What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Alternative Engine Real World Experience?

D

dtaylor

Member
What is the real world experience for all you alternative engine users out there?

How much total time since overhaul do you have on your engines?

Or maybe a better question is: Do any of these alternative engines with gearboxes ever make it past 1000 hours before they need major service?

David T.
Lancair Legacy
TCM IO-550
 
Yes

Sure PSRU's go past 1000 hours. Yes, alternative engines have made it past 1000 hours. Under what circumstance and how many, I don't know for sure. Data & statistics are hard to come by. I'm sure some will chime in with testimonials of their favorite high time alternative engine airplane.

With your Cadillac IO-550 engine/plane, I'm guessing you're not ready to yank it out and install an alternative engine; you're just curious. I'm then same way. As Lyc guy, I've followed alternative engine development for planes with great interest since 1985. They have come a long way. The group has more experience, parts support and PSRU availability, for a wider variety of engines. The most popular alternative engines for RV's: Mazda, Subaru and Chevy V6, all have been flying for over a decade or two. How many hours total I don't know. (Model T Ford engines, 25-65 hp, where used in the 30's. It's not a new idea.)

A true-isms the most passionate alternative engine enthusiast will not argue with, the core engine tends to be fairly reliable. Most 'issues' are with the ancillary systems. Even if you got 1000 hour between TBO with your Alt. Eng, overhaul would be cheaper than on a Lyc/TCM, no doubt. On the other hand despite what you might read, Lycs/TCM's make TBO and beyond routinely, however sitting for extended periods is death for them. Regular flying, reasonable normal maintence and operation in the green is critical to making TBO. Cars are driven regularly, soccer Mom's drive in the green and going to jiffy lube is usually needed. Abuse a car engine and it will not last.

PSRU's (belt drive, planetary or spur gear drive) enjoy a pretty good reputation. However the community has been shook lately with recent failures of Rotax and Eggenfellner PSRU's. Also new RV-10 using alternative power crashed with loss of life; the cause has yet to be determined but was tragic. This was on the heals of a Wheeler Express going down. The cause was a fuel line, not the V8 auto engine or PSRU itself.

There are high time PSRU's with more than 1000 hours, but the question is why does one PSRU go +1000 hours and another (same design) fail? That is what is on peoples minds. BTW, PSRU's have tear-down and/or inspection requirements set by each manufacture.


Obviously Lys have way more service history and no doubt always will. Engine choice is based on putting your faith in that power-plant. There is enough information to research to make intelligent choices. Nothing man made is failure proof.

The most hardcore "Lycoming only please" builder would switch to alternative power if it was: more efficient, higher performance with less weight and drag, while increasing reliability & lowering maintence. That is the Holy Grail. Even if it cost more people would switch. We can only support the pioneers and hope they achive a quantum leap. IMHO, a totally new technology will be needed, technology we don't have today, to best the Lyc/TCM across the board and raise the bar. My motto, there are no free lunches. Aviation design is full of compromises and trade-offs. A piston engine is a piston engine. A Wankel is a Wankel, with it's own inherent Pros and Cons. Turbine and Diesel are not the answer for small GA planes either, at this time.

To get philosophical, what will get you in the air sooner, with max fun, reasonable cost with out compromise in safety? (FILL IN THE BLANK HERE) Your milage may vary. Have fun and be safe.
 
Last edited:
PSRU's (belt drive, planetary or spur gear drive) enjoy a pretty good reputation. However the community has been shook lately with recent failures of Rotax and Eggenfellner PSRU's.
Click to expand...

At Eggenfellner we have more PSRU's flying than anyone. Over 20 years, we have had 2 failures. One failure could be traced back to a severely backfiring engine after the customer installed the wrong cam belt. The other is not known. It is known that not all pilots treat the machinery in the same way. Many do not follow such simple instructions as to have the propeller balanced. It does not matter how well the unit was built / designed, if it is not cared for. That being said, we usually see the opposite where the builder love his engine and is in tune with all maintenance. It is very easy to determine the condition of these gear drives by monitoring the temperature trends and sending in oil analyses samples to be recorded in the logs

Also new RV-10 using alternative power crashed with loss of life; the cause has yet to be determined but was tragic. This was on the heals of a Wheeler Express going down. The cause was a fuel line, not the V8 auto engine or PSRU itself.
Click to expand...

We are 90% sure the Eggenfellner Engine was not the cause of the RV-10 crash. NTSB has not finalized the reports and they have the right to keep the information until they are ready to post it.

There are high time PSRU's with more than 1000 hours, but the question is why does one PSRU go +1000 hours and another (same design) fails? That is what is on peoples minds. BTW, PSRU's have tear-down and/or inspection requirements set by each manufacture.
Click to expand...

Even after all these years we only have about 5 individuals close to 1000 hr flight time. It takes a long time to get there with 75 hrs / year. Our latest, G3 PSRU has been designed for the life of the engine, possibly with an overhaul.

Jan Eggenfellner
 
1000 hour club

janeggenfellner said:
Even after all these years we only have about 5 individuals close to 1000 hr flight time. It takes a long time to get there with 75 hrs / year. Our latest, G3 PSRU has been designed for the life of the engine, possibly with an overhaul. Jan Eggenfellner
Click to expand...
Thanks Jan. Looking at Tracy's Real World Solutions, Inc (RWS) web site, who specializes in Rotary engine conversion, in the FAQ section, he states their high time PSRU (in a fixed wing plane) was 1,400 hours as of mid 2004. Another of their PSRU's have 2,500 hours of service in a gyro-copter. It is interesting to note that RWS has also had made changes to their PSRU from their original design.
 
Last edited:
Shoot! I should have phrased my question differently! I was not being a smart**s really! I really want to know how long these engines typically go for.

Believe me, i am pulling for all the alternative guys - Jan, Innodyne, Deltahawk, all of them! I hate being held up by the Lyc-TCM duopoly, trust me!

So there are still two key questions:

What are typical operating lives?
What is SFC at cruise power?

The argument is that automobile engines are not designed for high continuous power settings. Average engine-life power settings for an auto engine are something like 15%, while they are 65% for the Lyc-TCM's. Big difference. Does this matter???

David T
Legacy
 
dtaylor said:
The argument is that automobile engines are not designed for high continuous power settings. Average engine-life power settings for an auto engine are something like 15%, while they are 65% for the Lyc-TCM's. Big difference. Does this matter???

David T
Legacy
Click to expand...

The power setting matters little as auto engines are validated to much higher WOT standards in development than aircraft engines require for certification. There is a strong correlation between piston speed and longevity however. For a 2000 hour TBO (no topping allowed), my current thinking and those of others in the know like to see piston speeds below 2500 ft./min in cruise and well below 3000 ft./min for takeoff and climb. Lower is better which is why I advocate short stroke turbocharged engines as having the best of all worlds. In light of this, max continuous rpm needs to be limited to about 75% of the factory redline for most designs.

A Lycoming/ Conti operates below 2000 ft./ min which is the reason behind their reliability long term in most cases as far as internal spinning components. Thermal issues cause most of the premature problems with air cooled engines primarily with head cracking. This is rarely an issue with liquid cooled engine where CHTs are low enough that the aluminum maintains most of its strength, unlike air cooled heads.

I would say that MANY air cooled engines go to TBO without topping and that Lycoming O-320/360 engines are among the most reliable if treated well however we certainly see more problems on some of the older, higher hp 6 cylinder engines with case and head cracking, exhaust valve and guide distress etc. It is rare to see a twin engined aircraft with say 4000 hours where both engines have gone the same amount of time without premature top end work or overhaul periods. The same applies to many of the higher strung Lycoming and Continental sixes used in the big Pipers and Cessnas where less than 50% make it to overhaul without topping. Some versions have been complete disasters- like the Malibu/ Lycoming combo for instance.

So, yes, things are progressing rapidly with better engines and better PSRUs coming onto the market. Soon I think auto conversions will be a more viable alternative to many pilots especially with the statospheric costs of 540/550 engines and parts used in high end kit planes. A company like EPI is quite capable today of doing the whole job right. It won't be cheap but neither is a new 550.:)
 
Last edited:
I flight plan using 162 MPH and 5.6 gph for economy cruise.
These are actual in-flight #'s. If we can have # by a 360 powered 7A, we would have a valid comparison. Not Van's #'s but an airplane built and outfitted with full IFR, interior, heat, etc.


OAT 89F, 30.06,at 6500 feet OAT 65F

RPM 1700 - 162 MPH, 5.6 gph
RPM 1800 - 165 MPH, 6.2 gph
RPM 1900 - 170 MPH, 7.1 gph
RPM 2000 - 175 MPH, 8.0 gph

Top speed is around 196 MP
Numbers are from (RV-7A, Andy Parrish)

Jan Eggenfellner
 
The power setting matters little as auto engines are validated to much higher WOT standards in development than aircraft engines require for certification.

Wrong, aircraft engines which are rated for full power are rated to run that WOT for full TBO. THERE ARE NO CAR ENGINE TESTS FOR 2000 HOURS AT WOT FULL POWER.

Before you go to the subaru race car example, it was around 400 hours, and the truth is the duty cycle for a car puts power at less than 30 percent for most of its life.

At Eggenfellner we have more PSRU's flying than anyone. Over 20 years, we have had 2 failures.

Was grounding the fleet for upgrade an option then? I guess I got the impression the bulletin from your company made it mandatory.

Andy's numbers are definitely acceptable, but when I read the website he notes that his airspeed was reading high and his fuel flow was reading low.

Here are those two quotes:

Speeds are within a couple of knots and FF may be a little low
460 nm, flight time 3+21, fuel used 19.9 gallons with 0-5 knot tailwind.

Still works out to just under 140 knots at a little over 6 gallons per hour without accounting for the tailwind...not awful at all.
 
My numbers

janeggenfellner said:
If we can have # by a 360 powered 7A, we would have a valid comparison. Not Van's #'s but an airplane built and outfitted with full IFR, interior, heat, etc.


OAT 89F, 30.06,at 6500 feet OAT 65F

RPM 1700 - 162 MPH, 5.6 gph
RPM 1800 - 165 MPH, 6.2 gph
RPM 1900 - 170 MPH, 7.1 gph
RPM 2000 - 175 MPH, 8.0 gph

Top speed is around 196 MP
Numbers are from (RV-7A, Andy Parrish)

Jan Eggenfellner
Click to expand...

When I run 75% at 7500', I can count on at least 201 TAS in my -6A, 0-360 carbed. Empty weight 1065# with a FP Catto, pitched for max cruise. At 2300RPM (engine and prop:)), I can putz around at 162-164mph.

Jan, you didn't say what your engine was turning to get 2000 prop RPM,

Regards,
 
stratospheric cost?

rv6ejguy said:
I think auto conversions will be a more viable alternative to many pilots especially with the statospheric costs of 540/550 engines and parts used in high end kit planes. A company like EPI is quite capable today of doing the whole job right. It won't be cheap but neither is a new 550.:)
Click to expand...
(Edit: Massave math error, started off with wrong price for both engines)

You can get a brand new shiny Lycoming 540 with roller tappets for $39,000 (corrected).

The "Complete 3.0 200 hp 6 cylinder firewall package" from Eggenfellner is $25,000 (corrected), so at first blush we're talking $14,000 (corrected) difference.

Looking down the list on the Egg site, a constant speed prop is $9,000 or $10,000. A constant speed Hyd control "BA" Hartzell is $6,500+$1,200 (Gov) = $7,700, so there is a ($1,300 to $2,300) (corrected) to the credit of the Lyc.

We could start talking about nickles and $1000's, but just off the bat, including the prop, we're looking at ($12,700 to $11,700) (corrected) difference.

Granted the Lyc needs an oil cooler, exhaust, electric fuel pump and baffle. Van's firewall kit for the RV-10/IO-540 is $4,710 ($5,910 minus the $1,200 prop gov I included above). **Assuming you don't need to buy anything else for the Eggenfellner, than the Lyc total FWF cost is about $17,900 (corrected) more.

** (From Eggs option list)
Hot water heater pkg $595
6-Port Fuel valve $495
High pressure filter $195
E-Cowl with Hardware $1,890
Alternator op (75A v. 35A) $490
Shipping Creating $1,400

To the Eggs credit side of the ledger goes credit for the standard Van's engine mount and cowl, but it may still be a net cost if Van's credit is less. With some of the Egg options, I suspect are needed, the difference between the Lyc IO-540 FWF v Egg 3.0 is less than $17,900 (corrected). If you go with the Egg turbo set-up ($7,000 more), so the Egg is about $10,000 less (corrected) coin.

(Deleted comment about Lyc 540 v Egg being close in price.) (corrected) One engine is 3.0 liter and the other is 8.85 liter (540 cu-in).

Time honored tradition of scrounging for a used Lyc core & rebuilding it, saves significant money, $10,000 for example. It's more of an option with the Lyc. Finding a used 3.0 Subaru will not save you that much money since most of the cost is in the Egg FWF kit itself.

I don't see the promise of significantly lower acquisition cost with commercial alternative FWF kits v. Lyc. (Well $17,900 is significant; I stand corrected.) They have to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with being more expensive, if you get what you pay for. The exceptions are builders who scratch build everything with a used engine. Most people don't have the skill or time for that. Those that do, save money with sweat equity, not to mention the pride of doing it yourself.


As far as performance, I would just like to see SIDE BY SIDE comparisons, like Van has done in the past, like what they did with the Power-Sport rotary engined planes, eg, where you fill the tanks and fly side by side (with Lyc power) and measure fuel burn. Also you do a 'timed' closed course flight plan (and tank check), as well as drag races & time to climb. That would take all the calibration of instruments out. Power-Sport did them self proud, but the higher fuel burn of Wankel 's was apparent. It's great to go as fast or faster but not at the expense of significant gas burn, with prices what they are. I think turbo-charging and flying high is where the alternative engines can shine, efficiency wise. However this adds cost, weight and complexity. It does require you to fly up into oxygen mask altitudes to get that bonus. One could also argue you can turbo a Lycoming and make up the ground again.
 
Last edited:
This thread was started by a LANCAIR guy who I assume is reviled by the high cost of engines for these aircraft and asking a legitimate question about alternatives. You fellows check the prices of engines used in the big Lancairs - $55K-$65K for a ready to run N or TSIO. That is crazy.

I've posted this before: Auto engines today are designed and routinely tested to higher standards than certified aircraft engine requirements. The FAA only requires 100 hours of full throttle, full rpm for certified engines and another 50 hours at 75-100% power, 50 hours of which are required to be at redline oil and cylinder head temperatures. Most auto engine manufacturers today do a minimum validation of 200 hours of WOT at rated hp rpm and some as much as 1200 hours. In addition to this test, they perform cold weather testing to the tune of 1000+ cycles of cold soaking the engine to 0F and immediately taking the engine to WOT and high rpm until coolant reaches 240F. While the engine is still hot, 0F coolant is pumped into the engine until the block achieves 0F and the test is repeated- over 1000 times. Additional tests often include idle testing to 2000 hours with oil temperatures of 260F+ and transmission validation where the engine is cycled from low rpm to shift point rpm at WOT while the transmission is shifted up and down for up to 1600 hours. Not just one engine is put through these tests- dozens are. Wear rates are noted and obviously failures are not acceptable before release of the design.

So, please, no more talk about auto engines being somehow inferior in design, strength or longevity to aircraft engines. I invite anyone to do the torture tests described above on a Lycoming or Continental. I'd love to see how long they'd last- if they even actually started without pre-warming.

From my article on this question: "Automotive Engines Will Not Take Continuous High Rpm Use"

"This is the most common misconception put forth by lay, anti-auto power people and is utter nonsense. They often go on to say that auto engines were designed for low rpm operation and 15-30 hp is required to cruise a car at 70 mph. This simplistic, flawed reasoning is completely unsupported by facts. When asked to supply facts to support their contention on various forums since 2003, not one person has ever done so." I'm still waiting for some facts that show premature wear or failure from running at 4500 rpm WOT. If you don't have the facts, stop sprouting this misinformation. I like the factual discussions started recently on VAF. Let's leave out the conjecture based on "feelings".

There is NO requirement that full rated power on certified engines be demonstrated for the set TBO time and no tests like this have ever been run to my knowledge nor is this recommended by Lycoming or Continental- in fact specific limits for max rpm WOT are set for many of the 6 cylinder engines, especially the turbocharged ones. It is complete nonsense to believe that one of these will run to TBO at rated power-well illustrated in the class action lawsuit filed against Lycoming concerning an alleged 10% inflight failure rate on its TIO-540-AE2A engines powering Piper Mirages. This engine has a TBO of 2000 hours however, a survey of 92 owners found that only 4.3 percent made it to 1500 hours. The average was 727 hours. 41% needed a top overhaul before 1000 hours and many needed topping at 200-300 hours. Why Lycoming sets the TBO at an unrealistic 2000 hours is puzzling when probably not one engine ever reached that without topping. If it was set at a more realistic 750 hours, owners would expect a more realistic operating cost. You work out the cost per hour with an overhaul at 700 hours and the initial price tag on an engine like this. I'll use that word statospheric again here.

Topping and cracking heads are a fairly common reality on the higher hp Lycoming and Continental sixes used in larger singles. I hear and read stories about these problems every month. People with these larger engines do wish there was something better or at least cheaper out there. I do believe you will see more and more of the large singles being fitted with LS type V8 engines in the future as the state of the art progresses. Again, I'd point people needing 300+hp to EPI's outstanding website: http://www.epi-eng.com/

This has realistic discussions on all aspects of V8 engine conversions supported by real engineering, testing and validation of every aspect.
 
Last edited:
So?? How come nobody has answered my original question?

I just asked now much time you alternative engines guys have on your machines so far.

I know all this stuff is new but still, how much flight time are we talking about? 200 hours? 300 hours? 400 hours? Anybody?

(I am not being a smartass i assure you. I really want some operating facts!)

Dave T
 
For engines in the power range suitable as a replacement for a 550-N, Bud Warren got about 700 flight hours and apparently many Ag planes got 500-1000 hours between overhauls on big block Fords. Finally one fellow who has corresponded with me from Oz has over 400 hours on an LS1 in a Pawnee used for glider towing. Another guy has a direct drive Ford V8 in an Eze and regularly waxes O-360 powered ones in races. He has over 500 hours on it I think.

http://www.alternate-airpower.com/index.html

In the lower hp conversions, many Subes have accumulated 500-1000 hours trouble free in fixed wings and high time one that I know about in a gyro is 3600 hours.
 
Last edited:
"So?? How come nobody has answered my original question"?

Wish I could reply but I'm still building after 8 years...hopefully by next fall I'll start logging some hours!

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A, 13B, FWF
 
The longest alternative app I know of involved Jim Mayfield's training gyroplane- I believe it had a belt drive PRSU on a Mazda 13B rotary ~2500 hrs. when the gyro was replaced. Gyroplane use is harder than most other aircraft apps- always at full power.

Tracy Crook has somewhere around 1500 hrs on his Mazda 13B powered RV4 with a planetary geared PSRU- it originally had a badly-designed Ross drive (no thrust bearing) that Tracy redesigned into his RWS box which he now markets. Several users have close to 1000 hrs on the RWS PSRU/rotary engine combo, but, because the RWS unit it is only a few years old, it will take a while to gather a TBO database. It is looking good so far.

Rotaries generally do not show much wear at 1000-1500 hrs when run with a 2-cycle oil/fuel mix. The rotary TBO is not yet known, presumed to be more than 2500 hrs if not overheated (overheating takes out o-ring seals, not catastrophic failures). I do not know of a PRSU failure with the RWS units yet- the design was improved with a minor staking pin upgrade to reduce gear movement; one short production run used a bad import ball bearing that Tracy replaced with a quality roller bearing.

The PSRU unit is rated to 300 hp, the current Mazda engines are rated 200-250hp, 300+ with a turbocharger. FWIW. they seem to be more popular with the canard crowd than with Van's (more of an experimental orientation perhaps, dont know why, as they are ideally suited to most of Vans newer planes).
 
Last edited:
Jconard said:
Wrong, aircraft engines which are rated for full power are rated to run that WOT for full TBO.
Click to expand...

I won't speak to the details of automotive engine testing, because I have no knowledge in that area. But, for aircraft engines, it is useful to review the FAR 33.49 endurance test requirements for reciprocating aircraft engines. You will note that the whole test only requires 150 hr of operation, and only a portion of that time is at rated power.

33.49 Endurance test.

(a) General. Each engine must be subjected to an endurance test that includes a total of 150 hours of operation (except as provided in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section) and, depending upon the type and contemplated use of the engine, consists of one of the series of runs specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, as applicable. The runs must be made in the order found appropriate by the Administrator for the particular engine being tested. During the endurance test the engine power and the crankshaft rotational speed must be kept within ?3 percent of the rated values. During the runs at rated takeoff power and for at least 35 hours at rated maximum continuous power, one cylinder must be operated at not less than the limiting temperature, the other cylinders must be operated at a temperature not lower than 50 degrees F. below the limiting temperature, and the oil inlet temperature must be maintained within ?10 degrees F. of the limiting temperature. An engine that is equipped with a propeller shaft must be fitted for the endurance test with a propeller that thrust-loads the engine to the maximum thrust which the engine is designed to resist at each applicable operating condition specified in this section. Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded. During operation at rated takeoff power and rated maximum continuous power, the load imposed by each accessory used only for an aircraft service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the engine drive or attachment point.

(b) Unsupercharged engines and engines incorporating a gear-driven single-speed supercharger. For engines not incorporating a supercharger and for engines incorporating a gear-driven single-speed supercharger the applicant must conduct the following runs:

(1) A 30-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 5 minutes at rated takeoff power with takeoff speed, and 5 minutes at maximum best economy cruising power or maximum recommended cruising power.

(2) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 11/2hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and1/2hour at 75 percent rated maximum continuous power and 91 percent maximum continuous speed.

(3) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 11/2hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and1/2hour at 70 percent rated maximum continuous power and 89 percent maximum continuous speed.

(4) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 11/2hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and1/2hour at 65 percent rated maximum continuous power and 87 percent maximum continuous speed.

(5) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 11/2hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and1/2hour at 60 percent rated maximum continuous power and 84.5 percent maximum continuous speed.

(6) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 11/2hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and1/2hour at 50 percent rated maximum continuous power and 79.5 percent maximum continuous speed.

(7) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 21/2hours at rated maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 21/2hours at maximum best economy cruising power or at maximum recommended cruising power.
Click to expand...

Appendix A to FAR 33 requires the engine manufacturer to define a recommended time before overhaul for the engine, but there is no requirement that the engine be able to run at rated power for that duration. The TBO that the manufacturer chooses assumes typical operation of the engine - i.e. full power is typically only used for a short period on each flight.
 
dlomheim said:
"So?? How come nobody has answered my original question"?

Wish I could reply but I'm still building after 8 years...hopefully by next fall I'll start logging some hours!

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A, 13B, FWF
Click to expand...

Doug if you are a rotary guy, and by your signiture I would assume that, you must have seen Tracy's home page. It has the hours listed on his RV-4 conversion right up front. 1650 hours. Tracy removed the older 13B engine at 800 hours. (it was an unopened junkyard engine!) He didn't wear it out, He wanted to test his newest 2.85:1 redrive and later a Renesis 2 rotor. If you were hoping for a fleet of guys to chime in with wear numbers and figures, don't hold your breath. I don't think they would want to come on this site in the first place. Way to much NIH ridicule. I have become an infrequent poster because of it. If you put together a perfectly viable auto engine alternative and it gets 1 HP less that a Lyc or weights 10 pounds more or uses .3 more GPH you are an idiot according to at least half the posters in the ALTERNATE ENGINES forum. In fact you are a hazard to the public and to the well being of all general aviation too. I tired of the "defend your life syndrome." I think there are more posters in the engine specific forums, like Fly Rotary, or the Subaru Yahoo forums. More information and way less hassle.
Bill Jepson
 
Thanks Kevin for the facts on certification requirements. I might add that since atmo aircraft engines operate at altitude, they are rarely and even then shortly not putting out rated takeoff power most of the time. WOT at 8000 feet is only around 75% depending on rpm.

My choice for an unpressurized Lancair would probably be an L92 with puts out 300hp at only 3800 rpm and 225 (75%) at only 3000 rpm. Weight would actually be less than a 550N even with PSRU, rads and coolant. I'm pretty sure this is not going to frag in a few hours running along at 3 grand. $6000

If I needed more jam and wanted to spend double, the LS7 puts out about the same numbers but would give you more power at higher rpms- 400hp at only 4600 rpm. This is a nice piece with titanium rods and intake valves and sodium filled exhaust valves. Even 4600 rpm is loafing on this engine which has a 7000 rpm redline and puts out 505hp and 470 ft./lbs. $13,000

By Golly if GM doesn't offer single plane carburetor manifolds for these engines too if you don't like EFI!
 
Last edited:
Was grounding the fleet for upgrade an option then? I guess I got the impression the bulletin from your company made it mandatory.
Click to expand...

It is as mandatory as you want to make safety. All earlier drives should be replaced with the better unit.

Jan
 
You can get a brand new shiny Lycoming 540 with roller tappets for $39,000.

The "Complete 3.0 200 hp 6 cylinder firewall package" from Eggenfellner is $35,000, so at first blush we're talking $4,000 difference.
Click to expand...

You can buy our turbo engine for $20,000. The rest is firewall forward stuff. Please price your $39,000 engine WITH all firewall forward items, less prop.

Also, for those that do not enjoy the silky smooth and refined feel of operating the Subaru conversion, you might not find too many advantages of this engine.
Jan
 
Granted the Lyc needs an oil cooler, exhaust, electric fuel pump and baffle. Van's firewall kit for the RV-10/IO-540 is $5,910 ($4710 minus the $1,200 prop gov I included above). **Assuming you don't need to buy anything else for the Eggenfellner, than the Lyc total FWF cost is about $7,000 more.
Click to expand...
And it is a box of parts. Our engines are fully put together, mounted to the engine mount, muffler, alternator, starter, heater hoses, etc., all installed and ready to hang on the airplane.


** (From Eggs option list)
Hot water heater pkg $595
Click to expand...
You need heat in the aircooled engine installation as well.

6-Port Fuel valve $495
Click to expand...

All RV's have some sort of fuel valve

High pressure filter $195
Click to expand...

All injected engines need them. You can use a $10 automotive as well. The Andair unit is just nice.

E-Cowl with Hardware $1,890
Alternator op (75A v. 35A) $490
Click to expand...

35-40A alternator included. 90% get this.

Shipping Creating $1,400
Click to expand...

All engines need to be crated and shipped.

We never did say we are the least expencive. We charge just what it takes to stay in business.

Jan
 
It is as mandatory as you want to make safety. All earlier drives should be replaced with the better unit.

So the previous drives are perfectly safe and the mandatory grounding was to install a drive which was more perfectly safe??

What am I missing?
 
Thanks Kevin,

My flight training was that the engines in use (320 and 360) were rated for TBO at full power, in short you could run them at full rated without concern.

Deakin seems to take that position too. But I have learned that the required certification test does not require it.

I am actually a little more impressed when I heard this:

During the runs at rated takeoff power and for at least 35 hours at rated maximum continuous power, one cylinder must be operated at not less than the limiting temperature, the other cylinders must be operated at a temperature not lower than 50 degrees F. below the limiting temperature, and the oil inlet temperature must be maintained within ?10 degrees F. of the limiting temperature. An engine that is equipped with a propeller shaft must be fitted for the endurance test with a propeller that thrust-loads the engine to the maximum thrust which the engine is designed to resist at each applicable operating condition specified in this section. Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded. During operation at rated takeoff power and rated maximum continuous power, the load imposed by each accessory used only for an aircraft service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the engine drive or attachment point.

Wow 490 -500 degrees on all cylinders, with 250 degree oil at the pump, and full thrust load on all the bearings....even though this is only 35 minutes, those are extreme temps and conditions.

What is great is the extreme loading and testing of everything from pumps to propellers.
 
It is as mandatory as you want to make safety. All earlier drives should be replaced with the better unit.

So the previous drives are perfectly safe and the mandatory grounding was to install a drive which was more perfectly safe??

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You are missing the fact that two of the earlier drive units failed.

Jan
 
Apologies for Boo Boo

janeggenfellner said:
You can buy our turbo engine for $20,000. The rest is firewall forward stuff. Please price your $39,000 engine WITH all firewall forward items, less prop.

Also, for those that do not enjoy the silky smooth and refined feel of operating the Subaru conversion, you might not find too many advantages of this engine. Jan
Click to expand...
Sincere apologies Jan, honest mistake, my eyes went cross eyed when I saw the price tag, I corrected my post #10. I used the wrong price for both engines. I concur, the difference is ball park $20k, in favor of the Eggenfellner package v Lyc 540.
 
Last edited:
Only two failures? What qualifies as a failure? Not to be too nit picky here, but I personnly had what I would call two Gen 2 drive failures, and I know for certain that I am not the only person to have failures.

Perhaps failure needs to be defined?

In my case the input bearings came apart, inside of 25 hrs in operation. In the first case the roller cage basically disintegrated to the point that the roller balls had all gathered up to one side. I caught the second one early since I knew what to listen for and the cage was just starting to break up.

To qualify this, I am running the STI engine and the horsepower is estimated to be well above 200. Jan did announce several times that he felt the STI engine needed to have the Gen 3 drive.

Trying to stay objective here...
 
Sincere apologies Jan, honest mistake, my eyes went cross eyed when I saw the price tag, I corrected my post #10. I used the wrong price for both engines. I concur, the difference is ball park $20k, in favor of the Eggenfellner package v Lyc 540.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the exact $ figures are but I think picking the engine you want is the least expensive way in the long run, after building for such a long time. As far as performance, comparing the latest 3.6 Turbo to the 540, the 3.6 will be far better for anything above 10,000 feet. The 540 will have more power below this.

Jan
 
To qualify this, I am running the STI engine and the horsepower is estimated to be well above 200. Jan did announce several times that he felt the STI engine needed to have the Gen 3 drive.

Trying to stay objective here...
Click to expand...

Yes, the STI engine was a special case with only 25 sold. It was the first engine that we said should get the new drive. The recommendation was made early. Randy is right, we know of bearing cage failures but only 2 drives where the airplane had to land without the engine turning the propeller. This is even more unlikely now, with plenty of redundancy throughout the drive. Randy has flown behind each drive and has direct experience with them in flight.
 
comparing the latest 3.6 Turbo to the 540, the 3.6 will be far better for anything above 10,000 feet.

What are the performance numbers for the new 3.6 turbo packages, based on your flight testing in an RV-10?
 
Thanks for the info

janeggenfellner said:
And it is a box of parts. Our engines are fully put together, mounted to the engine mount, muffler, alternator, starter, heater hoses, etc., all installed and ready to hang on the airplane.
Right I was just trying to find hidden cost. Clearly things like installing the baffling on an aircooled engine is more work, good point.

You need heat in the aircooled engine installation as well.
Right but cabin heat is included in the Vans FWF kit, so this is an extra cost when doing an apples v apples nickles and dimes. Not a big deal.

All RV's have some sort of fuel valve
Right but not a 6 port valve deal, again this is an extra cost, since the fuel valve is included in the kit, granted not as nice as an Andair valve.

High pressure filter, All injected engines need them. You can use a $10 automotive as well. The Andair unit is just nice.
Again this is included in the Vans FWF kit.


35-40A alternator included. 90% get this.
I don't think the Lyc comes with an alternator so that is an extra cost for the Lyc.

Jan
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, I am satisfied there are no hidden cost. All these items are small compared to the total cost.
 
What are the performance numbers for the new 3.6 turbo packages, based on your flight testing in an RV-10?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. The 3.6 became available in the 2008 cars. It is a miracle we can get some already. The performance charts on our web site are based on the 3.0 flight tests. The 3.6 will be even better, as shown on the graph on the same performance page.

Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top