New build LeRhones - interested?

[brinesharks]

I know the topic comes up now and again, but I've started at a new engineering company that has a lot of engine design experience. The boss is intrigued by the idea of building LeRhones (or other engines). He has asked me to find out two things:

1. Are there any potential buyers for such an engine?
2. Can they be built at a reasonable cost?

Let me know if you are interested in a new build LeRhone and if so, what do you see as a 'reasonable' cost? Remembering that these engines do have a lot of parts and then there is liability insurance to be paid for...

Feel free to offers your opinions if you think it's a dumb idea as well

Nick - if you have the drawings for a Bentley, let me know!

[Jeff Brooks]

I'd be interested in either size, and as far as the price, as long as they aren't more than 10% more than the going rate for an original, I would be in.
I think the lase rotary I saw for sale was Gary Seawall's. I don's know what it fetched, somewhere around 30,000 or 35,000?

['14-'18aviationcollector]

G'day Bryan,

This is great news! I certainly hope it goes ahead! I would be very interested, but realistically I don't have that sort of money, at least not at the moment. As a result I can't be considered to be a serious contender, but if I had the money I would be in it. I would buy one of each - one for say a Pup and the other for a Camel, Fokker D.VIII etc. From what I have heard a well engineered replica would cost a lot to produce - I would suggest about $100,000 Australian at least - possibly a lot more. The reason is that there is a lot of work and material in such a project. There are some guys not far from you who are having some 110 HP le Rhone parts being built. If you don't know them I can get you in touch with them. They are only having parts built at this stage since they have an original 110 HP le Rhone, so they have a starting point. They also had an 80 HP le Rhone but they sold it. You probably think that my estimate for the reproduction engine is too expensive, but bear in mind that at the time the original engines and airframes were being built, the engine cost about the same as the rest of the airframe, as a rule of thumb. The advice I have been given is that they are not commercially viable, but like you, I would certainly like to think of a way to make them commercially viable.

I will try to make sure that I come to say hi to you next time I am in your area. I have a book about how to construct a 1:4 scale Bentley BR2. I don't know how accurate they are, but if you are not familiar with the book I will try to find it and show it to you some time.

Regards,

David.

[snj5]

If you do it, I wouldn't engineer 100 year old safety flaws into it. It would be nice to have a reliable rotary that you could actually fly somewhere for an hour or two. You probably would still need a full loss oil system, but would go with the BR-1 throttlable carb/induction with valve seats for modern gas.
A safe rotary engine? Or is that an oxymoron by definition?

The price point is $30 - 50K. I imagine you could sell 10+ per year with parts support.

I'll buy one.

['14-'18aviationcollector]

Originally Posted by snj5

A safe rotary engine? Or is that an oxymoron by definition?

The price point is $30 - 50K. I imagine you could sell 10+ per year with parts support.

I'll buy one.

Yes it probably is an oxymoron! The only appeal that rotaries have is that they are what was used originally. In theory they have some excellent design features but in practice I have no doubt that they would have been dangerous and fairly unreliable. Anyone who has seen photographs of the underside of a rotary engined aeroplane will know what a mess they made of the aeroplane. Apparently the burnt oil and petrol used to soak into the fabric and the underlying structure, and cause a lot of damage.

It sure would be nice if they could be built for $30 - 50K. I hope I am wrong, it's just that I have been told by the guys building the new parts that there is a lot of work and material in them. Most parts I think were machined from solid steel, although of course these days there could be more efficient alternatives. I will be very interested to see what else is said on this subject.

Cheers.

[Maxim08]

David,
A worthy project and one that would find many interested potential buyers including myself. I have voted for the 110 as many aircraft originally fitted with 80s were up engined to the 110 (Dh2, 504 etc).
You should get an engine and disassemble it prior to batting pricing around. Best to understand the magnitude of what is before you and then present pricing to your potential market. Otherwise you may set unreasonable expectations for a low price point.
I have seen this project undertaken (complete new build, no refurbished pieces) before and each time the cost (not sell) was over 100K USD. And that was on the economics of building multiple units. I am mentioning this to provide a bit of background. Don't let other peoples experience dictate what you do. I would like to see this succeed.
Best of luck,
John

[hank jarrett]

If you are really serious I would think a good business plan would be to get with the other guys making parts and start that way, just doing the highest demand parts they aren't already doing. Cooperation in the manufacturing business is kind of counter intuitive, but then you are talking about building an engine that has been obsolete for almost a century. A new way of thinking is what is needed.
I would think parts for the ~100HP Le Rhone would have the largest (relatively speaking) market. When all of the parts are available, building engines "on order" from the parts bin could start with minimum capital investment and highest probability of BUSINESS success.
If I could make a suggestion, you might want to think about a whole new design for the long term where you could put all of the modern improvements and materials in. To keep your first market as wide as possible you want to make direct replacement parts for original engines first. If it can't be installed on an original Le Rhone you have thrown away market share and lost the "Purist" market. AFTER you have a solid base on the widest market engine, I would look at an all new engine based on where the biggest new market is. Much as the Purists will hate it, that is probably the Aluminum tube replicas coming out of MO in the USA! I would design something to compete with the radials they are using, but NOT until I OWNED the market for replacement parts. If you try to sell complete engines too soon your business model will go bust. Please don't make the mistake many other airframe and engine builders have made.
PARTS, then new manufacture! You will only risk loosing your shirt, not your whole wardrobe, and we all WANT you to be successful, even if we can't all be the ones buying the engines.
Hank

[TFF]

I think the thing to do is make one for yourself with spare machine-work time and see how it goes. Best not to put your self in a hole with a new employer without research. You can use it to show off your talents. With a working prototype, people will either want parts or an engine and you can see if it can be done for profit or at least pay for itself.

[RAF56_Ball]

Originally Posted by snj5

... It would be nice to have a reliable rotary that you could actually fly somewhere for an hour or two. You probably would still need a full loss oil system, but would go with the BR-1 throttlable carb/induction with valve seats for modern gas...

Comments to summarize will follow, after a second quote -

... I would recommend a:110 hp 9 cylinder modular 2 valve engine that looks as an original in the front with similar propeller mounting and pushrods; Replaceable Nikasil lined cylinders with 6:1 pistons with modern rings allowing low octane fuel, and a cam that provides a hp peak at 1300 rpm. Optional for one or two magnetos. Easy to control throttle-able carburetor (possible ots unit?). TBO 1000...

You are spot on here. Have to find the source, but learned recently (at Dayton, I think) that the problem with the longevity of these engines was not primarily a materials one, but rather lubricant. Caster bean oil gums up from heat rather quickly, necessitating an overhaul around every 15-25 hours. Were a different modern 2-stroke oil used, possibly a synthetic, I think that issue would go away and reliability would dramatically improve.
If that change in oil were combined with the modern materials suggested in the second part (a different post, also by Russ), it would be even better, IMHO. It potentially would make a reasonably priced engine with a useful lifespan.

[baldeagle]

Castor oil doesn't gum up from heat, in fact I've been told that guys with the old roller bearing Porsches like it exactly because it withstands heat well. Also, Cole Palen told me once that he had had rotary engines go 200 hours between overhauls.

Personally I like a rotary engine because it has the 1918 idiosyncracies, and wouldn't want a "modernized" one, but just my personal feeling.




-