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.

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.

Thanks, Your check is in the mail.

Thoughts on the 912is?

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

Good question, how do you maintain going forward ?

Yes, it moves the CG forward by just over an inch. Well within the design window,.

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.

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!

yep, same

@@gossend10 thank you!

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.

It wouldn't take much to mount on a Kitfox because they use the same engines.

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.

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'd like to see the numbers on that.

@@kenhurley4441 Numbers in: It goes like stink.

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.

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

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.

Didn't you hear the guy say that he did?

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!

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

Now, if they could only make the Sonex more attractive...

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

Well, way to ruin the party.... (I think you may be right).

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.

now: AeroSalesEAB.com (no hyphen)

😄😄😄

Umm sorry I'm ahead of you. I just sent this pleasant gentleman a $300 check for the old runners I'm wearing.

'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!

Is...too expensive

@@df3yt 37+

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.

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!!

They were and with enough power it will fly

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.

151 TAS was at 3500 MSL.

If +-5 makes a difference.... Fly something else.

Any specifics you would like to share?

To many

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?

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!

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?

Probably is...and don't forget they run wide-open -throttle all day long!

@@gossend10 probably suzuki jimny or swift engine.