That is a NO Brainer solution!!! I just wish I was 30 years younger...but then 30 yrs ago, this package or plane was not available....great concept! Thanks!
Extremely well explained. If I was in a position for that motor, this would be top of my consideration. Primarily due to the way he explained this. Well done!
@@DrewLSsix meh. Overpriced. I like Rotax tech, only after you uncork it with EdgePerformance, which makes it even more overpriced. But even if you're not into auto conversion, there are cheaper, purpose-built alternatives to Rotax (ULPower, D-Motor), and depending on your application, may be much better than Rotax.
That's an understatement. He's one of the most effective spokesmen I've seen in recent years . . . for any product. Authoritative, sober, truthful, enthusiastic. And he's so proud of what they've accomplished, he's still walking on Cloud 9. I wish I were building an RV-12 so that I could buy one of his FF packages.
Building a Sonex Onex and the Aeromomentum is my choice. An engine forward package is offered and that and many other pluses, such as this video, confirms my decision. Thanks
Please post some videos so we can get some performance feedback from other consumers. This engine looks great, but I'd need some testimonials before buying.
Hi Dick, it was great to see you there at Oshkosh, and to see your install. I'm contemplating nearly an identical install for my Fisher Dakota Hawk. Stay Safe!!
@@kenhurley4441 Utah. But it is also difficult to predict exactly when I'll be able to begin my engine install. The fuselage is nearly done-I just have to finish running the rudder cables, and finish the brakes set up. The gear truss is done, but I still have to finish the axle receivers, install the axles, and then assemble the gear assembly on the fuselage. I have to still weld up the tailwheel bracket, and then install the tail wheel. Still have to build the fuselage fuel tank, and I've done very little wiring so far. Mainly I'm still working my wings. Got the left wing nearly all complete, and I'm working on the final aspects of the aileron hinges and linkages, then the wood geodedic for the wing, then wing fuel tanks. Then I'll assemble the right wing, though that should go a lot faster than the left wing, as all the weird parts and problems (that the Fisher plans don't address) will be resolved and ready to go at that time. Then fit the wings to the fuselage. Then covering and paint. A lot has been done, but still a lot more to do, and time and $$$ are factors. But I'd love to document the progress on video. I'm posting progress photos on the Fisher FFP Facebook page, as well as the Experimental Aircraft FB page.
Excellent product and explanation of the design concept. It's a simple design idea, but it takes money and engineering skill to make it a reality... I'm glad that someone invested the time and money - hopefully his company will do well with this. :)
He gives a great presentation, The only thing I'd point out, is for an airplane the size of the 12, 40 pounds more weight forward of the firewall is, or can be, pretty significant. Sure you can juggle things around and get the CG correct, but there is no getting around the extra weight in the nose effecting the handling, (elevator is the same size, for instance) this may be a minor thing for the money saved. As always, there is no free lunch! But I did like his way of presenting the info, it passed my personal sniff test. Pretty price point for sure.
Before I did this, I ran the design by one of the engineers who was on the design team for the -12. He recommended in-flight tests to explore the envelope. He explained that the actual design forward-limit was considerably further forward than what they measured with the Rotax 912 installed. He predicted no problem - and he was right. The only modification I made to address the Fwd CG was to switch to a Lithium battery - saving about 12 lbs right off the firewall. Perhaps I should recommend that as part of the installation going forward. Good comment, and a valid concern. Thanks!
You're right to be concerned about the weight difference (on any airplane where a heavier engine is contemplated). First of all, the 40 lb difference I claimed is for my engine/airplane, circa April 2018 when I first received and weighed it. Since then, Aeromomentum has removed just over ten lbs from the engine package, so the real number should be 30 lbs. Second, the real comparison should be against the Rotax 912is, which, like the AM15, is fuel injected and has electronic ignition. The 912is weighs 22 lbs more than the 912ULS, so the difference between them is small. In any case, recognize that the actual forward CG design limit of the RV-12 is significantly greater than the limit stated in the POH. That "max forward CG" spec is what they measured on the finished airplane with the Rotax 912 installed. I actually consulted one of the design engineers on the RV-12 project before we developed this package, and got his concurrence. Essentially, given the size and rotation force of the large stabilator, he predicted it would be well within the true limit. Extensive flight testing and normal flying, >100 hours now, has verified that nicely. He pointed out that the limit to be concerned with most is, of course, the AFT CG limit - and this installation increases the margin against that!
Pretty cool! The plane was designed around the Rotax 912 @ 140 lbs. The AM15 is 185 lbs but I see a lot of added parts (weight). I'd like to compare the 2 options from a total firewall forward weight comparison. Having 40% more power that is useful in a climb... with what weight penalty.
I never liked rotax four stroke engines since its beginning. Is overwhelmingly expensive and full of problems itself. I’m so happy to see this project challenging that platform. Congratulations!
Very well presented. This type of upgrade/power plant option is exactly what the industry needs, and sadly, not more prevalent. Innovation, fresh, well developed ideas and thinking , are difficult in aviation to make a reality, but past due. Here’s to experimental aircraft! A Bonanza, or whatever, may be a wonderful aircraft. Tat said, look at the innovations in aircraft just during WW II, innovations in motorcycling, automotive, power sports, etc.in the last ten years vs the difference in the last halve century plus changes in some Beech, Piper, Cessna, Mooney, etc designs certificated by FAA. Love most planes, all of them, and hope to fly more of them, but fresh thinking and uses of different technology ( especially more cost effective) is where we should perhaps focus more attention. Just thinking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I love it! You need to do this with a 2.3L ecoboost for the Rv-10. I'm not joking. I will buy one or even help develop it (pending wife approval). The 2.3L ecoboost makes ~300 lb. ft. of torque, 280-350 hp depending on how you configure it, and it's a lot lighter than a lycoming 540. Which gives you room to have a reduction gearbox and an oil sump for it. You can buy them brand new in a crate for $6,500... so I'm sure you can get the firewall forward package down to way less than 50% of a lycoming 540, and have 40% more performance, easily. Cheers!!!
Sound's great, until it lift's it's head at factory boost levels. That was the biggest penny pincher mess up ford has done. Just needed a tiny bit higher quality gasket and properly spec'd for the stretching that engine does head stud's and it would be a legendary engine. Or they could of brought that Focus RS 5cyl from Volvo to america. People would be talking about Ford's instead of Honda and VW turbo 4cyl now!
I'd love to see Rotax get some price pressure, especially from a bolt-on substitution, but doesn't this unit effectively push the RV-12 beyond the LSA speed limit; defeating the whole point?
Could be, but look what the Carbon Cub people are doing about that. There's apparently a loophole that allows you to placard the airplane for a maximum speed below the actual maximum. The same apparently applies to gross weight, because they're calling a full sized, full performance Super Cub clone an LSA.
@@rnordquest The difference is the FAR wording. LSA's are not permitted to have equipment or capabilities that exceed the reg limits. You can't fly a P-51 and claim it is an LSA. .e.g. Weight exceeds, retract gear, flaps, constant speed prop, excess speed.
Turning Short Final The gearbox is one of the most proven parts in the package. It's been used in Airboats for many years building up thousands of real world hours before Mark used it on any converted aircraft engine. No worries here👍
Wow ... outstanding job on product description and from all appearances engineering ... I own a Murphy Rebel with a Lycoming O 320 ... which of course is a good legendary reliable aero engine ... but I will be watching this Aeromomentum project as it continues to grow and unfold ... That was your own butt you flew cross country with that plane and engine so its obvious you have faith in it ... I recommend some flying videos .. Your extremely good at describing things ... get er airborne and tell us more from up there
That is the #1 thing any engine supplier needs to do, FLY BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT! Great marketing and says more then slick brochures or videos, plus it got you to Oshkosh!
What is his electric supply available? How many AMPS does his alternator provide? Also, what kind of gas? (full synthetic implies MoGas --- E0 or E10? (proseal doesn't like E10)) --- airports don't like MoGas
You may find if you were to test Kendall motor oil in that engine you will find that it's failure temperature is considerably higher than 260°. If I remember right there was a engine builder that I knew for years and the Detroit area who was building the fastest and lowest time drag street cars in the country for several years and he had done extensive tests on motor oils and found that Kendall could be operated at well over 100° more temperature than any other motor oil he tested I don't remember the precise numbers but I think that Kendall failure point was up above 400°. It may be worth looking into.
Its 15 grand more with the 915 ... 25 grand more if you get the constant speed prop with it .. The carburated rotax is 19 grand The IS is 22 grand .. the 915 is 37 grand .. the MT prop is 10 grand ...... Complete firewall forward with 915 and CS prop would be $61,000.00 .. meaning you could buy three of these for price of one 915 FWF with change
I'm seriously impressed with this engine and the FWF development! I wish the RV12 was a little more sporty, reclined seats, longer, lower canopy and such-- more like Czech Sport, Arion Lighting, Magnus LSA. Those are planes I'm more drawn to. But having such a clean installation option as this for the RV12 could compel me to become a Vans owner. Any chance you'll develop a similar FWF package for the Arion Lighting?
Agree. To wit, I installed a third seat back mount hinge 2 inches forward of the stock hinges. This reclines the seat nicely. I then opted for the temperfoam cushions - I'm good to go all day!
@@UncleKennysPlace Of course they do. The point is how often do they fail? What is the Mean Time Between Failures? The dude is going on and on about 'performance' and 'racing'. Bruh, I ain't going to Reno, I want to get where I'm going in one piece!
Yours is of course the most important comment here ....nothing trumps reliability in an aero engine ... If I somehow knew this could match my Lycoming O 320 I would absolutely go this rout ... But its kind of new to the in air world ... how does one really know without data and passage of time ... and pioneers take the arrows
@@wntu4 Over 4,000 hours on airboats that run at a higher rpm than cruise in an airplane. Parts are matched to within a gram or so before assembled. Engines have been dynoed at full throttle for hours! AeorMomentum doesn't want you to have an engine failure either!
30-50% more HP is huge! What about CG envelope? Stall speed? All the things that 40 more pounds up front can change? Definitely sexier, but what about behavior?
You're right to be concerned about the weight difference (on any airplane where a heavier engine is contemplated). First of all, the 40 lb difference I claimed is for my engine/airplane, circa April 2018 when I first received and weighed it. Since then, Aeromomentum has removed just over ten lbs from the engine package, so the real number should be 30 lbs. Second, the real comparison should be against the Rotax 912is, which, like the AM15, is fuel injected and has electronic ignition. The 912is weighs 22 lbs more than the 912ULS, so the difference between them is small. In any case, recognize that the actual forward CG design limit of the RV-12 is significantly greater than the limit stated in the POH. That "max forward CG" spec is what they measured on the finished airplane with the Rotax 912 installed. I actually consulted one of the design engineers on the RV-12 project before we developed this package, and got his concurrence. Essentially, given the size and rotation force of the large stabilator, he predicted it would be well within the true limit. Extensive flight testing and normal flying, >100 hours now, has verified that nicely. He pointed out that the limit to be concerned with most is, of course, the AFT CG limit - and this installation increases the margin against that!
..with me, full gas, and 50 lbs of luggage - almost gross. Unfortunately, this is another example of how using a heavier engine turns a 2 place airplane into a single place.
Not a pilot here....but I was wondering why engines like this are not used to as replacement engines in old Cessna 150's and other types of small airplanes.
William Ferguson II From what I understand it’s a few things. Replacing an engine is kind of a bureaucratic headache, but putting an uncertified engine in a certified aircraft is a paperwork nightmare. That and there’s a idea of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” in the aeronautical industry. It’s “proven” that Lycoming and Continental work, but these are “unknown”, despite the fact that some automotive engines will run a million miles in a car. I kind of get it, safety concerns and all, if your honda craps out on the road it’s a problem, if your engine dies at 10,000ft? Say your prayers. So these kind of things are somewhat technically prohibited from being anything other than “Experimental” by nature. There’s also other reasons but those seem like the ones I think are some of the biggest from what little I know.
To follow on to Tony Webb, every certificated (factory built) airplane is built in accordance to a "type certificate", which is very specific about the design of the plane and its parts, and you can't change anything. There are a few airplanes out there with "supplemental type certificates", where a modification has gotten FAA approval. But to issue an STC for an entire model of plane, like allowing this engine in all Cessna 152s, is simply out of the question.
WF: Traditional Lycoming/Continental aircraft engines are the result of decades of experience and reliability. Airplanes are a severe environment with much different requirements that auto engitnes. It just isn't possible to tinker with the designs and provide the level of safety and long life needed.
Reclassifying as experimental would be required. Using an O-240 (like Europe) or a Lyc 0-320 upgrade is better. One guy has a Lyc O-360 180+ hp on a 150.
Can is belt driven. In one other video they explain that they chose belt over chain in most cases because it's lighter weight. A quality belt will last over 500 hours, and isn't that difficult to change usually.
@@aeromomentumaircraftengine834 I have a BD-4 I've had for 20+ years, with an O-320. Would love to re-engine it. What would a firewall forward installation end up costing me, start to finish, with the AM20T?
Sounds they’re working on a 2.0T, 230-260hp engine. There’s limited info on aeromomentum’s site. It’s a great deal lighter than a 540, not sure how to address that.
Other alternative engine supplier also offers new engines, its the customers that opt for a used engine. So whats your point? Suzuki engines are basically old tech. Performance data is not rare, Rotax among the other alternative engine supplier also have performance data. Other than that, nice installation and great performance (also possible with the other alternative engine supplier but they have VTEC).
What do you mean by "old tech"? The comment about lacking performance data is aimed at other alternative engine companies. Sure, Rotax have performance data. They also have a $35k price tag.
By old tech I assume you mean its not direct injection nor variable valve timing .. though it is liquid cooled and injected ... But like someone said in a different post if it is not stone cold reliable none of this matters
Direct injection and VVT is more complexity for limited gain in aero application. I’d prefer port fuel injection and fixed valve timing in an aero application.
A turbo is a lot better than vtec in altitude also you don't really change RPM like in a car so not sure why vtec would even be a benefit. Just get a properly mapped engine for the right cam.
I think "GO LIKE STINK!" would be a way better name for your company.... (the other name is just too hard to remember). Maybe lay a black & white stuffed pet skunk over those pipes!
I have plenty of power with my Rotax 912S, even before I modified it with a low comp Zipper BigBore kit. My strip is 5640'. I landed (and took off) at a bit over 9 K just last week. This engine's extra weight will not help the STOL performance. Get an S-7, you won't regret it, I have over 3700 hours in two different ones.
@@portnuefflyer It might not help STOL performance, but it sure as hell won't cost me $30,000. It's almost as the Rotax people were sitting around one day and one of them said, "What?? A Lycoming is $30,000? Why aren't we charging $30,000?
My opinion: The information saying Aeromomentum uses brand new engines, hand built and dyno tested would be the tipping point for me. Throw in the thousands of hours of experience in airboats, and it's a definite win. I have read that Viking uses engines out of salvage yard autos, and (to my knowledge) they do not dyno test the engines before shipping to the customer.
They probably are estimating a TBO at this point. FWIW, I reached the 2000 hour TBO on my Rotax 912 with zero issues. I heard 6800 rpm at one point in his presentation, that's getting up there, at least for any kind of continuous operation. I guess I missed the weight, that is the biggie on any auto conversion.
@@portnuefflyer automotive engines are endurance tested at redline wide open throttle for 500+ hours. Redline for a small suzuki like this will redline in its stock installation around 7500 to 8000 rpm. Comparing mean piston speed, bearing surface speed and valve spring pressure I bet this engine is as good or better than traditional big inch AC engines.
@@DrewLSsix I only mentioned the TBO, as until (and it sounds like they have, and they need to brag more about it) they have more then a few reaching the stated 2K TBO, it is somewhat theoretical. Like any auto conversion, the reduction system's TBO/long term reliability, is, or at least can be, the "big deal." I put 1300 trouble free hours on a Stratus (now defunct, owner sold out) Subaru E 81 conversion, so am not in any way a naysayer on auto conversions, BTW. AND, Aero's reduction system looks pretty good, if they have that figured out, the engine's reliability itself is a given. ^Then it just comes down to the aux systems, fuel and spark delivery, which in home builts can always be unpredictable. A great engine package can be screwed up by a poor installation, (poor cooling/bad fuel delivery system) giving the brand a bad name, this happened with the Soob conversions anyway. I am also a big fan of high revving Japanese car engines, and am a long time Toyota driver! This leaves only a bit extra weight upfront as the main consideration, and as others have said, at least this allows more weight to carried aft before getting out of the CG, not a bad thing, except for the STOL guys who want less weight, period.
Have you noticed how almost EVERY manufacturer uses the smoke and mirrors technique of quoting speed in MPH and “true” airspeed? TAS is only relevant if you also tell us what altitude you were flying at, come on, play fair. Please just let us know the Indicated airspeed in knots.
Aeromomentum will overhaul for about $2K. Your local automotive engine rebuilder can do it for about the same. You should be able to do it yourself for half that and an overhaul kit is under $500. Aeromomentum also offers brand new long blocks for about $2200 to $3K.
@@mkett1922 they LOOK like a car/ outboard 75/90 hp zuki..... which the question isnt WHEN its IF...... treat that block right ive NEVER seen a bottom end go even in marine use
'Seem fairly reasonable for a light two-seater with lots of options/engine upsize/upholstery/avionics, etc. Filling the seats often means taking less fuel!
He said 5.5 gallons an hr at 145 mph that's not much more if any at all then rotax especially if you throttle back a little more dwn to the "legal" 138mph!!
Very impressive, BUT like all of these odd engines when it comes to resale that's where you may lose half yr potential buyers, most like the well known brand/s of anything out there.
@@endwood Rotax is popular because bandwagon-appeal is STRONG in the aircraft community. And for good reason. Pilots tend to trust the experience and expertise of seasoned pilots. And given the lack of an abundance of proven engine choices, manufacturers like Rotax, Lycoming, Conti, etc, tend to be shown more favor. I think the kind of guy who selects an engine for his plane based of data, rather than popularity, is the wiser pilot. Sure, a pilot can follow the crowd and trust an engine that others love... But the wiser pilot knows his engine options, their strengths and weaknesses, and chooses the engine most appropriate to his mission and aircraft.
I put one in my rv12 and regret it i have since pulled it out and installed a rotax save your money these engines are not worth it. Even Dick here has pulled his out and put a UL in his 12
Some people should not be doing demos of anything. You might be the best aircraft designer in the world, but seriously, hire someone to do your demo who is a pro public speaker.
If you were watching this as a neophyte or just watching for entertainment and knew nothing about the subject a hired public speaker could dumb it down for you. I don''t think that was the intention here, if you were listening and knew something about the subject you can get a lot out of it!
The biggest problem with these odd ball engines is resale value, odd engines ALWAYS effect sale price, secondly parts & repairers aren't used to these odd engines. Liquid cooled engines are always more complex, higher risk of something going wrong, heavier. Give me a Rotax any day even though it too is liquid cooled, can sell it easy as it's KNOWN!
Predition,,,, AeroMomentum will be the #1 engine in LSA/Experimental in the future. They have taken these engines and ran them a full power for 100+ hours at full load! Have you seen the Rotax problems with the Flying Cowboys? I'll take a AeroMomentum engine anytime over a Rotax!
I thought this gentleman did an outstanding job of describing his product.
it was ok but More information was needed
Same here... Hell of a salesman and engineer, apparently. This engine seems fantastic, but only time will tell of it's reliability. Hope he succeeds.
Hi there. I met you at Oshkosh and was very impressed with the engine install you and Mark came up with. Exceptional job 👍
That is a NO Brainer solution!!! I just wish I was 30 years younger...but then 30 yrs ago, this package or plane was not available....great concept! Thanks!
Extremely well explained. If I was in a position for that motor, this would be top of my consideration. Primarily due to the way he explained this. Well done!
I have one in my trike. I've run both this and the 912 and I prefer the AM-13.
Thanks, Your check is in the mail.
Thoughts on the 912is?
Who WOULDN'T want "go-like-stink" performance? If I were building an RV-12 I think I'd HAVE to seriously consider the AeroMomentum engine!
Yeaaaaah give Rotax a run for their money.
Yeah... Rotax be like: "Price firm, I know what I've got" . LOL
@@groachslayer well... they DO know what they got.
@@DrewLSsix meh. Overpriced. I like Rotax tech, only after you uncork it with EdgePerformance, which makes it even more overpriced. But even if you're not into auto conversion, there are cheaper, purpose-built alternatives to Rotax (ULPower, D-Motor), and depending on your application, may be much better than Rotax.
@@groachslayer Viking Aircraft Engines seem pretty nice. Check them out. They're using Honda motors, with direct injection.
I have a 1.3l Suzuki on my trike instead of a 912, a fraction of the price and 105hp 1100fpm climb
This man is very well spoken.
That's an understatement. He's one of the most effective spokesmen I've seen in recent years . . . for any product. Authoritative, sober, truthful, enthusiastic. And he's so proud of what they've accomplished, he's still walking on Cloud 9. I wish I were building an RV-12 so that I could buy one of his FF packages.
I would love to see this as an option for Kitfox.
Building a Sonex Onex and the Aeromomentum is my choice. An engine forward package is offered and that and many other pluses, such as this video, confirms my decision. Thanks
Please post some videos so we can get some performance feedback from other consumers. This engine looks great, but I'd need some testimonials before buying.
Hi Dick, it was great to see you there at Oshkosh, and to see your install. I'm contemplating nearly an identical install for my Fisher Dakota Hawk. Stay Safe!!
Then you could do a video like this!
@@kenhurley4441 Love to.
@@ioanekirarahu951 What state do you live in?
@@kenhurley4441 Utah. But it is also difficult to predict exactly when I'll be able to begin my engine install. The fuselage is nearly done-I just have to finish running the rudder cables, and finish the brakes set up. The gear truss is done, but I still have to finish the axle receivers, install the axles, and then assemble the gear assembly on the fuselage. I have to still weld up the tailwheel bracket, and then install the tail wheel. Still have to build the fuselage fuel tank, and I've done very little wiring so far. Mainly I'm still working my wings. Got the left wing nearly all complete, and I'm working on the final aspects of the aileron hinges and linkages, then the wood geodedic for the wing, then wing fuel tanks. Then I'll assemble the right wing, though that should go a lot faster than the left wing, as all the weird parts and problems (that the Fisher plans don't address) will be resolved and ready to go at that time. Then fit the wings to the fuselage. Then covering and paint. A lot has been done, but still a lot more to do, and time and $$$ are factors. But I'd love to document the progress on video. I'm posting progress photos on the Fisher FFP Facebook page, as well as the Experimental Aircraft FB page.
@@ioanekirarahu951 I'll be following you. Congrats on your future flying machine!
Nice engine. I'd like to see it in a Zenith CH 750 Cruzer as an affordable alternative.
Excellent product and explanation of the design concept. It's a simple design idea, but it takes money and engineering skill to make it a reality... I'm glad that someone invested the time and money - hopefully his company will do well with this. :)
Finally I hear my favorite phrase: Back to building people 😁😁😁
He gives a great presentation, The only thing I'd point out, is for an airplane the size of the 12, 40 pounds more weight forward of the firewall is, or can be, pretty significant. Sure you can juggle things around and get the CG correct, but there is no getting around the extra weight in the nose effecting the handling, (elevator is the same size, for instance) this may be a minor thing for the money saved. As always, there is no free lunch! But I did like his way of presenting the info, it passed my personal sniff test. Pretty price point for sure.
Before I did this, I ran the design by one of the engineers who was on the design team for the -12. He recommended in-flight tests to explore the envelope. He explained that the actual design forward-limit was considerably further forward than what they measured with the Rotax 912 installed. He predicted no problem - and he was right. The only modification I made to address the Fwd CG was to switch to a Lithium battery - saving about 12 lbs right off the firewall. Perhaps I should recommend that as part of the installation going forward. Good comment, and a valid concern. Thanks!
You're right to be concerned about the weight difference (on any airplane where a heavier engine is contemplated).
First of all, the 40 lb difference I claimed is for my engine/airplane, circa April 2018 when I first received and weighed it. Since then, Aeromomentum has removed just over ten lbs from the engine package, so the real number should be 30 lbs.
Second, the real comparison should be against the Rotax 912is, which, like the AM15, is fuel injected and has electronic ignition. The 912is weighs 22 lbs more than the 912ULS, so the difference between them is small.
In any case, recognize that the actual forward CG design limit of the RV-12 is significantly greater than the limit stated in the POH. That "max forward CG" spec is what they measured on the finished airplane with the Rotax 912 installed.
I actually consulted one of the design engineers on the RV-12 project before we developed this package, and got his concurrence. Essentially, given the size and rotation force of the large stabilator, he predicted it would be well within the true limit. Extensive flight testing and normal flying, >100 hours now, has verified that nicely.
He pointed out that the limit to be concerned with most is, of course, the AFT CG limit - and this installation increases the margin against that!
Pretty cool! The plane was designed around the Rotax 912 @ 140 lbs. The AM15 is 185 lbs but I see a lot of added parts (weight). I'd like to compare the 2 options from a total firewall forward weight comparison. Having 40% more power that is useful in a climb... with what weight penalty.
I never liked rotax four stroke engines since its beginning. Is overwhelmingly expensive and full of problems itself. I’m so happy to see this project challenging that platform. Congratulations!
Very well presented. This type of upgrade/power plant option is exactly what the industry needs, and sadly, not more prevalent. Innovation, fresh, well developed ideas and thinking , are difficult in aviation to make a reality, but past due. Here’s to experimental aircraft! A Bonanza, or whatever, may be a wonderful aircraft. Tat said, look at the innovations in aircraft just during WW II, innovations in motorcycling, automotive, power sports, etc.in the last ten years vs the difference in the last halve century plus changes in some Beech, Piper, Cessna, Mooney, etc designs certificated by FAA. Love most planes, all of them, and hope to fly more of them, but fresh thinking and uses of different technology ( especially more cost effective) is where we should perhaps focus more attention. Just thinking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I love it! You need to do this with a 2.3L ecoboost for the Rv-10. I'm not joking. I will buy one or even help develop it (pending wife approval). The 2.3L ecoboost makes ~300 lb. ft. of torque, 280-350 hp depending on how you configure it, and it's a lot lighter than a lycoming 540. Which gives you room to have a reduction gearbox and an oil sump for it. You can buy them brand new in a crate for $6,500... so I'm sure you can get the firewall forward package down to way less than 50% of a lycoming 540, and have 40% more performance, easily.
Cheers!!!
Sound's great, until it lift's it's head at factory boost levels. That was the biggest penny pincher mess up ford has done. Just needed a tiny bit higher quality gasket and properly spec'd for the stretching that engine does head stud's and it would be a legendary engine.
Or they could of brought that Focus RS 5cyl from Volvo to america. People would be talking about Ford's instead of Honda and VW turbo 4cyl now!
WOW such a nice engine on a RV. Very impressive!
Great way to GO. Lower cost, more performance, better over-all choice.
Well Said, Sir!
“Go like stink” defeats the purpose of a RV-12.
He must have once Upon a Time been an American hot rodder. What a beautiful looking assembly.
Outstanding! Great work!
Wow !!
Well presented and we'll designed. 👍😎
I'd love to see Rotax get some price pressure, especially from a bolt-on substitution, but doesn't this unit effectively push the RV-12 beyond the LSA speed limit; defeating the whole point?
Could be, but look what the Carbon Cub people are doing about that. There's apparently a loophole that allows you to placard the airplane for a maximum speed below the actual maximum. The same apparently applies to gross weight, because they're calling a full sized, full performance Super Cub clone an LSA.
Just go with the standard output engine, hes telling you numbers for the HP high power installation.
@@jjohnston94 No. The FAR does not allow 'placard" limitations in place of actual physical capability.
@@KB4QAA They allow it for turboprops so why the difference here? Most of them are torque limited and it's your right hand that does the limiting.
@@rnordquest The difference is the FAR wording. LSA's are not permitted to have equipment or capabilities that exceed the reg limits. You can't fly a P-51 and claim it is an LSA. .e.g. Weight exceeds, retract gear, flaps, constant speed prop, excess speed.
Wow! My only question would be on the gearbox. I trust the Rotax gearbox will hold up well, but what's the details on this one?
Turning Short Final The gearbox is one of the most proven parts in the package. It's been used in Airboats for many years building up thousands of real world hours before Mark used it on any converted aircraft engine. No worries here👍
@@dragon2knight Thanks for this answer.
Loved your specs info. Very thorough and super informative. Thanks.
Wow ... outstanding job on product description and from all appearances engineering ... I own a Murphy Rebel with a Lycoming O 320 ... which of course is a good legendary reliable aero engine ... but I will be watching this Aeromomentum project as it continues to grow and unfold ... That was your own butt you flew cross country with that plane and engine so its obvious you have faith in it ... I recommend some flying videos .. Your extremely good at describing things ... get er airborne and tell us more from up there
That is the #1 thing any engine supplier needs to do, FLY BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT! Great marketing and says more then slick brochures or videos, plus it got you to Oshkosh!
What is his electric supply available? How many AMPS does his alternator provide?
Also, what kind of gas? (full synthetic implies MoGas --- E0 or E10? (proseal doesn't like E10)) --- airports don't like MoGas
The alt is a 40 amp Denso. The engine (pumps, injectors, ECU) needs about eight amps. It'll run for over two hours on batt alone.
Love the presentation. What planes have the AM20T been installed in? Is there a similar presentation for that engine package?
You may find if you were to test Kendall motor oil in that engine you will find that it's failure temperature is considerably higher than 260°. If I remember right there was a engine builder that I knew for years and the Detroit area who was building the fastest and lowest time drag street cars in the country for several years and he had done extensive tests on motor oils and found that Kendall could be operated at well over 100° more temperature than any other motor oil he tested I don't remember the precise numbers but I think that Kendall failure point was up above 400°. It may be worth looking into.
I'd like to see this for the kitfox
That might be my project next year.
Not hard to change engine mount. Have to move the battery around for balance though. No big deal though, that is easy.
Id be interested using this on an RV-9
I'd like to see the numbers on that.
@@kenhurley4441 Numbers in: It goes like stink.
Two questions, 1 weight of the engine assembly and 2 TBO. How well does the engine hold up?
A Rotax FWF package is $36,000???
Hey, if you get the 915 engine, it's at least ten grand more.
Yep
Its 15 grand more with the 915 ... 25 grand more if you get the constant speed prop with it .. The carburated rotax is 19 grand The IS is 22 grand .. the 915 is 37 grand .. the MT prop is 10 grand ...... Complete firewall forward with 915 and CS prop would be $61,000.00 .. meaning you could buy three of these for price of one 915 FWF with change
Do you have amendments to or replacements of parts of the RV12 AFM/POH if built with this engine? THANKS! Looks pretty great to me
Good question, how do you maintain going forward ?
For those trying to find the website it's: aerosaleseab.com/
Link dead :(
How much time in service has the Aeromomentum engine accrued?
Aeromomentum engines have thousands of hours in airboats. In fact 1airboat ride company puts 1000 hours on their engines in 1 year. Great test-bed
@@TigerMarine62 I would agree with that, they probably don't maintain them as good as a pilot would also, meaning they are great BETA testers!
Great question... Good answers! Thanks guys.
I'm seriously impressed with this engine and the FWF development! I wish the RV12 was a little more sporty, reclined seats, longer, lower canopy and such-- more like Czech Sport, Arion Lighting, Magnus LSA. Those are planes I'm more drawn to. But having such a clean installation option as this for the RV12 could compel me to become a Vans owner. Any chance you'll develop a similar FWF package for the Arion Lighting?
They would make a lot of headway fitting up a Zenith 650 too.
@@orbitalair2103 they already did. There's a firewall forward package on their website.
Agree. To wit, I installed a third seat back mount hinge 2 inches forward of the stock hinges. This reclines the seat nicely. I then opted for the temperfoam cushions - I'm good to go all day!
5 1/2 gph... dang
2:07 Starts
My one and only concern is reliability. If it's not stone cold reliable then nothing else matters even a little bit.
Then never fly, because even brand new Contis and Lycomings fail.
@@UncleKennysPlace Of course they do. The point is how often do they fail? What is the Mean Time Between Failures? The dude is going on and on about 'performance' and 'racing'. Bruh, I ain't going to Reno, I want to get where I'm going in one piece!
Yours is of course the most important comment here ....nothing trumps reliability in an aero engine ... If I somehow knew this could match my Lycoming O 320 I would absolutely go this rout ... But its kind of new to the in air world ... how does one really know without data and passage of time ... and pioneers take the arrows
@@wntu4 Over 4,000 hours on airboats that run at a higher rpm than cruise in an airplane. Parts are matched to within a gram or so before assembled. Engines have been dynoed at full throttle for hours! AeorMomentum doesn't want you to have an engine failure either!
Where do I send the check?! :D
30-50% more HP is huge! What about CG envelope? Stall speed? All the things that 40 more pounds up front can change? Definitely sexier, but what about behavior?
You're right to be concerned about the weight difference (on any airplane where a heavier engine is contemplated).
First of all, the 40 lb difference I claimed is for my engine/airplane, circa April 2018 when I first received and weighed it. Since then, Aeromomentum has removed just over ten lbs from the engine package, so the real number should be 30 lbs.
Second, the real comparison should be against the Rotax 912is, which, like the AM15, is fuel injected and has electronic ignition. The 912is weighs 22 lbs more than the 912ULS, so the difference between them is small.
In any case, recognize that the actual forward CG design limit of the RV-12 is significantly greater than the limit stated in the POH. That "max forward CG" spec is what they measured on the finished airplane with the Rotax 912 installed.
I actually consulted one of the design engineers on the RV-12 project before we developed this package, and got his concurrence. Essentially, given the size and rotation force of the large stabilator, he predicted it would be well within the true limit. Extensive flight testing and normal flying, >100 hours now, has verified that nicely.
He pointed out that the limit to be concerned with most is, of course, the AFT CG limit - and this installation increases the margin against that!
@homebuilthelp the website he gives at the end is a dead link. The dash needs to come out.
aerosaleseab.com is the good url
Do you have weight and balance info with this engine install?
Yes, it moves the CG forward by just over an inch. Well within the design window,.
Is the propeller mounting plate the same as is on the rotax 912 series engine?
yep, same
@@gossend10 thank you!
..with me, full gas, and 50 lbs of luggage - almost gross. Unfortunately, this is another example of how using a heavier engine turns a 2 place airplane into a single place.
Well, way to ruin the party.... (I think you may be right).
His website is already gone. Maybe sales weren’t so good? EDIT: The link on the video is wrong. There is no hyphen between aerosales and eab...
Not a pilot here....but I was wondering why engines like this are not used to as replacement engines in old Cessna 150's and other types of small airplanes.
William Ferguson II
From what I understand it’s a few things.
Replacing an engine is kind of a bureaucratic headache, but putting an uncertified engine in a certified aircraft is a paperwork nightmare.
That and there’s a idea of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” in the aeronautical industry. It’s “proven” that Lycoming and Continental work, but these are “unknown”, despite the fact that some automotive engines will run a million miles in a car.
I kind of get it, safety concerns and all, if your honda craps out on the road it’s a problem, if your engine dies at 10,000ft? Say your prayers.
So these kind of things are somewhat technically prohibited from being anything other than “Experimental” by nature.
There’s also other reasons but those seem like the ones I think are some of the biggest from what little I know.
@@twdog8106 If your Honda craps out on the road, it's your problem. If your planes engine craps out in the air, it's everyone below's problem.
To follow on to Tony Webb, every certificated (factory built) airplane is built in accordance to a "type certificate", which is very specific about the design of the plane and its parts, and you can't change anything. There are a few airplanes out there with "supplemental type certificates", where a modification has gotten FAA approval. But to issue an STC for an entire model of plane, like allowing this engine in all Cessna 152s, is simply out of the question.
WF: Traditional Lycoming/Continental aircraft engines are the result of decades of experience and reliability. Airplanes are a severe environment with much different requirements that auto engitnes. It just isn't possible to tinker with the designs and provide the level of safety and long life needed.
Reclassifying as experimental would be required.
Using an O-240 (like Europe) or a Lyc 0-320 upgrade is better.
One guy has a Lyc O-360 180+ hp on a 150.
Great product!
Is it a Chain or Belt driven power train?
Neither. It's a purpose-designed geared PSRU - over-designed and tested to many times greater torque than needed here.
I think he meant does the engine use a belt or chain. It's belt driven. The psru is geared.
He said power train...Certainly NOT a belt drive prop.
If the cam is cog belt, well ok, gazillions of engines are.
Can is belt driven. In one other video they explain that they chose belt over chain in most cases because it's lighter weight. A quality belt will last over 500 hours, and isn't that difficult to change usually.
Someone show this to @flightchops
Why? Hes building an RV14
@@FlyguyXII Then install the AeroMomentum 2.0T 260 HP
I'm sure he's aware... Guy knows everything about aircraft from what I can tell.
Any Options for Kitfox?
It wouldn't take much to mount on a Kitfox because they use the same engines.
Would love to see this in a RV 10
@@gmcjetpilot Not brand new, you can't. Via Van's purchase program, the 540 is $47k and change.
We have a 2.0L turbo, the AM20T. It produces 260hp at around 315lbs, and would be great for an RV10.
@@aeromomentumaircraftengine834 I have a BD-4 I've had for 20+ years, with an O-320. Would love to re-engine it. What would a firewall forward installation end up costing me, start to finish, with the AM20T?
@@gmcjetpilot AeorMomentum also sales a 2.0T 260 HP that would work for RV 10.
Great job, can you put that in an RV-10?
Sounds they’re working on a 2.0T, 230-260hp engine. There’s limited info on aeromomentum’s site. It’s a great deal lighter than a 540, not sure how to address that.
Cruising at 146 mph? Getting close to VNE ( 136 kts) and way above the VA ( 90 kts at full weight) ....
Too bad the website in the video is incorrect... it's www.aerosaleseab.com - no dash in the URL.
How about RV- 10 Application?
Other alternative engine supplier also offers new engines, its the customers that opt for a used engine. So whats your point?
Suzuki engines are basically old tech.
Performance data is not rare, Rotax among the other alternative engine supplier also have performance data.
Other than that, nice installation and great performance (also possible with the other alternative engine supplier but they have VTEC).
What do you mean by "old tech"?
The comment about lacking performance data is aimed at other alternative engine companies. Sure, Rotax have performance data. They also have a $35k price tag.
By old tech I assume you mean its not direct injection nor variable valve timing .. though it is liquid cooled and injected ... But like someone said in a different post if it is not stone cold reliable none of this matters
Direct injection and VVT is more complexity for limited gain in aero application. I’d prefer port fuel injection and fixed valve timing in an aero application.
A turbo is a lot better than vtec in altitude also you don't really change RPM like in a car so not sure why vtec would even be a benefit. Just get a properly mapped engine for the right cam.
I think "GO LIKE STINK!" would be a way better name for your company.... (the other name is just too hard to remember). Maybe lay a black & white stuffed pet skunk over those pipes!
I would like to see this mounted on an RV 7/7a
Fuel efficiency?
If you try to go to aerosales-eab.com it won't work. The website is actually aerosaleseab.com (without the dash).
In looking at my first plane, this is interesting.
SUZUKI... HUMMM looks like their 1.5L outboard block assembly...
Probably is...and don't forget they run wide-open -throttle all day long!
@@gossend10 probably suzuki jimny or swift engine.
Will a FWF package be forthcoming for RANS? I really want an S7, but I'm at 6500' and I really need more power.
I have plenty of power with my Rotax 912S, even before I modified it with a low comp Zipper BigBore kit. My strip is 5640'. I landed (and took off) at a bit over 9 K just last week. This engine's extra weight will not help the STOL performance. Get an S-7, you won't regret it, I have over 3700 hours in two different ones.
@@portnuefflyer It might not help STOL performance, but it sure as hell won't cost me $30,000.
It's almost as the Rotax people were sitting around one day and one of them said, "What?? A Lycoming is $30,000? Why aren't we charging $30,000?
Tecnam sierra p2002
How does the Aero Momentum compare to Viking Aircraft Engines? (Price, reliability, performance, etc) Anyone?
My opinion: The information saying Aeromomentum uses brand new engines, hand built and dyno tested would be the tipping point for me. Throw in the thousands of hours of experience in airboats, and it's a definite win. I have read that Viking uses engines out of salvage yard autos, and (to my knowledge) they do not dyno test the engines before shipping to the customer.
Shut up and take my money 💰👍🎉!
now: AeroSalesEAB.com (no hyphen)
😄😄😄
WHERE'S THE PITOT?
What is the TBO?
They probably are estimating a TBO at this point. FWIW, I reached the 2000 hour TBO on my Rotax 912 with zero issues. I heard 6800 rpm at one point in his presentation, that's getting up there, at least for any kind of continuous operation. I guess I missed the weight, that is the biggie on any auto conversion.
Aeromomentum recommends a 2000hour TBO, but these engines have exceeded 4000+ hours in commercial marine applications.
@@portnuefflyer he said +40
@@portnuefflyer automotive engines are endurance tested at redline wide open throttle for 500+ hours. Redline for a small suzuki like this will redline in its stock installation around 7500 to 8000 rpm. Comparing mean piston speed, bearing surface speed and valve spring pressure I bet this engine is as good or better than traditional big inch AC engines.
@@DrewLSsix I only mentioned the TBO, as until (and it sounds like they have, and they need to brag more about it) they have more then a few reaching the stated 2K TBO, it is somewhat theoretical. Like any auto conversion, the reduction system's TBO/long term reliability, is, or at least can be, the "big deal." I put 1300 trouble free hours on a Stratus (now defunct, owner sold out) Subaru E 81 conversion, so am not in any way a naysayer on auto conversions, BTW. AND, Aero's reduction system looks pretty good, if they have that figured out, the engine's reliability itself is a given. ^Then it just comes down to the aux systems, fuel and spark delivery, which in home builts can always be unpredictable. A great engine package can be screwed up by a poor installation, (poor cooling/bad fuel delivery system) giving the brand a bad name, this happened with the Soob conversions anyway. I am also a big fan of high revving Japanese car engines, and am a long time Toyota driver! This leaves only a bit extra weight upfront as the main consideration, and as others have said, at least this allows more weight to carried aft before getting out of the CG, not a bad thing, except for the STOL guys who want less weight, period.
Does it fly?
Didn't you hear the guy say that he did?
Rotax 912is
Is...too expensive
@@df3yt 37+
CAM'S ARE EVERYTHING AND VERY FEW PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO PICK ONE THAT GIVES MAXIMUM POWER AT THE LOWEST RPM POSSIBLE .
Very cool
Have you noticed how almost EVERY manufacturer uses the smoke and mirrors technique of quoting speed in MPH and “true” airspeed?
TAS is only relevant if you also tell us what altitude you were flying at, come on, play fair.
Please just let us know the Indicated airspeed in knots.
151 TAS was at 3500 MSL.
If +-5 makes a difference.... Fly something else.
Yes I will buy the shoes on my feet from you.
Umm sorry I'm ahead of you. I just sent this pleasant gentleman a $300 check for the old runners I'm wearing.
5 and a half galllons per hour? not good
Where do you do the overhauls on this engine when the time comes?
Aeromomentum will overhaul for about $2K. Your local automotive engine rebuilder can do it for about the same. You should be able to do it yourself for half that and an overhaul kit is under $500. Aeromomentum also offers brand new long blocks for about $2200 to $3K.
@@mkett1922 much cheaper then a C172 overhaul
@@mkett1922 they LOOK like a car/ outboard 75/90 hp zuki..... which the question isnt WHEN its IF...... treat that block right ive NEVER seen a bottom end go even in marine use
Did I understand correctly that he was at gross with just himself, full fuel, and 50 lbs of baggage?
'Seem fairly reasonable for a light two-seater with lots of options/engine upsize/upholstery/avionics, etc. Filling the seats often means taking less fuel!
I'm betting he's 60# over the standard size pilot.
@@hotrodray6802 Guilty!
does that extra 40 lbs effect your useful weight?
Of course - especially if you're flying under LSA rules. Switching to a Lithium battery helps about 12 lbs of that, though.
@@gossend10 You get cert'd and then throw out the LSA idiot "rules" like everyone else.
That would be great in a sonex b
Now, if they could only make the Sonex more attractive...
This would make a grate ceiling fan!
Wow!!!
30-50% more horsepower needs feeding too... way more than the Rotax.
Sure it does. But the $20k you save will pay for a *lot* of fuel.
But you have to be able to carry that extra fuel and extra weight if you want decent range and endurance. That can be a problem.
Well, then pull the throttle waaay back and cruise like the rotax and you're golden ;)
And what does it do to the weight & balance?
He said 5.5 gallons an hr at 145 mph that's not much more if any at all then rotax especially if you throttle back a little more dwn to the "legal" 138mph!!
Very impressive, BUT like all of these odd engines when it comes to resale that's where you may lose half yr potential buyers, most like the well known brand/s of anything out there.
Suzuki is way bigger and older than Rotax.. without the engine failures...I'd trust Suzuki over a Rotax.
@@Luminaring Ok then why are there a zillion Rotax's around compared to hand full of other types/designs? Cause Rotax are POPULAR!
@@endwood Rotax is popular because bandwagon-appeal is STRONG in the aircraft community. And for good reason. Pilots tend to trust the experience and expertise of seasoned pilots. And given the lack of an abundance of proven engine choices, manufacturers like Rotax, Lycoming, Conti, etc, tend to be shown more favor. I think the kind of guy who selects an engine for his plane based of data, rather than popularity, is the wiser pilot. Sure, a pilot can follow the crowd and trust an engine that others love... But the wiser pilot knows his engine options, their strengths and weaknesses, and chooses the engine most appropriate to his mission and aircraft.
Stiff is never the proper answer actually. What you really need to do is design a mount that is not stiff that makes it all absorb the loading.
Nice...
I put one in my rv12 and regret it i have since pulled it out and installed a rotax save your money these engines are not worth it. Even Dick here has pulled his out and put a UL in his 12
Any specifics you would like to share?
To many
Some people should not be doing demos of anything. You might be the best aircraft designer in the world, but seriously, hire someone to do your demo who is a pro public speaker.
If you were watching this as a neophyte or just watching for entertainment and knew nothing about the subject a hired public speaker could dumb it down for you. I don''t think that was the intention here, if you were listening and knew something about the subject you can get a lot out of it!
I thought he did an incredible job. Could you not keep up or something?
Ooh! I thought they was talking abut an RV like an Recreational Vehicle
They were and with enough power it will fly
Х.л.👍👍👍
The biggest problem with these odd ball engines is resale value, odd engines ALWAYS effect sale price, secondly parts & repairers aren't used to these odd engines. Liquid cooled engines are always more complex, higher risk of something going wrong, heavier. Give me a Rotax any day even though it too is liquid cooled, can sell it easy as it's KNOWN!
Predition,,,, AeroMomentum will be the #1 engine in LSA/Experimental in the future. They have taken these engines and ran them a full power for 100+ hours at full load! Have you seen the Rotax problems with the Flying Cowboys? I'll take a AeroMomentum engine anytime over a Rotax!
@@kenhurley4441 I did!
I don't like hot cams. You don't get something for nothing. I'll stick with my Continental O-200A.
no one came here hoping to hear what Willard likes and what you'll do... this isn't about you
you would have loved my grandmas '73 dodge dart with a slant 6
@@dethray1000 What shape is it in?
If your worried about price, your in the wrong hobby.
SUZUKI... HUMMM looks like their 1.5L outboard block assembly...