Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
E-Subie H-4 coming back...
- Thread starter cjensen
- Start date
cjensen
Well Known Member
Eggzactly what Ross said.
John,
Please keep in mind that this can and should be used as an information sharing forum from time to time. There is no need to post your sarcasm everytime someone posts something about alternative engines. Also, I have NO interest in this engine for my -7. I'm just passing along the fact that Jan is ordering engines if there are any potential customers out there that wanted an EJ25. This isn't meant to be any sort of stab at you, just that sometimes info can be past along without the expected response. You're question about more accessible horsepower is totally valid, and it was happily answered and addressed, but "smoke and mirrors"? Why throw that in? We all know you don't like Jan or his Subaru conversions for whatever reason, but some people do, and I thought this info was appropriate to pass on.
I like the options out there, and I still like Lycs and the clones. I may end up using one, but as long as I am building up to the point of needing to order an engine, I'll look around.
John,
Please keep in mind that this can and should be used as an information sharing forum from time to time. There is no need to post your sarcasm everytime someone posts something about alternative engines. Also, I have NO interest in this engine for my -7. I'm just passing along the fact that Jan is ordering engines if there are any potential customers out there that wanted an EJ25. This isn't meant to be any sort of stab at you, just that sometimes info can be past along without the expected response. You're question about more accessible horsepower is totally valid, and it was happily answered and addressed, but "smoke and mirrors"? Why throw that in? We all know you don't like Jan or his Subaru conversions for whatever reason, but some people do, and I thought this info was appropriate to pass on.
I like the options out there, and I still like Lycs and the clones. I may end up using one, but as long as I am building up to the point of needing to order an engine, I'll look around.
More Accessible Horsepower
Come on Chad, don't go and get sensitive on me! It's not my fault I have never heard the phrase "accessible horsepower" Did you just make that up?
I heard Ross's explaination, still wondering what YOU meant.
Take a good look at ALL the alternative ccompanies, and you will see varying
degrees of deception being practiced. Crossflow, NSI, Innodyne, Mistral and to a lesser degree EGG. All trying to pedal marginal concepts to unsuspecting customers looking for a free lunch.
Weeks after the crash, EGG's website still advertises the belt-drive gearbox, and offers no explaination of it's demise. Ten years in the business, and the gearbox is starting over, again, on a clean sheet of paper. And they still run hot, inspite of constant denials from all the believers.
Indignation on your part doesn't change the fact that alternative engines are
a HUGE compomise in RV aircraft. Wish you'd change your mind!
Come on Chad, don't go and get sensitive on me! It's not my fault I have never heard the phrase "accessible horsepower" Did you just make that up?
I heard Ross's explaination, still wondering what YOU meant.
Take a good look at ALL the alternative ccompanies, and you will see varying
degrees of deception being practiced. Crossflow, NSI, Innodyne, Mistral and to a lesser degree EGG. All trying to pedal marginal concepts to unsuspecting customers looking for a free lunch.
Weeks after the crash, EGG's website still advertises the belt-drive gearbox, and offers no explaination of it's demise. Ten years in the business, and the gearbox is starting over, again, on a clean sheet of paper. And they still run hot, inspite of constant denials from all the believers.
Indignation on your part doesn't change the fact that alternative engines are
a HUGE compomise in RV aircraft. Wish you'd change your mind!
cjensen
Well Known Member
Everything is a compromise John.
What I meant by "accessible horsepower" was just the fact that whatever style reduction drive comes out next, the ratio of 2.0? will be better suited to get to the higher horsepower range of that particular engine, and transmit it to the propeller.
I guess I did make that phrase up. Did I need approval before using it?
I have looked at all the alternative engine companies out there, and I DO agree with you that some of them (maybe all??? ) have been deceptive. Am I a customer of any of them? Nope. I did have a deposit with Jan, but took it back because of lack of a direction with the redux drive.
I agree with you that Jan's website needs to be updated. They are busy, and websites get neglected sometimes. I am in charge of the website at work, and it doesn't get updated as often as it should at times, but it does get done. Just not priority. Jan is working on other developments at this time, and OSH is next week, so I wouldn't expect any updates on the site for a while. I hope he succeeds. There's no reason to hope he doesn't. Could be a great thing someday. Right now, the Lyc and clones are still king, as they should be. The alts aren't ready for prime time yet, but people are making strides.
If I had a decision in my mind to change, I would have something to think about changing. Nothing to change my mind about right now since I haven't bought an engine.
Why are you trying to change anyone's mind?
What I meant by "accessible horsepower" was just the fact that whatever style reduction drive comes out next, the ratio of 2.0? will be better suited to get to the higher horsepower range of that particular engine, and transmit it to the propeller.
I guess I did make that phrase up. Did I need approval before using it?
I have looked at all the alternative engine companies out there, and I DO agree with you that some of them (maybe all???
) have been deceptive. Am I a customer of any of them? Nope. I did have a deposit with Jan, but took it back because of lack of a direction with the redux drive.I agree with you that Jan's website needs to be updated. They are busy, and websites get neglected sometimes. I am in charge of the website at work, and it doesn't get updated as often as it should at times, but it does get done. Just not priority. Jan is working on other developments at this time, and OSH is next week, so I wouldn't expect any updates on the site for a while. I hope he succeeds. There's no reason to hope he doesn't. Could be a great thing someday. Right now, the Lyc and clones are still king, as they should be. The alts aren't ready for prime time yet, but people are making strides.
If I had a decision in my mind to change, I would have something to think about changing. Nothing to change my mind about right now since I haven't bought an engine.
Why are you trying to change anyone's mind?
cjensen said:Everything is a compromise John.
What I meant by "accessible horsepower" was just the fact that whatever style reduction drive comes out next, the ratio of 2.0? will be better suited to get to the higher horsepower range of that particular engine, and transmit it to the propeller.
I guess I did make that phrase up. Did I need approval before using it?
I have looked at all the alternative engine companies out there, and I DO agree with you that some of them (maybe all???
I agree with you that Jan's website needs to be updated. They are busy, and websites get neglected sometimes. I am in charge of the website at work, and it doesn't get updated as often as it should at times, but it does get done. Just not priority. Jan is working on other developments at this time, and OSH is next week, so I wouldn't expect any updates on the site for a while. I hope he succeeds. There's no reason to hope he doesn't. Could be a great thing someday. Right now, the Lyc and clones are still king, as they should be. The alts aren't ready for prime time yet, but people are making strides.
If I had a decision in my mind to change, I would have something to think about changing. Nothing to change my mind about right now since I haven't bought an engine.
Why are you trying to change anyone's mind?
Thanks for the explaination. Problem is, I don't think the latest 4 cylinder
Egg offering will be offering any more horsepower, inspite of it's lower gear ratio. It might have a chance though, of producing what it has advertised
from the start.
I guess I'm preaching to the choir. If you took back your deposit from EGG, we are on the same sheet of music. But let's get this straight, the belt drive gearbox didn't lack direction, it was an utter and complete failure. I knew from the first picture of that thing it was not going to work. Violates the KISS
principle so loudly I could hear it out here in Arizona. 12 bearings......that's just outragous.
Why do I want to change your mind?.......I don't. I want you, and others, to have enough pertinent information to make your own good decisions.
Deception from Mistral?? From Mickey's tour a ways back of their factory and many other things I have read over the last few years, they'd appear to be one of the straightest shooting companies on the horizon. Of course we need to see independent testing when these are available. Deception is a pretty strong word.
In this area, straight talk will go easier in the long run and leave you with happier customers. Those who have not learned that lesson yet, soon will.
Engines are about choices and preferences, just like many other things in life. Should everyone drive a Toyota because year after year, they have been shown to be one of the most reliable marques with good resale- why on earth would you want a Chev or Ford or Dodge then? Obviously many people prefer other brands just like with TVs, GPSs, blenders, aircraft etc. etc. The world would be a very boring place without choices.
To many, other things like refinement, ease of operation and economy are far more important than weight or even initial cost as for instances.
The people choosing to power their aircraft with Mistral or Egg engines are not fools. They are not stupid. They are not inexperienced. They include engineers, professional pilots and other saavy types along with low timers building their first airplanes. They are all big boys, capable of deciding how they will spend their money and probably not too interested in the strident roar from the other side of the fence spewing doom and gloom about their "crazy " choices. Ignoring the bouquets from Egg users like the 29,000 hour, 50 year veteran who has 7 times your flight experience and has flown BOTH cert engines and Egg ones is your perogative. Most are pretty enthusiastic about their engine choices, probably some are not. It's interesting that so much flak comes from those who have never flown behind an alternative engine.
If you don't like them, fine that is your choice, nobody has a gun to your head to buy one and we all thank you for looking out for our interests. As I've said before, if you like your Lyco, please, by all means, enjoy flying it.
In this area, straight talk will go easier in the long run and leave you with happier customers. Those who have not learned that lesson yet, soon will.
Engines are about choices and preferences, just like many other things in life. Should everyone drive a Toyota because year after year, they have been shown to be one of the most reliable marques with good resale- why on earth would you want a Chev or Ford or Dodge then? Obviously many people prefer other brands just like with TVs, GPSs, blenders, aircraft etc. etc. The world would be a very boring place without choices.
To many, other things like refinement, ease of operation and economy are far more important than weight or even initial cost as for instances.
The people choosing to power their aircraft with Mistral or Egg engines are not fools. They are not stupid. They are not inexperienced. They include engineers, professional pilots and other saavy types along with low timers building their first airplanes. They are all big boys, capable of deciding how they will spend their money and probably not too interested in the strident roar from the other side of the fence spewing doom and gloom about their "crazy " choices. Ignoring the bouquets from Egg users like the 29,000 hour, 50 year veteran who has 7 times your flight experience and has flown BOTH cert engines and Egg ones is your perogative. Most are pretty enthusiastic about their engine choices, probably some are not. It's interesting that so much flak comes from those who have never flown behind an alternative engine.
If you don't like them, fine that is your choice, nobody has a gun to your head to buy one and we all thank you for looking out for our interests. As I've said before, if you like your Lyco, please, by all means, enjoy flying it.
Last edited:
cjensen
Well Known Member
We're almost on the same sheet...I took my deposit back BECAUSE of the belted redrive. That's the lack of direction I'm talking about. I was really happy with the Gen 2 geared drive. What a neat small little package that did the job well...then he changed it. Money is back to me.
Pertinent information is pretty easy to come by. I don't think many people go in to buying a $25k+ engine packages without knowing the pertinent info. Some probably do, but I would think most do the research and know what they are getting in to. It's a huge committment, and anyone thinking about doing it should know that before sending the card number or check.
I do agree with Ross that Mistral is probably one of the straightest shooters out there. Tracy Crook is another that I would trust. He's cheap, and everyone knows it. He'll tell you that. He'll tell you what works, and what doesn't.
Now we're on the same page. I think I'm gonna add the R-2800 to my list of possibilities...
Pertinent information is pretty easy to come by. I don't think many people go in to buying a $25k+ engine packages without knowing the pertinent info. Some probably do, but I would think most do the research and know what they are getting in to. It's a huge committment, and anyone thinking about doing it should know that before sending the card number or check.
I do agree with Ross that Mistral is probably one of the straightest shooters out there. Tracy Crook is another that I would trust. He's cheap, and everyone knows it. He'll tell you that. He'll tell you what works, and what doesn't.
Now we're on the same page. I think I'm gonna add the R-2800 to my list of possibilities...
Hyperbole
See Ross, this is what others refer to as "Hyperbole" All those words, and not one specific reference to the belt drive gearbox, Jan's misleading website,
Mistral's improbable fuel claims, Egg's overheating, David's H-4 crash, Crossflow's pilaging of hopeful customers, Innodyne's unfulfilled spec sheet,
Powersport's voracious appetite for fuel, NSI's disappearance from the web.
You've made your choice, Ross, not once but twice. David's made his choice, not once but twice too. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
rv6ejguy said:
See Ross, this is what others refer to as "Hyperbole" All those words, and not one specific reference to the belt drive gearbox, Jan's misleading website,
Mistral's improbable fuel claims, Egg's overheating, David's H-4 crash, Crossflow's pilaging of hopeful customers, Innodyne's unfulfilled spec sheet,
Powersport's voracious appetite for fuel, NSI's disappearance from the web.
You've made your choice, Ross, not once but twice. David's made his choice, not once but twice too. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
I have to agree with Chad on your posts John. I look at your posts and all I see is a Fire and Brimstone preacher trying to convert the masses with: "You all are going to ****!!"; This or that "whatever" is not what you would do, "so anyone who doesn't do what I say is a fool", talk. Why are Subies or rotaries such an emotional topic with you? Why are installing fuses instead of CB's sending you over the edge?Yukon said:
Come on John, how about lightening up a little in these forums? I, for one, personally appreciate all of the differing views on these forums and welcome the diversity of thought. That is what leads to innovations like 2400 hour TBO's on Lycoming O-235's or increased efficiencies of old doohickies and whatchamacallums when you install new widgets and thingimajigs.
Instead of looking forward to reading what you have to say I find myself wincing when I see your name posted on a forum. It makes me want to skip that thread and go onto another one because I know when I open it up and read your post I am going to have to read about how you feel that such and such is rediculous or that so and so is foolish for doing whatever. That is not why I read these posts. I read them to glean information from a diverse group of builders and hopefully learn something new I didn't know before. That especially goes for people who do things differently than I do. If everyone did it the way I did it, what possible things would I be able to learn from them?
How about it John? I vote for a "chill pill". I would love to hear some positive constructive posts from you on something like the great benefits I can gain from installing a Lycoming engine in an RV and how it will benefit me in the long run to do so. Of course, you might end up telling me things that I have already concluded on my own as it appears that in the process of researching all the various options for engines on my plane I will be installing an O-290-D2. Price, performance, weight, reliability, simplicity, design parameters, etc. etc. etc. keep sending me away from alternatives and back to the "tried and true". So I guess even if you were to write such a post you would be "preaching to the choir" again but at least I could enjoy your positive attitude for a change.
December 2006 Delivery
Chad,
Would be glad to have you as our launch customer!
cjensen said:We're almost on the same sheet...I took my deposit back BECAUSE of the belted redrive. That's the lack of direction I'm talking about. I was really happy with the Gen 2 geared drive. What a neat small little package that did the job well...then he changed it. Money is back to me.
Pertinent information is pretty easy to come by. I don't think many people go in to buying a $25k+ engine packages without knowing the pertinent info. Some probably do, but I would think most do the research and know what they are getting in to. It's a huge committment, and anyone thinking about doing it should know that before sending the card number or check.
I do agree with Ross that Mistral is probably one of the straightest shooters out there. Tracy Crook is another that I would trust. He's cheap, and everyone knows it. He'll tell you that. He'll tell you what works, and what doesn't.
Now we're on the same page. I think I'm gonna add the R-2800 to my list of possibilities...
Chad,
Would be glad to have you as our launch customer!
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Smoke and Mirrors
After my extremely bad experience at the hands of an alternative engine company I went with the ECI.
Like it or not the Subaru companies are in a continuous state of R&D with the end user as the lab rats. R&D is a good thing if you are trying to improve on a product that already has a proven track record. None of those existing have that. There are a few that have been relatively successful. But they are the exception and not the rule.
Again, I ask, "with all of the discussion, documented issues and known issues, would you put your wife, husband, son or daughter behind these engines?"
Chad, it is time for an intervention. See me at the BBQ. The men in Ninja suits will be taking you away for reprogramming.
Unsubscribing from the Subaru lists one the most liberating experiences an RV owner could have
After my extremely bad experience at the hands of an alternative engine company I went with the ECI.
Like it or not the Subaru companies are in a continuous state of R&D with the end user as the lab rats. R&D is a good thing if you are trying to improve on a product that already has a proven track record. None of those existing have that. There are a few that have been relatively successful. But they are the exception and not the rule.
Again, I ask, "with all of the discussion, documented issues and known issues, would you put your wife, husband, son or daughter behind these engines?"
Chad, it is time for an intervention. See me at the BBQ. The men in Ninja suits will be taking you away for reprogramming.
Unsubscribing from the Subaru lists one the most liberating experiences an RV owner could have
cjensen
Well Known Member
He he he!! If I see men in Ninja suits at the BBQ, you won't have any problem taking me away...I'll be laughing my A$$ off!! I'm laughing right now just thinking about how that would look...HA!!RV7Guy said:Chad, it is time for an intervention. See me at the BBQ. The men in Ninja suits will be taking you away for reprogramming.
Unsubscribing from the Subaru lists one the most liberating experiences an RV owner could have
Rotary10-RV
Well Known Member
Yukon said:
John,
I speak only with reguards to Mistral here, you are simply wrong. They are certifing the engine. The FAA would be a bit upset about misleading fuel claims in a POH. I'll give you the benifit of the doubt here and say your comments are made in ignorance, rather than being malicous. I have followed the development of Mistral's engines on several rotary oriented sites and they have been very up front about how they improved the fuel flows and the HP in their engines. Some of the changes they made that ran counter to the "accepted wisdom" as well. Their willingness to share their dyno results has been a great help. That Mistral has agreed to sell some of their very well made parts to homebuilders, (and more importantly DELIVERING those parts), speaks volumes about the quality of their organization.
Bill Jepson
Rotary10-RV
David-aviator
Well Known Member
cjensen said:
What BBQ?
Are you guys talking about the homebuilders BBQ at OSH next week, Thursday, if so, see you there. It's the only place on the field one can get a beer
dd
David-aviator
Well Known Member
cjensen said:
Thanks, I've signed up.
dd
Bill,
Your engine has been under developement since 1994. If it could deliver such efficiency, I suspect it would already be installed on every homebuilt in America. Time will tell. More time......
Certification is no indicator of success. Porsche certified their auto engine in the Mooney.......utter failure/withdrawn from market. Franklin tried to return to market with their certified engines.......bankrupt. Continental certified a liquid cooled, high-tech engine.........can't give them away! Beechcraft certified the Starship..........cut up the entire production run to avoid liability.
My dream engine is the Zoche. Go to their website. Listen to it run on the test cell. Incredible efficiency, compact, lightweight........trouble is, they can't seem to get it out of the test cell. In 15 years, they have been unable to install it on an airplane. I suspect it has destructive harmonics somewhere in the engine that are insurmountable.
It's a tough business, Bill. If I were you, I would mount up one of those
IO-540's and have a blast. When the dust settles, it would be a small matter to install a Mistral or a Zoche or...........
Zoche test stand Video (Guaranteed to give you wood!)
http://www.zoche.de/Zoche_video.html
Your engine has been under developement since 1994. If it could deliver such efficiency, I suspect it would already be installed on every homebuilt in America. Time will tell. More time......
Certification is no indicator of success. Porsche certified their auto engine in the Mooney.......utter failure/withdrawn from market. Franklin tried to return to market with their certified engines.......bankrupt. Continental certified a liquid cooled, high-tech engine.........can't give them away! Beechcraft certified the Starship..........cut up the entire production run to avoid liability.
My dream engine is the Zoche. Go to their website. Listen to it run on the test cell. Incredible efficiency, compact, lightweight........trouble is, they can't seem to get it out of the test cell. In 15 years, they have been unable to install it on an airplane. I suspect it has destructive harmonics somewhere in the engine that are insurmountable.
It's a tough business, Bill. If I were you, I would mount up one of those
IO-540's and have a blast. When the dust settles, it would be a small matter to install a Mistral or a Zoche or...........
Zoche test stand Video (Guaranteed to give you wood!)
http://www.zoche.de/Zoche_video.html
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Wankel's BURN more fuel and always will
They claim or hope to certify their engine, it has not happen as far as I know and are not making breath taking headway. In fact it may never happen. I hope it does, but if it does not happen, that would be par for the course. Also they promise that they will sell parts to homebuilders means....... what? More promises. The landscape is littered with the latest greatest engine to every fly, that never did. Again not taking a shot at Mistral, only the history of their for bearers in this business. The track record is so poor I would advise NO one buy into any unproven engine package until it is flying and tested, with independant flight test (Van's, Cafe Foundation). If it was good they would invite outside parties to verify their numbers. That will not happen I predict.
Sorry if I sound paranoid, but "You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you."
Also they will have to "certify it" in an airframe, a certified airframe, all good but I think they are way off from that.
Reality check on fuel economy. The Mistral is based on Mazda parts as far as I know, nothing NEW or unique, a Mazda Corp rotary engine, with some external changes or mild porting or modification. Never the less the basic design is Mazda. I don't know of ANY Mazda claiming as good or better fuel efficency. In fact they Wankel is inherently terrible. They have a long way to even get parity to a Lycomimg despite their claims.
The Mazda does OK with fuel economy at altitude in the Teens with a turbo. So if you are going turbo (I would with a Rotary) and always fly in the supplemental O2 breathing altitudes you might get close to Lyc fuel burns. However takeoff and climb you are going to still pay a price.
I suspect their claims are enthusiastic (hopeful). They allude to improving the aerodynamics of the installation package, but sounds like excuses. When ever I hear actual Wankel fuel burns, actually measured by independant party, they are high. This is always followed with excuses and talk from Wankel'ers about "Oh well the ECU was not optimized" or other such nonsense.
The fuel economy of of a Wankel engine is deep within the basic and inherent design. Take a RX8 late model sports car, the only Wankel vehicle you can buy today. A friend has one: Gets terrible actual gas millage (reported EPA milage, reported 5 MPH less than equivalent 220HP sports cars both city/hi-way and his does not get that), Oil Burn - about 2 qts (into injector) between oil changes (he actually caries oil bottles in his care, I can't remember when I added oil between changes to my cars). Again Wankel fans will say the ECU is not optimized.....please the engineers at Mazda did every thing they could to get the best milage it could get. The sports car with similar gas milage 18/23 is the Nissan Z-car with 80 HP more. Facts are facts.
It may be turn of the century technology but 4 cycle Otto cycle internal combustion piston engines are fairly efficient compared to anything else. (Actually they are all inefficient but that is about the best we have behind diesel.)
The Wankel rejects (wastes) such hot high speed gas, it's suited for a turbocharger. However that adds complexity and weight, whose benifit is best exploited at high altitudes. That's not how I fly in my RV (local, acro, formation and 20% high cross country). In a RV-10 may be a better choice if all you do is fly high with O2 bag on your face or up the snaazola. Of course you can turbo a Lyc. Look at the new Mooney or Piper Malibu and their FL250 dual turbo, inter-cooled Lyc performance. High compression and turbo charging is a way to add efficency. I have lots of past experience with turbo planes flying freight and CFI'ing. Let me just say, I am glad I did not own any turbo plane. The turbo was a big maintenance item. It was a neccessary evil for performance. There's no such thing as a free lunch; you have to pay for performance. The idea of cheap alternative engine with turbine power is a dream. The famous aerodynamic principle of lift and speed is a function of money is pretty true.
I don't understand folks denial of actual rotary engine fuel burn numbers. Time and time again the facts and flight test show that the Wankel is thirsty. It's a technical marvel, but gas economy is NOT its strength. The other down side is oil use and noise. Other than that, they are cool.
Personally I don't care for ECU's but Tracy I recall has tried to address this with a redundant ECU unit he sells. Nice engine but no econ engine? NO. Mistral redundant ECU looks very and aerospace quality. Hat off, what I see is nice, no doubt.
I doubt Mistral can make a breakthrough in gas milage with basically a stock Mazda design. Even if they started from scratch, the design and principles of the Wankel to date are such they burn more fuel per HP. Unless there's a radical improvement to Dr. Wankel's design, it ain't going to happen. Again fly high and turbo charge you Wankel's to get the best possible fuel burn, but down low not so good (by a significant amount).
No offense or desire to rain on any one's parade intended, but that is they way I see it after watching the progress of Wankel's for +30 years. Just a piece of wisdom, don't fly behind a power plant or components that have not been shown reliable. Even Eggenfellner and RWS rotary engine parts have a track record, Mistral? Hope they do what they say, but I would wait. To date the best "engine conversion" is converting +$20,000 for a Lycoming (+$30K for RV-10 builders).
Bill, I appreciate you and your comments but show me. Promise from an engine supplier for aviation is like a used car salesman with a bad combover and plaid jacket, no offense to Mistral. Their intentions and integrity may be without question, but promises are made to be broken to rock a tired cliche'.Rotary10-RV said:
They claim or hope to certify their engine, it has not happen as far as I know and are not making breath taking headway. In fact it may never happen. I hope it does, but if it does not happen, that would be par for the course. Also they promise that they will sell parts to homebuilders means....... what? More promises. The landscape is littered with the latest greatest engine to every fly, that never did. Again not taking a shot at Mistral, only the history of their for bearers in this business. The track record is so poor I would advise NO one buy into any unproven engine package until it is flying and tested, with independant flight test (Van's, Cafe Foundation). If it was good they would invite outside parties to verify their numbers. That will not happen I predict.
Sorry if I sound paranoid, but "You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you."
Also they will have to "certify it" in an airframe, a certified airframe, all good but I think they are way off from that.
Reality check on fuel economy. The Mistral is based on Mazda parts as far as I know, nothing NEW or unique, a Mazda Corp rotary engine, with some external changes or mild porting or modification. Never the less the basic design is Mazda. I don't know of ANY Mazda claiming as good or better fuel efficency. In fact they Wankel is inherently terrible. They have a long way to even get parity to a Lycomimg despite their claims.
The Mazda does OK with fuel economy at altitude in the Teens with a turbo. So if you are going turbo (I would with a Rotary) and always fly in the supplemental O2 breathing altitudes you might get close to Lyc fuel burns. However takeoff and climb you are going to still pay a price.
I suspect their claims are enthusiastic (hopeful). They allude to improving the aerodynamics of the installation package, but sounds like excuses. When ever I hear actual Wankel fuel burns, actually measured by independant party, they are high. This is always followed with excuses and talk from Wankel'ers about "Oh well the ECU was not optimized" or other such nonsense.
The fuel economy of of a Wankel engine is deep within the basic and inherent design. Take a RX8 late model sports car, the only Wankel vehicle you can buy today. A friend has one: Gets terrible actual gas millage (reported EPA milage, reported 5 MPH less than equivalent 220HP sports cars both city/hi-way and his does not get that), Oil Burn - about 2 qts (into injector) between oil changes (he actually caries oil bottles in his care, I can't remember when I added oil between changes to my cars). Again Wankel fans will say the ECU is not optimized.....please the engineers at Mazda did every thing they could to get the best milage it could get. The sports car with similar gas milage 18/23 is the Nissan Z-car with 80 HP more. Facts are facts.
It may be turn of the century technology but 4 cycle Otto cycle internal combustion piston engines are fairly efficient compared to anything else. (Actually they are all inefficient but that is about the best we have behind diesel.)
The Wankel rejects (wastes) such hot high speed gas, it's suited for a turbocharger. However that adds complexity and weight, whose benifit is best exploited at high altitudes. That's not how I fly in my RV (local, acro, formation and 20% high cross country). In a RV-10 may be a better choice if all you do is fly high with O2 bag on your face or up the snaazola. Of course you can turbo a Lyc. Look at the new Mooney or Piper Malibu and their FL250 dual turbo, inter-cooled Lyc performance. High compression and turbo charging is a way to add efficency. I have lots of past experience with turbo planes flying freight and CFI'ing. Let me just say, I am glad I did not own any turbo plane. The turbo was a big maintenance item. It was a neccessary evil for performance. There's no such thing as a free lunch; you have to pay for performance. The idea of cheap alternative engine with turbine power is a dream. The famous aerodynamic principle of lift and speed is a function of money is pretty true.
I don't understand folks denial of actual rotary engine fuel burn numbers. Time and time again the facts and flight test show that the Wankel is thirsty. It's a technical marvel, but gas economy is NOT its strength. The other down side is oil use and noise. Other than that, they are cool.
Personally I don't care for ECU's but Tracy I recall has tried to address this with a redundant ECU unit he sells. Nice engine but no econ engine? NO. Mistral redundant ECU looks very and aerospace quality. Hat off, what I see is nice, no doubt.
I doubt Mistral can make a breakthrough in gas milage with basically a stock Mazda design. Even if they started from scratch, the design and principles of the Wankel to date are such they burn more fuel per HP. Unless there's a radical improvement to Dr. Wankel's design, it ain't going to happen. Again fly high and turbo charge you Wankel's to get the best possible fuel burn, but down low not so good (by a significant amount).
No offense or desire to rain on any one's parade intended, but that is they way I see it after watching the progress of Wankel's for +30 years. Just a piece of wisdom, don't fly behind a power plant or components that have not been shown reliable. Even Eggenfellner and RWS rotary engine parts have a track record, Mistral? Hope they do what they say, but I would wait. To date the best "engine conversion" is converting +$20,000 for a Lycoming (+$30K for RV-10 builders).
Last edited:
Mistral/ RWS
I like Mistral's willingness to sell not only complete engines to homebuilders but individual parts like intake manifolds. This is in contrast to Thielert's approach. Good policy from our prospective as experimentors and I'm aware of a couple of people ordering these parts for their own 13B conversions. The prices were not out of line considering the R&D costs from dyno development, casting and tooling.
On the fuel flow front, we don't know what the real numbers are from Mistral or RWS and since we forum members are not directly involved flying these engines, our opinions are pure speculation, be they pro or con. Both companies have stated that the breakthrough was with extreme LOP operation in the 18 to 1 AFR range combined with proper manifold design to boost VE and very close mixture distribution between rotors and undisclosed internal mods in the case of Mistral. The Wankel appears well suited to running this lean. If this is so, a 10-15% reduction in SFC is entirely feasible compared to an ECU mapped to achieve stoichiometric mixtures and over 30% compared to ones mapped for best power mixtures like the PowerSport ones were said to be.
In the cases of the Robinson LS-1 conversions and Egg Subes, correction of over rich conditions (for aircraft use) present in the OE ECUs saw significant drops in fuel flow. I see direct parallels possible with Wankel engines.
Only independent testing will verify this of course and we shall see sometime in the future. John Slade will hopefully be providing some more flight data with his high CR 13B, Garrett turboed, RWS injected engine soon. Cool stuff.
Rotary10-RV said:
I like Mistral's willingness to sell not only complete engines to homebuilders but individual parts like intake manifolds. This is in contrast to Thielert's approach. Good policy from our prospective as experimentors and I'm aware of a couple of people ordering these parts for their own 13B conversions. The prices were not out of line considering the R&D costs from dyno development, casting and tooling.
On the fuel flow front, we don't know what the real numbers are from Mistral or RWS and since we forum members are not directly involved flying these engines, our opinions are pure speculation, be they pro or con. Both companies have stated that the breakthrough was with extreme LOP operation in the 18 to 1 AFR range combined with proper manifold design to boost VE and very close mixture distribution between rotors and undisclosed internal mods in the case of Mistral. The Wankel appears well suited to running this lean. If this is so, a 10-15% reduction in SFC is entirely feasible compared to an ECU mapped to achieve stoichiometric mixtures and over 30% compared to ones mapped for best power mixtures like the PowerSport ones were said to be.
In the cases of the Robinson LS-1 conversions and Egg Subes, correction of over rich conditions (for aircraft use) present in the OE ECUs saw significant drops in fuel flow. I see direct parallels possible with Wankel engines.
Only independent testing will verify this of course and we shall see sometime in the future. John Slade will hopefully be providing some more flight data with his high CR 13B, Garrett turboed, RWS injected engine soon. Cool stuff.
Last edited:
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Yukon said:Bill,
My dream engine is the Zoche. Go to their website. Listen to it run on the test cell. Incredible efficiency, compact, lightweight........trouble is, they can't seem to get it out of the test cell. In 15 years, they have been unable to install it on an airplane. I suspect it has destructive harmonics somewhere in the engine that are insurmountable.
John,
Zoch must have run out of carrots and switched to internet sound technology.
The Germans have lost their touch. Before WWII, they could develope a good engine and have it flying in a matter of months.
Zoch has got to be a major national embarrassment.
dd
Zoche
David,
War-time engine developement in all countries was nothing short of amazing.
Private enterprise developement of complex machines is expensive and difficult, and the money eventually dries up. You've got to admit, it's a beautiful machine! It's purpose-built for aviation......light, direct drive and diesel 2 stoke. Wish I knew what the problems were. Their website hasn't changed in the last two years.
David,
War-time engine developement in all countries was nothing short of amazing.
Private enterprise developement of complex machines is expensive and difficult, and the money eventually dries up. You've got to admit, it's a beautiful machine! It's purpose-built for aviation......light, direct drive and diesel 2 stoke. Wish I knew what the problems were. Their website hasn't changed in the last two years.
Last edited:
