Yamaha Powered RV9! Sidewinder + Skytrax Teal Jenkins

[@Project2Aero]

Two stand up dudes right there… Teal’s plane is a testimony that we are on the brink of reliable, affordable, “new tech” powerplant options that can hang (if not beat) the big names out there. Great episode EAC👍

[@foesfly3047]

Teal, Skytrax, This Yamaha-based Engine- performing This well in This Airframe = The Most Interesting and Exciting Content I’ve seen in a long time!! Thanks Brother Bryan.

[@timduncan8450]

This is a great story and a fine channel. Thx!

[@stevecarlisle3323]

Yamaha makes fine products, and thanks to Sytrax, they have been able to enter the aviation market. Hopefully the issue with clutch failures can be overcome. The Suzuki F1100 would my choice, as they have a bigger market share in all sectors, but no one is making a PSRU

[@samuelvance3675]

One advantage not really mentioned is the ability to use auto gas like a rotax. While a bit inconvenient, the fuel cost savings are real. The climb rates are amazing, not only thrilling but a great safety feature.

[@ph5915]

I love the RV-9/9-A, it's one of the planes on my shortlist if I'm ever able to step up from my 172. I also find it very interesting - the use of Yamaha engines in planes, I've seen them used In STOL planes and they seem to work great and are far less expensive than typical 'airplane' engines. One question I had about this video though. On the Van's website, for the RV-9/9-A info pages, there is a whole article about why a 160 HP is the max recommended engine in the models. Granted, that may have been with the typical Lycoming O-320 engine. Of course, being experimental, there is no absolute engine that must be used, but the max of 160 HP was definitely highlighted. I wonder if the gentleman was aware of that and if the airframe has been compensated in any way? But all-around, the 9's are designed for being comfortable, easy flying cruisers, like you said.

[@kits-r-us7632]

It shouldn't matter as long as it doesn't exceed original weight limitations and as long as you are not exceeding the vne.

[@timduncan8450]

At some point flutter is an issue. Maybe respecting Vne would be enough but as altitude is increased atmospheric dampening decreases, so the margin at 12k ft Vne may not be adequate at say 20k or 30k ft, even at same indicated air speed. As I understand it reading Vans white paper on the RV10 it isn’t the load it’s the stability (stiffness main driver) that limits us in high speed high altitude via flutter. Happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[@savethehumans7460]

Thanks for the share.

[@kentcolgan6139]

I admire the adventurous spirit and accomplishments. However, it needs to be said that having 184 HP at 10k is pointless because you won’t be able to use anything close to that power without quickly exceeding Vne. (A reminder that Vne is TAS in RVs). This is discussed in detail in a paper by Van on the Van’s website. Be careful. Great climb though!

[@bbrydr331]

Curious to know how the weight savings impacted the CG envelope? Removing that kind of weight from the nose had to have a significant impact…right? Was any compensation made?

[@DreadnautVS]

Need to swap out those Zip Ties with Grip Lock Ties =P Great video B!!

[@billrepucci4054]

How did I not know about this until now? Great job! Teal, I have essentially the same plane (-9 taildragger) but with an O-360. If you are still trying to compare numbers, reach out. BTW, I'm running a 72" Catto on my -9. No ground clearance issues. The -9 stands taller than the -7, no issue there.

[@timduncan8450]

@Teal Does this installation use dry sump? Does it include a air oil separator? What are your thoughts on these items for these Yamaha engines especially the turbos?

[@anthonyrstrawbridge]

Twist and shout!

[@zedcal2552]

Can this engine be used on Rv7 for basic aerobatics?

[@Mike-01234]

True experimental aviation.

[@916medic]

Kitfox? Would this engine work on a kitfox STI. For the price it seems good. I know the apex had been done but what about this engine. The rotax 915 is about $45k. For 141 hp. That is out of my price range. I need under 30k.

[@rceric1]

Didn’t Yamaha announce they’re developing an aircraft motor?

[@fastmankim1]

I hate FB you got to do better

[@LevPicaresco]

So, he switched from a simple air-cooled reliable engine and opted for that level of complexity, and that's supposed to be an improvement?

[@1972adrianm]

These engines are run harder, longer and are abused terribly in their stock applications compared to aero engines and they run forever. They are also essentially full FADEC with dynamic mixture and ignition timing maps and knock sensors that react to load, fuel, temp variance faster than any pilot jiggling mixture and throttle knobs.

[@akschu1]

Be careful with turbocharging an RV. Flutter is a thing.

[@timduncan8450]

Yes they warn about it. Is anyone doing anything about it ?

[@JakesMusicPalace]

Why I do admire the spirit of ingenuity in a custom build, there are other things to consider. Auto engines and their components were never designed to fly! Reduction gear drives, turbo, unproven engine / airframe combinations, high RPMS needed to develop true power, not something I will risk my life in. Why do people continue to use these cheap unproven auto solutions when proven solutions are already available🤪one thing to consider in the costs of these conversions is insurance costs and liability subrogation by the insurance companies after an accident. All this for small additional climb and fuel economy gains, is it really worth it? By the time you consider the time spent tweaking this array of unproven parts together safely and reliably, the costs of Lycoming or its clones is less. It’s the same for the Viking engines that you show on this web channel, not for me.

[@tealjenkins4716]

I respect your opinion and for sure these engine conversions are not for everyone and will never take over the market but please consider this when voicing your opinion. This particular conversion is not an automotive conversation and this particular engine is designed to rev at high rpms for prolonged periods of time. (how long is in this application is undetermined). I personally love the challenge of experimenting and trying new things that could possibly advance the aviation experience. The gains are not just "marginal climb" this plane climbs about 3 times better now then before. The handling of the plane with 100lbs less engine weight also contributes to a better flying experience. Fuel savings is very small if any at all. I also don't do this for a cost savings because like you said after all the tweaking and swapping of parts to find the right combination it is currently not cheaper. (perhaps cheaper in the future after some of this pioneered and resource shared). To your question is it really worth it? I would say that all depends on the person. I personally live for engineering new things that are sometimes are very different from the norm and call me crazy but I also like the excitement of testing and trying them. It takes more time, money , effort and yes some more degree of risk over going with the tried and proven but just maybe there will be something learned from these experiments that can be shared and passed on. After all we are granted these privilege's of owning and operating experimental aircraft for the purpose of learning and educating ourselves and others with this experiment. For those that build or pay to have built experimental aircraft that is exactly like a thousand others is it really an education opportunity or just cheaper alternative to the certified aircraft.

[@trentcarlson4857]

Are you serious, Lycoming and Continental engines? You obviously haven’t had the pleasure of maintaining this 1930 technology.

[@watashiandroid8314]

One could also consider that it is not worth it to fly any piston powered aircraft. What makes these things worthwhile is the pursuit of happiness, and there are people (including me) who get joy out of flying a small plane and (hopefully soon to include me) modifying it to try to improve it in some way.

[@peteranderson037]

Anybody that puts a non-traditional engine on an experimental airplane should understand that they are buying into someone else's experiment. It's not that these engines are inherently dangerous, but the builder needs to be aware that they will be much more involved with working on the engine than with a traditional powerplant while all the bugs and fine tuning are worked out. I also wouldn't recommend this engine for a first time builder until the design has significantly more fleet hours under its belt.

[@trentcarlson4857]

@@peteranderson037 Most people taking on a project like this are pretty skilled and or have a pretty large budget. If not your right they should stick to 1930’s technology.