PDA

View Full Version : Eggenfellner H6 Turbo Thrust Test


Steve A
12-15-2006, 06:48 PM
We just performed a thrust test on the RV6-A turbo H6, 4 blade
> Sens/Quinti, new gearbox combo at the Egg factory.
>
> As a reminder, previous thrust testing showed:
> 765 lbs thrust, Dan Checkoway's, 200hp IO-360 RV-7
> 796 lbs thrust, Robert Paisley's, STI RV-7
>
> 922 lbs thrust today with the turbo H6 - WOWWWWWWWWW!
>
> Robert Paisley
>

pierre smith
12-16-2006, 08:10 AM
Very good numbers so far but kindly post realtime cruise speeds. The high drag radiators/cooling may well need all that thrust.. :D

dan
12-16-2006, 08:36 AM
Very good numbers so far but kindly post realtime cruise speeds. The high drag radiators/cooling may well need all that thrust.. :D
And fuel burns at those cruise speeds. :cool:

Brian Denk
12-16-2006, 03:37 PM
NEAT. As long as it stays RUNNING and Jan doesn't have to hop a jet to ANYwhere anymore to find out "what happened". I wouldn't care if it put out 1000hp burning 10gph of liquified Jello. Reliability first and foremost. Everything else is just gravy...uh...gelatin.

I really need to back away from the dessert table.

BoomerSooner
12-16-2006, 04:13 PM
I really need to back away from the table of faux derivation.
fixed.

I'm sure if you were the owner of this company you would Hop a plane asap to see what happened to your own creation and the circumstances involved. your post seems venomous, biased and without much merit.

Jconard
12-16-2006, 10:40 PM
Intersting spreadsheet, but poor math. The lowest category for hours to failure was something like 8,000 hours, none the less a calculated MTBF of 1800???

I suspect that the same individual installation experienced multiple failures, indicating a troublesome installation, or perhaps an incomplete repair of initial damage.

Also, as I read this it is a sample of Lycs installed in Cozy aircraft only...and appears to be a set of 150 aircraft, without actual known hours flown. In short, a pretty poor example of freshman stats.

One day (maybe) we will have many autos having run to TBO and such comparisons can be made. But other than gyroplanes, I am currently unaware of any RV's with even 1000 hours on a single engine install of an auto conversion. Paisley is probably one of the best out there, right up there with Ross, but Paiseley has had how many different engines? And Ross has how many hours?

In the meantime, give me some Checkoway style reliability...fast, simple, fuel efficient, and apparently almost 1200 hours with next to no maintenance.

gmcjetpilot
12-17-2006, 02:36 AM
Could u post Weight & Balance, empty, cg. Thanks

David-aviator
12-17-2006, 07:21 AM
One day (maybe) we will have many autos having run to TBO and such comparisons can be made. But other than gyroplanes, I am currently unaware of any RV's with even 1000 hours on a single engine install of an auto conversion. Paisley is probably one of the best out there, right up there with Ross, but Paiseley has had how many different engines? And Ross has how many hours?

In the meantime, give me some Checkoway style reliability...fast, simple, fuel efficient, and apparently almost 1200 hours with next to no maintenance.


Charlie Walker, who lives somewhere west of Seattle, posted this message on the Subby forum about a month ago.

"Subies and wanabe's,

Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle I had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so they were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc. trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!

We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))

Charlie
762 TROUBLE FREE hrs."

Also, need you be reminded, the accident airplane in Oklahoma 2 weeks ago that killed 2 people had a new Lycoming clone that was reported to be not running properly when it went down. Generally, these engines ARE very reliable - but not always.

I fly behind the H6 a couple times a week weather permitting and the confidence factor is going up on each flight. But it doesn't matter what engine is up forward, the pilot must always be thinking "...what am I going to do if this SOB quits?".

Statements like "In the meantime, give me some Checkoway style reliability...fast, simple, fuel efficient, and apparently almost 1200 hours with next to no maintenance." serve no usefull purpose whatever.

Some engines don't make it to 200 hours while others may go to 2500. There are no guarantees. The pilot/builder must always be thinking about surviving, not thinking how reliable his engine is or how smart he was choosing what he chose.

dd

rv6ejguy
12-17-2006, 10:04 AM
[
Some engines don't make it to 200 hours while others may go to 2500. There are no guarantees. The pilot/builder must always be thinking about surviving, not thinking how reliable his engine is or how smart he was choosing what he chose.

dd


I'd concur with this thinking. We don't have a true MTBF on either Egg Subes or Lycomings. Most people perceive that Lycomings are more reliable but this may well not be the case. From some past posts on various Sube forums, I can count at least 11 Sube fliers with over 500 hours on their engines with no problems at all and 3 of these have over 700 hours.

I agree that until a bunch start reaching 2000 hours (if they go that long), we don't know what typical lifespans will be like.

Robert Paisley is doing R&D for Jan which is why the multiple engines have been installed. None of them failed or wore out. In fact Robert's Supercharged EJ25 is now in possession of a friend here in Calgary to go into a new RV7 so I can watch the hours build up on this engine again.

To my knowledge there has never been a core failure on an Egg Sube (correct me if I'm wrong here). There have been 3 supporting system failures identified to date, all several years ago. The fixes devised at the time seem to have kept the rest of the fleet in subsequent years from experiencing the same failures.

The latest Glastar incident remains to be investigated and could be anything from fuel exhaustion to mechanical or electrical failure.

Being prepared for an engine failure irregardless of engine type fitted is sound advice.

Jconard
12-17-2006, 10:15 AM
Wow,

so the glastar composite aircraft has less drag than a cessna 120 and some super cubs......and better heat/cabin sealing...this means what exactly?

I was responding to the linked spreadsheet, which if you review has the statistical flaws I pointed out.

To be fair, your statement would be more accurate if you said "Most (aircraft) engines go thousands of hours, some fail early."

Fair enough about the oklahoma plane....one in 4,000 among RV's and 150,000 among 4-cylinder U.S. flag lyc planes....

Quote:
We don't have a true MTBF on either Egg Subes or Lycomings. Most people perceive that Lycomings are more reliable but this may well not be the case

The experience of thousands of pilots over 50 years has established a pretty good MTBF floor, which is about 500 hours for mags, and about 2,000 hours or slightly better for the engine.

The EAA just released data, published in kit planes, documenting the comparable accident rate of experimentals with the different engine approaches. Not much more for me to say about that.

As to core failure...double supercharger failures, leading to a forced landing would seem to count as well as the recent self destruction of the multi-belt psru which was called a prototype, but already had been sold (though not delivered like the 14 turbo-rv10 packages currently posted on the site) to customers. These are just off the top of my head.

Frankly Ross, I have a hard time not classifying your forced landing as core...your engine is electron dependant and youwent down because it lost the juice. If a lyc lost both mags, would that be a core failure?

And, as I have said a thousand times, I hope one day to look at a sea of proven alternatives. All I want is identical speed, fuel, weight, and simplicity.

Brian Denk
12-17-2006, 10:48 AM
fixed.

I'm sure if you were the owner of this company you would Hop a plane asap to see what happened to your own creation and the circumstances involved. your post seems venomous, biased and without much merit.


Good grief man, sorry I stirred the pot. My attempt at holiday mirth clearly backfired. "Venom" has no place here, nor did I intend for my post to sound that way. I personally was involved in Jan's first RV testbed. I inspected it for purchase by a local investor who then offered it to Jan. I admire his technical skill, and ethics in attending to every issue encountered and wish him well. I've flown behind an Egg Sube in a -9A and liked it, but not nearly enough to buy one...yet. Ten years down the road with thousands of hours on them and several tear downs to find wear patterns and I'll consider it.

I'll now go back into hibernation and study up on my use of faux derivations.

rv6ejguy
12-17-2006, 05:28 PM
To be fair, your statement would be more accurate if you said "Most (aircraft) engines go thousands of hours, some fail early."

Fair enough about the oklahoma plane....one in 4,000 among RV's and 150,000
The experience of thousands of pilots over 50 years has established a pretty good MTBF floor, which is about 500 hours for mags, and about 2,000 hours or slightly better for the engine.

As to core failure...double supercharger failures, leading to a forced landing would seem to count as well as the recent self destruction of the multi-belt psru which was called a prototype, but already had been sold (though not delivered like the 14 turbo-rv10 packages currently posted on the site) to customers. These are just off the top of my head.

Frankly Ross, I have a hard time not classifying your forced landing as core...your engine is electron dependant and youwent down because it lost the juice. If a lyc lost both mags, would that be a core failure?



I'll kinda buy your first statement refining it by saying that many cert engines go to 2000 hours without touching them but many don't. By this I mean many require jugs or topping to get there. I can count 8 engines I know of at my airport that did not make it to TBO without major work in just the last 3 years, 2 were catastrophic failures.

I hope you are wrong on the MTBF on Lycomings. I think it is more like 8500-10,000 hours between major failures. I don't include accessories in this like mags.

Core failure= internal failures like crank, rods, dropped valve etc. Mags not included.

The Egg belt drive was still in testing although released for production- now dropped.

As I said the previous Sube failures have been addressed with fixes (including mine) which seem to have stopped further ones of the same type. I'll say I seriously overlooked not installing a second battery and buss from the start. Lesson learned and applied.

Jconard
12-18-2006, 06:15 AM
Ahhh...

If that's what you mean by MTBF, I suppose you are correct that 8-9K hours would be a conservative guess.

If the hours are done correctly there would be metal testing at overhaul every 2-2.5K hours.

Flown and maintained properly, I would suggest that the majority of certs get to TBO. But, you throw in the inactivity, or ham fisted driver, or chintzy owner, and who knows. Same in the VW world, I regularly get tremendous wear out of my VW's many do not....but I change alot of oil, and drive it properly. 113,000 out of the original clutch so far on a VR6. Who says heel-and-toe is for the track only. :cool:

We will always disagree as to whether that PSRU was still a prototype. They were sold to customers, money was taken by Egg, and they were represented to customers as flying and tested.

I will say this, if I ever do a Subaru, it will not be an Egg for that reason. The lies, and half truths. I would have to committ myself to a roll-your-own approach. For example, he now claims 14 turbo H-6's delivered....totally untrue, not a single RV-10 H6-Turbo package has been delivered.

In the begining, I was totally attracted to the claims on his site....now as I sand every more of the tips and other finishing work, I am glad I went the easy route. Ever with a certified engine, the thought of a forced landing with a C/S prop on a 7 is a concern to me.

If I could ever find a cheap core, a 3.0 911 SC engine would make a cool conversion. But, I digress.

rv6ejguy
12-18-2006, 10:09 AM
I often wonder why Porsche sixes are not used more in experimental aircraft. They are very robust, good power to weight ratio, not too expensive (relative to cert type engines). If you are inclined sometime, I'd love to see one flying in an RV.

I think the Egg belt drive deal was one of those things with new products- how long do you test before releasing for production? Personally, I'd be getting a couple thousand hours on something like this before release but is that even enough? At least Jan did the right thing and pulled it. The buyers signed up had to wait longer but hopefully get a better, safer product in the end.

Many new jet engine designs only have a few thousand test hours on them before production release and certification to carry passengers. Sometimes this has not been enough and faults are found in service. Design changes are made to fix. All facets of engineering go through redesign based on service use. I can think of several designs from Pratt, GE and Lycoming which were certified, tested, represented as good to go but were not. Jan is not producing a certified product here.

I know many people complain about Jan's "lack of transparency". Jan has his own way of running his business. It is different from how you or I might run our businesses. He is the only serious alternate engine vendor left standing today and is selling a lot of engines. Hard to argue with that success. I have more of a problem with Lycoming who were found guilty of fraud in the $96M judgement against them in the one of many crankshaft fiascos on CERTIFIED engines.

I think that Egg's site says 17 engines sold for the RV10. It does not say delivered. Everyone knows that no H6 turbos have been delivered at this time. They are still being flight tested.

Coming back to the thread, I don't doubt that a Lyco IO-540 with an 80ish inch prop will make around 1000 lbs. of static thrust so I don't think the H6 turbo will offer any huge speed advantage on RV10 type airframes but it may be in the ballpark.

scard
12-18-2006, 10:09 AM
hallelujah! Very well put. And I *was* a customer for quite some time. I was one of those immediately alarmed at the "production" sales of the new belt PSRU.
My Egg experience (http://rv9a.card-net.org/archives/2006/03/19/eggenfellner-subaru-engine-disapointment/#more-173)

Ahhh...

If that's what you mean by MTBF, I suppose you are correct that 8-9K hours would be a conservative guess.

If the hours are done correctly there would be metal testing at overhaul every 2-2.5K hours.

Flown and maintained properly, I would suggest that the majority of certs get to TBO. But, you throw in the inactivity, or ham fisted driver, or chintzy owner, and who knows. Same in the VW world, I regularly get tremendous wear out of my VW's many do not....but I change alot of oil, and drive it properly. 113,000 out of the original clutch so far on a VR6. Who says heel-and-toe is for the track only. :cool:

We will always disagree as to whether that PSRU was still a prototype. They were sold to customers, money was taken by Egg, and they were represented to customers as flying and tested.

I will say this, if I ever do a Subaru, it will not be an Egg for that reason. The lies, and half truths. I would have to committ myself to a roll-your-own approach. For example, he now claims 14 turbo H-6's delivered....totally untrue, not a single RV-10 H6-Turbo package has been delivered.

In the begining, I was totally attracted to the claims on his site....now as I sand every more of the tips and other finishing work, I am glad I went the easy route. Ever with a certified engine, the thought of a forced landing with a C/S prop on a 7 is a concern to me.

If I could ever find a cheap core, a 3.0 911 SC engine would make a cool conversion. But, I digress.

jcoloccia
12-18-2006, 10:37 AM
I think that Egg's site says 17 engines sold for the RV10. It does not say delivered. Everyone knows that no H6 turbos have been delivered at this time. They are still being flight tested.


http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/News.htm

If you look about 1/4 way down the page, he claims 14 E6T's delivered. I have absolutely no knowledge about Jan's deliverys, etc...just pointing out the link where he probably got the "14" number, that's all.

rv6ejguy
12-18-2006, 11:25 AM
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/News.htm

If you look about 1/4 way down the page, he claims 14 E6T's delivered. I have absolutely no knowledge about Jan's deliverys, etc...just pointing out the link where he probably got the "14" number, that's all.

Ahh. Thanks. I was looking in a different spot on his site. I stand corrected.

David-aviator
12-18-2006, 05:54 PM
hallelujah! Very well put. And I *was* a customer for quite some time. I was one of those immediately alarmed at the "production" sales of the new belt PSRU.
My Egg experience (http://rv9a.card-net.org/archives/2006/03/19/eggenfellner-subaru-engine-disapointment/#more-173)

From your written report regarding the EGG Factory:

After more than eight months of EAAINC holding full payment and clearly demonstrating a lack of interest in delivering our order, I requested a full refund. Our payment was promptly returned with a note stating “We are sorry we were unable to deliver your order as promised.”

You do not have a serious gripe - you got your money, all of it. Over the years, lots of people dealing with other companies have not. Count your blessings.

Jan Eggenfellner may fall behind in deliveries but generally customers get their Subby in a reasonable amount of time. With a little verbal finesse, you can get what you want when you want it. I traded delivery positions with a guy who was not ready....everyone was happy.

The belted PSRU failed in flight test and Jan was lucky to crawl out of the flipped RV-7A and walk away from the wreck. I failed a super charger with my 2 cents worth of flight testing and walked away from a similar wreck. The important thing is we learned something from these events and adjustments were made.

It is amazing people are critical of the EGG Factory for not delivering a failed product or making adjustments in delivery schedules when conditions warrant.

You-all need to give our Norwegian friend a break. He is trying to do the right thing. :)


David Domeier
RV-7A
H6
Troy, Missouri

gmcjetpilot
12-19-2006, 01:10 AM
I often wonder why Porsche sixes are not used more in experimental aircraft.Mooney tried that in the late 80's. It had a single lever deal, FADEC, throttle, prop and mixture control in one. It never took off. Here is an article why:

http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

This was a rebuttal to the article

http://www.gatm.com/flying/pfm.html


I'm a Porsche fan and have had a 911's in the past. Yea they are good engines but I would not go so far to say they are bullet proof. They are what air cooled engines are, light and powerful and thankfully if you like hearing mechanical things loud. That is part of the why Porsche stopped making air cooled engines in 98, federal noise and pollution standards in the US and Europe. Still great engines, they could have done a 100 things to make the specs but at loss of performance and weight. That is why they stopped making two stroke street bikes in the 70's.

I like the lope and the rhythmic sound of all the parts flying around inside cylinders, heads and case of my Lyc or 911. Water cooled car engines, like my Acura....... a boring sewing machine. Might as well be electric. I love, you can't hear it run, for comfort, but it's boring.

Since plane engines are not subject to noise or pollution standards the Lycoming is still king. I guess all Lycoming haters can lobby congress to put car pollution standards on planes. Than we all can fly Japanese Subaru's with big catalytic converters and mufflers and go real slow and add lots of weight. May be should not do that and enjoy the freedom we all have to choose the engine we want. Really the "paradigm" of aircraft and cars are totally different. The pollution all little planes produce in 10 years is likely less than what all the cars, trucks and buses produce in one morning rush hour.

With that said, 92UL fuel for planes is coming. Possible Swiss noise standards next? (The latter one, noise, please be polite pilots and not anger the folks on the ground for all of our sakes.) They did it to jets why not little planes. More Gov intrusions and loss of freedoms.

PS as far as static thrust that is good data. However that is a corner of big picture. I'll let you guys debate it. I am just curious how a H-6 got on the front of a plane with a 1600 lb gross.

David-aviator
12-19-2006, 06:52 AM
..... I am just curious how a H-6 got on the front of a plane with a 1600 lb gross.

George,

The EGG factory was rolling along, keeping very busy delivering the used 2.5's. The super charger was introduced and performance numbers were in 0320 range and nearing 0360 in some airplanes like Robert Paisley. (I flew with Jan at OSH one year and saw 185 indicated in the -6A)

Meanwhile, Jan installed the H6 in an Italian homebuilt 4 seater and flew it to OSH a couple times. Not much of a scientific observation, but I loved the engine for its looks and sound. I talked with Jan about making it available to the RV's - he was thinking about it.

What was really on his mind was 2 of them on the Defiant for a trip to Norway. That actually happened except for the crossing - at least one engine was burned up trying to solve the aft end cooling challenge. They damaged the front engine, nose gear structure and prop in a hard landing and that set the project way back but I think they are still working on it, at least that was the case the last time I was in Florida about 18 months ago. (The Defiant was built by a guy from New England who knew Jan from his days there where he tried one or two engines in a VEZ. I met the Defiant guy in 1982 when I first flew my LEZ. I never met the Jan in those days, but did reconnect with the Defiant guy a few years ago in Florida. Jan Eggenfellner is a consumate experimentor, something that drives some customers nuts because things keep changing)

About that time, I had the super charger belt jump the pulley event, which penetrated the plastic cover over the timing belt on the 2.5. After the inspection, Jan said there really isn't anything wrong with the engine and it was OK to fix and fly. But I asked about a trade for the H6 which has a metal cover over a timing chain. We made a deal and I managed to get the first one flying in about 6 months after the 2.5 event. The decision to sell the H6 had been made based on its success in the Italian 4 seater.

That, basically, is how it all evolved. Now they are going with the turbo version, which lots of guys want to try....different strokes for different folks....that engine does snort with the new 2:1 PSRU. :)

dd

gmcjetpilot
12-19-2006, 10:58 AM
That, basically, is how it all evolved. Now they are going with the turbo version, which lots of guys want to try....different strokes for different folks....that engine does snort with the new 2:1 PSRU. :) dd [/COLOR]Most excellent INFO Mr. dd.

I was referring to the H-6 and the RV-6 airframe combo and the weight issue. The RV-7 would be better CG and W&B wise. The RV-6 has the lower gross and designed for lighter engine/props. The H-6 weight is what I am concerned about, not safety or performance. I am real conservative about the limits Van sets, that is all. Being experimental that is cool. The RV-7 has 200 lbs more gross, more acro weight and is really designed for a heavy IO360 (200HP) and metal prop. The RV-6 is nose heavy with that comb, and the RV-7 is tail heavy with a 320/wood prop. There is no argument that the H-6 set up is heavier than any Lyc, even the heavy IO360 angle valve. Some weight ground can be made up with a light MT prop but not that much, at least on a RV-6.

My main issues, in order, with the H-6 is: weight, drag (radiator), cost and safety. The last item safety has never been a real concern for me, but we are all smart and know that tractor technology: mags, mechanical fuel system gives the Lyc an electrically independant advantage. No belts and water pumps is also a plus on the Lyc; if it's not there it can't break. Still that is not the main issue with me, the Lyc is reliable and the H-6 can be reliable as well.

It has always been about weight and performance (drag). As you point out performance has steadily been going up and and expect it to continue.

Weight is a subtle thing. I have flow light RV's and heavy ones, even with in the CG and max weight limits. The light weight ones are just better. A preference. Weight is a big turn off to me. That is also going to be the biggest challenge for Egg or any auto engine. The mazda/power sport got right down to the heavy IO360/Hartzell weight, a little more but not much.

It is hard to get real W&B info from many planes with auto engines and they are sensitive about it. There has been progress in the weight area but there will be a plateau. Weight will always be heavier and Jan seems to be a little lacking consistency in reporting empty weights. To be fair he does not make the planes. However he never reported the H-6 RV-7 empty weight. My ball park is about 60-100 lbs more (at least) for the total EGG installation than a Lyc, especially a 320/wood prop combo. That is a lot.

Some folks don't care about weight. I want to do acro and get into and out of short grass strips in the mountain. Also I am not going fly over Van's gross limits. Turbo is nice for the latter mission (high altitude) regardless of weight, but I don't want to deal with a turbo. A turbo will also add even more weight.

Cost is a factor in that its not cheaper than a Lyc and leads you down the expensive prop path. Its a simple cost advantage optimization for me. Even if its more, I would buy it if it was better (lighter, faster, less fuel burn).

I have NO PROBLEM WITH EGG or SUBARU. Like you say different strokes. I am thrilled the performance has come up. I would like to see some side by side test at Van's, the natural third party. Not to say SEE I told you just for knowlege, experimentation and knowing without the hype or spin. I am not sure Jan wants that. If something is way better you expect them to show it off. We shall see and if the H-6 turns out to be a better mouse trap I could not be happier.

rrnixonjr
01-12-2007, 10:45 AM
I often wonder why Porsche sixes are not used more in experimental aircraft. They are very robust, good power to weight ratio, not too expensive (relative to cert type engines). If you are inclined sometime, I'd love to see one flying in an RV.

I think the Egg belt drive deal was one of those things with new products- how long do you test before releasing for production? Personally, I'd be getting a couple thousand hours on something like this before release but is that even enough? At least Jan did the right thing and pulled it. The buyers signed up had to wait longer but hopefully get a better, safer product in the end.

Many new jet engine designs only have a few thousand test hours on them before production release and certification to carry passengers. Sometimes this has not been enough and faults are found in service. Design changes are made to fix. All facets of engineering go through redesign based on service use. I can think of several designs from Pratt, GE and Lycoming which were certified, tested, represented as good to go but were not. Jan is not producing a certified product here.

I know many people complain about Jan's "lack of transparency". Jan has his own way of running his business. It is different from how you or I might run our businesses. He is the only serious alternate engine vendor left standing today and is selling a lot of engines. Hard to argue with that success. I have more of a problem with Lycoming who were found guilty of fraud in the $96M judgement against them in the one of many crankshaft fiascos on CERTIFIED engines.

I think that Egg's site says 17 engines sold for the RV10. It does not say delivered. Everyone knows that no H6 turbos have been delivered at this time. They are still being flight tested.

Coming back to the thread, I don't doubt that a Lyco IO-540 with an 80ish inch prop will make around 1000 lbs. of static thrust so I don't think the H6 turbo will offer any huge speed advantage on RV10 type airframes but it may be in the ballpark.

You did not mention the Porsche engine that was used by Mooney, I think in the eighties. Somewhere I have a link to an article about that engine. Here's the link.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

The normally aspirated Porsche six cylinder engine weights about 415lbs and puts out anywhere from 180 to a high of 300hp depending upon state of tune. Add a reduction drive and you will probably add 50 or more lbs. 465lbs is a lot of weight for an engine that will probably develop around 225 hp at 5000 rpm. Especially when a 210 hpsix cylinder IO-360 Continental weighs 300lbs or 300hp IO-540 weighs 450lbs. The engine fan added complication and I believe was difficult to work into the cowl. And Porsche rebuilds are not cheap, look at $10-15,000 for a high quality rebuild. Remember the Mooney PFM did not work because the Porsche engine was too complicated and expensive so it fizzled.

I really enjoy reading this thread about alternative engines. But I wonder if putting a Subaru engine on a plane is any improvement. Even though Lycomings are crude by comparison they are simple, generally work well, are lighter for power output, don't need tricky reduction drives, are simpler to cowl, and don't burn anymore fuel for comparable horsepower. Its also easier to sell an experimental airplane with a certified engine, and if your engine breaks down somewhere you can get someone to work on it. And this is from someone who has had an O-320 eat a lifter, camshaft, break a piston skirt and put three holes in the case in mid air. Still ran and cost (only) $5500.00 to fix.

I love the Subaru fours and sixes, I have a Forester myself. Another question I have is how are the engines built up or otherwise internally modified to handle the stress of operating continuously at high revs. For example, do you use a closed deck, semi closed deck or open deck block? Do you change the pistons to lighten and strengthen them? In the six cylinder do you replace the wimpy stock rods with some stronger aftermarket ones, like Pauter or Carillo rods? I don't know if I would trust some of the stock Subaru motors for sustained rpm use in an aircraft without doing significant internal mods which are expensive, even on a Subaru. Check out the Cosworth site for some prices. http://www.cosworth.com/

Maybe Subaru or Honda will design a dedicated aircraft engine. There's always hope.

rv6ejguy
01-12-2007, 12:28 PM
I love the Subaru fours and sixes, I have a Forester myself. Another question I have is how are the engines built up or otherwise internally modified to handle the stress of operating continuously at high revs. For example, do you use a closed deck, semi closed deck or open deck block? Do you change the pistons to lighten and strengthen them? In the six cylinder do you replace the wimpy stock rods with some stronger aftermarket ones, like Pauter or Carillo rods? I don't know if I would trust some of the stock Subaru motors for sustained rpm use in an aircraft without doing significant internal mods which are expensive, even on a Subaru. Check out the Cosworth site for some prices. http://www.cosworth.com/

Maybe Subaru or Honda will design a dedicated aircraft engine. There's always hope.

The engines are not generally modified internally in any way as they are well proven to run at high rpm with no concerns. This has been explored here at great length previously. The stock rods are not wimpy being of forged, alloy steel as is the crank. Stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000+ rpm and the case and crank to over 900hp and 9000 rpm so 150 hp at 4500 is nothing.

Closed deck EJ22Ts, open deck and semi closed deck EJ25, EZ30 and EG33 engines have all been used successfully in aircraft. :)

rrnixonjr
01-13-2007, 05:22 PM
The engines are not generally modified internally in any way as they are well proven to run at high rpm with no concerns. This has been explored here at great length previously. The stock rods are not wimpy being of forged, alloy steel as is the crank. Stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000+ rpm and the case and crank to over 900hp and 9000 rpm so 150 hp at 4500 is nothing.

Closed deck EJ22Ts, open deck and semi closed deck EJ25, EZ30 and EG33 engines have all been used successfully in aircraft. :)

I agree that 150hp should not be a problem. It would be great to read some of the articles you are talking about. My intent is not to rain on anyone, but to learn more about what is being done.

Most of my references are from builders of turbocharged high performance Subarus for use in cars, so a 200 hp engine can probably get away with no internal modifications. And there are many different engines to choose from, some are stronger than others. Still, to say that stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000rpm with no modifications does not agree with what I have read specialist engine builders say about Subarus, they change rods, and pistons and used closed and semi closed decks. They are not stock engines or normally aspirated engines with added turbochargers, they would not handle those pressures for long.

Also, my comment on the six cylinder Subaru rods is more a question of their suitability for a turbocharged configuration, with high boost and high power. I am echoing some automotive engine builders who are considering turbocharging the sixes for sand rails, etc. And then there is the question of which six cylinder to use, I guess the new 3 litre is the one being set up for aircraft, let me know if I am wrong.

The benefits of having a water cooled engine are substantial. I would be interested to see how these engines do in the long haul, especially the six cylinder ones.

David-aviator
01-13-2007, 07:06 PM
........
The benefits of having a water cooled engine are substantial. I would be interested to see how these engines do in the long haul, especially the six cylinder ones.

There is an easy way to find out. Buy one and do it. They are not difficult to install and run just fine. When the plug is pulled on 100LL, you'll be all set.

rv6ejguy
01-13-2007, 08:26 PM
I agree that 150hp should not be a problem. It would be great to read some of the articles you are talking about. My intent is not to rain on anyone, but to learn more about what is being done.

Most of my references are from builders of turbocharged high performance Subarus for use in cars, so a 200 hp engine can probably get away with no internal modifications. And there are many different engines to choose from, some are stronger than others. Still, to say that stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000rpm with no modifications does not agree with what I have read specialist engine builders say about Subarus, they change rods, and pistons and used closed and semi closed decks. They are not stock engines or normally aspirated engines with added turbochargers, they would not handle those pressures for long.

Also, my comment on the six cylinder Subaru rods is more a question of their suitability for a turbocharged configuration, with high boost and high power. I am echoing some automotive engine builders who are considering turbocharging the sixes for sand rails, etc. And then there is the question of which six cylinder to use, I guess the new 3 litre is the one being set up for aircraft, let me know if I am wrong.

The benefits of having a water cooled engine are substantial. I would be interested to see how these engines do in the long haul, especially the six cylinder ones.

You can search the forum here if you want references- they are here by the bucketful. I've been building turbocharged race engines for over 25 years and I've only ever put aftermarket rods in 3 engines which were extremely high output road racing engines. Most Japanese engines have very good stock rods unlike many older American engines. I've quintupled the factory output on stock rods on some Toyota engines and the Subarus have superior rods to these engines.

Boost is rarely a factor in rod failure. Usually very high rpms (like 2000 rpm over stock redline) with a heavy piston more likely causes failures. Many builders are wasting their clients money on aftermarket rods IMO.

The EJ22 turbos probably have the strongest blocks of the 4 cylinder Subes. These are a closed deck design and are really bulletproof. Many people have beat on these things for hours at very high boost pressures.

Most Hondas have open deck designs yet are pretty reliable at up to about triple their stock output until before cylinder walk becomes a problem. With mods, these have produced over 1000hp at 10,000 rpm for short periods. In aircraft use, we are generally talking about rpms under 5500 for takeoff and under 250 hp so the stresses are a small fraction of these levels.

The two popular Sube sixes for aircraft are the 3.3L EG33 from the SVX sports car- mid '90s and the new EZ30 3.0L. Both I feel are adequately strong for mild boost levels and are capable of running at 4500 rpm all day long for hundreds of hours. Eggenfellner is using the EZ30 engine in his conversions. I'm using an EG33 in mine.

rrnixonjr
01-13-2007, 09:54 PM
Ross,

Thanks for the update on the Subaru engines, sounds like you really enjoy the experimental engine building. I would love to see how the EG33 works out for you. Are you going to turbocharge it? Love to see the output and finished product. By the way, what airframe are you going to put the engine in and what propeller will you use? Regards.

rrnixonjr
01-13-2007, 10:41 PM
There is an easy way to find out. Buy one and do it. They are not difficult to install and run just fine. When the plug is pulled on 100LL, you'll be all set.


Thanks, but which engine would I purchase and from whom? I would not want to engineer it myself. Instead, would rather watch the guys on this forum and maybe someday one will put out a kit I would buy. Until then, if I built an RV I would install a Superior XP-360 or 400. Easier to install and much easier to sell if you need to. That is until someone comes out with a proven
package that has been installed in hundreds of aircraft. I am no pioneer but am impressed by what you guys are doing. I appreciate your message.

rv8ch
01-14-2007, 03:59 AM
Hi,

Check this website: http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/

He sells a complete package.

Mickey

rv6ejguy
01-14-2007, 09:36 AM
Ross,

Thanks for the update on the Subaru engines, sounds like you really enjoy the experimental engine building. I would love to see how the EG33 works out for you. Are you going to turbocharge it? Love to see the output and finished product. By the way, what airframe are you going to put the engine in and what propeller will you use? Regards.

Yes, the EG33 will be twin turbo with an MT prop. Just finishing the turbo system and intercooler plumbing. Some pix here: http://www.sdsefi.com/air46.htm

Not fun fitting this under the stock cowling.

The flying RV6A is at: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html :)

gmcjetpilot
01-15-2007, 01:32 AM
There is an easy way to find out. Buy one and do it. They are not difficult to install and run just fine. When the plug is pulled on 100LL, you'll be all set.
The death of 100LL Avgas is exaggerated. At some point the defacto aviation fuel will be likely go to something like 95UL. Keep in mind this is 95UL is 95 octane on the aviation scale, which is 5 points higher than pump car gas. So av 95UL is equiv to 100 octane car gas. Any way the whole fleet will run on 95UL except for a few planes that need 100LL, but that does not apply the Lycs we use which are rated for 92 octane. Sorry the death of Lycoming is not any time soon. Those planes which need 100LL will probably be able to use 95UL with reduced timing.

Also 100LL is a killer on the O2 sensor on the Subaru and requires it to be replaced (a lot). Since autogas is not always available you have to use 100LL. 95UL should be a plus for the auto engines with the O2 sensor.

As far as water cool benefits, there are some draw backs, weight and cooling drag (where to put those radiators). Other wise cool beans. I would also say an air cooled engine is easier to install just because the airframe is set up for it and the parts and design are well established. The electrical and fuel system as well as water are more complicated for the Subaru, even with the firewall forward kit.

rv6ejguy
01-15-2007, 10:19 AM
The Egg Subes can run either fuel with no problems which offers a nice choice to users. With the addition of Decalin TCP, O2 sensor life is excellent. '07 engines don't require an O2 sensor in any case. Studies using an OBDII reader showed that most engines were not in closed loop under typical aircraft use power settings- above 22 inches and 2900rpm and as low as 11" and 3750rpm anyway.

osxuser
01-15-2007, 10:39 AM
Yes, the EG33 will be twin turbo with an MT prop. Just finishing the turbo system and intercooler plumbing. Some pix here: http://www.sdsefi.com/air46.htm

Not fun fitting this under the stock cowling.

The flying RV6A is at: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html :)Nice looking install so far on the -10. I'll be watching to see your numbers ;). I think in reality we all know the weight of the H-6 with the turbos is going to be heavy. Compairing thrust #'s isn't really fair to an IO-360. You want apples to apples, you in the weight range now of a IO-540 (Parallel valve) so... Thrust numbers Kahuna?

rv6ejguy
01-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Nice looking install so far on the -10. I'll be watching to see your numbers ;). I think in reality we all know the weight of the H-6 with the turbos is going to be heavy. Compairing thrust #'s isn't really fair to an IO-360. You want apples to apples, you in the weight range now of a IO-540 (Parallel valve) so... Thrust numbers Kahuna?

Quite right. My creation is intended to replace an IO-540 not the 360. Total installed weight so far looks to be very similar to this powerplant. My turbo installation adds about 35 lbs. over a muffled naturally aspirated EG33 engine.

The Egg EZ30 turbos were initially mainly aimed at the IO-540 market as well but many -7 and 8 builders are planning to install them now. I agree, they are quite heavy for these airframes. The Egg turbos are probably at least 30 lbs. lighter than mine due to a small single turbo, different engine and no intercoolers to my knowledge but still far in excess of a typical O-360 installation.

To date they have exceeded 1000lbs. of thrust at 34 inches.

I suspect mine will deliver well in excess of 1300 lbs. of thrust at 38 inches and 5400 rpm. The true numbers will be interesting when completed and tested.

As stated previously, I don't doubt a good IO-540 will exceed 1000 lbs. of thrust.

Kevin Horton
01-15-2007, 12:17 PM
I suspect mine will deliver well in excess of 1300 lbs. of thrust at 38 inches and 5400 rpm. The true numbers will be interesting when completed and tested.

As stated previously, I don't doubt a good IO-540 will exceed 1000 lbs. of thrust.
This'll be great for all the guys looking for an aircraft to pull stumps. ;) The rest of us will be very interested after you get flying to learn about empty weight, cruise speed, cruise fuel flow, climb rate, etc.

The optimum blade twist varies with the TAS, power and rpm. So, a prop that works great at a static condition is not optimized for high speed. And vice versa. So, static thrust numbers don't really tell us anything useful.

rvatornate
01-15-2007, 03:20 PM
Also 100LL is a killer on the O2 sensor on the Subaru and requires it to be replaced (a lot). Since autogas is not always available you have to use 100LL. 95UL should be a plus for the auto engines with the O2 sensor.




Define " a lot" I have over 600 hours on my Egg/sube with an O2 sensor, at least half of which has been while running 100ll. Still works just fine.

rrnixonjr
01-15-2007, 07:52 PM
Hey Ross,

I loved your nice intake fabrication for the Subaru engine. Lovely work.
Just wanted to ask why you chose the EG33 instead of the EZ30. The EZ30 is lighter, smaller in size, and has chain driven cams which I would think helps with maintenance.

Also, I wanted to know what you thought of the link I sent you about the Porsche engines. You said they were light in weight for their power (despite weighing 500lbs for 220hp, despite being aircooled) and would like to see one installed in an RV. Considering the fact that they did not work in the Mooney I would like to know how they might do so in an RV. Any thoughts?

Heck, if you can put a Porsche engine in an RV you could probably put in an aluminum block Chevy, that would really give you some horsepower, and with not much more weight, maybe 50lbs.

cjensen
01-15-2007, 08:41 PM
...already being done-

http://www.beltedair.com/Devlin05.jpg

http://www.beltedair.com/CanadaRV.jpg

Belted Air Power (http://www.beltedair.com/)

:cool:

rrnixonjr
01-15-2007, 09:50 PM
I assume that is a V-6. Nice installation. Have any performance figures? Anyone doing a V-8 in an RV-10?

rv6ejguy
01-16-2007, 09:58 AM
I had some experience with the EG33s and turbocharging in cars and a friend offered me one for $100 plus several others were already flying them. The 3.3 has the potential for more torque and I prefer short stroke designs. The EZ is shorter and about 20 lbs. lighter. Lots of room lengthwise in the RV10 cowling. Power peak on the EG is at 5400 rpm vs. around 6500 for the latest EZs. No variable valve timing on the EG either. I'll be posting some new photos of the whole shebang in a couple days. Just got the rest of the plumbing done.

The Porsche engines are well under 300lbs. bare and should be under 400 with accessories. The Mooney episode was more that Porsche changed their mind about the whole thing and ceased development and support. I've done some work with these engines, turbocharging and putting EFI on them. Very reliable engines with good power potential. Cheap they are not however and this is where the Subes come in. I think the Porsche is a bit heavy for a 6/7/8/9 airframe but would be fine on an RV10. The latest versions have pretty impressive power even in naturally aspirated trim.

Yes Vesta is preparing LS-2 V8 engines for RV10s but I feel these are a bit too heavy for an RV10. They will work of course but will likely require ballast to get a decent C of G range. One forum member is already planning to install this in his RV10 under construction. These are great engines and would be my choice if I was building a IV-P or something similar.

cjensen
01-16-2007, 10:37 AM
There is a guy here on my field that has a twin turbocharged 350 V-8 on his IV-P. It flew once a couple of years ago, and lost power about 50 feet off the runway. They landed safely, and have been working since then on another engine, same type, same company. It should have it's second first flight this spring. :rolleyes:

rrnixonjr
01-16-2007, 04:48 PM
Thanks to everyone to contributing to my education. One of my friends in a neighboring hanger is building a Glasair and has an NSI Suburu engine which started my interest in the idea of alternate engines. I can't wait to see how it works.

rrnixonjr
01-21-2007, 04:09 PM
I never read the rebuttal to the first article, and wanted to comment on it. The first article basically made two important comments about the Porsche engine, it was 250lbs heavier than the Lycoming and made no more horsepower, and burned as much fuel.

Obviously, the Porsche engine is not a good replacement for an aircraft as it is very heavy for an aircooled engine, 415 lbs, and very expensive.

Too bad the rebutting author was so defensive, he got personal, and did not prove his point.

The Subarus offer many advantages, one of which is liquid cooling in addition to lighter weight. Also, they are less expensive than Porsches. My only question is how an H-6 will perform compared to an I0-540. My brother owns a 231/turbocharged, and has always lusted after the Rocket conversion. Nothing is a substitute for horsepower. Look forward to seeing some comparisons.[/FONT]



QUOTE=gmcjetpilot]Mooney tried that in the late 80's. It had a single lever deal, FADEC, throttle, prop and mixture control in one. It never took off. Here is an article why
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

This was a rebuttal to the article

http://www.gatm.com/flying/pfm.html


I'm a Porsche fan and have had a 911's in the past. Yea they are good engines but I would not go so far to say they are bullet proof. They are what air cooled engines are, light and powerful and thankfully if you like hearing mechanical things loud. That is part of the why Porsche stopped making air cooled engines in 98, federal noise and pollution standards in the US and Europe. Still great engines, they could have done a 100 things to make the specs but at loss of performance and weight. That is why they stopped making two stroke street bikes in the 70's.

[

rv6ejguy
01-21-2007, 04:52 PM
Theoretically the performance of the naturally aspirated Subaru EZ30 (250hp) should be close to an IO-540 if the reduction gear allows it to spin to 6000-6500 rpm for takeoff. Weight wise it should be 30-40 pounds lighter as well. The turbo EZ would be about the same weight and a bit more power running 34 inches. It could get away with a bit less rpm for the same rated hp.

Porsche engines would work fine given the right redrive and elimination of the fan- they are just too expensive to start with.

dserratt
09-10-2007, 09:31 AM
- 2.0 TDI: 4: 143 hp, 236 lbft
- 2.7 TDI V6: 190 hp, 295 lbft
- 3.0 TDI V6: 240 hp, 369 lbft
- 4.2 TDi V8: 326bhp
These are aluminum engines and these figures are below 3000 rpm's
Also VW Audi just plays with the software to change the horsepower.
After owning a VW TDI I can vouch for the realability.
From what I hear the 2.0 is less then 300 lbs.
Just something to watch.

rv6ejguy
09-10-2007, 11:17 AM
Fully flight ready with exhaust, cooling and redrives, these engines are all way heavier than their gasoline counterparts unfortunately and their reliability is unproven at the sustained boost settings required for aviation use. The Thielert diesels are not showing good life to date. Piston ring, ring land and exhaust valve issues are coming up at far less than half of their projected TBRs in many cases.

Diesels seem like a great idea on paper but have not proven themselves yet in this application IMO.

I wish more people were experimenting with them, there seem to be very few flying in homebuilts. Lots of people theorizing, few people doing.

dserratt
09-10-2007, 11:41 AM
I have been reading through many auto conversions and lycoming debates and I have noticed that much of the data for auto conversions have been derived from auto reliability, The flaw I see in this data is that the average suburu driving down the highway gets about 30 or so mpg and runs oh about 1500 to 2000 rpms and generating what maybe 10 hp to maintain that speed. this data is then used to project that a suburu is more reliable then a lycoming running at 65% to 75% power. I would like to see more performance and economy data before I decide.

rv6ejguy
09-10-2007, 11:56 AM
I have been reading through many auto conversions and lycoming debates and I have noticed that much of the data for auto conversions have been derived from auto reliability, The flaw I see in this data is that the average suburu driving down the highway gets about 30 or so mpg and runs oh about 1500 to 2000 rpms and generating what maybe 10 hp to maintain that speed. this data is then used to project that a suburu is more reliable then a lycoming running at 65% to 75% power. I would like to see more performance and economy data before I decide.

The Subaru EJ engines have demonstrated their ability to produce high power for extended periods in aircraft with well in excess of 100,000 flight hours in gyrocopters from RAF and Groen Brothers alone over the last decade. Typical cruise is near WOT and 4000-4800rpm. Many other private conversions and those from Eggenfellner have put in tens of thousands more.

I'm not saying that Subarus are the best choice in auto power, only that they have been proven with more flight hours than all other auto engines combined most probably. Fuel economy appears to be slightly inferior for the same speed as the trusty Lycoming. Few if any naturally aspirated piston auto engine conversions can match the speed of a good Lycoming to date so if speed is an important requirement, consider turbocharging.

Even the latest versions of the 2.0L TDI are only capable of putting out about 120-125hp at 2700rpm so they still require a redrive to produce competitive power while maintaining efficient propeller rpm. Redrives and diesels require extra careful consideration of torsional vibration issues and likely a very heavy OE style flywheel.

Rotary10-RV
09-10-2007, 10:59 PM
Ross,
You are the most tolerant man I have ever read. The same lame arguemants re-hashed a million times. Jan is, either, rotten, a chisler, a proffiteer, or if you're in the other camp, the sun shines from his every orafice.
If you like the idea BUY HIS STUFF. If you don't, then DON'T.
Car engines can't run high RPMS...bla...bla...bla. If it doesn't perform EXACTLY the same as my Lycoming it sucks. (Even if it's better in some areas.) If most of these guys had their way we would be running out engines with a heated plate evaporative carburetor. Wing warping using canvas would be the only way to bank. Thats the way the Wrights always did it...
I rarely even look at this segment anymore which is sad. When I defend a good auto engine, it's where you gonna put them radiators? When I suggest a manufacturer of a FWF package like Vesta, (Which seems to have many good points), should post some photos of their flying examples on their website, somebody asks where I get my expertese. I'm too critical. A pax on both their houses. These guys just want to argue, and have little to nothing to offer in a constructive fashion. The fact that you Ross can tolerate them as well as present your typically reasoned responses is a compliment they rarely deserve. You have the needed skills to produce some fine products! (I persent an un-biased opinion since Ross doesn't make an EFI I can use on my 20B 3 rotor wankel.)
I can take it any more, they have succeded in driving me away. At least to other sites, good luck!
Bill

Yukon
09-10-2007, 11:18 PM
Ross,
You are the most tolerant man I have ever read. The same lame arguemants re-hashed a million times. Jan is, either, rotten, a chisler, a proffiteer, or if you're in the other camp, the sun shines from his every orafice.
If you like the idea BUY HIS STUFF. If you don't, then DON'T.
Car engines can't run high RPMS...bla...bla...bla. If it doesn't perform EXACTLY the same as my Lycoming it sucks. (Even if it's better in some areas.) If most of these guys had their way we would be running out engines with a heated plate evaporative carburetor. Wing warping using canvas would be the only way to bank. Thats the way the Wrights always did it...
I rarely even look at this segment anymore which is sad. When I defend a good auto engine, it's where you gonna put them radiators? When I suggest a manufacturer of a FWF package like Vesta, (Which seems to have many good points), should post some photos of their flying examples on their website, somebody asks where I get my expertese. I'm too critical. A pax on both their houses. These guys just want to argue, and have little to nothing to offer in a constructive fashion. The fact that you Ross can tolerate them as well as present your typically reasoned responses is a compliment they rarely deserve. You have the needed skills to produce some fine products! (I persent an un-biased opinion since Ross doesn't make an EFI I can use on my 20B 3 rotor wankel.)
I can take it any more, they have succeded in driving me away. At least to other sites, good luck!
Bill

Oh come on Bill, you'll be back! You just can't tolerate the contrarian opinion, huh Bill. Funny thing is , the Subaru isn't light or efficient, but compared to the drawbacks of the rotary, it's revolutionary!

You know you want a Lycoming for that 10, just go with it!

rv6ejguy
09-10-2007, 11:41 PM
Oh come on Bill, you'll be back! You just can't tolerate the contrarian opinion, huh Bill. Funny thing is , the Subaru isn't light or efficient, but compared to the drawbacks of the rotary, it's revolutionary!

You know you want a Lycoming for that 10, just go with it!

I think Bill is too far along with plans for the 20B up front to consider a 540. The $40K price of the admission is sending quite a few other -10 builders to examine other engine possibilities. Jan has a bunch of turbo EZ30s almost ready to go out. Next year, 3.6L engines will apparently be available.

Bill, if you don't care about different leading/ trailing timing for your 20B, we may have an ECU for you sometime next year. We are looking at Gen 5 now with a new micro which will be able to do COP V8s like the LS1-7 and Ford 4.6. Hope you stick around here.

Yukon
09-10-2007, 11:59 PM
Ross,

A finished RV-10 is selling for 200K+. There should be room in the budget for a certified, reliable, PROVEN engine.

Wonder what a 10 will bring with an auto engine installed. Who's going to be the first to find out????

Jconard
09-11-2007, 06:11 AM
Jan has a bunch of turbo EZ30s almost ready to go out.

Really?

Seems to me the one flying kit he has sold doesn't have turbos yet, and is already having heating problems.....

What does ready to go out mean?

TSwezey
09-11-2007, 06:40 AM
The best thing for all us not Lyco's builders to do is communicate! My frequent posting on this forum has put me in touch with someone in Australia who is further along in Vesta engine testing then I am. I am the furthest along with the installation and probably will be the first to fly the Vesta combo. But it takes time! It is not plug and play. But the potential to move the flying field further along in the development of more fuel efficient engines is worth the extra time. I may fail and Ross may fail but someone may succeed. We both might succeed. But atleast we tried and we will learn a lot! Some will say it is a waste of money. Well it's my money and if I want to "waste" it on experimenting on an experimental aircraft well that's my choice.

rv6ejguy
09-11-2007, 09:30 AM
Ross,

A finished RV-10 is selling for 200K+. There should be room in the budget for a certified, reliable, PROVEN engine.

Wonder what a 10 will bring with an auto engine installed. Who's going to be the first to find out????

I don't build airplanes to sell them. If that is your goal, I'd fit a Lyco too as they appeal to more buyers.

rv6ejguy
09-11-2007, 09:43 AM
Jan has a bunch of turbo EZ30s almost ready to go out.

Really?

Seems to me the one flying kit he has sold doesn't have turbos yet, and is already having heating problems.....

What does ready to go out mean?

No secret that deliveries are way behind schedule.

I counted at least 8 turbo engines on stands, with headers, mounts, rads etc. fitted. About to have the drives fitted and test run 2 weeks ago in Florida. There were 34 engines in total under final assembly. Their new cowling with oblong inlets and recent flight testing in mid '90s weather shows it works. I saw it for myself in the air.

Much work continues to be done on these installations and improvements are tested on an ongoing basis. These engines are currently at the low end of the RV10 hp scale but we found a bit more hp in the induction system and the new 3.6s should help some more. Evolution at work.

I have rarely met anyone so unflappable, tireless and dedicated as Jan. An amazing fellow and an amazing operation. The fab work is top quality and the whole package is really pretty and professional looking. The Gen 3 drives appear really bulletproof IMO and are simply beautiful to behold. (I have a CNC/ anodize fetish).

Well said Todd. Someone has to try the new stuff and advance the state of the art. Others prefer to sit back and criticize. To each their own I guess.


:)

Yukon
09-11-2007, 01:20 PM
Todd and Ross,

As I have said many times before, my hat is off to you guys for your willingness to experiment. I too started into this RV business with a leaning toward alternative powerplants.

Ross, when you say people are going alternative because of the cost of Lycoming power, I just have to respond. If that makes me critical, so be it. When you or Todd say things that are off the wall, expect commentary from this group. If you want to go unchallenged, you should say those kind of things on the alternative engine "buff" forums if you want back-slapping agreement.

Now Todd is saying he is anticipating better efficiency than Lycoming with his Vesta. I see absolutely no indication that this is possible with any of the current conversions, barring maybe a diesel, but they don't seem to be gaining wide acceptance either. I suspect gearbox durability is always going to be a major issue with diesels.

Bill.......Jan may not be dishonest, but he is certainly overly optimistic. None of his engines have been a hands-down success, and now I hear you guys talking about the 3.6 as the "final solution". Four gearbox iterations, and they are still getting hot. That does not bode well for the concept. Planetaries don't get hot, why do these?

With Crossflow and NSI down, and Jan hopping from one engine configuration to the next with little success, at what point does the educated observer start to examine the viability of auto engines? I see the same flaws in the current crop of auto conversions that have strangled the concept since 1929.
Don't forget, the first real homebuilt with wide acceptance was the Pietenpol Aircamper, and it had a watercooled Ford. Don't think for a minute though that when the 65 horse Continental became available, those heavy and unreliable Fords weren't scrapped in a heartbeat!

rv6ejguy
09-11-2007, 03:28 PM
There is no disputing the facts that the current turbo EZ30 turbo FF package is close to the same price as a basic 540 so Egg buyers are not saving any significant amount there. I was referring more to people like me and Bill- rolling our own. This is way cheaper. $9K including the prop on my 6A. Of course, this option is not for most people and I'm sure we'll all have issues to sort out.

I don't anticipate any auto conversion burning much less fuel at the same TAS as a Lycoming. I've been around engines for 30 years and seen a lot. If we can burn close to the same, I'm happy.

I don't think Jan is saying too much about performance of the atmo engines anymore- again facts don't support that the conversions are able to match speed numbers at medium altitudes. The turbo may match a 540 at high altitudes- again unproven so far.

Many people don't want an old air cooled engine up front and are willing to have a bit less performance at this stage to turn the key and go. The 3.6 is just the next engine available from Subaru. When something better comes along, Jan uses it. Just as the auto makers continually improve their engines and up displacement over the life cycle, we do the same. This was my thinking in using the older EG33 engine instead of the EZ30- 10% more displacement, I'll take that any time plus it is more suitable for boosted operation IMO.

The Gen 3 gearbox uses two gear meshes so will generate more heat than a single mesh design like the Marcotte or some planetary setups. I'm not a fan of planetary boxes for aviation except on sub 200hp stuff maybe. They have their issues too. A little bit more cooling air directed to the box seems to solve these problems. I saw no issues in hard climb tests during my visit with the gearbox. The gears come from OE automotive sources. This ensures quality, availability and lower costs. The price charged is far below something like the EPI boxes for example. As power has been stepped up, gearbox strength has had to follow, just like in auto gearboxes. No mystery there.


A Ford flat head can hardly be compared to an EZ30 engine but you are correct, if and when auto conversions exceed the performance of your typical Lyco or Conti, you will see many more people switching over to auto power for experimentals. In the meantime, a surprising number of people are not choosing traditional aircraft engines these days. Jan is not hurting for business and he is taking a good $1.5M+ in sales away from the big two already annually by my count. He has been wildly successful compared to NSI and Crossflow.

The current package for the RV10 is way lighter than the 540, so much so that the batteries have to be moved to the firewall, so that is one area where this setup is now superior. The engine does not develop 260hp however so they are not strictly comparable. Other stuff is under development to address fuel burn issues.

As someone who is used to flying EFI auto engines, I sometimes might not think too much about how different this is than an ol' Lyc. As I sat there, I thought, this is pretty cool- hit starter button and go flying. No priming, farting around with black magic FI hot starting techniques, no mag checks, no mixture control, no oil consumption, no maintenance (just oil changes) leave it WOT and adjust the prop for power setting. You just fly the plane. This is what I think attracts buyers. It ain't perfect yet but it is pretty neat. :)

The view of the Florida coastline was the same with the Subaru whirring away at 4000 rpm or a 540 pounding away up front at 2500. They both get you up there to enjoy the RV experience. :)

TSwezey
09-11-2007, 05:23 PM
I am hoping to get similiar fuel flow maybe better but the true key is the auto fuel. I should be able to save $15 to $25 an hour on fuel costs all with my air conditioner(The real reason I wanted the Vesta engine!) blowing. The sound the engine makes is pretty cool too!

RV7Guy
09-11-2007, 11:21 PM
I too, was once in the auto conversion corner but then reality set in. The stats across the board are not in favor of the conversions. Weight, fuel flow, speed, climb performance, cooling, cost, simplicity etc.. all go to the LYC or clone. The only stat that favors a conversion is smoothness. Additionally, the technology changes too often. There have been many new models introduced in just a few years. As Yukon pointed out there have been several iterations of the drive unit in just a short time. Why buy something that becomes absolete soon after purchase.

I am very confident that the failure rate per hour flown is far greater with the conversions I know of one Subie person who has had 3 in flight failures with a low amount of hours. Not surprising the incidents were kept very quiet. The weak link still seems to be the PRSU's, fuel delivery and cooling. The hour meter just isn't there yet.

I know of two others that are running successfully but the performance is anemic. Speed, fuel burn and performance is not anywhere close published numbers from the company. Both are considering switching out to an airplane engine when money allows. Why own an RV if you are going to go 135kts and burn more fuel.

One of my friends suffered a failure during Phase I with his Eggy quipped 9 and totaled his plane. Fortunately, he got out relatively uninjured. He has now purchased another project with a new ECI engine.

I commend those who have the wherewithall to experiment with auto conversions. Those who have extensive mechanical experience may be successful.

With auto conversions still fairly new in the experimental world, specifically the Subaru product I always ask those considering it, "would you fly a member of your family behind this engine?" If there is any hesitation, the auto conversion is probably not for you.

Further, when it comes to an engine choice, make an educated, knowledgeable decision weighing all factors.

Jconard
09-12-2007, 05:34 AM
Well said Todd. Someone has to try the new stuff and advance the state of the art. Others prefer to sit back and criticize. To each their own I guess.

Ross,

I guess I just sit in amazement some days....yeah there may be 30 turbo 10 engines sitting in rows...but the only one flying still does not have its turbo chargers as I understand it...and require alot of rework, including a visit by Jan to make it functional.

I read the STI list posts....there are 30 some people out there who have been totally screwed and it seems that when they request support in the form of working parts or even information, they get scathing emails from Jan suggesting they go somewhere else. Is this what you mean by "unflappable" an unbending willingness to make unsupported claims, deliver unworkable solutions, and then tell the customers to shut up and screw themselves? Shocking that there are not more lawsuits, and frankly it makes me wish I were in private rather than public practice.

"Turn the Key and go?" is this what we are down to? An awful lot of risk and complexity to avoid learning how to start an airplane engine...geez

Ross, it seems to me you have recent and sudden level of support for Jan, do you have a commercial interest? Are we going to see SDS engine mgmnt on Egg products? Are you a paid consultant? What skin of yours is in Jan's game?

pierre smith
09-12-2007, 05:42 AM
. I'm not a fan of planetary boxes for aviation except on sub 200hp stuff maybe. They have their issues too. )

Ross,
My Air Tractor's PT-6 just turned 8000 hours on Saturday and has the original twin planetary gear reduction gearbox. Bear in mind that my engine is 680 SHP rated and it produces over 1500# of torque daily for ten to fourteen takeoffs and landings and some reverse use. Furthermore, my engine turns 37,500 RPM (not a typo) at 100% and that's reduced to a prop redline of 2200RPM. Why can't a planet gearbox work with 200 or so HP? Granted we have to use synthetic oil but it only gets changed once a year or 400 hours.

Regards,
Pierre

mlw450802
09-12-2007, 06:19 AM
Ross, it seems to me you have recent and sudden level of support for Jan, do you have a commercial interest? Are we going to see SDS engine mgmnt on Egg products? Are you a paid consultant? What skin of yours is in Jan's game?Jconard,
It would seem this should go both ways. Are you an injured party?
What skin of yours is in Jan's game? I apologize if I have missed the posts where you have been directly involved with these issues.

-Mike

Jconard
09-12-2007, 07:44 AM
I was initially interested in the package when I first started to build, but after much research, including monitoring the various customer sites, and hearing their experience, I went another direction.

I am interested and dedicated to the concept of home built aircraft and concerned about its future. I am worried that other home builders will be taken in, and financially hurt or worse. I mentioned wishing I practice law in a private setting, because reading about the experiences on the STI site, there appear to be cases for those people, 30 or so, who were sold expensive packages, promised to be complete and functional, which appear to have been sold without any testing, without the ability to fly reliably, and with compnents that are "marginal at best", but that even when such defficiencies were discovered, the customer was to bear the cost of upgrade/replacement. Some of what I see posted by the factory borders on what I believe to be unconscionable business practices.

As to why I asked Ross the question, Frankly his posts for the last few months have been well reasoned and realistic. Lately though, it seems he has consumed the Eggenfellner Kool Aid. He also mentions spending much time in Jan's shop with the RV-10 issues. It is also no secret that the converted oem (car) engine management system has created several issues, and that the dream of closed loop operation has failed to materialize.

So, I guess I began to wonder if Ross is down there as a paid consultant to try and get the engine management issues sorted, or if Jan is going to start offering the packages with Ross's much more simple and basic engine management system. Either way, if Ross has an interest in the success of the packages, it would be important for readers to know that.

I will say right up front that the SDS package can only improve the situation. I also have no doubt that Ross may bring maturity and sense to the product line. I am familiar with his systems from the VW world where they are considered a pretty darn good replacement for the older factory injection systems.

Even so, if he is financially interested, that ought to be disclosed. I sometimes wonder if it would be better for him or others to simply offer the FWF packages. At least then they would be a best of breed collection of commercially available parts (psru for example), and based on long term real world success. And frankly I think they would be marketed honestly and supported better. A smaller company like Ross's may also have the courage to tell many builders "hey, if you want to bolt on and go you are not the ideal customer for this" Smaller companies often do not need to oversell and can instead focus on their best customer fit.

Oh well, my question remains unanswered...Ross...what's going on?

DanH
09-12-2007, 08:10 AM
I'm with Pierre. Planetary gearboxes are quite common in aviation, including piston aviation; consider for example the M14-series radials. Ross, why don't you like them?

Side note; ya'll chill out a little, ok? We're friends, or should be.

David-aviator
09-12-2007, 09:09 AM
......Even so, if he is financially interested, that ought to be disclosed....


And why is that? Private business is private business.

It is no secret the new ECU comes from Ross's company, at least that is my impression of the situation. The stock Subaru ECU was getting more and more complex and difficult to defeat for an aircraft operation. The move is a logical step forward. The simplicity of the unit is very attractive compared to the huge wire harnesses of the auto version.

To ask for a disclosure of any financial deal and expecting an answer is not realistic or productive. It's private business and should stay that way.

People need to remember we are all adults and as such capable of making decisions based on our own judgment, research and personal feelings, and accepting responsibility for such decisions. I am not in favor of private or government intervention in this process. Such policy would completely shut down inovation.

rv6ejguy
09-12-2007, 10:08 AM
Wow, lots of questions.

First, nope, I'm not on Jan's payroll in any way. Second, I make no secret that we are involved in aviation products much like Stein or Barrett are here and who post regularly. I support VAF with an ad here but try to keep a distance from any direct marketing. I'll answer questions about our products here but think it is best we take sales off site.

Let's see, I go to Florida and all of a sudden there is some conspiracy? Again I make no secret that I'm an advocate of auto engine power. I help many people who are pursuing alternative power both on a private and commercial level at no charge. Of course we hope that they purchase our product. That is how I make a living. Is that some sort of crime? Jconard why don't you post your name and location here. Are you some sort of secret agent/ investigative reporter? Isn't that a rule to post here?

You want to start suing Jan? Just what we need in experimental aviation my friend. Your stated mission perplexes me and frankly worries me. If we all start suing because we have a failure on an EXPERIMENTAL part, God help us all. Go fly a certified plane and sue the companies with deep pockets- far more profitable. Were those big lawsuits helpful to Textron? Take responsibility for your decision to fly anything with any powerplant. If you think that nothing will ever fail, you are deluding yourself. If your mission is to protect us don't forget to serve Van's for those pesky nose gear legs, the EI manufacturers with phantom failures, glass panel makers for software glitches, prop guys...

I won't be discussing my commercial relationships on this forum. If people think I'm sugar coating information here, please tell me. I honestly try to tell what I see out there as factually as possible. I try to be tactful in publishing my views. If you search these threads, I've already stated that I don't think the STI was Jan's best product and there is no doubt that many clients are unhappy about that episode. I also don't think that Lycoming should have had crankshaft failures, ADs and had customers foot the bill in some cases after so long in the business. Such are the realities of engines and business and my opinion matters probably very little here and certainly cannot change what has already transpired.

I've seen many times in my relationships with engine package vendors the stupid customers who buy a package and then want to change parts of it or not follow recommendations. They then phone up and complain that something broke or doesn't fit. How do you deal with that? All you can do is ask them to leave things alone and sell them a new part I think.

My references to planetary gearboxes apply to piston engines, not turbines which have a very easy life comparatively. The present invariably use Ford based transmission parts with 3 planet gears. RWS has recently added a 6 planet setup which may help reduce bearing concerns. My views are pretty much mirrored by EPI here: http://www.epi-eng.com/GBX-Overview.htm.

I have no interest in supplying FF engine packages. This is way too much work for the rewards and liability exposure.

Darwin, failures kept quiet? I'm not sure this is possible with the internet these days. Can you tell me what type of failures this guy had? Always interested in how things might be improved. Would I fly a family member behind auto power? I would over safe terrain. Would I fly any single engined aircraft over the Rockies or at night? I wouldn't but many here would. Who is taking the greater risk if the prop stops?

Really, I tire of the constant babble by people who have never flown an auto engined aircraft and sprout off all this "knowledge" of products and projects with no first hand experience. You speculate on what is going on and some of your comments are frankly, inane. I also tire of the view that people who choose these packages are somehow mentally challenged. Some of you just don't get it and never will- people have different priorities in making choices. Why attack people for their different choices?
Should we all conform to having a Lycoming up front? Should we all drive Toyotas? I've said this before, as consumers, try to be informed, check other sources and customers for feedback before you buy. Use forums. Separate the hype from fact and know that not all your decisions will come out roses. There is plenty of misinformation on product performance everywhere.

If all this stuff just plain ticks you off for some reason- don't read it. Go flying and enjoy your RV or keep building- or fly an auto conversion and tell us what you think.

Steve A
09-12-2007, 10:18 AM
I am interested and dedicated to the concept of home built aircraft and concerned about its future. I am worried that other home builders will be taken in, and financially hurt or worse. I mentioned wishing I practice law in a private setting, because reading about the experiences on the STI site, there appear to be cases for those people, 30 or so, who were sold expensive packages, promised to be complete and functional, which appear to have been sold without any testing, without the ability to fly reliably, and with compnents that are "marginal at best", but that even when such defficiencies were discovered, the customer was to bear the cost of upgrade/replacement. Some of what I see posted by the factory borders on what I believe to be unconscionable business practices.


I have purchased an H-6 engine from Jan. He has been EXTREMELY helpful with my engine and provided a network of like-minded builders to provide further support. When I inquired about the STI vs H-6 engines, Jan said the STI provided more power but also required more work on the builders part. Robert Paisley has flown an STI engine for years with great success. I have followed one STI's builders website and many times he deviated from Jan's recommended procedure adding different pumps and electrical system to further enhance his engine. This builder bragged how much better his application was going to be. Now he is b*tching about things are not working quite right. I don't see how Jan can be responsible for someone deviating from the procedure.

I admire Jan Eggenfellner as a small business man doing the research, support and getting out a very fine product. Someone in a corporate setting does not see what it takes to produce the fine product like Eggenfellner and do it on a shoestring budget. I think the "poison-like" emails of many in the Lycoming group is a function of what the Subaru engine represents... the future. I look around and see the market share of Japanese products because they provide reliability. I drive a Japanese car as does my son, daughter and wife. My plane will mirror my car, electronic ignition, electronic fuel injection, no mixture, easy to start a hot engine etc.

Jan's website is full of testimonials from real builders. Jan cautions before you buy one of his engines, talk to one of the builders who have flown in an Egg powered plane. You sir, are not qualified to be the moderator of business practices.

Egg RV 7A
Painting

Jerry Cochran
09-12-2007, 11:10 AM
Would I fly a family member behind auto power? I would over safe terrain. Would I fly any single engined aircraft over the Rockies or at night? I wouldn't but many here would. Who is taking the greater risk if the prop stops?

Ross,

Why, my wife and I fly over the Rockies IFR all the time from Oregon to MT and points E... IFR meaning "I follow roads..." I-90 to be exact...

Just trying to inject a spot of humor in this very interesting, complex and controversial thread. As usual Ross, you are the voice of reason, so please don't waver...

BTW, there seems to be a new player in the Subie camp... http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/ They are the folks who took over from the former NSI and I understand they have no connection to previous operators. I hope they prosper. Interestingly, they advertise 185 HP out of their stock 2.5L

Regards,
Jerry

rv6ejguy
09-12-2007, 11:31 AM
Good to see you post here Jerry. You are a wise man. And you are flying behind good old Lyco power right?

Yes, Maxwell is delivering engines now based on stock EJ25s. I like that idea but not sure how they get that extra 20 hp. Again take performance claims with a grain of salt. I wish them well in the business. Competition is good. BTW MPS decided not to use SDS after an evaluation against other products. We tried.

gmcjetpilot
09-12-2007, 11:36 AM
If Ross is helping or trading info with Jan. cool, great.

Ross's posts, I think, are based on fact. Sure he is a proponent, enthusiastic about auto engine conversions, clearly. Nothing wrong with that.

Appreciate Jconard strongly worded motivation: "I am worried that other home builders will be taken in, and financially hurt or worse," but I don't see any thing bluntly faults or miss leading. We are all big boys and girls and make our decisions based on facts and realistic expectations. The info is on the web for anyone to see.

When it comes to safety I do get wrapped up around the axial. I don't see there being a real safety issue. The Lyc is a known and a simpler power-plant. I say simpler because of less systems, re-drive, water cooling and electical only ignition fuel delivery. Still the reliability is reasonable on those extra auto engine systems.

Besides safety, good info and facts to make the alternative engine decision is important. Folks like Ross put their plane where their mouth is. Granted his installation may be better than the average Subie installation, still it shows what can be done. It's not all perfect & pretty, but he shows it all. You can't ask for any thing more.

Ross's business is not our business or questioning his motives needed. As long as I have debated Ross on this subject, he has been consistent and fair. Clearly if you want the Con of his Pro, just look other post, including mine. No need to repeat my self. When it comes to "truth" I don't think that's an issue, just different opinions or sides of a fair and valid debate.

The one thing I railed against in the past, my pet peeve, was rhetoric & propaganda for auto engine's that "they're modern". What does that mean? Nothing, "modern" is an emotional red herring. It has nothing to do with the complex issues of converting a car engine for aircraft use. Clearly the more you know about a Lyc, the more you appreciate the precision and special purpose design. It's still hard to beat a Lyc in almost every catagory (weight, cost, performance, simplicity), even if the basic design is 50 years old. Some times "farm tractor technology" works; the more things change the more they stay the same.

Electronics have changed the most in the last 50 years, but mags, mechanical FI, carbs and fuel pumps still work the same. The claim to fame of a self sufficient mechanical engine is no battery or alternator power needed to keep running. Don't confuse simple with crude. Simple is often elegant and promotes reliability. That does not exclude complicated designs, like a re-drive and EFI, which can be reliable as well.

Buyer beware? If Jan has a brand new part, like a new drive, I would not buy it until its flown for a year on several planes and has some hours, significant hours on it. Significant hours is what? You decided, 2000 hrs or more with a tear down inspection? It's just common sense to me, don't be an unpaid test pilot is my motto.

Clearly Jan's newest designs, re-drives or what ever, are unproven or less proven. Caution would tell builders wait till a new product is out and flying around before sending in money. Even an in person demo flight would be in order. At least that's what I would do. Others may go for it sight unseen. Some one had to buy the first, second, third...... RV kit. More power to them (pun intended). :D

flytoboat
09-12-2007, 11:36 AM
BTW, there seems to be a new player in the Subie camp... http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/ They are the folks who took over from the former NSI and I understand they have no connection to previous operators. I hope they prosper. Interestingly, they advertise 185 HP out of their stock 2.5L

Regards,
Jerry

Could the increased HP come from the drive ratio (2.13 to 1) allowing the enginge to turn faster? Are ther any RVers using this product?

For Ross: please don't let the naysayers turn you away from posting here. I am still on the fence regarding what engine to put in a 7A (ordering tail kit in December) and you have the most reasoned voice on the forums I've read. It has been difficult getting insightful information on alternative engines. I appreciate your candid posts.

Don

Jconard
09-12-2007, 12:19 PM
When Dynon employees were posting about Dynon competitive advantage we all cried foul. Based on the same premise, I inquired to see if the new ECU for Egg was coming from Ross....giving him a new reason to preach the Egg gospel.

It is confirmed now by David that in fact it is coming from ross. Good information, and as I already said before it will likely make the product better.

I am not claiming there is any conspiracy.

I cannot Sue Jan, because I am in public practice but in my opinion there are numerous problems including:

1. There are nearly 30 STI people left holding the bag, with systems that are non functional, or to quote Jan "marginal at best", none of them got waht they paid for and frankly the system was not sold as an experiment, but was sold as a complete, tested fwf package. None of those decriptions were true.

2. The hard number performance claims which lure people to buy these packages are simply false.

3. My interest was piqued because the discussion of the RV-10 turbo package seemed to neglect the fact that not a single RV-10 is now flying with turbo chargers. Egg's site has claimed falsely for months that 14 or so are flying.

4. This is on the heels of the 6-belt psru, which was sold...or at least deposits were taken, was marketed as tested and safe, was tooled up for production, before its catastrophic flaws were discovered.

It is of course not proper or lawful to make knowing mistatements of material fact, intending that the other party rely on such, and to based on that reliance sell them a product. At some point why are we all so tolerant of this kind of business practice? Speed, weight and fuel burn are generally considered material facts when it comes to the marketing of aircraft or aircraft components.

As I said before....I just wanted to know what if any interest Ross had in Egg
s future, for the same reason we wanted to know if a poster was a Dynon employee. Now we know.

Ross will in all likelyhood improve the breed and his involvement will be beneficial. Hopefully he can also encourage more honest business practices.

Just my opinion

rv6ejguy
09-12-2007, 12:34 PM
Could the increased HP come from the drive ratio (2.13 to 1) allowing the enginge to turn faster? Are ther any RVers using this product?

For Ross: please don't let the naysayers turn you away from posting here. I am still on the fence regarding what engine to put in a 7A (ordering tail kit in December) and you have the most reasoned voice on the forums I've read. It has been difficult getting insightful information on alternative engines. I appreciate your candid posts.

Don

If the factory engine is rated for power peak at say 6000 rpm, turning it faster will result in less power. To get max power you need to turn it to 6000. The only way to make a lot more power is to process more charge, this is generally done through more camshaft duration and lift boosting VE, increased displacement or forced induction. Changes in exhaust system could increase power by this amount in some cases but probably not with an effective muffler in place. Higher compression ratios can add a few percent as well. If the prop is rated for say 2700, the engine would turn 5751 rpm max, a few hundred below power peak so almost certainly would produce a bit less than factory rated hp.

Since we don't know all the facts on this package, it is possible to produce 185 hp from this engine certainly. Current engines are 173 hp stock. Wait for the flight results to confirm claims.

DanH
09-12-2007, 01:12 PM
<<flown for a year on several planes and has some hours significant hours on it. Significant hours is what?>>

As I've written before, total flight hours mean little in the context of a torsional system. The only thing that counts is the hours of operation at the F1, F2, and F-etc intersections, or (same thing, different measure) the number of times the system is cycled through the resonant intersections. The third factor is vibratory amplitude (ie, material stress); you know about stress and cycles. Same concept as a prohibited RPM range with a certified prop installation. You can run it there a little bit, but if you run it there a lot it may die.

Typical PSRU "testing" has people flying around at the smoothest RPM they perceive....making results quite meaningless.

Just polishing the pins old bean.

gmcjetpilot
09-12-2007, 02:28 PM
<<flown for a year on several planes and has some hours significant hours on it. Significant hours is what?>>

As I've written before, total flight hours mean little in the context of a torsional system. The only thing that counts is the hours of operation at the F1, F2, and F-etc intersections, or (same thing, different measure) the number of times the system is cycled through the resonant intersections. The third factor is vibratory amplitude (ie, material stress); you know about stress and cycles. Same concept as a prohibited RPM range with a certified prop installation. You can run it there a little bit, but if you run it there a lot it may die.

Typical PSRU "testing" has people flying around at the smoothest RPM they perceive....making results quite meaningless.

Just polishing the pins old bean.I have not read your informative post about vibration, but as some one with an engineering back ground, yes flight time is very important to sort out the unknown. Sorry I just disagree with you. This guy named Murphy has kicked my soft empannage many times. We can agree to disagree. :D

You can talk about analytical methodology all you want or how meaningless flying the actual part is but I think you are wrong; I've done my share of number crunching and know for a fact Boeing, GE, Pratt, RR do flight test with their planes and engines. Some times they make significant changes based on those flight test, despite the most advanced analytical methods. Look at Van's RV-12. It is going thru a total re-design after the initial design was extensively flight tested.

Even RWS re-drives, after many hundred hours on the "factory plane" and many sold, had a near failure mode, which came up. Fortunately the factory plane had the high time and was being checked regularly. The fix was minor, but if left longer a failure would have occurred. To RWS they where constantly flying and tearing down the their drive to find this issue first.

Of course you can't expect a little company to have years of R&D and flight test programs, but I would wait till many are sold and flown for a few years. Just my personal advice from experience.

Don't count on the numbers to tell you the whole truth about the design. Even professional engineers with huge budgets get vibration analysis wrong, Tacoma narrows bridge and Lockheed Electra to name two. One of the newer large turbo fan engines had a harmonic issue with plumbing during development, not discovered until ...(wait for it) flight test. The fix was simple but it was not found till they flew it after 100's of hours.

Despite your interesting point or observation of the critical modes for a re-drives, I personally want 1000's of hours on that design before I fly it. Again flight test pilots make lots of money, and I don't do flight test pilot duties for free. It's just my opinion.

Do you think that one failure Jan had was planned or expected or he did no analysis? Probably not. He no doubt thought it was bullet proof design. It may have been, but that Muryphy guy is a jerk. :D

You can NOT be too careful, and as a former nerd with a scientific calculator, I know enough to not trust analytical solutions alone, if at all possible. Drives are a dynamic thing, affected by engine, prop and airframe. It needs to be tested in my opinion and service hours accumulated, to assure a safe product, in my opinion. If any thing, TBO, wear and inspection schedules need to be determined. This is a critical part.

To each his own. I'm a libertarian, people should do what they like, just be informed. Fancy computer analysis and color plots don't impress me. Tell me it has 1000's of hours of reliable high performance operation, than I'm impressed.

rv6ejguy
09-12-2007, 03:12 PM
Dan's point is valid. Few people in the sub 250hp drive business have done mathematical analysis or instrumented testing for TV. They should. As Dan has pointed out previously this is not that hard today and could save a lot of money, time and tears in the long run.

Many have simply gone to a heavy flywheel and a light prop to hopefully move at least F1 well below the idle range.

I also agree with George that there is nothing like flight time to prove something and you can have failures other than TV related ones on aircraft PSRUs. This has been seen many times before. If a drive had 20,000 trouble free hours with a fixed combination of parts attached to it, I'd have more faith in it but I'd also like to see the math or testing to see if something scary lurked in the operating ranges. The auto OEMs do actual testing to validate math models of everything and occasionally have a surprise that must be addressed.

Drive makers should be doing both in my view. EPI stands out as a company with the resources and knowledge to do this job well but even then, fools can and have broken their drives by doing foolish things. You never know what some people will do and then blame the product for failure. I'd be getting the entire story before condemning something.

The Rotax, Ross, Marcotte, RWS, Egg, Crossflow and NSI drives have all had issues which have resulted in modified designs or operational changes.

John Clark
09-12-2007, 03:29 PM
"Never fly the 'A' model of anything."
Ed Thompson



John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

David-aviator
09-12-2007, 03:59 PM
Would I fly a family member behind auto power? I would over safe terrain. Would I fly any single engined aircraft over the Rockies or at night? I wouldn't but many here would. Who is taking the greater risk if the prop stops?

Ross,

Why, my wife and I fly over the Rockies IFR all the time from Oregon to MT and points E... IFR meaning "I follow roads..." I-90 to be exact...

Just trying to inject a spot of humor in this very interesting, complex and controversial thread. As usual Ross, you are the voice of reason, so please don't waver...

BTW, there seems to be a new player in the Subie camp... http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/ They are the folks who took over from the former NSI and I understand they have no connection to previous operators. I hope they prosper. Interestingly, they advertise 185 HP out of their stock 2.5L

Regards,
Jerry

Jerry,

What ever happended to that 2.5 engine you bought and decided to not use?

DanH
09-12-2007, 04:19 PM
Oh, for sure I don't discount the need for flight test. I merely note a detail; flight test won't find a resonant issue unless you just happen to fly the test hours at the resonant RPM....and too many avoid it even when it is obvious.

<<Few people in the sub 250hp drive business have done mathematical analysis or instrumented testing for TV.>>

Amen brother. With a vendor doing $1.5 mil plus, it is well past time to grow up.

gmcjetpilot
09-12-2007, 05:14 PM
Oh, for sure I don't discount the need for flight test. I merely note a detail; flight test won't find a resonant issue unless you just happen to fly the test hours at the resonant RPM....and too many avoid it even when it is obvious.

<<Few people in the sub 250hp drive business have done mathematical analysis or instrumented testing for TV.>>

Amen brother. With a vendor doing $1.5 mil plus, it is well past time to grow up.Roger Roger agree agree.

rv6ejguy
09-12-2007, 05:35 PM
Three guys agree here. Now I'm worried! :D :rolleyes:

Just to note, $1.5M in sales does not mean profit. I don't see Jan getting rich from all this. He ain't driving no Ferrari Enzo for a shop car! I see his business as his passion first. If you want a stress free, good paying job, this is not it!

I don't think most people here realize what it takes to make a FF package like this X 50-75 per year. It is an immense task with a small staff and budget.

djvdb63
09-13-2007, 07:45 AM
Darwin, failures kept quiet? I'm not sure this is possible with the internet these days.
.

Here's one that I have never heard discussed anywhere:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050825X01314&key=1

I posted a question about it on Jan's Yahoo list after reading the Bill was "rebuilding" his Glastar. Jan blocked the post and I have never seen anything about why Bill lost power and had a forced landing. Perhaps I missed the discussion? Can anybody enlighten me about it?

Certain incidents, such as DD's, Ray Doerr's, Jan's belt-PSRU failure, the Ohio STI cam-related incident, and Roger Everson's totalled RV-9A in Arizona have been discussed...but others, such as Robert Paisley's repeated STI engine power-loss incidents, have been kept quiet.

I suspect there are others....

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

RV7Guy
09-13-2007, 08:54 AM
but others, such as Robert Paisley's repeated STI engine power-loss incidents, have been kept quiet.

I suspect there are others....

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage


You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

rv6ejguy
09-13-2007, 09:15 AM
There are plenty of negative comments from STI owners and H6 clients on both Eggenfellner Yahoo sites for all to see including potential new clients. In the past 2 years, I don't see much censorship by Jan there.

In the case of the Glastar incident, cause is undetermined. Do we know what happened?

We see similar things happen with other engines like the mystery EI failure a few months back here on VAF and the pilot's successful landing on a highway. The same pilot had the misfortune of another engine out shortly afterwards and did another skillful landing. These were not failures of the Lycoming core. Engine outs happen every day. Be prepared no matter what engine you fly.

Yukon
09-13-2007, 10:11 AM
There are plenty of negative comments from STI owners and H6 clients on both Eggenfellner Yahoo sites for all to see including potential new clients. In the past 2 years, I don't see much censorship by Jan there.

In the case of the Glastar incident, cause is undetermined. Do we know what happened?

We see similar things happen with other engines like the mystery EI failure a few months back here on VAF and the pilot's successful landing on a highway. The same pilot had the misfortune of another engine out shortly afterwards and did another skillful landing. These were not failures of the Lycoming core. Engine outs happen every day. Be prepared no matter what engine you fly.

Ross,

How can you possibly say there is no censorship on Jan's website? How could you possibly know? Lack of information is all that keeps that business afloat. If people knew how troublsome his motors really are, the party would be over. Smooth is nice, but how much safety and performance are you willing to give up for smooth?

rv6ejguy
09-13-2007, 12:08 PM
Ross,

How can you possibly say there is no censorship on Jan's website? How could you possibly know? Lack of information is all that keeps that business afloat. If people knew how troublsome his motors really are, the party would be over. Smooth is nice, but how much safety and performance are you willing to give up for smooth?

You can read the posts on the STI group and there are dozens of scathing remarks from unhappy customers. Seems if Jan was censoring, those wouldn't be there. Same on the other group, lots of posts from clients with cooling issues, and not happy with late deliveries of their engines.

I have heard of people's posts not appearing on the forums a few years back but have no way to know if that is so.

If Jan is editing the negative comments today to sway opinion, he is doing a poor job.

Yes, there are unhappy customers and there are also many happy customers. This is a difficult business to be in. NSI and Crossflow had a lot more unhappy customers who got totally screwed- never even receiving parts or engines that ran in some cases.

Jerry Cochran
09-13-2007, 12:29 PM
Good to see you post here Jerry. You are a wise man. And you are flying behind good old Lyco power right?

Yes, Maxwell is delivering engines now based on stock EJ25s. I like that idea but not sure how they get that extra 20 hp. Again take performance claims with a grain of salt. I wish them well in the business. Competition is good. BTW MPS decided not to use SDS after an evaluation against other products. We tried.

Ross,

Close. Flying behind a clone of the ol' Lycosaurus, aka Superior XP-IO360. Seems to propel 18XP just fine... Funny drill to start the injected engine tho...

Jerry

Jerry Cochran
09-13-2007, 12:43 PM
Jerry,

What ever happended to that 2.5 engine you bought and decided to not use?


Hi David,

I sold it to a Mr. House up in Washington state. That was 4-5 years ago and no clue if he's flying or what...

Jerry

djvdb63
09-13-2007, 12:46 PM
You can read the posts on the STI group and there are dozens of scathing remarks from unhappy customers. Seems if Jan was censoring, those wouldn't be there.

Ross...the STI group does not belong to Jan. It belongs to Mickey Coggins and I do not believe Jan could edit it if he wanted to.

Regarding his own Yahoo list I believe Jan follows a policy of not blocking posts from active customers. Posts from interested persons who have not purchased anything from Jan are still selectively approved...as for instance when Jan blocked my inquiry on Bill Yamakowski's Glastar inflight power failure in Michigan last year.

In Jan's defense, I think it is reasonable to moderate the list and to potentially block input from non-customers. Some people are not fair in their inquiries and comments. But I believe Jan goes beyond fairness in his selective approval of list messages. He actively suppresses negative information even when it is fair. He does himself no favors in this regards.

I have been watching Jan's products and business since 2001. I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. He is clearly talented, persistent, and a survivor in a very difficult market. He has many happy customers. However I would no longer call him a "straight shooter" as Kitplanes did in their Egg review some issues back.

A current example of what bothers me is the PSRU situation. We are left to work backwards to figure out that the Gen 1 redrive has not proven itself very durable. There has been no clear presentation that I have seen about the problems with it. Just like with the original Quinti problems the only way to figure out the issue is to read between the lines. Eventually it comes out, but not from Jan and not in a clear factual manner.

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

David-aviator
09-13-2007, 01:00 PM
Here's one that I have never heard discussed anywhere:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050825X01314&key=1

I posted a question about it on Jan's Yahoo list after reading the Bill was "rebuilding" his Glastar. Jan blocked the post and I have never seen anything about why Bill lost power and had a forced landing. Perhaps I missed the discussion? Can anybody enlighten me about it?

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

The pilot is Bill Yamokoski. I spoke with him at OSH this year as he was at Jan's display with the airplane for several days. He did rebuild the machine (which I did not know had been wrecked) has about 700 hours on it and seems quite satisfied with the engine. His attitude about it is very positive.

djvdb63
09-13-2007, 01:16 PM
The pilot is Bill Yamokoski. I spoke with him at OSH this year as he was at Jan's display with the airplane for several days. He did rebuild the machine (which I did not know had been wrecked) has about 700 hours on it and seems quite satisfied with the engine. His attitude about it is very positive.

Yes David...but the issues are...

1. Discussion of the incident was actively suppressed (Jan blocked my inquiry on his list...which was a fair and objective inquiry about an important topic).

2. What happened? Why did Bill have in-flight power failure? Yours was a supercharger belt coming loose and damaging the timing apparatus as I recall. What about the Yamakowski incident? That's what normal pilots considering Jan's products need to know. I still don't know. Do you?

Dan

David-aviator
09-13-2007, 01:32 PM
You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.


Just to set the record reasonably straight, Darwin, I've hammered Jan numerous times and in fact he becomes down right irritated now and then with my comments, but nothing I've ever said has been deleted or edited. That's not to say some posts from non customers have not been deleted, but as far as I know, paying customers have free speech rights on the forum.

Not everyone is peachy happy about how things have gone but over all, many guys are satisfied. I have the first H6 in an RV and for sure there been issues with it but what is perfect these days? This morning, after reading a news item about a class action law suit against Lycoming, I downloaded the manditory service bulletin on failed crank shafts. It is 57 pages long, most of it serial numbers. No one is happy about that deal.

I don't know anything about an impending financial train wreck. He is still shipping engines, fixing and returning PSRU's (my GEN 3 was in for a seal leak), carving a new cowl, and genuinely trying to solve problems. His plate is full, some days much too full, but the show is going forward.

David-aviator
09-13-2007, 01:39 PM
Yes David...but the issues are...

1. Discussion of the incident was actively suppressed (Jan blocked my inquiry on his list...which was a fair and objective inquiry about an important topic).

2. What happened? Why did Bill have in-flight power failure? Yours was a supercharger belt coming loose and damaging the timing apparatus as I recall. What about the Yamakowski incident? That's what normal pilots considering Jan's products need to know. I still don't know. Do you?

Dan

Dan, I don't know what happened. I think if it were a serious issue with the engine, Bill would have posted it. He sure has no qualms about flying with it today. You can find his e-mail address on the EGG forum with a little research, ask him what happened.

Steve A
09-13-2007, 03:02 PM
You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

In the pursuit of true disclosure, I have heard that you purchased a Subaru engine (not Eggenfellner) and the company went out of business leaving you in the lurch. Obviously it has prejudiced every post you make on this site, even though it was not Jan Eggenfellner that took your money. Since I have not heard the exact situation I can't comment on it except the fact that you have made it your mission to find every negative thing (true or rumor) and air it on this site. I think if you got burned by a perhaps less ethical supplier, you need to differential between Jan and your ex-wife [ed this bit here removed by dr - rules vio], and move on. We all love Van's and hold it up as the company that all other's are judged. But Van's has had many up's and down's, and I firmly believe Jan's company is headed in that same direction, and perhaps will one day, be the shining example of perfect business relations. Van's has had less than stellar moments and the company picked itself up and tried to improve the product. I believe that is what made Van's the company it is today. And back to Jan, he too has worked tirelessly to make the product better.

Since we are talking disclosure, I am trained as an engineer, passed the professional engineer exam and currently work in Louisiana as a consultant and small business owner. I chose the Egg H-6 engine based on the facts I had at the time. What won me over, a bunch of things. I look at Gary Newsted's site and he is the one person that out Checkoway Checkoway's fine site. Hard to do but IMHO, he made a technical installation look easy. If only Van's had the ability to do that.

I guess I can only say the mark of a man is the passion of his enemies, and in that light, Jan is on the right path.

RV7Guy
09-13-2007, 05:02 PM
[QUOTE=Steve A]You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

In the pursuit of true disclosure, I have heard that you purchased a Subaru engine (not Eggenfellner) and the company went out of business leaving you in the lurch. Obviously it has prejudiced every post you make on this site, even though it was not Jan Eggenfellner that took your money. Since I have not heard the exact situation I can't comment on it except the fact that you have made it your mission to find every negative thing (true or rumor) and air it on this site. End of Steve's quote.

Well, Steve, we don't know who you are, what you are building or flying and where you live (actually a requirement by Doug BTW in the signature box). Since you are relatively new to posting on this site I think those who know me will verify that I speak of nothing that I have not experienced, witnessed first hand, or given to me by someone I know and trust.

My conflict with Crossflow was no mystery. I was very limited on what I could post about it due to pending litigation. Additionally, Doug was not allowing any such stuff to be posted. In fact, someone else attempted to post some things about Crossflow and they threatened to sue him. Their typical attitude that "we can do nothing wrong." After a 3 year battle I finally got the engine and sold it at a considerable loss to someone. And, just so you know, I gave that person full disclosure as to my experience with Crossflow and that of others and the known issues with the company and their engine. I would do it no other way. My goal was to insure that someone else didn't suffer the 3 year nightmare that had gone through.

In Jan's defense, he offered me a package at a good price. At that point, the incidents of problems were growing and I decided, wisely, to go with ECI.

My comments are based on facts with knowledge from several Eggy customers, so don't tell me, and then post that my statements are rumors. Additionally, many have posted facts regarding this engine and company and if they appear negative to the Kool aid drinkers so be it. Ross has been a very vocal advocate of alternative engines. I enjoy his posts and although he is 'one of them' he has not succumbed to altar of Eggenfelner. He is voice of reason the alternative engine group. Now we hear of 30 plus people unhappy with the company as well as others. What about those Steve? [ed. sentence here removed by dr - rules vio....civility]

I would ask, with all the engines Jan has sold, where are they? Why are more of them not flying and appearing at fly ins and other events? At LOE there will probably be 300+ planes there. There will be at max 5 or 6 Subaru powered planes. Fact or Fiction? I've been there and done the counting.

Are you going to deny the anemic performance? I can point you to two people. Many others have posted that the numbers are not meeting those published by the company. I flew chase for my friend on his first flight of his Eggy powered 9 that later failed and crashed. I got an hour of very slow flight practice. I've flown chase for 3 other new RV's with Lyc's or clones and they flew at expected speeds. Steve are you going to deny these facts?

You mentioned you bought the H-6 with "facts you had at the time." Be honest, with the information you have now, would you make the same decision? Think grape as you make this decision. "Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory."

I could go on. Bottomline, the numbers (hours and performance) for these engines are not there. For the number sold there should be many more flying. And, although there are no quantifiable numbers I would bet a steak dinner that the ratio of problems with alternative engines to hours flown is disportionately higher than conventionally powered planes. Because of my background, I am very concerned about safety. All flying is a risk. I submit that risk is higher with an alternative engine.

Regarding your engineering degree, I congratulate you and wish you success. However bringing up your engineering degree with generalization of expertise is a very old technique and not germaine to the discussion. Is your engineering experience specific to the design of and operation of internal combustion engines, fuel dynamics or the related electronics? If not, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Remember, thermometers have degrees too, and you where they get stuck sometimes.

rv6ejguy
09-13-2007, 06:48 PM
Ross...the STI group does not belong to Jan. It belongs to Mickey Coggins and I do not believe Jan could edit it if he wanted to.


Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on ownership of the STI group.

I'd support Jan's right to screen out non- customers who just post to stir the pot. Who has time for that? I'd recommend full disclosure of problems people might have which could benefit the user group, but only when root cause has been established and only if the installation was done by the book. Too often people have modded something or hooked wires up wrong etc. - and blame Jan. This is of course not always the case but your customer base can uncover problems you can't because of the amount of cumulative hours they put on a product. Very useful IMO to listen to common problems to devise fixes and improve the breed.

I've known Jan for about 10 years, first collaborating on a turbo EJ22 powered Lancair for a customer of his in Texas and followed his products since then as they are of interest to me.

I was impressed by Gary Newstead, a very smart ex HP software engineer and practical mechanical guy. He is a big asset to Jan in my view and he flies an Egg four in his RV so he understands the whole thing well. He tries his best to keep things moving along.

Yep, missteps have been made and maybe not all customers have been treated like gold but the same can be said about Lycoming over the last 5-6 years. I hope Lycoming and Eggenfellner continue to improve their products and treat customers well and with transparent honesty- this is the only way to ensure long term survival. Crossflow and NSI have clearly demonstrated what happens when you don't. I've met a couple very happy Egg users up here in Canada who have had no problems but also met one who is not happy.

With regards to drives, the Gen 1 seemed to give generally good service on the first 130-140 hp EJ25s for most people. There are many with 500+ hours of trouble free flight time. With the advent of the STI and H6, clearly something stronger was needed. The Gen 2 seems to have its share of problems but many were attributed to people not following the mandatory alignment procedure- so the drive gets a bad rep. I do tech for my company and cannot believe what some people do- you did what?- so I know what this problem is like.

Gen 3 is way, way stronger than the previous drives but has not had TV testing done nor accumulated thousands of hours of flight time to date. David may be the first to discover problems and I'm sure he'll tell us about them if he does.

Discounting Robert Paisley's STI running high boost, no Egg powered aircraft have shown speeds equal to their Lycoming counterparts. I think most people buying these engines realize that and I hope that RV10 buyers understand that 200-220 hp will not make their -10s perform like a 260-300hp Lycoming.

I see the new prop, drive, ECU, in cowl muffler, cowling etc. introduced lately all improve on concerns and lessons learned from the previous build. This business mirrors others in that technology marches on and improvements are introduced. Garmin doesn't give you a free 496 just because you bought a 296 a few years back. Microsoft doesn't give you a free Windows update either. The new engines will probably give better performance and service than older ones. That is life. Jan is giving Gen 1 and 2 owners good pricing to exchange these for a Gen 3. I think that is pretty fair.

Nobody is perfect and with Lycoming and the clones to choose from, you don't have to buy Jan's engines if you don't want to. That is the beauty of competition for the consumer.

Steve A
09-14-2007, 12:22 AM
<Well, Steve, we don't know who you are, what you are building or flying and where you live (actually a requirement by Doug BTW in the signature box). Since you are relatively new to posting on this site I think those who know me will verify that I speak of nothing that I have not experienced, witnessed first hand, or given to me by someone I know and trust.>

I think with both of our posts edited by DR, we are probably getting close to crossing the line on civility. Although I have not posted that much, I monitor this site almost every day. From that process, I notice several things. First of all, the Alternative Engine site does not have the positive helpful approach that the other Vansairforce sites have. My intent in calling you out individually is you seem to always be on the vanguard of negative.

I just think that there is a plethora of info on Lycoming as well as Subaru engines that we could throw bombs back and forth and accomplish nothing. Now as experimental builders, we all live in glass houses. Dan Checkoway recently was lamenting that there were too many experimental planes of all stripes falling out of the sky. I have no doubt he was talking about all engines and if you visit his site, he lists the number of RV’s that had accidents. I think the VansAirforce alternative engines site is supposed to be where we builders discuss problems with our engines and move forward. That is not really happening because I think a few have decided that it is their mission to “set the record straight”.

You inquire about who I am and where I live. I stated in my post that I work in Louisiana and I live there also. I am building an RV 7A with the Eggenfellner H-6. I am painting and finishing my project. So we can move on, I will hopefully fly my plane soon and if I believe half of the vocal naysayers on this site, I will be slower than a comparable Lycoming RV 7A.
On the other hand, my subie engine on my plane will give me the option to burn 93 octane automobile gasoline as well as leaded 100LL. Mogas will always be cheaper and even if a Katrina-like storm blows the one refinery that makes 100LL into the marsh, I will be flying along (slowly) as you will be grounded. My application is straight out of Gary Newsted’s installation manual with the dual fuel pumps, dual batteries and fail-over relay switches. I love this approach and feel it is an eloquent solution to the safety issue. That is something that time will tell.

<My comments are based on facts with knowledge from several Eggy customers, so don't tell me, and then post that my statements are rumors.>

If you read my post I said truth or rumors. I am not calling you dishonest. My whole point was you have had a very negative experience and you go out looking for every unhappy customer, every builder who may not have the skills to complete his project and use his discontent to fuel your “agenda”. My point is there is a ton of unhappy builders with any application. Regarding the STI situation, when I ordered my H-6, I discussed the H-6 vs the STI with Jan. Jan told me the STI was a more technical and challenging application and that is certainly proven to be the case. You mention the RV 9 builder who had an off airport incident with the Subaru engine and you put all the blame on the engine. But we all are building experimental airplanes and under the best of conditions, we are being naïve to say any builder can make the most of any application. I think this is like the liability issue that drove Cessna and Piper from the single engine airplane market, pilots with marginal skills became accidents and the manufacturer gets sued. The vast majority of accidents were due to pilot error, not mechanical malfunction.

You question where are all the Subaru applications. Well I can speak from my experience down here, my little group has a Eggenfellner Ch801, a RV 7A Lycoming, a Cessna 182 and a Cub. I think your analogy is a little like the Harley Davidson riding clubs. Showing up with a Honda is not too cool. Your peer group does everything possible to serve your own brand of “Kool Aid”. By that I mean the Eggenfellner engines are going out to the hinterlands. In areas with strong EAA chapters, the prevailing standard is Lycoming and if I had a strong EAA group that would help me, then my choice may have been different. I get my info from the internet and that is why I am passionate that there are more sites where alt engine builders can feel free to voice concerns and problems.

In closing, I am not trying to make enemies with all of this. As we all know, words written in one vein can be interpreted totally different. One reason I see so many builders starting another project after completing one is we learn so much in the process of building. I am one to keep the choices many and varied. So with that, give us poor alt engine folks a break. We get it, we will be slower, that is until the E-6 turbo comes on stream.

Steve Anderson
RV 7A (s)
Lafayette La.
Finishing Painting

Oh by the way, to earn your steak dinner (may I recommend the crawfish ettouffie instead) come down here and help me finish painting. That way I can get in the air and then we can race.

RV7Guy
09-14-2007, 12:52 PM
See, that wasn't so hard was it. I hold no grudges and look forward to meeting you. I will be in Lafayette, hopefully before the end of the year for training at Petroleum Helicopters.

Regarding the looking for negative or unhappy customers, I don't have to, they are all over. Just read the posts. Plus I had occasional contact with the local guys.

Another argument they AE people like to use is the ability to burn car gas. That would be great but the volume of airports that have car gas is not 100 percent convenient yet. Improving but not great. The other thing about auto gas is the variety of mixtures throughout the country. I'm not knowledgable enough to know if these different blends could have an affect on performance or not. I do know that 100LL is 100LL anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I want AE's to be successful. All of the initial hype of cheaper acquisition cost, easy of installation, better performance, less fuel use etc... is just not happening.

Steve A
09-14-2007, 04:20 PM
We sir let me buy you dinner. I always enjoy learning from RVers, the problem is I just don't get to hang with enough of them. Give me about a week's notice and I will try and show you around.

I assume you fly helicopters for a living. Cool. There are many pilots at PHI but I don't run with that group.

You notice my last post was at 1:30 am. Obviously I was having a few additional thoughts that was disrupting my sleep. I suppose RVers have passion and sometimes that comes across a little too aggressive. Maybe too much fiberglass dust or isocyanate in the brain.

tloof
09-17-2007, 05:38 PM
I'm not going to throw any stones at the guys that are attempting to use alternative auto engine conversions since they may well end up one day developing a low cost & successful conversion that we can all benefit from (though that hasn't been the case so far...but hopefully there may be a break thru in development some day!). On the otherhand, I do want to point out the error of those that are choosing to go the auto engine conversion route because of the perception that only an auto engine will allow the use of cheaper 93 octane auto fuel. That is NOT the case! Any of the Lycoming engines can also use 93 octane auto fuel as well as long as the compression ratio is kept to a max of 8.5:1 or lower. In fact, if one were to instead retrofit the low compression 7.2:1 pistons from the turbocharged Lycoming models into any of the 0-360 or I0-360 engines then even the cheaper 87 low octane auto fuel can be run with no trouble what-so-ever. Note that a built up 7.2:1 low comp 0-360 with electronic ignition and minor flow balancing head work will still make 180-185 hp (vs about 195 hp with higher comp 9:1 pistons), which is still better than a bone stock 180 hp version that is the standard. Alot of us may well be converting to the 7.2:1 pistons in the future so that we also can run cheaper auto fuel too!!

Just my 2 cents!!

TSwezey
09-17-2007, 08:43 PM
With alcohol?