Again, please keep answers and suggestions as objective as possible. I
don't want to start religious battles with this thread.

Thank you all for the help.

Rick Maddy


IF, as you say, you don't know "squat" about engines, you'll have a bad time
trying to engineer a custom engine installation. I know it is attractive to
think you can save money on the initial engine cost (or subsequent fuel
cost) by using an alternate engine instead of a lycoming 0-320 or 0-360.
However, if your goal is to build a flying, traveling, airplane, you'll be
happier with the lycoming. You won't have to engineer a custom engine
mount, custom cooling and fuel systems, custom cable routings, custom
electrical system, etc. You won't have to do the follow-on development work
when/if your engineering wasn't quite good enough and the engine didn't run
right on your first test flight. Also, with a lycoming, when it breaks (all
engines and/or systems do - usually in somewhere the other side of
Timbuktu), you will be able to call a dozen different vendors and get THE
part you need Fed-Ex'ed to you the next day.

I have an 0-320 in my RV-6, and missed SnF a couple of years ago because my
neato electronic ignition died the day before the show, and the only guy in
the world with replacement parts was already at the show. I couldn't get in
touch with him to diagnose the problem or have parts shipped. That's the
kind of thing you run into with oddball *critical* equipment on your
airplane...

A fellow EAA'er just spend a YEAR post first flight working out development
issues with his auto conversion. He had the engine and other systems
running on a bench several years before he went flying, and still had plenty
of difficulties. Unless you're a tinkerer, not a flyer, go with a fully
developed engine installation.

KB
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DAMN, Kyle !!!!
Have I died and gone to heaven? g


Barnyard BOb -- Over 50 years of flight