A better Aircraft engine - from South Africa
iol.co.za
iol.co.za
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...
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.
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.
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.