skippydiesel

I think you misunderstand me- I tried to be careful with my use of language. The often used, dismissal of auto engines, for use in aircraft, is that the auto engine is not designed for a constant power application. Aircraft do not operate at constant power, any more than auto engines ie the power is adjusted by the operator for diffrent stages. At a constant power, yes! for one part of the stage, Cruise. Sure their power use cycle differs in its application & frequency - with the exception of aircraft that spend most of their operating life in the circuit (more like a town car), the Cruise (low constant power) tends to be longer relative to the TO/Climb (high) & Descent (low) power bit like a car towing a caravan on a freeway. As I pointed out - Ground based vehicles are generally supported against the effect of gravity on wheels. This means they do not need to expend energy to stay aloft, as an aircraft must, instead most of the engines energy is devoted to delivering horizontal movement. So in Cruise (not towing anything) the engine can "loaf" delivering just enough power to mainatine speed. An aircraft in Cruise, will usually have the power reduced in Cruise (just like a car) but must still deliver sufficient energy, to forward motion/speed, to stay aloft, in addition to its assigned Cruise speed. Ground vehicles are subject to constant changes in slope. Aircraft tend not to be (unless doing aerobatics), So ground based vehicles will have frequent changes in power to mainatine a contestant speed - this is likly to be detrimental to a long service life as heat generated, likly to fluctuate (cooling/expanding) along with power demand. Liquid cooling will assist in reducing this effect but can not be 100% effective. Ground based engines, that spend relatively long periods in work, (trucks, taxi's, etc) often have remarkably long service lives due to near constant operating temperature. This suggests the other argument (short operating life), against auto engines in aircraft, is also based on urban myth. I think you will agree, that there are significant number of auto - aircraft engine conversions, that undermine the traditional argument against such application. That the auto engine is usually "tweaked" (Onetrack) does not change the fact that the engine is at its core the same engine. Tweaking is no diffrent from say shortening the oil change/service regime or removing unnecessary (to aircraft) accessories/fitting, adding a gear reduction, changing the ignition timing, to better reflect the duty. One one more speculation; For a truly successful auto conversion, a gearbox will be required so that engine & prop can operate at their optimum rpm. this is where the power to weight argument against auto engines comes in - this can also be dismissed - example Rotax. Personally I would prefer to fly behind an engine designed for my aircraft. Trying to "tweak" an automotive engine to have similar performance/reliability, may be doable but why bother? The "tweaking" likly to raise the cost (time & $$) to something not to dissimilar to a dedicated aero engine. Once done there may be savings in parts, fuel economy performance smooth, quiet operation, feeling of achievement, etc ??? 😈

Onetrack "You are showing ignorance and an overwhelming belief in your own "knowledge", which is different to the manufacturers advice and systems." Try not to make judgements of people you don't know - You are demonstrating your ignorance, in more way than one , in the above statement "Each engine application, despite using the same basic engine, can have multiple dozens of subtle design changes and different internal components - and vastly different power ratings, RPM ranges, and fuel settings, and even engine timing." The above statement is of course correct and supports my contention that IC engines are for the most just that. The tweeks you refer to, are to optimise a given engine, for a given use, its still the same basic design as all the other "subtle" variants in it's "family". Tweeks are the norm for many engine families - eg Rotax 912 80hp - 914 115hp- essential the same 3 engines. 6 cylinder Cummins (forget the family) were used in trucks, marine & all sorts of industrial applications - same engine. With the exception of engines that are used for application like pumps/generators /agriculture (almost constant power demand) all engines are subject to similar power changes through an operating cycle ie TO /accelerate -high power, Cruse - constant power, Descend/slow - low power. Its the frequency that differs not the cycle. It could be argued even pump/gen/agricultural engines must accelerate to full required power and slow when shut down, however the relative time at each end of the cycle is so short as to have little relevance to the power demand. The often used argument that aircraft engines are diffrent to automotive because they run at near constant power is demonstrably incorrect - which is what I said/illustrated. If you were to argue that aircraft engines must be designed & maintained ti a higher standard, than automotive, to reduce the potentially catastrophic result of failure, I would agree with you. However its is obvious that certain automotive engines can be successfully "tweaked" to performer reliably in an aircraft. 😈

Speculation: There are not many engines designed specifically for generators/bore pumps. Most will be the same engine used in a range of commercial applications eg truck, dozer, tractors, marine, etc

I don't have any experience of the Avid Flyer or the clones you have mentioned. I do have experince of 912ULS mounted in a ATEC Zephyr & Sonex Legacy . Rotax make an engine Ring Mount that must be connected to the firewall frame/mount via 4 vibration (rubber) isoltaters. Two frames. This is the best & most costly arrangement. Good second hand ones do come up for sale. Talented people are know to make their own . The Zephyr used an ATEC factor mount, The engine frame, mounted to 4 points on the engine via rubber vibration isolators, went back to the firewall ie one frame. Worked well. The Legacy has Rotax to Arovee engine mount adapter - two double rails, separated by 4 rubber isolators. This is what I think is called a "bed mount". It connected to the bottom of the engine. Workable but not ideal for the Rotax, which generates considerable rotational torque, producing significant movement, particularly on shutdown/start up. Sonex has recently developed a firewall Ring Mount connection for the Rotax engine Ring Mount (purchase from Rotax) - a much better system for the 912. 😈

I remind you of ; VW/Mercedes diesel/Honda/Suzuki/GM?/etc (then there are the small engines B&S/Kawask etc) that have been successfully modified for use in aircraft. Yes most, non commercial, ground based vehicles will be loping along at very low power demand when in cruise. Bit diffrent when I when tow a fully loaded double horse float (estimated at 2.5-3 tonne + built in headwind) with my Ford Ranger, I can easily cruise at 110 kph, on the flat, up most freeway hills, occasionally being reduced to 90-100 kph. The ute is under load all the time - just like an aircraft. Same goes for most agricultural engines - they can be under load for many hours in a day.

Thank you for bring me up short on this BrendAn. I apologise to those who may have taken offence. On reflection, I feel ashamed of allowing myself to be sucked in by the unwarranted personal attacks on me (TROLLING?) in this thread. I draw your attention to the personal comments (not addressing my observations of the SE-1) that start quite mildly, on page 2, get progressively more personal & insulting from then on. It is both expected and fair, that an opinion you do not agree with, or wish for expansion on, should be challenged - its not reasonable that this should deteriorate into a personal attack. Having heard no logical/factual comment to the contrary, my opinion of the SE-1 has not changed. I would not purchase one, all the best to those that will or aspire to. 😈

Interesting - hold a mirror up & Dogs don't even recognise themselves😈

Which one (s) of the old blokes is the Dog Pack?😈

If your so adamant that I don't make a single good point ("rant") Why do you keep the conversation going??😈

Ah! You didn't actually reference my comments. I believe this was in the context of a rich persons play thing/demonstration of wealth ie I can afford to own an expensive/impractical toy. Such toys are often parked in locations (hanger) for others to admire.😈

Ah the dog pack at their best . You don't actually read /understand what I post, you just love to join up with others of similar odor😈

Good on yah! Focus on the imperfection of my spelling (a admitted & well known failure)& ignore the message😈

Thought provoking Some further reading https://www.lumafield.com/battery-report😈

My opposition is not actually to SE-1 per say, its to the over the top hysterical claims, by those on this & other Forums, who would seem to value the LOOK over all else. As I have said but will repeat for your benefit: This is an art work of an aircraft - even I can see how attractive looking it is. Its performance is modest, by any standard. Nothing wrong with modest but lets not get to carried away with its "fast" appearance. Its construction & finish (particularly if left as is) will be expensive to maintain. I own a metal aircraft. Its design is unpractical : tail wheel, that may carry very little weight, making nose overs & 180's more likly open cockpit, not the best for inclement weather & long flights. Any sort of paper document likly unusable seating position, rendering all but the tallest pilot without a forward view, in the landing flair/role out (& possibly on final) single seat, no possibility of accommodating that rare pax "In a world were recreational aviation is in decline," Unfortunatly true. I suspect the reasons have more to do with the wealth & diversity of opportunities of our young, that far exceeds what most of us grew up with, and the change in social dynamic - almost everything can be had without significant commitment "What have you done for aviation apart from sow negativity at every opportunity." Good question. Let me see; I take every opportunity to offer TIF's especially to the young - not many take the opportunity. I promote aviator as a career, particularly to young women - not many see this as viable future for them. I volunteer my services at my local airfield - mostly mowing. I patronise various aircraft services. On this Forum, I try to come up with topics for debate, offer advice, results of my research into alternative sources for service items, keep debates going by presenting an alternative perspective. So what do you do, besides make derogatory personal comments about a person you don't know??? "you must be great fun at parties" "The Dunning-Kruger effect" a cognitive bias where individuals with limited knowledge or competence in a particular domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence. Due to a lack of metacognitive ability, these individuals cannot recognize their own deficiencies, leading to misplaced confidence. Conversely, experts may underestimate their own competence relative to others. Do you think you might owe me an apology?😈

I agree with you - I have fantasised about several single seat aircraft, even gone down the investigation/pricing rout but in the end , like most, have purchased a two seat. While the second seat rarely has a "pax" it does give space for navigation stuff, inflight refreshments, etc Then there is that rare "pax" that I enjoy taking up. I think the appropriate word for a two seat would be flexibility. You may enjoy your solo rides on the bike but I bet you have a car. Most pilot / owners have but one aircraft that must meet as many of their expectations as possible. That I rarely have a "pax" doesn't change the sales figures for solo aircraft. As often commented on - what you fly is an individual choice. Most choose two seats (or more)😈

Interesting - there does seem to be one or two others, who have doubts about this lovely retro art work, its performance (?) & practicality (?). They may not be quit as vocal, as the mouth from The Oaks but then I am the one who calls out the gimmicks, faith operators , et al and does the "pack love to howl." Take me task, in 10 years, when the SE-1 is as common as a Jab - one in every hanger - Not going to happen! Seems to me , that most light aircraft pilots, love the idea of a single seater, tail wheel aircraft, that just looks great. There are a few around, never big sellers - what do the people purchase, in the cold light of day - a Jab (or similar) why because your SE-1 is a fantasy. Fantasys are wonderful, very few are willing to pay for one, even fewer will do much flying in one (hanger Queen). 😈

I understand your point of view but then all small aircraft pilots have made a conscious decision to take the increased risk of flying. Whats a little more/less risk between flying friends? I agree buble canopies may trap the crashed, inverted, surviving crew, who may then succumbed to a post crash fire. A fire is not inevitable, if it does occur injured crew will be in a very unpleasant situaton, no matter the aircraft configuration. It makes sense that high wing (built in role cage) aircraft are expected to be inherently safer in this regard - I wonder what the statistics say ???. Countering the above, to some degree, is the reality that most aircraft that offer greater cruise speed, for a given power, are low to mid wing (there are a few exceptions). I am sure the aspiring aerodynamicists amongst us, can give the reason (s) for this. Its not usually about savaging $$$, it about the "mission" objectives.😈

The performance in miles/galans looks quite impressive, until converted to what I am more familiar with 782 Nm @ about 26L/hr (for the pedantic "about" means I am guessing). By the time you arrive, after flying some 8 hrs, you will be close to a basket case (in fine weather) in that open cockpit. Then you have to land the bugger, loosing sight of the runway, in the flair and role out - no wonder the pilot stood it on its nose. Oh! sorry, the excuse was he was a tad fast over the fence - my bad! I do like the wing fold very much, wish I has it, but then this feature (or similar) is available on several fully enclosed 1-2 seat aircraft that are far more fuel efficient / speedy, that are likly to be easier / less costly to maintain and land. Of course it's not about efficiency / maintenance /flight characteristics or any of the mundane parameters that I may apply, it's about THE LOOK! 😈

As I said -Each To His Own. We are not talking about practicalities with this aircraft - its in a similar (for the pedantic that does not mean the same) category as old men dressing up in leather and purchasing a reproduction/any motorcycle - its a bit sad but "good-on-em!!" - not my thing😈

Each to his own. I see them as an unfortunate throw back, featuring most, if not all, of the deficiencies of aircarft from a bygone area. I see the aesthetic appeal, that for some, overrides all the deficiencies. Ultimately a rich persons fantasi toy, akin to having a very expensive, totally impractical, sports car - At least the modern sports car would likely be comfortable, require comparatively minimal maintenance and have safe handling characteristics. IF it was from the erra it emulates, there would be some value in its vintage status but a repo????😈

ADS-B installation in (Au) VFR aircraft is a total shambles. Only (Au) IFR aircraft are required to have ADS-B fitted. A VFR aircraft that does not enter controlled airspace, is not required to have a transponder at all, even if flying in the congested Training Area airspace of one of our capital cities. Perversely, legacy transponders (Mode C etc) are still "legal" for entry to controlled airspace - This acts as a disincentive to replace them with ADS-B. I have come across at least two aircraft , operating in the congested Sydney Basin, that would seem to be using a legacy transponder. The mid air collision that occurred at The Oaks was between a Cessna & a Jabiru. Cessna fitted with legacy transponder, Jab with OzRunways/SE2 . Neither aircraft "saw" the other.😈

Sticking with my story - all looks & minimal performance. Elevator designed for retro look , not up tp the job/function compromised for esthetics (typical septic tank)😈

Hmm! Does this mean that the elevator lacked sufficient authority to keep the tail down, under heavy braking?😈