

A better Aircraft engine - from South Africa - developer123
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=vn20091209102249751C857427

======
tjmc
Not much detail in the article, but it's right about GA engines not changing
much in the last 40 years.

It's a classic example of regulation stifling innovation - aircraft engines
must by law be completely disassembled, inspected and then rebuilt at regular
intervals. All new engine designs are effectively penalized with shorter
inspection periods until they've proven their reliability. Possibly not a bad
idea from a safety perspective, but terrible if you want to modernize
anything.

Given that it costs several thousand dollars to overhaul an engine, not to
mention the more regular grounding of the aircraft, higher insurance and the
lack of trained aviation mechanics, most manufacturers will just choose a
"good old" (and I do mean old) Lycoming.

I wish these guys luck. Unfortunately they're not the first to have tried...

~~~
catzaa
I sincerely doubt that these guys would be successful. In South Africa there
is a habit to start impractical and expensive grandiose engineering projects
with government money. Most of these will turn out to be white elephants (a
few examples are the Rooivalk attack helicopter, pebble-bed reactor, Joule
car, etc...).

The last one, they used funding from the DTI to start an electric car - even
though it is not in SA's core competencies
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_Energy_Joule>). I have no doubt that
that will fail and will cost a lot of money.

A much better model for an indigenous aircraft company is to perform the
designs of low tech parts locally and import highly complex and critical
(safety of flight) parts. That way you can utilise the strengths (design&low
cost labour). A good example of such a model is this company
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Cresco>.

~~~
Maktab
In all fairness, the team at Adept Airmotive completed the majority of the
design and development of their new engine platform with only private equity
funding. They received an injection of cash from a state innovation fund a
couple years ago to ease their way into production, but this has definitely
not been a 'grandiose engineering project with government money'.

I do think they have a fairly good chance of succeeding with this, if only
because their ambitions are fairly modest (they're seeking to build a better
GA piston engine, not re-invent the industry) and because they're filling a
fairly obvious gap. Their calculus, which seems sound, is that the low initial
purchase cost and significant fuel savings will result in a TCO that's lower
than what their competitors can offer even with more frequent service
intervals until the engine becomes established.

The Rooivalk is a poor comparison, being as it was a hugely ambitious project
initiated during a period when the country was under an arms embargo and
unable to acquire such aircraft from outside. It was hamstrung in the end by
the combination of an evaporating need (the country's involvement in Angola
had ceased in 1989) and the concurrent slashing of the defence budget which
elongated the development process, increased the unit cost and resulted in
marketing opportunities being lost. But it's important to understand that it
was originally designed to fulfill a local need, not for export, and that not
only was the project an engineering success which established companies like
Aerosud and ATE (both doing quite well) but its development made sense under
the circumstances at the time. Similarly, SA had ambitious projects for an
indigenous tandem trainer, the ACE, and an indigenous 4th-generation jet
fighter under Project Carver, both of which fizzled out once the embargo ended
and funding was decreased.

I won't quibble about the Joule though, which is admittedly a bit of an odd
investment. South Africa was one of the research leaders in Lithium-ion
battery technology prior to '92, but has done very little research in the
field since then. Nevertheless, perhaps investing in high-tech industries with
lots of automation does make sense for the country, as its cost of labour
comparatively high and not competitive with other developing countries while
it has a fairly active and effective scientific and engineering institutional
infrastructure. And again, because Optimal Energy only exists thanks to
government funding, they're a poor comparison to Adept Airmotive.

In terms of your last point, the Ravin 500 mentioned in the article is pretty
close to what you're talking about, as it's a fairly simple composite aircraft
improving on the basic design of the Piper Comanche but without re-inventing
any technological wheels. Although it's being used as a test platform by Adept
Airmotive, all Ravins sold to date have been equipped with more conventional
Lycoming engines.

See: <http://www.saravin.com/>

~~~
catzaa
> if only because their ambitions are fairly modest (they're seeking to build
> a better GA piston engine, not re-invent the industry) and because they're
> filling a fairly obvious gap.

The problem (IMHO) is that aircraft engines are safety of flight components.
So, most engines are overdesigned by well reputed companies (definitely not
start-up material). They may succeed and prove me wrong – I am not an expert
in that area.

> it's important to understand that it was originally designed to fulfill a
> local need, not for export, and that not only was the project an engineering
> success which established

AFAIK, the whole idea of the rooivalk was to be a Soviet tankkiller (with
obvious export potential). After 1990, there was no reason for continued
funding of the project.

> which established companies like Aerosud and ATE (both doing quite well) but
> its development made sense under the circumstances at the time.

Maybe. But its development also established companies such as Denel (which is
a continual drain of millions on the government budget).

> South Africa was one of the research leaders in Lithium-ion battery
> technology prior to '92, but has done very little research in the field
> since then.

A battery company will then make more sense than a car company (the market for
Lithium Ion batteries are much larger).

My point is just that less grandiose schemes will probably have a larger
payoff. The fairly high labour rate is an unfortunate effect of legislation
(with 40% broad based unemployment, the cost of labour should be much lower).
If the country wants to succeed it should become a lot more like china.

