A new Oz engine on the way?

Perhaps this is the dream engine everyone has been waiting for? We'll find out more details early next year, I'm sure.

The good news is that there seem to be more and more engine options becoming available, maybe that will put some pressure on prices....

This forum will get the news first, it's the Oz thing to do

Well Turboplanner thinks I'm "optomistic" ......

.

PS I hope you're going to offer something for those of us limited to 100HP.....

.

PS I hope you're going to offer something for those of us limited to 100HP.....

I'm bloody excited and struggling to contain it, finalised and ordered custom crankshaft housing molds yesterday.

Dream engine? How about 6 cylinders, water cooled, no vibrations, brilliantly simple answer to reduction drive concerns and a 4 figure price tag? Not to mention astonishingly cheap serviceability/parts/rebuilds.

 

 

 

This forum will get the news first, it's the Oz thing to do

You've got my attention, will they be doing anything smaller?

Well it's "Me" not "They" and what do you mean by smaller?

It seems to be one of those things that everyone has a size requirement but of course the 90'ish hp class seems to be a good one to enter into (Rotax 912/Jabiru 2200 etc).

100 hp is more popular..the only reason 80hp exist really in any numbers is jabiru and skyfox. But the 100hp 912ULS is the most popular by far. That is what you should be aiming at is the wider market for more sales not the niche market there are lots of options there with niche engines. Viking engines are doing the right thing they are trying to get into the biggest market as there is much more market share to be had they are competing directly with the ULS

Well it's "Me" not "They" and what do you mean by smaller?It seems to be one of those things that everyone has a size requirement but of course the 90'ish hp class seems to be a good one to enter into (Rotax 912/Jabiru 2200 etc).

But the 100hp 912ULS is the most popular by far.

I saw your post in regard to the 6cyl, by smaller I meant 4 cyl instead of 6, I have no interest in LSA, so 80-100hp seems to get close to upper weight limits, for the sort of stuff I want to play with, even 50-70hp, with a corresponding low weight would be nice.

I am going head to head with the Rotax 912, I want a share of their market of course and don't be too concerned by the mention of 6 cyls, there's method in the madness and not what you are thinking/expecting. I am aiming to be 5kgs heavier as well over the Rotax but with water cooling and at half the price you can't really expect miracles. I have already nogotiated EFI and instrument panel package as well.

I believe this is still the most important part; "Not to mention astonishingly cheap serviceability/parts/rebuilds" - it's one thing to buy a plane, it's another to be able to afford to use it year in, year out.

There does seem to be a call for around 50 to 60hp as well but not sure it's such a great market based on what's out there already but I do have a couple of ideas to suit if it looks worthwhile entering.

Anyway, I will write up a release through the week and happy that it is helping employ Australians and bring profits to Australia.

Talk about wetting appetites for a viable alternative

direct drive or gearbox?

direct drive or gearbox?

Just to confuse you, the answer to that is "Yes"!

Talk about wetting appetites for a viable alternative

Sounds like a reduction gearing inside the crankcase ..... ?

.

ok 6 cyclinder 100 hp internal gearbox ?

See what happens when you throw a bait out even though you might not be actually fishing

You get a feeding frenzy and not enough food to satisfy the initial burly

Oh and the masses are hungry

reduction could be like the Viking...that so far seems to be working well I have not seen any issues with it at all

See what happens when you throw a bait out even though you might not be actually fishing

Just so I don't annoy anyone further, it's a 1.6 litre, 4 stroke, 3/6 opposed piston engine that the internal crankshaft's connecting gear also acts as the reduction gear (that direct drives the prop) killing 2 birds with one stone.

Hope that helps a bit, more details in a few days.

Sorry, wasn't my intention to upset or frustrate anybody.Just so I don't annoy anyone further, it's a 1.6 litre, 4 stroke, 3/6 opposed piston engine that the internal crankshaft's connecting gear also acts as the reduction gear (that direct drives the prop) killing 2 birds with one stone.

 

Hope that helps a bit, more details in a few days.

ok so now we know a bit more we will be waiting with baited breath from more specs and PICTURES or DRAWINGS

Can I safely assume there has been some serious testing in the re-drive dept? Ihave been lead to believe that a 180 degree opposed engine with a 2:1 reduction with a 2 blade prop can have some serious harmonics issues.

Harmonics can be a very serious issue with any engine, when we get to that stage we have some quite clever friends here who work in the world's largest turbine company to offer some help besides my own take on it. I have a few things working on my side as well.

Well you know what the people are like here on the forum.....as you get things done some progress. Pics would be great ...bloody iPad formating my text again.....there will be a. Lot of interest

Anyone contemplating building their own plane will have to factor in the engine cost into their overall budget. In my opinion, the engine cost has been the killer in any potential project (It is certainly a big factor in mine). Next month, I hope to take a long drive to see the first Viking engine in this part of the world as part of my homework but I would really prefer a Down Under alternative engine to the Rotax.

Bex, I hope your engine will tick the following boxes:

MUST HAVES:

* It has to be cheap. $20k for an aircraft engine is really insane but Rotax gets away with it because they have the market dominance.

* It has to be reliable. No one enjoys a sudden donk-stop mid-flight.

* It has to be light. In other words no more than 10 kg heavier to the equivalent Rotax engine.

* Redundancy. Reduces reliance on a single system, if possible, and hopefully avoids sudden engine failures.

NICE TO HAVES:

* Economical to run. If the engine slurps fuel at 30 litres per hour, it is nowhere near as desirable.

* Water cooling. This has a number of advantages: no shock-cooling on descent, a carbon-monoxide free cabin heater, a more even engine cooling.

* EFI. This avoids carb ice issues and is usually more fuel efficient.

* FADEC. Allows for even greater fuel efficiency.

* Down Under supplier. Who wants to wait for a delivery from Europe or North America when local parts can be available?

We're waiting for the details!

Bex, I hope your engine will tick the following boxes:

Geez, where do you get a Rotax for $20K? I was at a well respected Oz aero works early this year and they were up to $37K after fully installibg to flight ready 914. Another one I visited pointed out the window and said "You want that brand new Commodore or a Rotax engine?"!! Neither were impressed.

time for the bexmetter thread

Anyone contemplating building their own plane will have to factor in the engine cost into their overall budget. In my opinion, the engine cost has been the killer in any potential project (It is certainly a big factor in mine). Next month, I hope to take a long drive to see the first Viking engine in this part of the world as part of my homework but I would really prefer a Down Under alternative engine to the Rotax.Bex, I hope your engine will tick the following boxes:

 

MUST HAVES:

 

* It has to be cheap. $20k for an aircraft engine is really insane but Rotax gets away with it because they have the market dominance.

 

* It has to be reliable. No one enjoys a sudden donk-stop mid-flight.

 

* It has to be light. In other words no more than 10 kg heavier to the equivalent Rotax engine.

 

* Redundancy. Reduces reliance on a single system, if possible, and hopefully avoids sudden engine failures.

 

NICE TO HAVES:

 

* Economical to run. If the engine slurps fuel at 30 litres per hour, it is nowhere near as desirable.

 

* Water cooling. This has a number of advantages: no shock-cooling on descent, a carbon-monoxide free cabin heater, a more even engine cooling.

 

* EFI. This avoids carb ice issues and is usually more fuel efficient.

 

* FADEC. Allows for even greater fuel efficiency.

 

* Down Under supplier. Who wants to wait for a delivery from Europe or North America when local parts can be available?

 

We're waiting for the details!

80, happy to report I have already ticked the boxes in both categories other than "economical" and "reliable" which naturally are goals, but I can not claim them until after testing and flight evidenced of course.

Geez, where do you get a Rotax for $20K? I was at a well respected Oz aero works early this year and they were up to $37K after fully installibg to flight ready 914. Another one I visited pointed out the window and said "You want that brand new Commodore or a Rotax engine?"!! Neither were impressed.

time for the bexmetter thread

Not yet, still some things to organise not least a donation to the forum.