Report on flying a 6cyl Subie RV-8

I had the opportunity to first flight a Subie RV8 last weekend and thought Id give you my impressions. Built and owned by Steve Murray. Chase flown by Bob "Subob" Goodman and Doug Ripley.

THis is a stock bolt on Egg subie 6cyl. with a 3 blade electric weighing in at 1250lbs empty. 2 batteries in the standard rear location provide the ballast.

Firing up there was no question a car engine was running up front. Ive flown other Subie RV's before, but this was my first 6 cylinder and boy it sounded very nice. Instrumentation was straight forward with everything I needed to watch the engine on the GRT EFIS.

Taxiing out, the tail wheel chains were loose providing me with a lousy lead taxi to the run up.

In the runup, I ran through his sophisticated busses, manual and automatic pumps, and generally made sure I was ready to kill the engine and land if needed. She was purring along and the only thing wierd was turning a knob on the panel to adjust the electric prop. It worked so I figured I could live with the knob instead of a lever

We went out position and hold with a pretty stiff 60degrees off center cross wind steady at 15 gust 22. Got all my headnods from the wingman and off we went.

Accelleration was less than expected but jockying the cross wind kept me tuned to that mostly. On rotation it was point her into the wind and climb climb climb. Wingman took off 5 second seperation and closed on me easily. I knew I was not climbing great, but was surprised to see them there so quickly, especially since they had passengers. So first climb impressions were lack luster and frankly very disappointing for me. I expected the 200hp 3 blade to really shine here, but she didnt.

Made our first turn and trimed her out to an easy cruise. No need to haul the mail here on this car engine. Breakin not necessary like the lyco's. She flew pretty straight, little right rudder trim needed, but wings holding level. I kept reminding my self that the engine was running by looking at the gages. I mean you could hardly hearn the darn thing. Quiet and smoother than anything I have flown before in pistons. Every minute or 2, it was "man this is freakin smooth. Holy ****." I stuck a penny on the panel and she did not budge. COuld not find anything in the cockpit vibrating or moving. Neat. Like a da m n car. Who'da thunk it?

I toyed with the pumps and the prop. The electric prop is not as responsive as a hydrolic one. Oh well, it still works just fine. Pressed on verifying systems, pitot static, electric, avionics, transponder check, A/P. Everything was working fine. Couple squawks hear and there. Fluid temps on this cool day were pretty high but managable with prop pitch. That is gonna need some work.

Dropped the flight in trail for some airframe testing. His stick was cut an inch low to clear the standard instrument panel. Makes for an incomfortable position and high stick forces. Oh well, it still works. Started smelling a litlle coolant from the maneuvers so it was time to knock that off.

Set up for some photo shoots, then time to land.

Set the flight for up echelon to pitchout. On final it was nip and tuck with the winds but always a fun challenge. Ran out of elevator on the round out, added power, set back down at a higher speed and done.

So what do I think?
This plane is neither fast nor powerful. I do not think it is going to keep up with a 180lyco when she is cleaned up with fairings. Time will tell. Its heavy for sure but I do think this will be a great cruiser with the smooth quiet engine.

End of report.

Great to see a straight flight report and telling it like you saw it. Sounds like it will need some tweeks. Jan Eggenfellner is now flight testing the turbocharged six in Florida with the new prop and redrive. Interesting to see how that works out. Robert Paisley mentions in every E-mail to me that he cannot describe how smooth his H6 is so your observations parallel his.

Several people have mentioned that the H6 is way smoother than any traditional aircraft engine they have ever flown, no matter how well balanced. We'll have to see what the new drive and props can do to bring the performance up to Lycoming standards now.

Let me say up front: I am a fan of Subies and liquid cooled engines in RVs

Forgive my ignorance on this: has anyone put the Egg H6 through a full dyno workout in "installed" configuration (rads, psru, etc.)?

Doing so would eliminate the dreaded "3-variable equation" (prop efficiency, cooling drag, power) and go a long way to quantifying relative drag/power contributions to speed deficit vs Lyco RV's.

Rather than pump more heat (turbos, intercoolers, plumbing, etc.) it would behoove Eggenfellner to quantify the actual power/heat rejection of the n.a. configuration. Optimized for drag, a normally aspirated H6 may well be faster than the turbo version for 99% of the flight regime, notwithstanding a better prop.

The easy speed "culprit" is drag & prop, but I suspect the H6 net torque at the flange is materially lower than nominal. Remapping the EMU is most likely in order.

MT props are terribly inefficient at RV speeds, and cooling drag in liquid tractors is notoriously difficult to optimize even with belly scoops. Knowing actual "installed" power would help immensely.

An H6 will always "out-smooth" an H4.....the question is how much excess power/fuel/heat/weight (vs Lyco) is required to overcome the dual handicaps of a poor prop (anything other than a Hartzell BA) and high cooling drag.

Extrapolating from the limited flight data so far, it's not unreasonable to expect the Subie's to deliver 240hp to match Lyco speed numbers in the 2-seat RV's. RV-10's will prob need +300hp to hit Van's numbers due to the MT club.

If this turns out to be the case -- which I hope it isn't -- the heat, weight and fuel at this level will scare off most potential customers.

Eggenfellner has always worked from the factory dyno sheets and has not recently made claims as to any more power than stock at a given rpm. This was one reason for the new drive ratios- to allow the engine to rev up higher to make the full rated power within the rpm limits of the prop.

The rads of course have no impact on dyno hp. Gear type PRSUs have minimal impact as discussed previously on output hp. Exhaust systems would have a much higher impact. The factory ECU will not be used in the new build packages for December delivery but this does not significantly change torque at WOT as Fuji targets close to an optimal 13 to 1 OE in open loop. Torque is influenced primarily by airflow through the engine. Spark and AFR are already closely controlled. The big change is the ability to lean AFRs at lower cruise power settings to reduce fuel burn.

The MT prop may well be less (or more) efficient than the Hartzell, again, no scientific test has been performed to know. However auto engines takeoff power and cruise power rpm ranges are vastly diffrent from direct drive engines. With the proper drive ratio, auto engines are not saddled with high mach numbers on the prop. You just don't have a choice here with direct drive engines if you want to make max hp, you suffer lower prop efficiency. It is perhaps not the speed, rather the rpms that MT props are being operated at. MT has told me that prop efficiency is 3-4% higher at 2550 than at 2700 rpm. This has been confirmed on other airframes. On the auto engine, you just change the drive ratio to accomodate.

It is interesting that so much MT bashing goes on here. If they are so bad, why did Van's bother picking them up and why are so many Lyco and Sube RVs fitting them? Smoothness and looks must be a bigger draw than speed to many???

Robert Paisley who now has the atmo H6 fitted to his -7 with the new EFI system, cruises at 165 knots TAS on 8.5 GPH. Certainly competitive with a Lyco. He has the old drive ratio and the MT 3 blade.

I can guarantee that a turbocharged engine will outperform an atmo one in all performance contests at any altitude because it makes more torque. There is a drag penalty due to the higher cooling requirements but this is easily offset by the higher TAS at altitude.

The turbo development on the EZ30 was originally focused more at the RV10 although it seems people are lining up to install them on the smaller RVs as well. The FF weight will be an issue for these applications IMO.

So early days. No solid data yet especially for the new configuration with the 2006 type engine, carbon props, new rads/ cowlings and new redrives.

I'm trying to convince Dan and Robert to have another drag race. Hint, Hint. But understand that Robert does not have all the goodies yet.

Sales are not slowing down for Eggenfellner. Quite the contrary. People have accepted the weight penalty for the other advantages. I know some people have not been happy with the performance but most are.

Now we all know

Test flight on a not so common engine/plane combo, 22 knot gusting crosswind with a tail dragger....

Now we know where you got your screen name Mike!

Brantel said:

Test flight on a not so common engine/plane combo, 22 knot gusting crosswind with a tail dragger....

Now we know where you got your screen name Mike!

Click to expand...

I thought the same. Better stick and rudder skills than I have!

rv6ejguy said:

I'm trying to convince Dan and Robert to have another drag race. Hint, Hint. But understand that Robert does not have all the goodies yet.

Click to expand...

Robert would beat me hands-down. My over the hill IO-360 definitely can't keep up with him top-speed wise (once he got it dialed in). No contest there.

Fuel burn and miles per gallon, on the other hand...doubt that Subie could even come close!

And let's not even mention insurance or...resale value!!!

There are several versions of the EZ30 used by Eggenfellner. The first ones were rated at 212hp at 6000 rpm, the latest 250 at 6600. With the old drive ratio and a 2700rpm prop governor you can only get 4900 engine rpm so you will not make anywhere near rated hp. The latest engine has torque peak at 4200 rpm and makes 183hp factory there. This is like running a Lyco at 2000 rpm. It would be a dog there too.

The fuel flows from my experience, Robert's and the test at Van's, all put FF vs. TAS in the ballpark with with a comparable lycoming. There is little difference here. I'm not comparing the supercharged EJ25 which Robert used to have in his -7. This was fast and thirsty.

Perhaps, if the engine has changed, robert and dan should fly again.

It would b e interesting to hear more flight tested from uninvolved parties...no offense to anyone, but Paiseley has a commercial interest....I would love to see some test program numbers from Vans or CAFE.

I have to take a ride sometime...smooth sounds nice I guess.

Jconard said:

Perhaps, if the engine has changed, robert and dan should fly again.

It would b e interesting to hear more flight tested from uninvolved parties...no offense to anyone, but Paiseley has a commercial interest....I would love to see some test program numbers from Vans or CAFE.

I have to take a ride sometime...smooth sounds nice I guess.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but it sounds as if Dan needs a fresh IO-360 and Robert should wait to get the Sensenich carbon prop and new drive first. I'm interested in that one. Thanks to Kahuna for the report from someone who has lots of Lyco/ RV time. He states the differences in the -8 he flew quite fairly in my view:

Subie:

Weight- con
Sound- pro
Acceleration- con
Climb- con
Smooth- pro
Speed- con
Noise- pro

He noted that no fairings were in place. I found those worth 13-14 knots and about 200-300 fpm in the climb on my 6A.

Once the final configuration and latest parts are on someone's RV, I hope too that they will go to Aurora for a fly off with Van's demo aircraft.

rv6ejguy said:

I thought the same. Better stick and rudder skills than I have!

Click to expand...

Me too.

Good report, Kahuna. Not at all loaded with BS.

The engine/RV airframe does need tweeking and guys like Robert Paisley and Jan Eggenfellner know how to do it. I've flown with Jan and have seen the numbers he reported earlier with the H4, they were right on.

I've not flown a IO360 CS RV, but my H6 does impress me on take off - usually off in 500-600', suppose getting off in 400-500' would be better, but the H6 at 4900 rpm sounds so much cooler than a Lyc at 2700.

It's like a mini Merlin vrs a Farmall.

dd

Concern

My concern with the Subie is the BS factor necessary to even come close to Lyc (or clone) performance. Unless you are really good at tinkering (and like it) the Subie is not for you.

I like flying too much to be fiddling with the engine and drive train as much as some of these guy have. Bolt a clone on and go. If something goes bad you can get it fixed about anywhere.

I believe the MT is the only one out there with an electric governor.

I know there are a couple of local guys that have talked about changing out their Eggy 4cyl for a clone when they can. They are disappointed with the performance and cooling issues.

Not really knocking the Alternative engines, but the benefits are simply not there. Those contemplating take an objective look and compare. The answer should be obvious. Dan hit on a couple of major points.

RV7Guy said:

My concern with the Subie is the BS factor necessary to even come close to Lyc (or clone) performance. Unless you are really good at tinkering (and like it) the Subie is not for you.

I like flying too much to be fiddling with the engine and drive train as much as some of these guy have. Bolt a clone on and go. If something goes bad you can get it fixed about anywhere.

I believe the MT is the only one out there with an electric governor.

I know there are a couple of local guys that have talked about changing out their Eggy 4cyl for a clone when they can. They are disappointed with the performance and cooling issues.

Not really knocking the Alternative engines, but the benefits are simply not there. Those contemplating take an objective look and compare. The answer should be obvious. Dan hit on a couple of major points.

Click to expand...

I know another Subie company really burned you but many people have simply bolted up their Egg engines and fly them trouble free with zero maintenance. Agreed, the atmo EJ25s cannot match the speed and climb rate of an O-360. The H6 would appear to offer similar performance according to Robert Paisley and others.

The Sube is in its relative infancy compared to the O-360 with really only 5-8 years on the market commercially. In that time, we've seen rapid improvements in performance, cooling, propellers, fuel burn etc. This is a steep curve for small companies like Eggenfellner. Things are likely to improve with time. It was only about a year ago that the Lyco guys were saying- all Subes are slow, they guzzle fuel etc. Hmmm. Well, we know that was proven wrong. Yes, they are still heavier as an overall package and that would be the biggest concern to me and an area that is being worked on now. Lightweight props are here now and further research into the redrive, flywheel mass and TV issues are underway.

There are several electric C/S props on the market now with several more in the wings. The MT has simply been the major weapon of choice for the Egg engines.

I don't think the answer is obvious as people put different priorities on things. If the lightest weight and top speed are your main criteria, I agree, the Lyco scores well there but there are good reasons why hundreds of people are installing alternative engines every year now. I don't think anyone drops $20K plus on something without examining both sides of the coin.

This seems like an emotional issue as much as anything else for many. On one side of the fence sit the hard core certified engine group asking why on earth would someone put a car engine in an airplane. On the other side are the people who may have had less than textbook luck with Lycos in the past, say this is 2006, not 1956 and want something either different or smoother or whatever turns their crank. Fly what you like. If that is a Lycoming, by all means enjoy the flight it takes you on.

You are right. A clone is a good choice for many and that is why they are so popular. That would be my choice if something like the Sube was not available.

Here we go again

Guys,
It's not that we're anti-car engine guys. I had a post on here earlier this year asking all the alternative-engine guys and anyone else who had an idea, why my buddy's -7 (4 cyl Egg) is such a slug. He does 164MPH on a good day. I have a nosegeared 6A and do 185 at low altitudes easily around 2450 RPM and 204MPH tops at higher altitudes which he can't nearly match, even pulling 34" with the supercharger.

Yes, speed is the big reason I'm a Van's and Lyco fan. If I found a car engine for a better price and more speed, my Lycosaurus would be in the classifieds for sale. All I ask is, "Show me".

All the con's listed in another post are the ones I don't want or have.
Regards,

Love this

Come on now. The Subaru crowd has its own church!!! You guys would drink the Cool aid rather than recognize the down side of the Subaru engine.

Line for line is no comparison in cost or performance. The ONLY advantage of the Subaru is the smoothness. That, I'll give you all day long.

BTW, this has nothing to being burned by that company up north. I bought that engine without adequate research. I learned on that deal and do not buy anything without research.

Now, which to you prefer, Grape or Cherry? I'll mix it for you.

The key is safety no matter what engine you use. Everyone fly safe and have a great holiday season.

Look at total cost

While the FWF cost for the 360's and H-6 are certainly comparable today, the operational costs need to include the allowance for overhaul. I've looked at both the TCO (total cost of ownership) for the 360 and the H-6 and dont find a whole lot of difference. I believe that they are both great solutions for an RV. For me I prefer a smoooooth cruiser. I wont be pushing mine to the limits on any regular basis.

Charlie Becker, CPA
N464CB(r) RV8A(H-6)
Finishing

RV7Guy said:

Line for line is no comparison in cost or performance. The ONLY advantage of the Subaru is the smoothness. That, I'll give you all day long.

Click to expand...

I respectively disagree. The preliminary performance numbers that I have from Robert Paisley who is an engineer and not a BSing type would suggest that even without the latest stuff in the pipeline, atmo H6 performance- cruise and fuel burn at least are comparable to an O-360. The supercharged EJ25 running 34 inches has been shown by a couple of posters that it is not equal in peformance. The supercharged EJ 25 running about 10-12 more inches than that trounced an IO-360.

I flew my EJ22 turbo against a fast O-360 a couple years ago in an article I wrote for Kitplanes and told it like it was. Basically at the rpm and manifold pressures I ran, performance was about the same as an O-320 below 8,000 feet, close to an O-360 around 10,000 and superior above 12,000. Fuel burn was very similar to the O-360. Had I chosen to run the engine harder, I would have no trouble besting 0-360 performance. (I've trued 181 knots at 15,000) I don't run over 35 inches except for takeoff and this is a 2.2L engine compared to a 6L Lycoming.

I'm interested in the facts on performance and I publish what I see, not what I want to see. My background is in validation through instrumented testing on flow benches, dynos and at the track (speed and lap times).

My total FF cost including propeller was $9500US- about 1/3rd of the cost of an O-360 C/S at that time.

I do welcome more testing and unbiased reports like Kahuna published here. I'm sure it won't all be roses for the Subaru.

I'm a traditional engine kind of guy (just seems "proper" I guess), but at the same time I've always thought of interesting engine/vehicle combinations I'd like to try (any vehicles in fact - anyone up for a Big Block Chevy in an aluminum rowboat?).

Anyways, where I'm going with this the Subaru's seem to suffer with most things "performance" related - that is, measurable things such as speed, climb, etc. But excel on the "comfort" end - things like sound levels, smoothness, etc. Seems like the answer would be a more powerful option without adding a ton of weight.

I have to imagine the H6 is a good bit heavier than the H4, but has anybody toyed with the idea of using an engine more based off the WRX ST-i? Still an H4, but has a turbo and is factory rated at 293hp wp top, and makes 290 ft-lbs at a "mere" 4400 rpm. Even the detuned version for the lower trim levels makes 224hp up top, and 226lbs at an even better 3600rpm.

I refuse to believe I'm the only person who's thought of this...

xl1200r said:

I have to imagine the H6 is a good bit heavier than the H4, but has anybody toyed with the idea of using an engine more based off the WRX ST-i? Still an H4, but has a turbo and is factory rated at 293hp wp top, and makes 290 ft-lbs at a "mere" 4400 rpm. Even the detuned version for the lower trim levels makes 224hp up top, and 226lbs at an even better 3600rpm.

I refuse to believe I'm the only person who's thought of this...

Click to expand...

You're not. Robert's previous engine was the STi (IIRC), and it's been produced by Egg in the past. There's several of them out there.

xl1200r said:

I have to imagine the H6 is a good bit heavier than the H4, but has anybody toyed with the idea of using an engine more based off the WRX ST-i? Still an H4, but has a turbo and is factory rated at 293hp wp top, and makes 290 ft-lbs at a "mere" 4400 rpm. Even the detuned version for the lower trim levels makes 224hp up top, and 226lbs at an even better 3600rpm.

I refuse to believe I'm the only person who's thought of this...

Click to expand...

This was my view on the whole thing. At the time I built my plane, the WRX/STI was not available here so I did the next best thing- a 2.2 turbo. I recommend today if people need to meet a weight target and need a reliable 200-250hp, the STI/ 2.5 turbo Legacy is the way to go. The basic longblock sans turbo is about 50-60 lbs. lighter than the EZ30. The turbo 2.5 will produce more torque everywhere over 2500 rpm than an atmo EZ30. The turbo auto engine is really the ticket for aircraft.

Subaru Advantages

RV7Guy said:

The ONLY advantage of the Subaru is the smoothness.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the hot-water heater/defogger available for cold-weather flyers.

Has anyone encountered an air-cooled single-engined piston airplane that had EFFECTIVE cabin heat for cold-weather flying? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. I'd be interested to know if effective cabin heat contraptions exist for air-cooled setups.

If it's zero degrees F outside the Subbie will start right up (no preheating)...and you can at least fly with hot air blowing at your feet...or on the windshield as a defogger if needed.

Dan

Well what a minute

rv6ejguy said:

Subie:

Weight- con
Sound- pro
Acceleration- con
Climb- con
Smooth- pro
Speed- con
Noise- pro

I'll add:

Cost- con
(Eggy kits, even with used engines and electric MT props are expensive.)

rv6ejguy: My total FF cost including propeller was $9500US- about 1/3rd of the cost of an O-360 C/S at that time.

Comment: [That's because you did it all yourself. A used engine KIT from Eggenfellner is more than a new Lyc; The Subie electric C/S prop cost several thousand more than a hydraulic Hartzell for the Lyc.]

Click to expand...

One liners:

rv6ejguy: "The MT prop may well be less (or more) efficient than the Hartzell, again, no scientific test has been performed to know."


rv6ejguy: "The fuel flows from my experience, Robert's and the test at Van's, all put FF vs. TAS in the ballpark with with a comparable lycoming."


rv6ejguy: "There are several versions of the EZ30 used by Eggenfellner.........
This is like running a Lyco at 2000 rpm. It would be a dog there too."

"The Subie is in its relative infancy compared to the O-360 with really
only 5-8 years on the market commercially."

"......even without the latest stuff in the pipeline, atmo H6 performance-
cruise and fuel burn at least are comparable to an O-360."


rv6ejguy: "This seems like an emotional issue as much as anything else for many."

The clean, effective, stink free, cabin heat is nice, also almost zero oil consumption, cheap platinum or iridium plugs which go many hundreds of hours without cleaning, gapping or replacement, clean belly, no preheating as mentioned, no priming, no mixture fiddling, no carb heat, almost zero maintenance- these are all reasons why people are buying these engines.

When it comes to the MT/ Hartzell thing, when I see a SCIENTIFIC test where only ONE variable is changed I will accept this as factual. Until then, I'll say we don't know. Any two guys want to fly their planes side by side in the same air, look at the relative results then switch props and do the same thing, then I'll buy the data.

We don't do dyno engine development changing two or more variables between runs. The conclusions would be invalid as we don't know if one was positive and one negative, both positive or both negative.

The rath that one poster got last month here merely saying what he saw with his MT RV10 against some other Hartzell RV10s, side by side, even after qualifying that other variables were in play and that he simply posted this for interest sake shows how much brand loyalty plays into this stuff. It couldn't be the MT prop that was better. Everyone JUST knew that. HOW?? The poor fellow was sorry he ever even posted it.

The only really well done prop tests I've seen have been with the Whirlwind ones published a few years ago and again here. This is a lot of work but so is anything else worth publishing.

Scientific method= one variable altered, observe change. Repeat, Observe again. Side by sides are the best way to validate performance differences as you can forget about wind, humidity, temperature, altitude corrections where errors creep in. If NXXX is faster with a Hartzell by 5 knots at WOT, best mixture on the GPS and he pulls ahead of NYYY and NYYY does the same thing when he bolts on the Hartzell- you have a winner. Anyone have some spare time?

Things change, engines, redrives, prop designs. Lets get some fresh flight test data rather than rehashing old stuff. I'm interested in anything on RVs whether they have Lycos, Chevys, Wankels or Subies, MT, Hartzell or brand X hardware out front. You can brush up on your formation and test pilot skills and we'll all come out with some more knowledge. This is way more fun than going for a $100 burger.

Good test, Cooling Drag, Power

OK guys, I'm not invested on the Subaru and think I can comment about several of the cons mentioned in the flight report.
First know this all you Eggenfellner bashers his package flies safely and reliably. He isn't hurting experimental aviation by selling junk. He also has more business than he can handle right now. A nice problem to have.

I have seen both the H6 and 4 banger setup and can comment that the radiator setup is poor. Cooling is just adaquate (at best) The primary driving force with the arrangement was to fit under a stock cowl. As was found in WW2 and earlier it in much easier to plan a water cooled system from the start. The P51 and P38 had about the same cooling drag as a compareable air-cooled engine because they were designed for WC from the outset. Tracy Crook has commented that the cooling drag of his RV-4 (rotary powered) is very close to the aircooled version, because he has spent many hours designing a better setup. rv6ejguy found in his original plane that it requires carefull planning to do BETTER.

If Eggenfellner and the other subaru suppliers would commit to a different cowl they could do vastly better on cooling drag and cool better to begin with. It could be done lighter with a single radiator and oil cooler as well. The whole FWF business has been centered on simply doing a bolt up replacement of the Lyc. Egg now has the luxury of designing a new PSRU which will allow more power from the same package by just getting the engine in the power band. Hopefully he will explore doing a proper water cooling cowl as well. We as the experimental aircraft non-Subaru types should be happy he isn't producing a totally unsafe package and harming the field for us. Fuel burn and cooling issues are the least of our worries. Given the opportunity the package WILL IMPROVE. No kool-aid needed. Lyc has had 40 years give the Subaru guys a little time and they will be on-par. If the package gets better and cheaper the clone guys will have to drop their prices to compete and we all win!

Bill Jepson

Egg Soobie Glastar Down

Rotary10-RV said:

First know this all you Eggenfellner bashers his package flies safely and reliably.

Click to expand...

Just FYI...there is an Egg Sub Glastar down...due to "engine problems" with one fatality in PA this past Saturday. Jan and the FAA are just beginning to sort it out. Apparently not being flown by the original builder. The following is copied/pasted from Jan's Yahoo list as posted by David Domeier:


This is the initial FAA accident report and the registration data available to the public on the FAA web site:


********************************************************************************
** Report created 11/16/2006 Record 1 **
********************************************************************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 441AV Make/Model: EXP Description: GLASTAR 41
Date: 11/11/2006 Time: 0225

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: SNOW SHOE State: PA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT REPORTED ENGINE PROBLEMS AND CRASHED INTO A WOODED AREA, THERE WERE
TWO PERSONS ON BOARD, ONE WAS FATALLY INJURED AND ONE SUSTAINED SERIOUS
INJURIES, SHOW SHOE, PA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 2 Fat: 1 Ser: 1 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: KUNV 110221Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM CLR 10/02 A2994

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER

Departed: HAZLETON, PA Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: TOLEDO, OH Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: HARRISBURG, PA (EA13) Entry date: 11/13/2006

N441AV is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number

041

Type Registration

Individual
Manufacturer Name VOGEL WALTER
Certificate Issue Date 08/29/2006
Model GLASTAR 41
Status alid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine
Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None
Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None
Mode S Code 51247150
MFR Year 2001
Fractional Owner NO

Registered Owner

Name BATSON HARRY D
Street 11605 BELLETERRE ST
City ERIE
State MICHIGAN
Zip Code 48133-9702
County MONROE
Country UNITED STATES

Airworthiness

Engine Manufacturer AMA/EXPR

Classification Experimental
Engine Model UNKNOWN ENG
Category
Amateur Built
A/W Date
12/06/2001

Rotary10-RV said:

If Eggenfellner and the other subaru suppliers would commit to a different cowl they could do vastly better on cooling drag and cool better to begin with. Bill Jepson

Click to expand...

This is one issue, among others, of which Jan and at least one of his associates (Robert Paisley) have been publicly dismissive. Back when Mr. Paisley reported (on Jan's Yahoo List) that his side-by-side flying with Dan Checkoway represented a "perfect horsepower comparison" I challenged him on the basis of other variables...specifically props, weight, and cooling drag. His reply was dismissive...and thereafter Jan blocked my attempts to post further on the issue. Gary Newsted (another of Jan's close associates) has brought the issue up in the past, however.

I once posted a piece on Jan's list wondering about altering the cooling paradigm (It was this post...third and fourth paragraphs...for those of you with access to that list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/subaruaircraft/message/17383 ). For whatever reason Jan never responded. The only response I got was off-list from a former business partner of Jan's who commented that this idea, like the idea of putting one of his engines on a dyno, was one to which Jan was vehemently opposed.

Dan

djvdb63 said:

This is one issue, among others, of which Jan and his associates (Robert Paisley) have been publicly dismissive. Back when Mr. Paisley reported (on Jan's Yahoo List) that his side-by-side flying with Dan Checkoway represented a "perfect horsepower comparison" I challenged him on the basis of other variables...specifically props, weight, and cooling drag. His reply was dismissive...and thereafter Jan blocked my attempts to discuss the issue.

I once posted a piece on Jan's list wondering about altering the cooling paradigm (It was this post for those of you with access to that list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/subaruaircraft/message/17383 ). For whatever reason Jan never responded. The only response I got was off-list from a former business partner of Jan's who commented that this idea, like the idea of putting one of his engines on a dyno, was one to which Jan was vehemently opposed.

Dan

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in the first paragraph. If the MT prop is bad and the cooling drag is higher with a Sube and Robert flew away from Dan, I come to only one conclusion- he was making a lot more power assuming the airframes are nearly identical. There is no question that a forced induction Subaru can make far more power than an IO-360- this is well documented in the racing world of Subarus. There are no 960hp O-360s.The question is what was the fuel flow in this heads up. I would guess from my experience in the field that Robert was burning a lot more fuel to pull away from Dan. More power= more fuel.

As someone who has built my own dyno and run hundreds of pulls on it plus several others, I'm not sure I see the point in dyno testing aircraft engines. Unless you get a dyno sheet with your Lyco or clone, you have little idea what it is putting out. TACs tests showed most OE installations did not produce rated power. I'm sure many used in RVs with mandrel bent, open exhaust, high CR pistons and tweeked heads produce more than rated power.

Dyno results from one brand and one machine to the next are not strictly comparable anyway. The early atmo EJ25s were making more like 140-145hp at 4900rpm if you look at the factory dyno curves and that is about what they perform like. The real proof is in flight where all factors are in play. Will a Sube match the climb and cruise performance of the Lyco with the cooling drag, redrive losses and prop combination? If it can't keep up, the answer is no.

In my test against the O-360 I was pretty sure how things would turn out because I had done a ton of flight testing and performance measurement already. Sure enough at 6,000 MSL my friend left me pretty easily and quickly I might add. At 12,000 things were different. When we got down, we both had big smiles and talked about how much fun that had been. We are both professional engine builders so we found it very interesting from an engine perspective.

Your Honor, I object irrelevant!

Rotary10-RV said:

OK guys, I'm not invested on the Subaru...Eggenfellner bashers......his package flies safely and reliably. He isn't hurting experimental aviation by selling junk. He also has more business than he can handle right now. A nice problem to have.

Click to expand...

Bill its not relevant to the conversation. No one is bashing or a "basher". There is no need to call people inflammatory names. Let's stick to facts and remain friends. Every one has made good points on both sides. Eggenfellner's business is irrelevant and no one said its unsafe. Lets talk performance, which is all that matters.

Rotary10-RV said:

I have seen both the H6 and 4 banger setup and can comment that the radiator setup is poor. Cooling is just adequate (at best) The primary driving force with the arrangement was to fit under a stock cowl. As was found in WW2 and earlier it in much easier to plan a water cooled system from the start. The P51 and P38 had about the same cooling drag as a comparable air-cooled engine because they were designed for WC from the outset.

Click to expand...

All your comments are true; I agree. I could take your comments to mean RV's are designed for the air-cooled engines and are not a good airframe choice for water cooling and never will be? BTW the P-51 did not have great cooling overall cooling, especially on the ground. Everything is a compromise. I know people want it all. WC carries a lot of good and bad. You can't have one with out the other. Possible commercial certified WC engines like Honda, Bombardier and the Orenda, a large V8 piston conversion for small C90 King Air' and Air Tractor ag planes, never made it. Why? All the same reasons they have negatives on RV's, weight, drag, complexity and probably cost. And BTW all these development WC piston engines where all LARGE, way bigger than a RV could use, even a RV-10 most likely since they where all 300 HP plus.

SO YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, it may not be the engine but the airframe. The RV is just not suitable for a water cooled engine for many reasons.

Rotary10-RV said:

Tracy Crook has commented that the cooling drag of his RV-4 (rotary powered) is very close to the air-cooled version, because he has spent many hours designing a better setup. rv6ejguy found in his original plane that it requires careful planning to do BETTER.

Click to expand...

I like Tracy; he's a straight shooter, but prove it. His plane is no faster than a 160 HP Lyc powered RV, and that is at penalty of noise and gulping fuel like crazy. The rotary has an achilles heal, it will always be thirsty unless turbo-ed and flown at high altitudes (+12,000 feet).

Rotary10-RV said:

If Eggenfellner and the other subaru suppliers would commit to a different cowl they could do vastly better on cooling drag and cool better to begin with. It could be done lighter with a single radiator and oil cooler as well. The whole FWF business has been centered on simply doing a bolt up replacement of the Lyc. Egg now has the luxury of designing a new PSRU which will allow more power from the same package by just getting the engine in the power band. Hopefully he will explore doing a proper water cooling cowl as well.

Click to expand...

No offense but this is what drives me crazy, vague comments about IF we did this better. OK great but its better to show real world performance. For 15 years I have heard the same thing.

Rotary10-RV said:

We as the experimental aircraft non-Subaru types should be happy he isn't producing a totally unsafe package and harming the field for us. Fuel burn and cooling issues are the least of our worries.

Click to expand...

Really? Fuel burn and cooling issues are big factors in my choice for an engine. Look, I want to "kick the tires, light the fire" and go fly my Lyc powered RV. I rarely look at CHT or worry about it (EIS master warning system), unless I'm climbing straight to 10,000 ft at gross weight on a 100 degree day.

Rotary10-RV said:

Given the opportunity the package WILL IMPROVE. No kool-aid needed. Lyc has had 40 years give the Subaru guys a little time and they will be on-par. If the package gets better and cheaper the clone guys will have to drop their prices to compete and we all win! Bill Jepson

Click to expand...

Again with all due respect and optimism noted, it's irrelevant how long Lyc has been in service and how long Eggenfellner has been in business; the designs are frozen, and what is the performance.

One was made spacifically by brilliant engineers for aircraft. The other was designed by brilliant engineers for cars. Both are good but have their limitations and compromises, one for planes and one for the Outback / Legacy / Forrester. There will always be compromises in any engine. I'm equally sure current auto engine cores will NEVER be "better" than a Lycoming. Yes, auto engines will make in-roads (pun intended), but there will never be a quantum leap unless there's a whole new purpose built AIRCRAFT engine and airframe to use it (aka radiator installation).

Better cowls, better ECU, better reduction drives, yes yes yes, all good, but the engine is still the same. The example, a Lycoming w/ electronic ignition, cool sump intake, roller cam and FADEC, all improved efficiency but incrementally. Power's up a little per Ci of displacement and efficiency up about 4%-6% overall but that's it. It will not get much better. You can play with your Re-drive/ECU/Prop all you want, but you have to be realistic how much better you can do over current designs.

rvejguy's custom turbo Subie RV-6 is almost as good as it gets. He has found above 12,000 ft with a turbo, the subie comes into its own. I think that high flying mission is a good one for that combo and the Mazda as well. However back to the RV concept, a light sport plane, simple (no turbo/supercharger inter-cooled mess), STOL, Acro with occasional X-C but mostly local low level hole boring in the sky. If all you want to do is climb high and cruise X-C, the Subie and Mazda are a good choice. If you are not really worried about down low top speed or weight, which affects Acro, landing/takeoff performance and handling, than its actually a great match. However you could turbo/inter-cool a Lycoming. Than the race is "back on", but NOT needing a Turbo/Supercharger/inter-cooler is "priceless" as they say. More things, more weight, cost, maintenance and things to fail. Its about mission, airframe and want you want. The Lyc is ideally suited for the RV mission most of us fly, and it will remain top gun for some time to come.

rv6ejguy said:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in the first paragraph.

Click to expand...

Ross...now you are losing me. You have made the point over and over that good science changes only one variable during any comparison. I agree. Of course it is not always possible. You do the best you can. If Robert had stated that his fly-off with Dan had represented "an ideal performance comparison between engine/propeller packages" I would have heartily agreed. In my view it was nothing close to a simple horsepower comparison. Am I splitting hairs? You be the judge...in my view sloppy thinking and careless analysis leads to all kinds of questionable conclusions in this controversial area of alternative engines for RV's. You have been a proponent of good thinking over and over. I think careful language in this area promotes clarity of thought and understanding. Clarity seems elusive in this arena to me...

rv6ejguy said:

If the MT prop is bad and the cooling drag is higher with a Sube and Robert flew away from Dan, I come to only one conclusion- he was making a lot more power assuming the airframes are nearly identical.

Click to expand...

That was exactly my point. I suspect (SUSPECT) that Egg engines will have to develop alot more power to achieve performance equivalent to that of a Lycoming. That is why a dyno eval would help us to sort this stuff out. A dyno is a way to eliminate variables in order to generate accurate power data. I would think you would like that. As it is we really don't know for sure with Jan's engines, do we? We are left to use fuel flows to help us. Do they "under-perform" (relative to Lycs) due to cooling drag? extra-weight? Propeller inefficiency? Lack of power? The more careful data is available to consumers the better. That's all.

Dan

http://www.rvproject.com/thrust_testing.html

Static thrust tests. Sensenich strain gauge inline on a rope between the tail of each airplane and a fixed hard point on the ground.

Not suggesting this test is apples to apples or anything like that. Just figured some folks in this conversation may not have seen these results yet, since it has been a while since they were published, and there are lots of new players in this VAF forum game.

djvdb63 said:

That was exactly my point. I suspect (SUSPECT) that Egg engines will have to develop alot more power to achieve performance equivalent to that of a Lycoming. That is why a dyno eval would help us to sort this stuff out. A dyno is a way to eliminate variables in order to generate accurate power data. I would think you would like that. As it is we really don't know for sure with Jan's engines, do we? We are left to use fuel flows to help us. Do they "under-perform" (relative to Lycs) due to cooling drag? extra-weight? Propeller inefficiency? Lack of power? The more careful data is available to consumers the better. That's all.

Dan

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. You won't find answers to the prop, cooling drag, redrive questions on a dynamometer. You want to compare a certain O-360 to a certain Subie for hp, do it on the same dyno. What really matters is on wing performance. To equal the overall performance in flight, you have to demonstrate equal performance in flight. The is no doubt that the early Egg EJ25 atmo packages did not match the climb, weight or cruise speed performance of an O-360. Even the supercharged EJ25s running the factory 34 inches were inferior. Facts in evidence. We are talking about the EZ30 engines, present and about to be delivered models with new improvements. The EZ30s are heavier still. The database proves that.

I'm simply saying, let's wait for some some more flight numbers with airframes in equal aerodynamic configurations. We know they will weigh more, we don't have any good test data on the other points.

dan said:

http://www.rvproject.com/thrust_testing.html

Static thrust tests. Sensenich strain gauge inline on a rope between the tail of each airplane and a fixed hard point on the ground.

Not suggesting this test is apples to apples or anything like that. Just figured some folks in this conversation may not have seen these results yet, since it has been a while since they were published, and there are lots of new players in this VAF forum game.

Click to expand...

I was looking for that again Dan, thanks.

As a note of interest, the new H6 turbo in testing already easily exceeds all of these numbers at 34".

rv6ejguy said:

Exactly my point. You won't find answers to the prop, cooling drag, redrive questions on a dynamometer.

Click to expand...

Ross, I think we basically agree, but it feels like you are defending Egg on one of his positions that I have never understood.

Not to beat this to death, but you DO find power-output answers on a dynomometer. That simplies the variables. Then the remaining variables (Prop-efficiency, weight, cooling-drag, exhaust-drag, etc) can possibly be more easily understood. In other words, dyno data would hypothetically remove one of the unknowns (horsepower output) in the performance equation. Don't you agree?

Also...redrive questions, with regard to how much power they "cost", COULD be answered if the dyno-horsepower were measured at the redrive...and then compared to the power output of the same engine without the redrive, correct?

Granted this is all different from performance measurement in flight. But if such performance measurements are accomplished they could be much better understood if you know what kind of horsepower numbers you are dealing with. At least that's my understanding.

Dan

djvdb63 said:

Ross, I think we basically agree, but it feels like you are defending Egg on one of his positions that I have never understood.

Not to beat this to death, but you DO find power-output answers on a dynomometer. That simplies the variables. Then the remaining variables (Prop-efficiency, weight, cooling-drag, exhaust-drag, etc) can possibly be more easily understood. In other words, dyno data would hypothetically remove one of the unknowns. Don't you agree?

Also...redrive questions, with regard to how much power the "cost", COULD be answered if the dyno-horsepower were measured at the redrive...and then compared to the power output of the same engine without the redrive, correct?

Dan

Click to expand...

Since Jan was selling dead stock engines internally it was reasonable to assume that hp was close to the OE dyno curves. At 4900 rpm, cross the lines. Cost, 1 cent. I think 165 was being stated back then, obviously not the case.

In the racing world, I use the dyno as a development tool on the same engine to find more torque under the curve. Using these tools to compare different engines is not particularly useful although this idea is currently in vogue for the tuner kids with "dyno wars". Unfortunately numbers between dyno brands are not comparible and in the case of turbocharged engines, certain brands use incorrect correction factors leading to invalid data. To validate performance, we go to the track and waste our competition. If my 360hp engine beats their 450 hp one, I just laugh.

I agree, a dyno would be useful in determining redrive losses however any drive train engineer can tell you how low the losses are on a single mesh design. This is 1.5-2.5% in most cases and since you need the drive, time is better expended on other areas. Weight would be the first thing I'd tackle through TV studies, better couplings, lighter flywheels- (many use very heavy ones), lighter engine mounts, lighter drive designs and lighter props.

Exhaust and intake manifold development could probably be furthered on the dyno as well so it is certainly useful. The biggest gains will come with being able to spin the engine to its proper power peak rpm with the correct drive ratio. I'd love to do more of that but I'm running my company, flying my 6A and designing/ building on our new RV10. My lifespan is unfortunately finite.

I need a few clones... NO not that kind of clone!!

Rad layouts have been discussed extensively and Jan's stuff slammed a lot by armchair experts who have no idea about business, production or engineering compromises. FF packages demand simplicity and the the least modification the the airframe. Is the Egg layout the most efficient layout possible? Nope but it solves many more problems than it creates and allows the engine to come out of the crate and onto the airframe in a few minutes. If you want to add a custom cowling to the mix, more money, bigger crate, better cooling, lower weight and lower drag could be had. Look at the NSI design if you want to see something heavy and complex- but innovative.

It is a facinating area.

gmcjetpilot said:

Bill its not relevant to the conversation. No one is bashing or a "basher". There is no need to call people inflammatory names. Let's stick to facts and remain friends. Every one has made good points on both sides. Eggenfellner's business is irrelevant and no one said its unsafe. Lets talk performance, which is all that matters.

Click to expand...

George, Business matters a great deal. Can a builder producing bad engines give an entire marque a black eye? Answer yes absolutely!
With reguard to "bashing" what do call the Kool-aid comments? If that isn't an insult to anybody running or contemplating a Subaru I must have the dictionary with the wrong definition of it

All your comments are true; I agree. I could take your comments to mean RV's are designed for the air-cooled engines and are not a good airframe choice for water cooling and never will be? BTW the P-51 did not have great cooling overall cooling, especially on the ground. Everything is a compromise. I know people want it all. WC carries a lot of good and bad. You can't have one with out the other. Possible commercial certified WC engines like Honda, Bombardier and the Orenda, a large V8 piston conversion for small C90 King Air' and Air Tractor ag planes, never made it. Why? All the same reasons they have negatives on RV's, weight, drag, complexity and probably cost. And BTW all these development WC piston engines where all LARGE, way bigger than a RV could use, even a RV-10 most likely since they where all 300 HP plus.

Click to expand...

George, this paragraph is a perfect example of circular reasoning. The water cooled Honda engine you mentioned was INTENDED as a direct replacement for a 200 HP Lyc. If they ever release it I predict that they will have to put on an extra shift to clear the backorders. BTW the Orenda was a Chevy by another name, it cost too much and was bigger than most GA people needed, SO IT FAILED. This was predictable. RVs work fine with WC engines one simply needs to refine the design with WC in mind, I state this despite the fact that it is obvious to you. Seeking to obfuscate to make your point shouldn't be necessary.

SO YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, it may not be the engine but the airframe. The RV is just not suitable for a water cooled engine for many reasons.

Click to expand...

The engine is entirely suitable for the airframe.

I like Tracy; he's a straight shooter, but prove it. His plane is no faster than a 160 HP Lyc powered RV, and that is at penalty of noise and gulping fuel like crazy. The rotary has an achilles heal, it will always be thirsty unless turbo-ed and flown at high altitudes (+12,000 feet).

Click to expand...

Tracy won his class in the Sun'n Fun 100 3 times. He never flew at 12,000 feet and his engine was normally aspirated. His engine is a rotary, so it isn't a direct comparison, I use it as an example that drag can be managed with good design. (Refer back to the won his class S'nF 100 3x etc...)

No offense but this is what drives me crazy, vague comments about IF we did this better. OK great but its better to show real world performance. For 15 years I have heard the same thing.

Click to expand...

George if you don't think the Subaru's and other WC engine setups can't be improved you are just wrong. I can show you the NACA studies, the K & W book on radiator design for aircraft (used to design the last P-51 ducting which works the best) and simple common sense says when you leave 1" of clearance behind a radiator, it will work, but not well. All I can say about the comment is that it sounds like you HOPE they won't get any better.

Really? Fuel burn and cooling issues are big factors in my choice for an engine. Look, I want to "kick the tires, light the fire" and go fly my Lyc powered RV. I rarely look at CHT or worry about it (EIS master warning system), unless I'm climbing stright to 10,000 ft at gross weight on a 100 degree day.

Click to expand...

Then don't buy a Subaru until better cowling and ducting is produced, They haven't stopped selling Lyc's the last time I checked.

Again with all due respect and optimism noted, it's irrelevant how long Lyc has been in service and how long Eggenfellner has been in business; the designs are frozen, and what is the performance.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, it isn't. The fact that you say "the designs are frozen" is the farthest wrong you have been so far. Egg is now testing a completely NEW gear drive with a different ratio to continue design refinement. This is the most maddening to any alternative engine hopeful, the dismissal out-of-hand of the fact that new designs ARE being done.

One was made spacifically by brilliant engineers for aircraft. The other was designed by brilliant engineers for cars. Both are good but have their limitations and compromises, one for planes and one for the Outback / Legacy / Forrester. There will always be compromises in any engine. I'm equally sure current auto engine cores will NEVER be "better" than a Lycoming. Yes, auto engines will make in-roads (pun intended), but there will never be a quantum leap unless there's a whole new purpose built AIRCRAFT engine.

Click to expand...

Quantum leaps are not required, rather improvement, which continues on the Subarus and Lycs.

Better cowls, better ECU, better reduction drives, yes yes yes, all good, but the engine is still the same. <snip>

Click to expand...

The engine isn't the same or we wouldn't be talking ablout the differences.

rvejguy's custom turbo Subie RV-6 is almost as good as it gets. <snip>

Click to expand...

Come on George, Ross has repeatedly said his setup can and will be improved. He has honestly stated the areas he needs to improve and is working to do it on his RV-10.

I'm debating if I will spend the time to make these points anymore anyway as both sides seem so set in their ways my time will be better spent building. B4N
Bill

Whoa!!

Hey,

The Kool-aid comment was mine. Don't give George credit for that!!! And, I hope you understand, in jest.

You did mention in your last post a couple things. One was that so and so was working to improve things. Again, the need to work on things!!!!

Secondly, you mention that if Honda had came out with the engine there would have been a backlog. Don't think so. This engine would have been over $30K. The RV group being somewhat frugal would not have embraced this at that cost. At least not the masses.

Finally, another issue. It was mentioned that Subaru will be constantly improving. I guess this a very true statement since a car engine in any given form (especially foreign) are always changing. How is someone like Jan supposed to keep up with this potential constant change? What if Subaru makes some significant changes to the H6 or eliminates it completely in favor of the Subaru Whizwhirl H6.284?

Robert Paisley was mentioned with his great performing engine. Can't disagree but look what it took to get there. How many have that kind of knowledge, experience and resources.

I'm out. I'll enjoy reading the follow up.

RV7Guy said:

Hey,

The Kool-aid comment was mine. Don't give George credit for that!!! And, I hope you understand, in jest.

You did mention in your last post a couple things. One was that so and so was working to improve things. Again, the need to work on things!!!!

Secondly, you mention that if Honda had came out with the engine there would have been a backlog. Don't think so. This engine would have been over $30K. The RV group being somewhat frugal would not have embraced this at that cost. At least not the masses.

Finally, another issue. It was mentioned that Subaru will be constantly improving. I guess this a very true statement since a car engine in any given form (especially foreign) are always changing. How is someone like Jan supposed to keep up with this potential constant change? What if Subaru makes some significant changes to the H6 or eliminates it completely in favor of the Subaru Whizwhirl H6.284?

Robert Paisley was mentioned with his great performing engine. Can't disagree but look what it took to get there. How many have that kind of knowledge, experience and resources.

I'm out. I'll enjoy reading the follow up.

Click to expand...

Hey, Darwin, last time I saw you, you were flipping meat at the OSH RV picnic, doing a great job and the cool stuff was not cool aid.

The H6 is evolving. That's why the Egg factory guru's are writing a dedicated ECU program. The stock program has many features not applicable to flight ops and it is getting more and more difficult for Jan to fake them out. The new program will probably use an A/F ratio to set fuel flow rather than the deep dark secret tables in the auto program which love to suck up fuel and are currently defeated by reducing fuel pressure.

Robert Paisley has the same engine as I and his airplane would smoke me by at least 20 knots. It's all in the air frame. The difference is builder drag control. I wish I were half as smart and skilled as is he - improving the installation gives one a reason to live.

I won't knock Lycoming or the clones, they are good engines, but the Subby is different and refreshing.

The RV is fun to fly, and with a Subby, more so yet.

dd

My 6A is nowhere close to being optimized, not sure where that idea came from! Under the cowling is a mess from redoing a bunch of stuff which didn't work out. It is very draggy with inlets and exits all over. It is now overweight due to the above and the prop cannot absorb the power of the engine at altitude.

I plan a rework when the 10 gets done. Systems and radiator/ intercooler cleanup, harsh diet and a new prop.

It has been an R&D airframe. Needs to be made pretty and clean again. I need something to fly. My dad wants to fly the -10!

I see another 20 knots at 8K hopefully.

Don't hold your breath on all this stuff, I am but one man. Work will keep me very busy over the next year with 3 new aviation projects underway. Gotta love it!

Onwards to Reno 2007!

RV7Guy said:

Hey,

The Kool-aid comment was mine. Don't give George credit for that!!! And, I hope you understand, in jest.

You did mention in your last post a couple things. One was that so and so was working to improve things. Again, the need to work on things!!!!

Click to expand...

Darwin,
Didn't read like jest. I'll take it as you say.
With respect to improving things, I was refering to the arrangement in the aircraft FWF. I don't think that many of the people Subie BASHING, and I mean BASHING, have ever even seen the current configuration in an aircraft. I don't want to sound too aguementitive here, but many of the comments written here simply cannot be construed as constructive critiques. I have no dog in this fight. I don't intend to run a Subaru, but I don't think that the setup is an unretrieveable loss either. I will now list just some of the possibilities I think can be improved on the Eggenfellner H6 FWF. I believe there is room for considerable improvement in the AIRCRAFT use FWF setup used by Jan Eggenfellner. (Which is where this thread started, Kahuna's test)
The plane did fly just fine if we refer to the first post. The areas which were suggested as negitives were; weight, max HP, prop control, and he didn't like the way the stick was configured.

1) The way to have a auto conversion make acceptable HP is to run it a a high enough RPM to produce max power. Eggenfellner's new reduction drive does this by using a higher reduction, allowing higher engine (not propeller) RPM. For group information the rotary users have also found that the 2.15:1 ratio used in many of the early PSRUs wasn't high enough and much better power is being produced using a 2.85:1 unit. This fix appears to be in process.

2) Weight; The Subaru isn't a heavy engine but many FWF use heavy engine mounts and radiators. The need here is to go away from the evap cores or oil coolers pretending to be radiators and put a single radiator under the engine in a proper cowl. There are several quality units made with the radiator and oil cooler (with proper fin spacing for each) as an integrated unit. The single mount needed (instead of three) and simpler plumbing will go a long way to lightening the FWF. A different cowl would probably be the best solution to buy back some of the drag created by stuffing a WC setup into an aircooled cowl. It isn't an absolute necessity but it is an available area to improve the existing design.

3)A PSRU with the ability to use a standard C/S prop would also lighten the load, and improve performance at the same time. Marcotte has a design that will accept a C/S. The Mistral unit for the rotary is designed for one from the outset and it incorporates a governor pad as well. It can be done. The ability to use a standard C/S prop makes your selection easier an more plentiful.

Lastly making the cowl/radiator improvements is a double winner since you have less weight and the ability to tune for more power if cooling isn't a problem.

Just some areas the Subie set up can improve now.
Bill Jepson

I think Bill is right on- The only criticism I have with the Egg (and the T. Crook rotary setup as well) layout is with the multiple small thick radiators placed vertically, in front of the engine. That orientation, with the absence of divergent air ducting, blocks air flow through the radiators, which (I believe) impairs slow-speed cooling but acceptable at cruise speeds. Thick radiator cores require high pressure (high velocity) to force air through them.

I believe a ducted radiator-under-the-engine layout that uses single large, thin (~1.5") radiator is likely more efficient. The wedge diffusers require radical (turbulent) air direction changes, however, the data Ive seen implies low pressure (low velocity) turbulent air at the radiator cools better. Correctly shaped and sealed ducting is critically important to system cooling efficiency.

The horizontal radiator orientation seems better suited to a different cowl shape, like the James "P-40 influenced" design with a low intake scoop. FWIW, the design has worked well in several rotary engine installations where the radiator core needs approx 600 cu in to remove the heat generated by 180-200 hp.

dan said:

http://www.rvproject.com/thrust_testing.html

Static thrust tests. Sensenich strain gauge inline on a rope between the tail of each airplane and a fixed hard point on the ground.

Not suggesting this test is apples to apples or anything like that. Just figured some folks in this conversation may not have seen these results yet, since it has been a while since they were published, and there are lots of new players in this VAF forum game.

Click to expand...

Dan, no doubt you were present for a number of these static tests. Was there any discussion as to why Robert Paisley limited his prop rpm to 2500?

I ask this because it would appear the MT is not as efficient at higher rpm, but does better at a lower prop speed with WOT. I found, returning from OSH, that 2100 rpm produced more TAS at less fuel burn than 2300. I did not believe it at first but after resetting power twice, it appeared to be true.

dd

cobra said:

I think Bill is right on- The only criticism I have with the Egg (and the T. Crook rotary setup as well) layout is with the multiple small thick radiators placed vertically, in front of the engine. That orientation, with the absence of divergent air ducting, blocks air flow through the radiators, which (I believe) impairs slow-speed cooling but acceptable at cruise speeds. Thick radiator cores require high pressure (high velocity) to force air through them.

I believe a ducted radiator-under-the-engine layout that uses single large, thin (~1.5") radiator is likely more efficient. The wedge diffusers require radical (turbulent) air direction changes, however, the data Ive seen implies low pressure (low velocity) turbulent air at the radiator cools better. Correctly shaped and sealed ducting is critically important to system cooling efficiency.

The horizontal radiator orientation seems better suited to a different cowl shape, like the James "P-40 influenced" design with a low intake scoop. FWIW, the design has worked well in several rotary engine installations where the radiator core needs approx 600 cu in to remove the heat generated by 180-200 hp.

Click to expand...

While these setups may dissipate heat adequately, they do cause higher drag than straight flow paths. The fact that not one WW2 LC aircraft used these setups is further proof that this is not a low drag solution. These people were smart and had the tools to investigate and quantify all ideas. F1/Indy cars don't do this either to reduce frontal area. Turning air through 180 degrees on its way out is simply a bad idea in this regard. The idea is to exit cooling air at or above the freestream velocity.

A typical RV Sube setup probably has space to mount a proper rad underneath the oil pan with a dedicated diverging inlet duct fed by a Cheyenne type scoop molded into the lower cowling. A sealed, converging exit duct with controllable flap could be fitted on taildraggers and a bifurcated duct on A models. The controllable exit is an important aspect in cruise drag reduction in my view. Again looking at WW2 LC installations, all have moveable exit doors. I would have used this setup on my RV10 if it were not turbocharged but with intercoolers and turbos, there is insufficient space to permit it.

What, peace, facts sir nothing but facts please

Rotary10-RV said:

George, this paragraph is a perfect example of circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

Now you are getting emotional, and its a matter of opinion not circular reasoning. I will not go point by point but I think you are wrong on some facts or your comments are just conjector, hope and wishful thinking, not commiserate with the technical aspects.

There is something about water cooling that gets people hot. Peace man, I already said my piece and the comments are for the good, to help newbies who may not understand all sides, not anger you. We can agree to disagree.

My phylosopy is simple. When alternate engines can fly faster, on some or less gas, with out higher installation weight or cost I will eat my words.

There are liquid cooled engines, like Continental has one and "Cool Jugs" has a new version of there after market cylinders for Lycs comming in a year or two. Water cooled Lycoming jugs will cost $14,000 more (experimental only) and really may not do more for most, however we shall see.

My eyes are open, but I'm just realistic and work off of facts and real world performance. When Rotary or Subaru powered planes are winning Reno, Copperstate Dash and Spruce Aircraft's or Airventure Races, I will be a believer, but right now the Lycoming is superior as an aircraft engine.

Just want the best for builders

rv6ejguy said:

The rath that one poster got last month here merely saying what he saw with his MT RV10 against some other Hartzell RV10s, side by side, even after qualifying that other variables were in play and that he simply posted this for interest sake shows how much brand loyalty plays into this stuff. It couldn't be the MT prop that was better. Everyone JUST knew that. HOW?? The poor fellow was sorry he ever even posted it.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about Van's SBS test the MT was about 1 mph faster than the BA Hartzell for the (I)O540. The only issue was that other RV10 was a 300 hp engine and was pulling more manifold pressure. From Van's calculation or "normalizing" of the data, the MT prop-ed RV10 should have been 10 mph faster. Here is the article. I just report it, I don't make it up?



Don't shoot the messenger.

As far as MT props, I think they are great but for a niche market, a specialized boutique prop for a few and those who just want them, need a lighter prop or need an electric C/S prop. Most are better served with Hartzell, Sensenich or fixed wood or wood/fiberglass props (at this time), from my experience.

For alternative engine users who can NOT use hydraulic props and C/S prop choice is pretty limited, don't want people like me saying MT props are terrible. I never said terriable, but I stand by my story, they are not as efficient.

The other niche props, Whirlwind and Aerocomposite make me nervous only because they are small companies, making very expensive props. It has nothing to do with quality, just like MT, its not a quality thing. However MT at least does have more history and more support infrastructure than WW and Aerocomp, but that's why I like Hartzell and Sensenich better, their established US based customer support. However if you want a wood based prop or electric C/S prop for your RV, than Hartzell and Sensenich don't really have products, so the other bands have an important niche. If you like white blades like the MT has, paint your grey Hartzell/Sensenich white or what ever color you like.


Here is my motive. My Dad bought into the early BD-5 "slot" and lost money. I was a small kid and really don't remember much about it. When I got out of college and started working I had a few nickles to rub together, so I started reading the kit plane and eaa magazine. I saw pure disasters. Paper Kit planes promising the world and disappearing, "300 mph on 100 hp". Planes like the Prescott Pusher and others had inherent poor flying qualities, and they went out of business, leaving builders high a dry. After a local BD5 pilot crashed on his first flight, due to his Honda alternative engine quiting, I became even more cautious of "experimental" anything, engine or airframe. That of course lead me to the RV's. They did what they said. Now of course Mazda/Subaru conversions are not paper engines and have better history then BD5's. That is not the question, just accurate real world numbers: empty weights, fuel flows, top/cruise speed, climb, takeoff/landing, noise, smoothness. ITS HARD TO GET THESE #'s, except for thanks to people like you, Van's, Randy and Dan. I'll shut up and let you guys talk real numbers, because that is what counts. Thanks for your efforts.

I just want good info on engines/props for all builders. The good, bad, and ugly. It's all about facts and figures. I do feel for most builders at this time Lycoming is a GOOD/BEST fit for the RV for all the obvious reasons, not the least of which is the airframe was designed around the Lycoming.

Everyone wants Alt engine experimenter's to succeed and most of all be safe. I do think the Lyc offers the best value, performance and potentially (statistically) better reliability. Clearly alternative engines are not paper engines. They have history and proving their worth, but the Lycoming will hold the overall edge for the distant future, at least in RV's. I am waiting for a small light weight 800 lb thrust turbofan jet engine that costs $20K and runs on water!

I'm frightened, very frightened

I'm frightened. I agree with George on virtually all of his points.

Quick, call the men in the white jackets. There's still a chance I could be saved.

Paint me air cooled!

Let's see if I've got this right-

Build, install a Subie (could be Mazda!), experiment, redesign Van's parts, fly a little, solve problems by more experimenting, redesign again, fly a lttle more, more experimenting, redesign, settle for less performance... $$$$$$

-Or-

Build, install Lycosauraus, fly, fly some more, continue flying virtually troublefree... Priceless

Kahuna was kind enough to publish his observations on the Sube 8 but it didn't take long for this to degenerate into the usual- everyone should install a Lyco/ Hartzell dog and pony show. I think we've heard the same old stuff enough times here. Have anything to say we haven't heard before lads? Hash, rehash and then again and again...


Funny how the alt guys publish something (new) and the cert guys start bashing right away. Got anything positive to say? Didn't your mommas ever teach you stay quiet if you didn't have anything nice to say? Please enjoy flying your Lycoming RVs if that is your choice. I'm not trying switch anyone to the "Dark Side", just publishing what's new on the horizon in alternative engines and trying to clear up some misconceptions. No matter how hard you ram Lycos down my throat, I'll keep coughing up something new and shiny without any cooling fins!



Guess I'll have to get my 6A revamped, enter some races down south and show you what a mouse motor can do. It's on my list now. Whooosh!

The next wave has started and nothin' is gonna stop it.

Hard Knox said:

Let's see if I've got this right-

Build, install a Subie (could be Mazda!), experiment, redesign Van's parts, fly a little, solve problems by more experimenting, redesign again, fly a lttle more, more experimenting, redesign, settle for less performance... $$$$$$

-Or-

Build, install Lycosauraus, fly, fly some more, continue flying virtually troublefree... Priceless

Click to expand...

Or how about my experience.... buy an Eggenfellner, install in a little over three hours from crate to 1st start on firewall. Fly. Upgrade to Gen 2 gearbox....2 hours....fly.......upgrade to gen 3 gear box ( currently in progres, estimate 2 hours....fly some more. Perhaps I'm not trying to squeeze every last bit of speed from my RV9A, or to be the best and fastest, but to suggest that everyone flying behind an Egg/Sube is spending tons of time tweaking the set up is just plain wrong.

Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9e
600+ hours of smooth flying

rvatornate said:

...but to suggest that everyone flying behind an Egg/Sube is spending tons of time tweaking the set up is just plain wrong.

Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9e
600+ hours of smooth flying

Click to expand...

Not everyone, but some.

FWIW, how many auto engines are designed and engineered to constantly run, hour after hour, in excess of 4000 RPMs? Only one that I know of, the Chevrolet LS engines.

FWIW 2. What does the insurance run on a comparable auto conversion?

People have been trying to fly with auto engines 40 years before Jan was born. I know it will work and is doable, but you have to ask why did Piper, Cessna, Beech, Taylor and others in the past and now, Cirrus and Lancair use Lyconties? My lay guess is simplicity and reliability. ECI, Superior and Mattituck, just to name a few can teach someone with limited mechanical ability to assemble a Lycontie in a couple of days. Tony Bengelis and Bob Knuckols have books that make the FWF installation easy enough for a teenager to understand. The subie installations that I have seen(2) took weeks to complete and months to eliminate the squawks.

I would like to know how the cost of ownership of an auto conversion compares to a Lycontie. The cost of ownership is more accurate than the cost of purchase.

I wish you guys well, but I can deal with a little vibration in exchange for the lack of aggravation.