I just can't keep my mouth shut any longer and after hearing rumours of guys wanting to sell their beloved planes unnecessarily because of the new 300 hour crank replacement I want to share something here. Engines have their specs and when purchasing an engine one should weigh up those costs - initial and maintenance.
This is NOT the end of microlighting and NOT a sales pitch!!
I know of atleast 2 other people working on engine alternatives in addition to mine – My alternative – I have spent the past year and invested a lot of money in this project and I do believe that I have an engine that is a viable alternative to other engines currently used on microlights and small aircraft
Does that mean the laws / manuals will suddenly change? (300 tbo)
When I got into microlighting I got involved with the idea of changing my engine IRRESPECTIVE of current legislation - see my old posts. Before I even had my license I knew that my engine would be coming off. Infact I removed my 582 many many moons ago before the current confusion even took place. My manual said TBO at 300 and spark plugs CHANGED every 15 hours. I respected that and did as it said. When 293 hours came, the engine came off. It served me very well and performed as it said on the "box", I also had great service from the importer.
Current legislation aside - I, for myself - wanted a cheaper, more fuel efficient engine from the start, without sacrificing realibility.
What I can say is that I believe I've found a REAL alternative, not only for trikes but 3 axis Savanna types too.
All are 4 strokes and come in Normal Aspirated and Turbo flavours, most will have fuel injection and be altitude compensating - no more jetting issues.
My personal favourite is the Turbo charged 90hp+ version (some installations have 240hp). This means in Gauteng on a NORMAL morning the DA is easily 7500ft+ instead of me suffering about 30% power loss I would have sea level power all they way to 12000ft.
TBO's are expected at 1000hours and are comparatively cheap. The turbo might have a higher TBO. Fuel burn on the turbo can easily be 5l/h at a leisurely 60mph or 10 l/h on faster type aircraft not bad for an engine capable of 1400fpm climb. No it's not a diesel...atleast not yet

Costing is hopefully going to be very competitive – And with the various engine options i.e. normally aspirated or turbo-charged, there will be an engine to suit most budgets.
At this time I can not mention brands or names and would be grateful if those that do know me, respect that.
I do apologise for the somewhat secrecy I have had to maintain but I've invested massive amounts of money and even 5x that in time and phone calls, so please respect me for that a little longer

Paperwork takes time and should yield results.
Don’t sell your planes or get despondent guys – Not only me but also Zulu1 are working VERY hard on alternative engines.
I will share more details with you as soon as I can, and the people that know me, know that I am no "bull-####". I love this sport and I do believe that the engines I will be marketing will give everyone a cheaper, more powerful alternative to what is currently available.
Right now I see the biggest problem being - mindset.
As I mentioned above this is not a sales pitch. There are people - my soon to be competition too - that are working on alternatives. Which ultimately means more choices for you - the pilots.
Hang in there