What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Adept Airmotive recieves funding!

bret

bret

Well Known Member
From their website dated 02/03/2014

ADEPT Airmotive announced last week that it has concluded a three year commercialization funding agreement with TIA. This will allow production of the world's leading 'Green' aviation engine to start early next year, and to continue with the certification program which will culminate in type certification through EASA in three year's time.

A limited number of engines are currently in production for the Monitored Flight Program and engine installations will begin in the new year.

Further emphasizing ADEPT's commitment to Green technology, ADEPT has adopted the tagline: "Flying should not cost us the earth", which underlines ADEPT's core focus.

Present at the event were TIA's Group Executive, Pontsho Maruping and Trod Lehong and CEO of the Wildlands Trust, Dr Anthony Venter. ADEPT identifies with and supports the aims and objectives of the Wildlands Trust.
 
Seen this engine coming along for a couple years. Nice looking design. Only time will tell if it works out and the money pot doesn't dry up. Wonder what the cost will be like?

Kudos to the engineering and production team for producing something new! :)
 
I fail to see what is new with this engine. Multifuel: Rotax, ULPower and D-motor already runs on it (avgas, mogas, ethanol blend), and Rotax have done so for decades. FADEC, they all have FADEC, ULPower and D-motor have nothing but FADEC.

This engine is considerably larger and much more HP, but new? In fact it looks like a copy of the V6 Rotax that never went into production.

But cool nevertheless. For aerobatic championship having 300 HP and cutting off 200? lbs must be nice I guess.
 
A new engine choice in this hp class is welcome. 80-130hp just doesn't cut it in many parts of the world for faster, bigger designs.
 
Yes, but it's still an engine without an airplane. If those 145 kg are correct, it can't replace anything Lycoming/continental, it will be too light for a 300 HP airplane in existence today. In the 80-120 HP range there are tons of airplanes.

It's like that engine is an excellent solution, but what exactly does it solve? Someone has to create an airplane for it. Maybe someone will?
 
The normally aspirated version is quoted at 260-280 so would work well for the RV-10. This engine has been in development for so long, I originally thought it might be available for my project.......

I believe it was originally developed in tandem with the Ravin which is heavy enough to use the extra 40hp.
 
SvingenB said:
Yes, but it's still an engine without an airplane. If those 145 kg are correct, it can't replace anything Lycoming/continental, it will be too light for a 300 HP airplane in existence today. In the 80-120 HP range there are tons of airplanes.

It's like that engine is an excellent solution, but what exactly does it solve? Someone has to create an airplane for it. Maybe someone will?
Click to expand...

Similar weight to a Lyc 360 with accessories- don't need to use full throttle or full rpm. I can see this fitting many aircraft by changing the mount length and moving batteries- RV 7,8, 10, Zenith 801, Glasair, Lancair etc. We've had many of these with heavy V8s installed and lightweight turbines, RV10 with 210hp Conti six etc. This engine is somewhere in the middle of those weights.
 
yea yea, I don't mean to be negative. It's just that this "all new" and "green" and "multifuel" just puts me off. Such hype words means nothing, and in this case the aren't even close to be true. The engine seems by specs to be almost an exact copy of the Rotax 936, an already certified engine that never went into production because BRP did not believe it would be commercially viable.
 
5500 RPM.
I was running my rotary 13b turbo at just that RPM today.
I'm getting to like it now, but it takes some getting used to.
Some of my friends say it sounds like a gear reducted engine, which it is.
Some say it sounds a bit like a turbo prop. Some say it's loud, some say it's just the note that makes it more noticeable.
I'm in favor of any advancement in the art of aircraft propulsion.
When ever an odd sounding plane flies by, it gets my full attention. I try to figure out what is making it go...
You Go Guys!
 
SvingenB said:
yea yea, I don't mean to be negative. It's just that this "all new" and "green" and "multifuel" just puts me off. Such hype words means nothing, and in this case the aren't even close to be true. The engine seems by specs to be almost an exact copy of the Rotax 936, an already certified engine that never went into production because BRP did not believe it would be commercially viable.
Click to expand...

I agree, IC engines can hardly be called "green" like a solar panel and "multifuel" implies an engine which could run on gasoline, diesel or alcohol which this engine cannot. They should just stick to producing a new engine design without the buzzwords. Pricing, cash reserves, reliability and support will be the big things determining if this design makes a significant ripple in the market over time, not hype.
 
I don't like to be negative about new engines either but it's not even a good solution.

Any engine running to 6000rpm doesn't need double-overhead direct-acting cams. (The LS7 demonstrates this adequately even with enormous valves.) This screams unnecessary weight and friction and is entirely the wrong place to start.

The massively oversquare design (98 x 70) is also a penalty on fuel consumption potential. It might give good rod ratios and low piston speeds, but these days the benefit this gives you is virtually nothing, compared with the increased thermal losses and the more-difficult-to-manage compression ratio variation.

You'd almost wonder what they actually knew about engines, or the requirements of aero engines at least.
 
Andy_RR said:
I don't like to be negative about new engines either but it's not even a good solution.

Any engine running to 6000rpm doesn't need double-overhead direct-acting cams. (The LS7 demonstrates this adequately even with enormous valves.) This screams unnecessary weight and friction and is entirely the wrong place to start.

The massively oversquare design (98 x 70) is also a penalty on fuel consumption potential. It might give good rod ratios and low piston speeds, but these days the benefit this gives you is virtually nothing, compared with the increased thermal losses and the more-difficult-to-manage compression ratio variation.

You'd almost wonder what they actually knew about engines, or the requirements of aero engines at least.
Click to expand...

HaHaHa - My thoughts exactly! I wish them well. I have always wondered who funds something like this.
 
I'm guessing but I'd think that anyone who got this far with running prototypes spent some time examining the bore to stroke ratios before any design work was even done. They must have had their reasons although I can't think of many good ones at this rpm level- only keeping piston speeds down along with bearing loads. Perhaps they were able to reduce bearing widths usefully to save weight and friction there. Probably important for longevity at these rpms. They would be able to reduce engine width with the shorter stroke- maybe necessary with the wider OHC layout while retaining the displacement required. The Rotax 912 and Jabiru engines are way oversquare also.

Breathing with 4 valves would not be an issue even with a lot less bore and smaller valves. Perhaps they can use very conservative valve timing to save fuel with such high valve flow rates and still have good VE up high.

OHC vs. pushrods? Lots of studies at GM showed that at these rpms, pushrods and roller cams produce less friction than bucket type OHC actuation and slightly better than roller rocker OHC systems. Central cam and pushrods are certainly lighter too. I can only guess that this is done for marketing reasons- pushrods are old school and they are pushing the "modern" aspect.

It does not seem from our outside perspectives that they fully optimized the design for this application but this basic design is not a lot different from something like the Subaru EG33 which works well in aircraft- also well oversquare and with direct acting DOHC valvetrain. Bit heavy maybe but SFCs are decent, peak torque and peak hp rpms quite close together and power to weight ratio not bad.

Sometimes new sells even if it doesn't do some things a lot better than existing designs. The big thing I see here is much better power to weight ratios over existing DD engines. They also have FADEC which seems to be gaining more acceptance now with the Rotax iS, D motor and UL engines. This could appeal to buyers fitting them to high performance designs and people not interested in doing things the old way. This is an alternative choice rather than something that will replace Lycoming and Continental engines in any numbers.
 
Last edited:
This is a sequential port fuel injected computer controlled engine, I do not see where all the negativity comes from, they are racking up hours in a flying aircraft right now. I would love to have one of these in my 7a. Too much horsepower? My friends rocket is doing just fine with 300 HP!
 
After looking at the description on their website, it sounds a lot like the Geared Drives LS1 set up that I have - except for the cush drive. By the way, my LS1 is multi-fuel too....
The company is now owned by Stuart Davis, and is called Auto PSRUs.
http://www.autopsrus.com/

John
 
Interesting engine. I hope it doesn't end up in the land of failed alternative engines.

While being green is nice and all... I'd also like to see the tag line: "Flying should not cost us the bank" :)
 
johngoodman said:
After looking at the description on their website, it sounds a lot like the Geared Drives LS1 set up that I have - except for the cush drive. By the way, my LS1 is multi-fuel too....
The company is now owned by Stuart Davis, and is called Auto PSRUs.
http://www.autopsrus.com/

John
Click to expand...

V6 and an integrated PSRU with an engineered TV solution vs. a V8 with a clutched PSRU and no engineered TV solution.

This is a clean sheet design for aviation use, heading for certification. Sounds pretty different to me...
 
rv6ejguy said:
V6 and an integrated PSRU with an engineered TV solution vs. a V8 with a clutched PSRU and no engineered TV solution.

This is a clean sheet design for aviation use, heading for certification. Sounds pretty different to me...
Click to expand...
What's the acronym TV mean in this context?
 
SvingenB said:
yea yea, I don't mean to be negative. It's just that this "all new" and "green" and "multifuel" just puts me off. Such hype words means nothing, and in this case the aren't even close to be true. The engine seems by specs to be almost an exact copy of the Rotax 936, an already certified engine that never went into production because BRP did not believe it would be commercially viable.
Click to expand...

Remember that you are dealing with USA .. ;-) .. When you are looking for funding ... a little bit of hype helps ..
 
Last edited:
grayforge said:
What's the acronym TV mean in this context?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure - a google search turns up Televisions and Transvaginal mesh. It could mean transverse - but that means crossways, slanted, or oblique.
I'm assuming it's a reference to a single, integrated package. For instance, the LS1 is made by GM, and the gearbox is made by AutoPSRU.

I'm not criticizing the Adept setup, just commenting that it sounds a lot like my engine.

John
 
JanRV6UK said:
Remember that you are dealing with USA .. ;-) .. When you are looking for funding ... a little bit of hype helps ..
Click to expand...

Probably. Except in this case the Adept Airmotive is South African, TIA (the one funding) is from South Africa and the engine will be certified by EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top