What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Eggenfellner

P

prkaye

Well Known Member
Does anyone have any experience with the Eggenfellner 4 cylinder Subaru engine/firewall-forward package? A few things I'm wondering about...

1) total installation cost relative to a new OEM Lyc O-320?

2) I was told the installed weight of the Eggenfellner is 30lbs heavier than the O-320... is this accurate?

3) operating costs (fuel/overhaul) compared with a Lyc?

4) Ease of installation compared to a Lyc?

5) is the engine core modified at all (different cylinders etc?), or is it identical to what comes from the Subaru factory?

Any other words of warning, or recommendations about this engine?
 
I can help with a couple of your questions...

The cost I've come up with for EVERYTHING firewall forward (including propellor), engine monitor, and credits from Van's finish kit for the H-6 engine is $35,733 with the Sensenich four blade, and $27,173 with the IVO Magnum three blade. The H-4 is $2,000 less. My comparison's are to the 340 and 360 engines, and the Egg H-6 is + or - $2,000 of all the clone engines I've put in my spreadsheet, all with CS props. The engines from Lycoming are outta sight cost wise, but I do have them in my spreadsheet for comparison. The IO-360 brand new from Lycoming (through Van's) with everything including prop, Van's FWF install kit, fuel pump, engine monitor, with E-ignition is $50K+. I would imagine the H-4 would compare similarly to the 320 clones (we're talking new here...).

From what I've READ, the weight you've listed is pretty accurate.

Operating cost SHOULD be less depending on what fuel you use. Those using the engine can specify further.

You pull these motors out of the box, and put it on your firewall. A friend of mine had his H-6 hanging on the firewall in an hour and a half afer he got it out of the box. Wiring it takes a while.

The E-Subie motor is NOT split. It is the engine that comes from Subaru.
 
The installation will be at least 60 pounds heavier than an O-320 C/S installation and maybe more. Prop choice can make a 15 lb. difference. Here is a link for completed weights of many RVs with different engines: http://rvproject.com/wab/

Fuel burn at the present level of development is similar to the Lycomings. Users have generally reported virtually zero maintenance. Oil changes every 40-50 hours, plugs at 500-1000 hours and that is it. No timing belt changes on the EZ30 engines. They burn no oil between changes and don't leak either.

As Chad said, these engines are bone stock internally. When it comes to overhaul, parts are likely to be less than $1500 even if you need pistons (unlikely). If you don't want to overhaul, a new longblock can be had for about $8000 or a low mileage JDM one for under $2500.

Enjoy the smooth ride!
:)
 
Last edited:
I've made my choice and will stick with it but I have to ask this of you Subie fliers. (Please don't take this as bashing because I would love to see these work out.)

Why does every Subie powered RV seem to average 100 lbs heavier than similar Lycoming powered RV's?

The 15 lb difference mentioned seems out of line some how.
 
N941WR said:
I've made my choice and will stick with it but I have to ask this of you Subie fliers. (Please don't take this as bashing because I would love to see these work out.)

Why does every Subie powered RV seem to average 100 lbs heavier than similar Lycoming powered RV's?

The 15 lb difference mentioned seems out of line some how.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not a Subie flyer yet, but they do weigh more because of the rads, coolant, and a couple of other things people can put on like a real heater, possibly A/C, and such. I plan to try and make up for some of it by building a lightwieght VFR panel, cloth seats, and minimal primer (I know the last one doesn't make too much a difference, but it is something).

The 15 pound difference was in reference to the prop only. The Sensenish and IVO props are lighter than the MT's.
 
N941WR said:
I've made my choice and will stick with it but I have to ask this of you Subie fliers. (Please don't take this as bashing because I would love to see these work out.)

Why does every Subie powered RV seem to average 100 lbs heavier than similar Lycoming powered RV's?

The 15 lb difference mentioned seems out of line some how.
Click to expand...

I think you mis-read my post. The Egg conversion will weigh a minimum of 60 more pounds than the Lyco and probably more. The heavy flywheel and backup battery take a fair bit of the toll. The engine itself is lighter than a Lyco but with the redrive, rads, heater, coolant, heavier mount etc. the package certainly comes up heavier, no matter which prop is fitted.

Chad has the right plan, build light.
 
prkaye said:
Does anyone have any experience with the Eggenfellner 4 cylinder Subaru engine/firewall-forward package? A few things I'm wondering about...

1) total installation cost relative to a new OEM Lyc O-320?

2) I was told the installed weight of the Eggenfellner is 30lbs heavier than the O-320... is this accurate?

3) operating costs (fuel/overhaul) compared with a Lyc?

4) Ease of installation compared to a Lyc?

5) is the engine core modified at all (different cylinders etc?), or is it identical to what comes from the Subaru factory?

Any other words of warning, or recommendations about this engine?
Click to expand...

Phil, me thinks you live under a rock or are stirring the pot. The question "Does anyone have any experience with the Eggenfellner 4 cylinder Subaru engine/firewall-forward package?" fits either. There is a ton of information on these engines here and on the Egg forum.

To summarize, I have installed the 2.5 and the H6 and 2 Lycomings. They all require work and some ability to follow directions and use common sense. The Subaru will go in faster and run sooner but you have to get the wires hooked up right and have a basic understanding of how the ECU and engine work. The Lycoming requires good baffle work, secure fuel plumbing, some knowledge of how the mags work, and minimal electric work. Both have sensors to hook up for instrumentation.

The choice between the engines is very complicated. It took me a year to accept the single ignition feature of Subaru before going with it. The truth is, the ECU is as reliable as any 2 magnetos. Beyond that, much of the decision making process is very personal. You must do your own homework and make the decision, no one can say or do that for you. One guy will hate the engine and right next to him is a guy who loves it. Go with what makes YOU feel best.

In any event, we do know the Egg Subaru works well in an airplane. I like mine very much, but sometimes wish I could afford another airplane (RV8) and I'd have one Subby with MT and one Lycoming with a FP Katto. :)

They are both good set ups in their own way but very different. The decision is yours.

dd
 
fuel?

One thing that was hinted at is the running costs being lower on the soob due to presumably using autofuel.

This is off topic somewhat but at least on paper the Lyc will run on premium autofuel and it maybe even better for it due to less lead deposit build ups.

The other thing is that the Lyc with FI will cruise Lean of peak for a further saving on fuel.

Todd Peterson (purveyor of the STC's for Lyc engined certifieds) told me they found no difference in the detonation margins between 100LL and 89.5 OCT automotive...yup thats less than the premium 92oct fuel. Apparently the FAA wanted some margin.

So Todd's advice to me was to run on 92 prmium just like it was 100LL...this surprised me because you would think the lower oct fuel would have a bigger detonation danger zone.

Anyway...fuel being what it is (or was and might be again), this might very relavent if you don't mind hauling fuel to the airport.

Frank
7a....IO360
Zenair Zodiac...subaru EA 81 400 hours.
 
frankh said:
One thing that was hinted at is the running costs being lower on the soob due to presumably using autofuel.

This is off topic somewhat but at least on paper the Lyc will run on premium autofuel and it maybe even better for it due to less lead deposit build ups.

The other thing is that the Lyc with FI will cruise Lean of peak for a further saving on fuel.
Click to expand...
Not all Lycs can run auto fuel. If the compression ratio is lower than 8.5:1 they can without running in to problems. Above that, and it's not recommended, even though they probably will. I know you probably know that, but just wanted to mention it.

Running an engine LOP is a way to save fuel, for sure! I can't bring myself to do it however. Just a personal thing. I've seen too many Malibu's (among others our shop works on) with burned valves from improper leaning techniques. There is a definite skill to it, and there are those that have perfected it, and do it properly. The latest memo from Lycoming says not to do this anymore. I have a copy of it at work, and I'd be happy to do my best to find the thing on Monday if this isn't a widely read document.
 
LOP and CR

Good point on the max CR of 8.5:1.And also it will only be Fuel injected motors that can run LOP.

AS to the don't run LOP thing thats interesting. I agree there is a bit of an art to it but with my Dynon at least it makes finding peak a snap...as long as you give the readings time to settle.

In fact readin the Deakin articles it would appear to be safer to be on the lean side of peak rather than the rich.

I wonder if it would be better to find peak from the lean side rather than the rich...assuming your motor keeps running well on the lean side then you can enrichen the mixture to find the peak values and then you could maybe feel more comfortable doing it really slowly so you get the actual peaks.

This is in theory in my case because my motor gets rough due to the fact I have not balanced the flows yet.

Anyway...yes please do dig up the article and maybe we can thrash it out here on the forums.

Cheers

Frank
 
I will certainly do my best to find it. It was actually a little booklet put out by Lycoming last fall, if I remember correctly.

Frank, I really appreciate the civility of this conversation to this point (even being a short one so far). Too many times, the bashing gets threads out of hand. :)
 
Egg Sub and Fuel

There are lots of pros and cons re Subaru and Lycoming.

A distinct pro for Subaru is fuel. I've used 87-91-93 mogas and 100LL, the engine does not seem to care. At one point I checked take off timing comparing 100LL and 87 mogas, the ECU does retard ignition slightly with the lower octane mogas. Fuels have been mixed and it matters not.
I add a lead inhibitor when using 100LL as lead is no good for any modern engine.

It is a very good ideal to check vapor pressure when using mogas, especially when going from winter to summer blend fuel in the spring. I have found a load of 93 at less than 34 kPa's (meter red line) and drained it for my auto. The replacement 87 tested at 45 kPa's, a clear indication of winter vrs. summer fuel. Winter blend matters not in cold weather, but it can be a problem in spring with an early heat wave. The Hodges meter says 34 kPa is the red line and even at that it is good up to about 10,000'. If you worry about vapor pressure or do not want to test for it, use 100LL. It always tests around 62 kPa's which is good up to about 22,000', higher if the fuel cools in climb..

Back to the original question on weight, I weighed my H6 before install and it was 394 lbs. including the mount. With the MT prop the package came in at about 425. Empty weight of the airplane on certified scales was 1175. The CG was in range but a bit more forward than I like, so 9 lbs of ballast has been installed at the HS. It will now trim up hands off on final. This CG situation is also true of IO360's with CS prop. I did not weigh the 2.5 Subaru, but it seems to me it is about 40 lbs lighter than the H6.

dd
 
Frank,
I found the Lycoming letter about this issue. It's Lycoming SSP700, and talks about leaning procedures, and the "experts" with new leaning products and techniques. It dates from 2000, not last fall as I thought...I first read it last fall. They do not say *NOT* to operate LOP, just be cautious if you do. Here's a small excerpt from the literature-

"Lycoming recommends cruise operation at peak EGT or TIT, which is the point where the best economy range starts. For optimum service life, Lycoming suggests operating 50 degrees rich of peak EGT or TIT."
Click to expand...

I'll start a new thread with the whole article, so everyone can read the whole thing, and make their own remarks on it.
 
cjensen said:
Frank,
I found the Lycoming letter about this issue. It's Lycoming SSP700, and talks about leaning procedures, and the "experts" with new leaning products and techniques. It dates from 2000, not last fall as I thought...I first read it last fall. They do not say *NOT* to operate LOP, just be cautious if you do. Here's a small excerpt from the literature-



I'll start a new thread with the whole article, so everyone can read the whole thing, and make their own remarks on it.
Click to expand...


Funny you should mention that. I just went on a cross country on Saturday and decided to see if I could hit the numbers in the Piper Warrior POH. The charts said something like "Best Economy when leaned per Lycoming instructions for Best Economy".

So I looked it up...

At 9000ft and WOT, pulling the mixture until I encountered engine roughness (not RPM drop...came well after RPM drop) is clearly LOP on the EGT...at least in the warrior, carb and all. I've been pretty quiet on the LOP thing but I never really understood what all the fuss is about. Doesn't seem like anything new or exciting since practically every POH I've ever read recommends leaning until engine roughness to get best economy, and this always occurs (for me, anyhow) somewhere LOP. And yes, I hit the numbers right on the money. I was within 3/10 of a gallon and airspeed was actually a touch better than the POH.

So there :D

Looking forward to that article, Chad. I'd love to see what Lycoming has to say about it!
 
Hmm...Lycoming also

says to run at like 50F ROP...If I remember from the Deakin articles thats like the worse place you can run the motor..

The LOP thing was the difference between making it home and going for a swim on many of the early radial transports and bombers. I think if done correctly (and it may well be that Lycoming has seen many warranty claims from careless pilots...Finding peak is at best a fiddly pastime with lots of head in the cockpit time) and prefer not to go there, void the warranty and all that.

Frank
 
David-aviator said:
There are lots of pros and cons re Subaru and Lycoming.

A distinct pro for Subaru is fuel. I've used 87-91-93 mogas and 100LL, the engine does not seem to care.

dd
Click to expand...

I think the evidence is showing that Lycomings don't care either....The more I research this the more I realise that Peterson had to do a LOT of work to be able to issue STC's for certified airplanes, including testing detonation margins on pretty substanderd fuel.....I need to get to the bottom of the "ethanol forbidden" thing (I just don't have enough data to prove to myself why its such a bad thing PROVIDING you have a well designed fuel fystem like what I got)...It maybe bad, I just don't know yet.

Anyway, just to say the only reason that soobs have a fuel advantage is basically the intertia (fear, beaurachracy)around running Lycs on Mogas*...The only advantage the soob then has is being able to run regular gas vs premium...Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, except maybe you can find supplies of regular at your local FBO pump maybe.

*Standard disclaimers...Max CR 8.5:1, normally aspirated, STC (or RV) in hand, sensible timing etc.

Frank
 
jcoloccia said:
[snip]Looking forward to that article, Chad. I'd love to see what Lycoming has to say about it!
Click to expand...
I gave it to our computer guy to scan in and create a .pfd. As soon as I have it, I'll post it!
 
frankh said:
l.....I need to get to the bottom of the "ethanol forbidden" thing (I just don't have enough data to prove to myself why its such a bad thing PROVIDING you have a well designed fuel fystem like what I got)...It maybe bad, I just don't know yet.....

Frank
Click to expand...

ALL the mogas I've been using has up to 10% ethanol. If it is an issure of fuel system materials compatiblitly with Lycoming, that sure could be fixed.

So far as vapo pressure is concerned, I believe if a fuel tests at say 48 kPa's, with or without ethanol, that's what it is.

dd
 
Yes this my suspicion

That Superior found unacceptable levels of boiling in the injector lines using the standard 28thou injector restictors (at least that is what Airflow Performance standard ones are). They referred to ethanol causing VL...well of course injector line boiling is NOT VL, and true vapour lock can be fixed by putting the pump in the right place hydraulically speaking.

So I dunno, The AFP system is ethanol compatible so thats not an issue either.

But I will find out one way or another.....

Anyone reading this running ethanol laced mogas in a Lyc???

Frank
 
I have to comment on the 4 cylinder underpowered post. Dan Checkoway rated various RV's and power components. Apparently he tied the planes to a device that measured force on the ground developed by the various engines. The plane that came out on top was Robert Paisley's RV-7 with a four cylinder supercharged Eggenfellner Subaru engine. Checkoway's plane was second (I believe he has the 200 hp 360 Aerosport). In addition, Paisley and Checkoway flew side by side and Dan said the Subaru flew away from him and had a passenger to boot. I believe Checkoway's effort as a fair post as opposed to a "I have a friend that can't go over 160...
 
Naive question here - I've read a lot that the actualy HP that you get at the propeller may be considerably less than the rated HP of the engine (in the case of the Eggenfellner), and this is why planes with these engines are often under-powered and need a CS prop. My question is, where is the extra horsepower going? If the engine is rated at 165HP, why are people only getting the equivalent performance of a 120 aircraft engine? Is it simply because the auto engine isn't able to develop it's full horsepower in thinner air at altitude?

Would a 200hp Mazda Rotary exhibit a similarly reduced actual HP at the propeller?
 
HP is lost at altitude with ALL normally aspirated engines. I don't recall reading anything about conversions losing HP at the prop, but I could be wrong. There may some loss due to the power having to go through the reduction drive to get to turning the prop. Same theory applies to cars and the horsepower that actually gets to the driving wheels. The torque that engines produce is a real factor (not the ONLY, obviously) in determining performance, and the geared engines work well with torque because through the reduction, torque is multiplied. The rotary's work in the same fashion as a Subie.
 
Yea!

Steve A said:
I have to comment on the 4 cylinder underpowered post. Dan Checkoway rated various RV's and power components. Apparently he tied the planes to a device that measured force on the ground developed by the various engines. The plane that came out on top was Robert Paisley's RV-7 with a four cylinder supercharged Eggenfellner Subaru engine. Checkoway's plane was second (I believe he has the 200 hp 360 Aerosport). In addition, Paisley and Checkoway flew side by side and Dan said the Subaru flew away from him and had a passenger to boot. I believe Checkoway's effort as a fair post as opposed to a "I have a friend that can't go over 160...
Click to expand...

Yea you tell em Steve, that's right, that is why Subaru's are winning all the races: Reno, Sun-n-Fun 100, Airventure cup and cafefoundation challenge.

Oh, :rolleyes: My bad, that is Lycoming winning all the races. :D

I guess per Dan's test if you want to pull something across the ramp may be the Subaru is better? :confused: :eek:
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Yea you tell em Steve, that's right, that is why Subaru's are winning all the races: Reno, Sun-n-Fun 100, Airventure cup and cafefoundation challenge.

Oh, :rolleyes: My bad, that is Lycoming winning all the races. :D

I guess per Dan's test if you want to pull something across the ramp may be the Subaru is better? :confused: :eek:
Click to expand...
Here we go again...What point can this possibly have? :confused: Do ANY Subaru drivers care about winning a Reno race? SNF 100? Cup? I don't think anyone has claimed to win a race with a Subie. We do know that Robert did pull away from Dan though... ;) (Sorry Dan!)
 
>> What point can this possibly have?

The point, as far as I am concerned, is not to win any races, or even to install a Subaru engine. Right now I am just trying to educate myself. No, I don't "live under a rock" as someone suggested in an earlier post. I am just new to all this, and am trying to draw on other people's expertise to gain a better understanding of all the issues involved with these things.
 
Phil, I hope you didn't take that as directed towards you...it was for George's race comment. :D
 
ah, now I understand... sorry... just don't want people to think I'm "stirring the pot", or trying to provoke an ongoing debate. I am curious about this loss of HP though... I read a lot of people saying they get really poor performance without a CS prop on the Eggy. When I saw the engine is rated at 165hp, this confused me. People running a 160 hp O-320 on their -9 get great performance!
I guess the power being eaten up by the reduction drive makes sense. Maybe part of it has something to do with torque? Maybe this would explain why a CS prop is needed? Again, I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to these things... but I'm learning (mostly thanks to people's replies on this forum).
 
HP

prkaye said:
Naive question here - I've read a lot that the actualy HP that you get at the propeller may be considerably less than the rated HP of the engine (in the case of the Eggenfellner), and this is why planes with these engines are often under-powered and need a CS prop. My question is, where is the extra horsepower going? If the engine is rated at 165HP, why are people only getting the equivalent performance of a 120 aircraft engine? Is it simply because the auto engine isn't able to develop it's full horsepower in thinner air at altitude?

Would a 200hp Mazda Rotary exhibit a similarly reduced actual HP at the propeller?
Click to expand...
The HP developed is a function of the engine RPM. The HP doesn't "go" anywhere, it just isn't created. The max RPM and therefore HP is determined by the gear ratio in the PSRU and the max prop RPM (typically 2700). The original Eggenfeller PSRU is a 1.86 ratio which does not allow the engine to get to it's max HP rpm - and that was by design to be conservative. The latest PSRU is a higher ratio, 2.01, which will up the max HP.
There are folks who have Jan's engines with a FP prop. A CS prop with any engine just gives you better efficiency, particularly in cruise where you can operate at higher MP and lower RPMs.
 
Ah! Okay, yes you are very correct that these engines DO need a CS prop. The problem with fixed pitch props on a coversion is that the engine cannot reach it's horsepower rated RPM. That's the issue there. As you know, the FP prop is pitched for one realm of flight, climb or cruise. Even with a cruise prop, the RPM is restricted enough that the engine cannot develop the power needed to get the speeds desired or tested.

An FP prop on a 320 works fine because it is direct drive, and engine can reach the needed RPM.
 
prkaye said:
Naive question here - these engines are often under-powered and need a CS prop. ?
Click to expand...

Phil, sorry for the editing job, but you seem to have a bit of a misunderstanding going on here. C/S props are not a band aid for underpowered/low powered engines, in fact you dont even find them on most low HP certified engines. C/S props are a way of expanding the range of optimum efficiency points (from the one that is available) of a fixed prop, to a larger range.

To put it into a form that is easier to understand, imagine driving a car, standard trans, only in first gear. Speed control is by throttle only. Sthis is like a climb prop in an A/C. Now, same car, but use high gear only-----Cruise prop. O.K., now same car, only with a 6 speed auto trans----------constant speed prop. Over simplified to be sure, but the best explination I can come up with.

There is another Subie guy out there, in your neck of the woods, might be worth lookin into http://homepage.mac.com/airryder/Menu11.html My only knowledge of his work is back in my Dragonfly days, but he had the best of the Subie bunch for that application.

Good Luck.
Mike
 
Thanks!

Now I get it :) So you want a PSRU with a high ratio, so the engine is turning as fast as possible while keeping the prop speed down to a reasonable level.
So why not just use as aggressive a PSRU as possible (i.e. with a really high ratio)? Is it because of the stresses imposed on a PSRU with a really high ratio?
 
Thanks Mike!
It looks like that guy is in Alberta... not exactly my neck of the woods... actually probably not much farther from the than California is ;)
 
prkaye said:
Now I get it :) So you want a PSRU with a high ratio, so the engine is turning as fast as possible while keeping the prop speed down to a reasonable level.
So why not just use as aggressive a PSRU as possible (i.e. with a really high ratio)? Is it because of the stresses imposed on a PSRU with a really high ratio?
Click to expand...
It depends on the engine, and where the max power is being generated. For the H-6, 200hp comes at 5400rpm, so the reduction of 2.02:1 brings just under 2700 to the prop.

For a rotary like the Powersport, they use 2.29:1 because their max power of 215hp comes at 6000 engine rpm to give 2620 at the prop.
 
Last edited:
cjensen said:
It depends on the engine, and where the max power is being generated. For the H-6, 200hp comes at 5400rpm, so the reduction of 2.02:1 brings just under 2700 to the prop.

For a rotary like the Powersport, they use 2.29:1 because their max power of 215hp comes at 6000 engine rpm to give 2620 at the prop.
Click to expand...

Quite correct Chad,
Also many of the auto conversions are lacking because the engine doesn't like to "live" at the highest RPMs. Some will run high RPMs very well though. If your engine will survive a high continous RPM, then a larger gear reduction is a good idea. In fact the rotaries have been going to a higher reduction ratio, usually around 2.83:1. This allows higher engine rpms and more power. The rotary is tolerant of continious high-RPM use, in fact 6000 RPM may be its best operating RPM. I won't bore you with the details here. Tracy Crook has had great success running a fixed pitch prop. Winning the Sun 'n Fun 100 in his displacement catagory on several occasions. You need to match your reduction to the intended RPMs. If your engine produces the design HP at that RPM a geared reduction drive wouldn't lose more than a max of 5%. Many are better than that. Fixed pitch has the same difficulties on the geared drive as it does on a direct drive. Cruise or speed or climb take your pick. Many systems are going to slightly larger prop at a lower speed for efficiency. This would make a higher reduction a good idea also.
Bill Jepson
 
Rotary10-RV said:
Quite correct Chad,
Also many of the auto conversions are lacking because the engine doesn't like to "live" at the highest RPMs. Some will run high RPMs very well though. If your engine will survive a high continous RPM, then a larger gear reduction is a good idea. In fact the rotaries have been going to a higher reduction ratio, usually around 2.83:1. This allows higher engine rpms and more power. The rotary is tolerant of continious high-RPM use, in fact 6000 RPM may be its best operating RPM. I won't bore you with the details here. Tracy Crook has had great success running a fixed pitch prop. Winning the Sun 'n Fun 100 in his displacement catagory on several occasions. You need to match your reduction to the intended RPMs. If your engine produces the design HP at that RPM a geared reduction drive wouldn't lose more than a max of 5%. Many are better than that. Fixed pitch has the same difficulties on the geared drive as it does on a direct drive. Cruise or speed or climb take your pick. Many systems are going to slightly larger prop at a lower speed for efficiency. This would make a higher reduction a good idea also.
Bill Jepson
Click to expand...

I hope this isn't perceived as a hyjack or flamable event but if torque is a critical element and if rpms are a critical element wouldn't an auto turbo-diesel be ideal? Peak torque at about 2700 rpms, burns jet-A, can be used as direct drive... I know there are aviation diesels that so far most fall on their face but it seems that a couple of european diesels [toyota d4d or the mitusbushi] would lend themselves to conversion without a PRSU and allow for single lever engine control. I've owned several VW turbo auto diesels and am impressed with them.

Unfortunately I lack the background to do a conversion [and the small diesels in the states suck for the time being because of EPA foolishness and high sulpher has only recently been eleminated on our roads].

I know diesels weigh a bit more but with increase fuel saving and no PRSU needed some of that weight can be 'made up'.

tho if I f I build/buy I'll probably go Lyco or jabru... tried and true technology...

I don't have the skill set or time to experiment

John
 
Diesels will come eventually...

The folks at Delta Hawk agree with you (that diesels are the ideal solution) :rolleyes: Diesels have come a long way in cars, so one of these days someone will put one in a plane I'm sure. In fact Subaru is apparently coming out with a diesel, so the Eggenfeller Yahoo forum is speculating that Jan will have a diesel offering someday...
 
Power pulses

Deuskid said:
I know diesels weigh a bit more but with increase fuel saving and no PRSU needed some of that weight can be 'made up'.



I don't have the skill set or time to experiment

John
Click to expand...

John,
Diesels have tremendously hard power pulses because of their very high compression ratios, some well over 20:1. These power strokes raise holy h*** with prop bolts, laminations (on composites), etc.

Therefore, a PSRU connected to an energy absorbing, cushioned elastomeric drive seems an almost must. MHO
Regards,
 
pierre smith said:
John,
Diesels have tremendously hard power pulses because of their very high compression ratios, some well over 20:1. These power strokes raise holy h*** with prop bolts, laminations (on composites), etc.

Therefore, a PSRU connected to an energy absorbing, cushioned elastomeric drive seems an almost must. MHO
Regards,
Click to expand...

Pierre,
That hardly seems a bad idea with any engine. That aside most of the diesels being developed for aircraft are 2 cycles. (deltahawk, Whilch) which have twice as many, but smaller power impulses. For the car questions, the Thilert certified engine is converted from a Benz auto diesel.
Bill Jepson
 
Eggenfellner H6 at Copperstate

Robert Paisley thrilled the crowd with the sights and sounds of his Eggenfellner H6 powered RV7 last weekend at Copperstate with some high powered fly bys. Jan was on hand as well to answer questions from hundreds of interested people gathered around. Robert is testing some new spec parts now and is seeing 8.5 gallons/ hr. at 185 mph cruise. He does not yet have the new redrive or the carbon fiber prop so even better performance and lower weight seems to be in the future for these engines. Jan padded his order book some more at the event. :)

Jan is currently testing the new redrive in his -6 in Florida.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top