Modern Aircooled 4-Cylinder Aircraft Engine Using Contemporary Engine Technology

There's another short update on the EPI website. It just says:


!! YAY - EARLY JANUARY 2020:
ENDURANCE TESTING HAS BEGUN ON THE PRODUCTION VERSION OF THE ENGINE

http://www.epi-eng.com/aircraft_engine_products/aircooled_4-cyl_aircraft_engine.htm

 

Well I guess that means the "well known OEM" wasn't Mooney.

 

I wouldn’t be too surprised if Dynon or Vashon has something to do with this.
Edit: just read some of the previous comments, seems I’m a couple of years behind the game here!

 

old post but 1st price i've run across

 

Ahoy, Homebuilts',

This, a few minutes ago. Jack Kane EPI, THE designer, is a long-time col-liege:

'Did you notice that endurance testing of the PRODUCTION VERSION started in early January....'
JK

Enjoy /s/ Bob

 

Interesting but the design retains the through bolt setup which has a high failure rate due to spun bearings or improper torque. Should have switched to bearing caps and dedicated bolts and not super long torque to yield bolts.

Also liquid cooling is superior and cheaper... But I can see why they would not want to have the weight penalty.

And since they are not certifing the engine is just basically a car motor like the Corvair.

Good luck, but I am not a customer.

 

Because of a perceived flaw or because it just doesn’t meet your needs?

 

They are talking about getting it at least to ASTM standards for LSA, and it's a ground-up engine built for spinning a prop, so I don't know about that argument being valid beyond a passing glance. You'd have more of an argument saying the Verner is just basically a car motor like a Corvair (being it's not even being evaluated to ASTM metrics much less full certification) and, well, how are we defining things? Is a coffee cup a donut?

 

Looks like a great engine. Air cooling limits (reduces) the compression and fuel efficiency. Two valves limit the volumetric efficiency. While many don't think this is important, in reality you will spend well over three times as much on the fuel as you spend buying the engine in the first place. Compared to a direct drive air cooled engine, a well done geared, liquid cooled, 4 valve per cylinder engine will save about the cost of the engine in fuel over it's life.

 

Although I believe you meant that as an offhand slight, it is worth noting that the Corvair engine was envisioned by Ed Cole to be offered as a direct competitor to the 0-200 and 0-300.

 

And it has the ability to use even cheaper auto fuel to extend that savings even further.

 

Sadly facts seem to be of little relevance to Luddites, of whom there is an alarming amount of in aviation..

Who is behind this will also make some difference, we will just have to wait and see, but if it is to pre-production running stage, not sure why there are being secretive. Maybe a current distributor of some other brand who will dump them when it comes to light, so just making sure there ducks are all lined up first..

Ahh speculation, the single greatest power driving the Internet!

 

I'm gonna go on record and also say that to my dumb and uneducated (comparatively) brain, who has used too many cells as it is understanding air cooled direct drive aircraft engines, the potential for a liquid-cooled engine with a gearbox and all those other features is just very high.

None of those features come without some trade-off. Which is why both engines exist and why air-cooled remains popular.

But it's nothing controversial to say some people prefer the better efficiency potential and high power to weight (to cost) of spinning up a modern compact engine to high RPM to get some real work out of it, and that for some decent group of people that will remain a viable option, even if an affordable LSA and experimental market alternative to the UL power and Jab and Lyc and Conti and Corvair and on and on were to exist.

 

I have known of Mark Aeromomentum for many years, both here and in private conversations. Yes he has his own agenda, who hasn't in business, but overall he is a stand up Guy. ... and most of his posts are technically verify'able.

His engines' actually exist flying around the skies in retail client's aircraft, hovercraft, and airboats, the 'thread subject' engine however, does not at this point in time.

 

Speaking of which, I think it's prudent to ask who's fence you're sitting on after that comment?

 

I don't sit on either fence. For the record, I'm rooting for both engines. We need more engine options in aviation. My comment wasn't meant as an insult to Aeromomentum. It was merely to point out that the comment came from a competitor with a financial interest.

Having said that, however, I do think it's in poor form when we are discussing an engine and a competitor jumps in the discussion and promotes his own product at the expense of the one being discussed.

 

Just like the Kane engine.

 

He didn't promote "his own product", he put forward a technical comparison that supports at least 5 company's products I can name off the top of my head, maybe you should read the post again in that context.

Personally I welcome such contributions from people who have the factual hands on experience, even if they bias a little towards their own area.

PS: I'm 100% guilty of similar posts arguing for modern, efficient engine conversions, as recent as 2 days ago in another forum, I don't own an engine supply company.

 

Yes, I actually read his post multiple times. Respectfully, I disagree that he was not promoting his own product. If you want to interpret it as a simple technical comparison, then so be it.

On another topic, Cheap Racer, weren't you working on a new engine concept that you were going to bring to market? Is this still a project you are working on? If so, what is the status?

 

If you have a source for this, I would be interested to read it.