the risks involved in an engine failure are small. Light weight, slow touch down speed = low energy state. Single ignition, converted VW is affordable and has sufficient power to make the plane a lot of fun to fly. The reliability issue will take time to research – with this particular engine. Your milage may vary. My Tailwind, tho, has less wing area, twice the weight, and a second seat for some unsuspecting fool to come along. I bought an O-290-D2 to go on it. Heavy, small wings, fast landing = high energy state. The consequences of an engine failure (especially with a passenger)are high enough that a single ignition or home brew engine is out of the question for this airplane (my opinion only). BOb’s point. In addition, the small wings will fly better with a lighter load. A heavier engine will hurt climb performance and limit payload, and increase landing speed. So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Response:

Snip . BOb’s point. Snip So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Richard!!!! Please stop talking like that. Saying words like that, and agreeing with Bob is almost as bad as feeding trolls! <g Oh my, will he be tough to tolerate now! Jim in NC

Response:

agreeing with Bob is almost as bad as feeding trolls! <g Oh my, will he be tough to tolerate now!

BOb was so gleeful about this new convert that he started celebrating! With Muzzleloader…. Oh well. D.

Response:

Lycoming has had their own problems, although they are with the bigger engines. Seems that the FAA is going to get on them heavy for their quality control. How can they control quality when they dont make the parts anymore? ??? assa9

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see the current offering of certified reciprocating aircraft engines as a species of power that has evolved to fit a particular niche. Lot’s of griping about old-timey technology misses the mark badly. (Although bitching about cost seems more reasonable). Aircraft piston engines have evolved (developed) to the point that they are pretty much the peak of perfection – for the roll of spinning a propeller at flying speeds. Converted autoengines might sometimes be a better choice for a given airframe (KR, Sonari, Parasol, Corby, etc were designed specifically FOR the VW engine). Problem is, they are NOT aircraft engines and have to be "converted" to power a plane. The conversion process could be as simple as adding a prop hub to the crank for a small VW, or a complex PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit may be needed. The bottom line (as I said elsewhere) is cost and availability. But there are a lot of other lines that need careful consideration – one of the most important of which is weight. I’ve seen a lot of VW, Soob, Geos, etc adapted to power light planes. Some work better than others, but they have all flown – at least some. But having given this line some thought for the past few days, I think I can see BOb’s point: that to develop any of these adaptations to the same level of reliability/cost/(and MOST important) weight would indeed cost a fortune (or two). My previous point was that there will always be risks involved in leaving the ground. How much risk we take depends somewhat on the circumstances. For my parasol, the risks involved in an engine failure are small. Light weight, slow touch down speed = low energy state. Single ignition, converted VW is affordable and has sufficient power to make the plane a lot of fun to fly. The reliability issue will take time to research – with this particular engine. Your milage may vary. My Tailwind, tho, has less wing area, twice the weight, and a second seat for some unsuspecting fool to come along. I bought an O-290-D2 to go on it. Heavy, small wings, fast landing = high energy state. The consequences of an engine failure (especially with a passenger)are high enough that a single ignition or home brew engine is out of the question for this airplane (my opinion only). BOb’s point. In addition, the small wings will fly better with a lighter load. A heavier engine will hurt climb performance and limit payload, and increase landing speed. So my obvious choice for the Tailwind is a true blue (if obsolete) Lycoming. That’s from a reliability question, but it cost less too. Split that one?

Response:

I totally agree. The lyc or continental case and cylinders are not really lagging the materials and technology in your average auto engine. Crank, cam, pistons, poppet valves, cylinders, they all work together to suck squeeze pop fooey with pretty much the same configuration and materials on both cars and airplanes. The thing that irks me is the state of the accessories. The fuel injection/carbs, mag ignition, and alternator/generator systems are all at the cutting edge of 1930’s technology. Ok the alternators are maybe cutting edge of 1970’s, but they are ridiculously priced. And the worst offender is the vacuum pump. I have a bunch of warnings from my vac pump manufacturer telling me to replace it every 500 hrs. That’s scary. Why oh why are we killing ourselves yearly with vacuum pump failures? Is it that hard of a problem to solve? Can’t someone please engineer a more reliable pump?

Brewing Master