Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:




Based on that, you recommend that a homebuilder choose an
engine for which there is no history of use or support in the
aviation communtiy. Compared to sticking with what has proven
successful, while avoiding what has not, that sounds expensive
and unsafe to me.

The Curtiss OX-5 was the "proven" aircraft engine at one time. if
everyone thought like you it still would be.

No, because I do not think everyone should restrict themselves to
tried and true engines. Rather, I think that homebuilders who are
only interested in building and flying an airplane, and not interested
in R&D should.

Designing an airframe
around a Lyc today is more chronologically retarded than if Burt Rutan
had used an OX-5 or OXX-6 in the first VariEze. ..

Which is why one calls that a 'straw man' argument.


If safety is the ONLY
criterion there is only one way to turn a propeller worthy of
consideration, a real aircraft engine: namely, the P&WC PT-6A.

Of course, with the caveat that you keep your toes clear
when you installit. After all, once the airframe has been crushed
by the weight of the engine the plane will never fly.

Two beefy guys can easily lift a PT-6, at least the small series. A
PT-6A-27 weighs 149 kg according to one Web site on Google.

Like I said, too heavy. Also way too much power I'll warrant.

If safety were the only consideration, the homebuilder wouldn't
be building an airplane.



I think your definition of 'real' airplane comes close to excluding
every homebuilt airplane that has flown successfully.

What does that tell you? MANY homebuilts are marginal airplanes? That
much is true.

I'll agree that many are. (Volksplanes come to mind.) OTOH consider
the FAI records set by planes powered by VW and or Rotax engines,
or consider planes like the Corby Starlet and the Sadler Vampyre.



...

I only suggested Hondas as a possible solution because of reliability
and the availability of "midtime" factory assembled engines as JDM
pulls, cheap. There may actually be a problem with them but because no
one has put much effort into flying them (save, a decade or two ago,
the BD-5 guys) we don't know. Most turn "wrong way", but that's not a
major issue unless you want to turn a surplus factory prop. Even then a
gear drive could fix that.

Here I follow you as far what could be a fruitful developement effort.
But not a choice for someone who wants to build and fly, without
having to re-invent the aircraft engine, eh?

You have time to build, you have time to solve problems. Don't want to
experiment? Buy a Cessna.

If everyone thought like you, planes would still use wing-warping for
roll control.

OTOH, since some people have put their R&D effort into areas other
than engines, most do not.

Of course few homebuilders do any R&D. The term 'experimental'
airplane is quite a misnomer. Which is the reason why, IMHO, one
should not recommend that a homebuilder use an engine that has
never, or almost never flown successfully. If the homebuilder is a
genuine gearhead, they'll already have their own ideas, if not, they
ought to avoid breaking new ground unless or until they become
one.

--

FF