H-6 with FP prop EARLY numbers

Jan shared this on the yahoo group a few days ago. These are early numbers, as the new redrive is still being tested.

By the way, I did some fixed pitch testing with the 4 blade and it is a
>great airplane in the 7. Would be even better in the 9 with more wing.
>
>I set the pitch to 1500 static and cruised at 1900 prop RPM. This gave me
>1200 fpm initial climb and 400 fpm at 12,000 feet with me and half fuel.
>
>Cruise was the same as with a constant speed at 1900 rpm or 192 mph. This makes
>the modern Subaru VERY attractive to 9 builders. get a slightly used one,
>firewall forward for $19,995, then add the 4 blade fixed at $3,200 and get
>flying. You can always use the blades in a constant speed at some later time.
>We are building 9 of these for August delivery and 3 are still available on 9
>mounts.
>
>Jan

Click to expand...

Fairly expensive fixed pitch prop, but great cruise numbers burning 8.9gph, and much cheaper than the CS version.

How much does the Electric CS 4 blade go for?

Jan priced the new four blade to me for about $8000.

Heavy

cjensen said:

Jan shared this on the yahoo group a few days ago. These are early numbers, as the new redrive is still being tested. Fairly expensive fixed pitch prop, but great cruise numbers burning 8.9gph, and much cheaper than the CS version.

Click to expand...

Have you checked the weight? Jan says the H-6 is 40 lbs more than the 2.5L 4-cyl Subaru. Looking at empty weights of RV's....................

The heavy Lyc RV-9A was 1083 lbs, the heavy Subie was 1213 lbs. The simple avg of Lyc RV-9A's: 1053lbs; avg of Subie: 1162 lbs. That is over a 100 lb difference!

Also regarding W&B, fwd CG and usable payload and fuel to remain under standard Gross of 1750 lbs is a consideration, although all the Subaru RV-9A's raised the allowable max gross 100 lbs to account for the extra weight of engine/prop installation.

With a 100 lbs more already, adding the extra 40 lbs of the H-6 kind of concerns me. Plus the HP of the H-6 (alleged 220hp, but at the prop 160-180 hp) is more than Van's Aircraft intended. My conclusion is the H-6 is not a good match for the RV-9A. (Flame suite on). I just believe in following Van's recommendation. The RV-7 would be a better match, at least from a pure weight and balance point of view.


EMPTY WEIGHTS OF RV-9A's
Lycoming O-320 150 2-blade CS 1044
Lycoming O-320 160 3-blade FP 1030
Lycoming O-320 160 2-blade FP 1064
Lycoming O-320 160 2-blade FP 1063
Lycoming O-320 160 2-blade CS 1080
Lycoming O-320 160 2-blade FP 1017
Lycoming O-320 170 3-blade FP 1061
Lycoming O-320 160 2-blade FP 1050
Lycoming O-360 180 3-blade FP 1083
Eggenfellner Subaru Other Quinti 1106
Eggenfellner Subaru Other MT.... 1167
Eggenfellner Subaru Other Quinti 1213

Avg of Lycs: 1053 lbs, Avg of the Subie: 1162 lbs

G

I believe this is a discussion about the new 17lb. carbon fiber, 4 blade prop Egg is offering as a lighter, cheaper and less expensive alternative to the MT. Way off topic George, and I doubt too many Egg users would share your view. Egg is tailoring redrive ratios and engine rpm to limit hp in various airframes.

Weight and Prop do matter and are relevant

rv6ejguy said:

I believe this is a discussion about the new 17lb. carbon fiber, 4 blade prop Egg is offering as a lighter, cheaper and less expensive alternative to the MT. Way off topic George, and I doubt too many Egg users would share your view. Egg is tailoring redrive ratios and engine rpm to limit hp in various airframes.

Click to expand...

I think weight and prop selection are related?

"many Egg users would share your view" Sorry what does that mean? Are you saying the extra weight does not matter? The headline is "H-6 with FP". Also WHY else would you mention the 17lb WEIGHT? Prop weight always is being talked about as a way to offset higher engine weight. The topic is H-6, and it weighs a boat load more than the smaller Subie. It needs a light prop., however I have some concern that not even a light prop will help.

You say, "Way off topic George" . I disagree, prop selection affects weight. Prop, weight and performance are all related. Weight (for what every reason) does affect the overall performance of any plane, as I'm sure any one would agree.

With the H-6's extra 40 lbs, a fixed 17 lb prop would help. I disagree with Jan's comment that empty weight of the H-6 is the same as an angle valve IO360 (200 hp) Lycoming. The smaller 2.5L Subi RV's are already as heavy or heavier as the empty weight of RV's with a IO360 Lyc. The H-6 weight is 40 lbs more than the 4-cyl Sube, per Jan's claim.

The H-6 RV's WILL BE VERY HEAVY. To stay on "topic" you will NEED a light weight FIXED prop. Even than it will still be a high empty weight RV (pushing 1200 lbs or more).

My conclusion, the H-6 is not a good match for a RV-9A which is designed for a lighter gross and lighter engine. Even with the 17 lb prop (plus bolts, spinner and extension?), The RV-9A, which was designed around a 320 Lyc, a very light engine. The H-6 installation easily will be 140 lbs more installed.


The H-6 is more suited for a RV-7(A). The dash 7 has higher gross and was designed for the IO360 angle valve. I think it's a fair, valid and reasonable comment. If you disagree I'll be glad to hear reasons and facts that dispute it. Has Jan published the installed weight of his H-6 test aircraft?

I have been building RV's since 1988. I have flown light ones and heavy ones; I like the "FEEL" of a light ones. I also have flown fixed and constant speed; I like constant speed (hydraulic). Not everyone is already hard core Sube or Lyc folks. Many new folks need the data, facts to make decisions. I am right on target and topic, respectfully submitted.

Eggenfellner needs to get the weight down, drag down and cost down. They are making steady improvements, but that weight issue is a hard one.

Cheers George


No offense to anyone, I am trying to provide useful data to everyone, not just people who only want a Subaru. Any opinion is my own and represents my experience in RV's, engineering and as an airman. No comment was intended to disparage or demean, facts and opinon are noted as such. Subaru is a nice engine, but just too heavy in my opinion, light prop or not.

George,

I'll join the rank of others in last week like Darwin who will leave you to your opinions. Fly safe.

I've pretty much stopped reading your posts George, but for some reason, I did read this one. You are correct that this thread is about the H-6, but I NEVER said anything about weight. It's about the H-6 and PERFORMANCE with the FP version of the VERY light 4 blade prop.

Frankly, the weight of the engine is somewhat beneficial to me anyway, as I am building a -7 and I plan to keep the airplane as light as possible in other areas. You keep saying that the H-6 is 40 pounds heavier than the 2.5. Yup, it is. I'm not comparing the 2.5 to the H-6. I'm comparing the H-6 to a 360. -9 builders have more of a decision to make since the H-6 does weigh more than the 2.5 and a 320, but the power output is being dealt with by limiting RPM.

Your comments on weight related to Subies can be turned just as easily on ANY engined airplane. There's a lot more to empty weight than the engine (panel, interior, paint, primer). You know that, right?

One more thing...how can you "disagree" with Jan and his comments about comparing the weights of the H-6 and the IO-360? Have you weighed both engines full firewall forward as he has??? Just wondering since you are always right on target and topic.

At this point, I too will join the others, and leave you to your opinions. Enjoy!

OK guys.............................................. .......

FWIW: I went today and visited Jan and looked over his new wares. I have heard,read, and listened to all that are the naysayers of anything not emanating from Lyco etal. Coming away from all that and sitting in a hotel near MCO I am glad I went to see the H6 run and really wish that they had several--or even one-- plane(s) with 500ish hours floating around to prove up what APPEARS to be some really good design and engineering work.

Having said that, I simply do not understand the price structure. It is hard enough to argue that the Sub is as good, much less better than a Lyco for an RV-anything. Weight is a big issue that is glossed over and covered with talk of quiet, smooth,etc...............

Back to price----Why--exactly--do we get to pay $5-7 k beyond Lyco clone-Hartzell prices to be "Chief Test Pilot--Egg RV8"

Unlike some non-Lycophobes, I really believe Jan is on to something VERY good. I simply need a legit track record on the specific stuff I am being asked to buy before I sign up.

Chuck Wallace Dallas Texas

That is fine with me

cjensen said:

I've pretty much stopped reading your posts George, but for some reason, I did read this one. You are correct that this thread is about the H-6

Click to expand...

That is real nice of you. I answer you comments in the following post, but I am going to address rv6ejguy first.

rv6ejguy said:

George, I'll join the rank of others in last week like Darwin who will leave you
to your opinions. Fly safe.

Click to expand...

Well that's fine, I would prefer you don't read them because your replies are
rude. Darwin is scary.

Talk about off topic, you bring up a thread on composites, sets an all time
record for off topic post, plus your other comment is devoid of any
usefulness, just a lame personal attack. I guess when you got nothing smart
to say.....


As far as Darwin, aka, RV7guy, here is the thread, you all be the judge:
I have "considerable" experience" (I love composites)

When you start a thread off by saying, "I'm an expert let me tell you and
Van's Aircraft", it's hard to take criticism I guess. Read the thread.

Darwin/RV7guy suggested some composite prep or "processes" that I think
are counter productive, and many agreed with me. He got angry, singling me
out, like you are, went into a huff. That's too bad. Fortunately people ignored
him and continued to make excellent post's we all benefited from; He had
started this thread about how he felt Van ignored his suggestions and that a
gel coat cowl or saturate layup would be better! I disagree because I worked
with both cowl types. Read the thread and decide. It's a great thread with
good info and different ideas. There's no one way or one right opinon, but
Darwin and rv6ejguy don't feel that way apparently.

What I said: Darwin likes Gel Coat Cowls and Acetone, A LOT!

Don't worry about Darwin, he sent me an unsolicited e-mail out-of-the-blue
10 days later, after my post on his thread I totally forgot about. In his email
he called me a fraud, made a vague threat and something about an oil leak?
Up till then I had no issue with him, but that don't fly. I guess he takes his
fiberglass seriously? Nice guy I'm sure. Now I know a little of what
it's like to have a stalker.

That's OK, I worked with composites for 20 years and my master?s degree in
engineering was in advanced composites. RV7guy has got some issues but it
ain't me. I block this noise out. Read the thread you tell me. I am sure he is
an expert and knows more than I ever will. Well I know he told me so and he
was "upper management". Upper management of what, don't know. So
rv6ejguy, get in line, good luck.

Its OK to have an opinion a politely disagree, even with an expert. I get many
thanks from people that I help or like reading my post. Can't make everyone
happy. rv6ejguy take the initiative and block viewing any of my post. Don't
talk about it, do it, please. I would prefer it, especially if you're going to be
rude.

I hope others find THIS and following post useful and helpful. That's all that
counts, and whining and personal comments are a waste time and totally
OFF TOPIC.

My momma told me if you can't say anything nice.... so I'll stick to the facts;
you can't go wrong. My opinion is the H-6 is a bit too heavy for the RV-9A, deal with it.

Cheers George

Thanks for the reply, let me answer

cjensen said:

I've pretty much stopped reading your posts George, but
for some reason, I did read this one. You are correct that this thread is about
the H-6, but I NEVER said anything about weight. It's about the H-6 and
PERFORMANCE with the FP version of the VERY light 4 blade prop.

Frankly, the weight of the engine is somewhat beneficial to me anyway, as I
am building a -7 .................

Your comments on weight related to Subies can be turned just as easily on
ANY engined airplane. There's a lot more to empty weight than the engine
(panel, interior, paint, primer). You know that, right?

how can you "disagree" with Jan and his comments about comparing the
weights of the H-6 and the IO-360? Have you weighed both engines full
firewall forward as he has??? Just wondering since you are always right on
target and topic.

At this point, I too will join the others, and leave you to your opinions.
Enjoy

Click to expand...

Thanks for reading and replying to my post. I like to comment on your reply if I may.

You made some good points, but weight is a big consideration of performance and
that's my story, sticking to it. Bottom line keep is as light as possible, regardless
of engine, that's all.

I agree the RV-7 can handle nose weight and I said that above, I am building a
RV-7. The RV-7 is a better match than the RV-9A for the H-6, in my opinion.

cjensen, good point, empty weight is more than the just engine/prop, but just a
quick look at empty weights listed above shows this variation in weights. Still
the average is very consistent (small deviation). There is a correlation direct
between engine choice and empty weight.

I tracked/recorded RV empty weights for a few years, noting which engine
and prop they had. The data I posted above is direct from Dan's excellent
weight and balance data base: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/

This correlates well with my "sample group". There's only so many things can
leave off the airframe (panel, interior, paint, primer) to make up for a heavy
engine.

Anyone, You, rv6ejguy can look at empty weights and draw the same
conclusion with out name calling. May be not? Some people don't like facts.
Its no mystery RV's with 320's are lightest. RV's with the angle
valves (200HP IO360's) tend to be the heaviest, (I)O360's in the middle.

Of course as you point out there are variations in how the planes are equipped,
painted, upholstered etc..... but, simple averages (or statistical median)
show a consistent trend; the engine and prop drives empty weight.

Of the Eggenfellner installations they almost all come out close to the top of
the heap (heaviest) in empty weight, not all, but the average. Sorry, I find it
interesting and wanted to share, sue me.

I corresponded with Jan. He gave me his good "faith estimate" that the
installed weight for the new H-6 is 40 lbs more than current installations. To
be fair it was not a guarantee, just an estimate. I showed him the empty
weight data, and he agreed, these where typical empty weights RV's with
Eggy installations.

Its a simple matter of adding 40 lbs to the current average empty weight of
current flying Eggy RV's. THIS IS WHERE THE PROP COMES IN? The
new unbelievably light weight 17 lb prop will help. Tell me more? That is
very light. Instead of name calling how about some more info, like the empty
weight of the test plane?

It does not matter what the engine and prop weighs hanging on an engine
hoist. What matters is the installed weight. I think everyone knows water
cooled engines weight more with their associated radiators, pumps, hoses
and fluids?

IS ANYONE THINKING THE 6 CYLINDER H-6 WILL WEIGH THE
SAME AS THE OLD 4-CYLINDER INSTALLATION? I DON'T THINK I
AM BREAKING NEWS?

I leave you and rv6ejguys to your "opinions", Sirs; have a nice day. I am just
sticking with the facts. Its hypocritical of either of you Gent's to get all preachy
and all up in your own @$$ about hi-jacking threads, we all do it, including you
two, Enjoy yourself.

Oh yea, please block my post from your view, I don't want you reading them. I don't
care if you read or like my post, many do, but not to pejorative, if you are going
to be hostile and intolerant, I prefer you not read them so you are not tempted
to make rude comments. That would make me happy. Thanks

Cheers George

cawmd82 said:

Back to price----Why--exactly--do we get to pay $5-7 k beyond Lyco clone-Hartzell prices to be "Chief Test Pilot--Egg RV8"


Chuck Wallace Dallas Texas

Click to expand...

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the write up on the visit with Jan.

Can you or someone tell me where I can get a new Lyclone-Hartzell combo installed and running for $5-7k less than the Egg? My very simple math numbers indicate this-

A new 360 from ECi (pick one, they all are about the same) costs $22,000. Add the Hartzell at $5900 (from Vans). Add the firewall forward package $4725 (from Vans). And electronic ignition $1800 (to compare apples to apples to the Egg with EI). That adds up to $34,425 ($32,625 w/o EI).

A new H-6 costs $23,995 (this includes all firewall forward accesories). Add the CS prop for $8000. Add the hot water heat package $595. That adds up to $32,590.

Since this is a thread on the H-6 with the FP prop, here are those numbers-

360, $22k, FWF $3,350, Sensenich prop $2,025, and EI $1,800=$29,175

H-6, $24k, FP prop $3,200, Hot water heat $595=$27,795

Not an argument. Just curious as to where the cheaper clones are...

win/win?

The best answer is refined in the crucible of open debate [and the greatest but necessary cost is the 'chaff' that some interject that has no value what soever]

I read eveyone and over the course of time give each man/woman's obeservations a weighted value earned by the proponderance of their cumulative offerings [there are a few at this point I barely skim].

I hope EVERYone continues to post and reply. Cuz EVERYone benefits.

Part of a poem by Rudard Kipling [the poem is "IF"] reads: if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you... but make allowances for their doubting too... [whole poem is great]

I can honestly say I respect everyone who has posted in this thread [and I can honestly say that I can't always honestly say that of everyone who posts...lol] and I'd regret and not have as rich an experience in my learning if they stopped.

I'd request that you guys all continue to participate in discussion; 'spirited' sometimes fer sure but when it is from informed and gifted folks then over the course of time the best answer will perculate to the top.

If experienced, educated, dedicated individuals disengage then it is us neophites who lose the most.

In order of desire I'd like to see:

an auto diesel conversion
a equal to egg/certified [safety, cost, performance] diesel manufactured
an auto gasser coversion
an auto gasser manufactured [like eggie's]
a certified [or certified type]

Much progress has been made and I honestly believe that we [actually I've contributed nothing, I'm just a deadbeat, dweeb newbie] are on the cusp of making certified [cert/types] inferior - it is a 'break even' from what I've learned thus far.

I think Gassers [I wish it were diesels] like the Subie are the future and the combo of them improving and fuel supplies with converge to make it 'the choice' before a new certified hung this summer on a GA A-C needs rebuilding.

Please, don't get pissed off when someone 'expands' upon an original thought. I agree Geo. didn't stick "laser focused" to the topic but don't agree what he had to say was 'off topic' either. I believe it would have been equally appropriate to reply in this thread or start a new one to make his observations but I know a bit more because Ross started this post [I think he did?] and that Geo. replied.

I appreciate both you guys [and others] - I already know you both have reasoned positions that differ and I can accept that. Heck, if we didn't have differing opinions we'd all be flying bi-planes and laying at the center of the lower wing.

I think part of the specific conflict with this issue is Van designed the RV for a certified. The RV is inherently conformed to that power supply. If someone did the same thing w/ a Egg. then the opposite would be naturally true.

I wonder if we can't all 'play nice'.

I for one will greatly appreciate it because I want to hear what you have to say.

just one guy's opinion

John

cjensen said:

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the write up on the visit with Jan.

Can you or someone tell me where I can get a new Lyclone-Hartzell combo installed and running for $5-7k less than the Egg? My very simple math numbers indicate this-

A new 360 from ECi (pick one, they all are about the same) costs $22,000. Add the Hartzell at $5900 (from Vans). Add the firewall forward package $4725 (from Vans). And electronic ignition $1800 (to compare apples to apples to the Egg with EI). That adds up to $34,425 ($32,625 w/o EI).

A new H-6 costs $23,995 (this includes all firewall forward accesories). Add the CS prop for $8000. Add the hot water heat package $595. That adds up to $32,590.

Since this is a thread on the H-6 with the FP prop, here are those numbers-

360, $22k, FWF $3,350, Sensenich prop $2,025, and EI $1,800=$29,175

H-6, $24k, FP prop $3,200, Hot water heat $595=$27,795

Not an argument. Just curious as to where the cheaper clones are...

Click to expand...

ECi's kit engines for one. And the FP prop has yet to prove comparable with a lycoming and the FP, certainly NOT the 360 (the 320 is closer, looking at the last thread on the H-6). And why do you got to throw an $1800 EI on the lycoming? Oh yeah, to make it more expensive... Single EI is cheaper, so I'm assumeing that was duel EI? And of course mags are even cheaper than that.

If your not looking for brand new, you can also buy a run-out O-320 for arond $3500 and rebuild it your self at a SUBSTANTUAL savings. Or have it rebuild professionally and still end up at about $15K for the engine. Our O-360A1A is getting rebuilt right now for 11K at the shop...

osxuser said:

ECi's kit engines for one. And the FP prop has yet to prove comparable with a lycoming and the FP, certainly NOT the 360 (the 320 is closer, looking at the last thread on the H-6). And why do you got to throw an $1800 EI on the lycoming? Oh yeah, to make it more expensive... Single EI is cheaper, so I'm assumeing that was duel EI? And of course mags are even cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

I know one person who is building an ECi engine himself, and expects to save about two grand. He has the skills, I don't. I would gladly hand over the $2k to someone who is a professional builder. Also, the kit engines are still being built by authorized shops with minimal savings.

I didn't throw EI on the lyc to make it higher $$$, it's just that the Egg already has EI, and I wanted to compare apples to apples (read the original post). Mags work great, but they do require inpection, and are fixed in their timing. I don't want that. If the H-6 was fixed timing and old fashioned mag'd, I'd leave the EI off. Also, go back and reread my last post, I did include the price without EI, and the price is still comparable (still higher too on the CS).

osxuser said:

If your not looking for brand new, you can also buy a run-out O-320 for arond $3500 and rebuild it your self at a SUBSTANTUAL savings. Or have it rebuild professionally and still end up at about $15K for the engine. Our O-360A1A is getting rebuilt right now for 11K at the shop...

Click to expand...

I am looking for new, but if I weren't, I could find a used Subaru, or rotary, or whatever at a substantial savings and rebuild it myself. But like I said, I don't have the skill set, nor do I want to do that. A good friend of mine is building his own rotary, and there is a TON of work in doing it yourself. Also, ask Ross, he did it, and saved himself a ton of money.

I am in NO WAY denying that the Egg is expensive. It is. But so is a new clone (or even worse a brand new brand name Lycoming!! )

to make it apples to apples, you have to factor the cost of dual computer boxes and necessary engineering for the sube, as well as an infinite ability to run without any electricity.

Once you do that, it will be capable of running as reliably in an airplane as a mag equipped lycoming.

ECU and electricity

Jconard said:

to make it apples to apples, you have to factor the cost of dual computer boxes and necessary engineering for the sube, as well as an infinite ability to run without any electricity.

Once you do that, it will be capable of running as reliably in an airplane as a mag equipped lycoming.

Click to expand...

The Eggenfellner runs with one ECU or engine computer, not two. It's included with the package.

You are right about the electricity requirement. You've got to make sure there is reliable electricity, or you're a glider. Thankfully, today there are many good, clearly documented techniques to create a hyper-reliable electrical system. With only one alternator, if it quits, you need to get on the ground within a couple of hours or so. If it happens to me, I'll land at the next airport.

You will not have hours, the twin fuel pumps alone will draw close to 20 amps. The issue is apples to apples comparison, of configuration. I am pointing out that for the same functional capability the sube would need two independant, redundant ignition sources, and fuel and ignition systems capable of indefinite endurance without power.

I won't open up the fuel burn issue again, but EI for the lyc is not necessary to achieve fuel and performance parity between the engines.

A more reasonable comparison would be a mag ignited, carbureted engine with a CS prop, and a sube with dual independant computers, and a c/s prop.

Still give up 150 lbs of weight and fuel burn/performance, as well as untold increase in complexity by going with the sube, but at least the cost comparison would be more meaningful.

Jconard said:

A more reasonable comparison would be a mag ignited, carbureted engine with a CS prop, and a sube with dual independant computers, and a c/s prop.

Click to expand...

What???

Jconard said:

Still give up 150 lbs of weight and fuel burn/performance, as well as untold increase in complexity by going with the sube, but at least the cost comparison would be more meaningful.

Click to expand...

Wow! Now it's 150 pounds...

Jconard said:

You will not have hours, the twin fuel pumps alone will draw close to 20 amps. The issue is apples to apples comparison, of configuration. I am pointing out that for the same functional capability the sube would need two independant, redundant ignition sources, and fuel and ignition systems capable of indefinite endurance without power.
............

Click to expand...

First of all, in the Eggenfellner installation you don't run both pumps at the same time. One is the primary and the other is a backup, either one will supply more than enough fuel by itself. The capacity of a single battery, not being charged by an alternator, to run the engine has been tested. The time until the voltage fell to the point that the engine finally quit running (around 7 volts) was 84 minutes. That test didn't use the main battery at all. It was still sitting there with the ability to have been used if needed for another 80 minutes or so. This test was done on the ground, but with all the normal inflight electrical loads and with the engine running at power, not at idle. The system as developed by Eggenfellner has, to this point, proven to be extremely reliable when installed per the install manual. Is it more complex than a Lycoming installation? Yes, in some respects, but not overly so. As far as redundant ignition systems and such, there are several layers of redundancy built in to the control system and there are no moving parts in the distributerless ignition system that uses individual coil packs for each cylinder. Yes, there is a potential for a single component failure to stop the engine (crank position sensor is one), but again, that is a solid state sensor with no moving parts that has seen use in hundreds of thousands of engines. Magnetoes are very reliable, but they are not 100% reliable either, and having both go at or near the same time has happened. I had a friend who was killed in a crash about 20 years ago due to both mags failing within moments of each other.
I guess my point is that there are no engine installations that are 100% reliable or foolproof. With all the emphasis on redundancy and backups, there are still several areas in any engine that will cause a single failure total shutdown. The idea is to design in such a way as to minimize those chances. I wouldn't have purchased a Subaru for my RV6 if I didn't feel like it was at least as reliable as anything else out there.
OK, I'll get down off of my soapbox now.

Edit: I was curious about how long it took me to install my engine with its "untold increase in complexity" and get it running. From the time I recieved the engine until I did my first engine run with all the systems hooked up and operating, was 39 hours. This does not include time on the cowl installation (haven't started that yet), but does include the time for all of the electrical, instrumentation, cooling, exhaust, and fuselage mounted fuel components (wings are not on yet). I have no idea how this compares to a Lycoming installation, but would be curious to see.

I will let you know on the install time when I do it...3 cables, 4 wires, and some baffles...

Reading Meyette's site, it seems like there is a lot of re-work to do to bring the "package" up to snuff.

My only point is that a carbureted Lyc will start as easy, and go as fast on a given fuel burn or faster. You may not have the warm feeling that comes from knowing the most expensive technology is under the hood, but for the operations of an aircraft engine, mags and a carb are bulletproof, light and cheap. Plus, unless you want to run LOP or do sustained inverted flight, there is no need for FI. The sube cannot run LOP or extended inverted, so for functionally identical packages the carb is it!

The package would be:
O-360 $18,995
Hartzell $ 5,995
FWF Stuff: $5,000 (probably high)
$28K

Feeling of bulletproof flying : Priceless

Every addition is optional. Oh, and if you buy new EI only seems to add about $1000 to the price.

Okay, I understand your comparison now...but the two are about as far apart technology-wise as you can get, which is the reason I set up my comparison the way I did.

To each his own...I see your point though.

EI costs depend on which EI you go with. Emag/Pmag can be had for about $1500, while dual Light Speed Plasma III goes for about $2800. I was just taking a low average. I couldn't find anything for $1000 (at least for a dual EI setup). The additions were only to bring the clone motor to or as close to the Subie technically as I could. I completely agree with you that you CAN buy a New clone with CS prop and FWF stuff for less money than the Egg H-6, but again, that's with a carb and mags (and there is NOTHING wrong with that, if that's what you want).

I originally just wanted to point out the new numbers from Jan with the FP prop, and that things were looking good.

Price is the real problem!

cawmd82 said:

Having said that, I simply do not understand the price structure. It is hard enough to argue that the Sub is as good, much less better than a Lyco for an RV-anything. Weight is a big issue that is glossed over and covered with talk of quiet, smooth,etc...............

Back to price----Why--exactly--do we get to pay $5-7 k beyond Lyco clone-Hartzell prices to be "Chief Test Pilot--Egg RV8"

Click to expand...

I agree with Chuck here. All of these arguments about Lyclosaurse being better than Subies. . . No! Subies are better than Loclosaurses. . . all really comes down to price. Would anyone, and I do mean anyone, even the most die hard carb loving, magneto loving, no electrical system, give me a die hard big bore 4 cylinder engine to fly behind person ever deny that if they could put a reliable engine in their airplane for less than $10,000, complete FWF package, want to argue this point anymore?

Why the H E Double hockey sticks does an engine package, that includes, as its core, a 4 or 6 cylinder engine that any yahoo, with less than $2000 in his pocket, can purchase by driving his pickem up truck to the back door of the local Subaru dealer and loading up a brand new engine still in its crate, cost North of $30,000? No matter what anyone may think about the price of a bushel of corn. $28,000 is an awful lot of money needed to fabricate the rest of the metal, fiberglass, bolts, nuts, radiator, alternator, battery and what nots to make it fit in my RV!

I have said this before in another thread. . . I do not understand business plans that do not take advantage of demand for their product to make themselves a butt load of money. Selling 100 units @ $5,000 can make as much money as selling 15.33 units @ $30,000. To save everyone from having to do this strenous math that is $500,000. Now, if I could have a company that returns, at the low end, half a million dollars in sales, that would be considered a good start. But what happens if you double your units to 200, double that to 400, double that to 800. Hey, how many engines you suppose Chevrolet, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, on and on, name your car engine manufacturer, sell? Do I think Egg would ever sell that many? No. But, I do think they can sell as many as they can produce and then some if they would price that thing at a rate that is substantially less than their competitors. I absolutely will stand behind the idea that if Eggenfelner sold his engines @ $10,000 FWF he would sell everything he could build as fast as he could build it. And, Jan, no one will convince me that you will not make a heck of a profit doing it!

DO NOT PRICE YOUR PRODUCT TO THE POINT THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR MARKET BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS OVERPRICED!!!! PRICE IT TO THE POINT THAT YOUR MARKET STOPS BEGGING FOR MORE BECAUSE YOU HAVE PRODUCED ENOUGH THAT EVERYONE THAT WANTS YOUR PRODUCT GETS YOUR PRODUCT. ONCE YOU HAVE REACHED THAT POINT MAINTAIN THAT PRODUCTION LEVEL AND PRICE LEVEL! YOU WILL MAKE A BUTT LOAD OF MONEY WHILE GIVING THE CONSUMER WHAT THEY WANT!!!

The most profitable business (IN THE WORLD) does this every single day of the year! They experience profits that not even their closest competitor can come within multi millions of dollars. If people did not think they were getting a decent product from them at a good price they would stop going to them. This holds true for your wonderful engine package too. Keep your quality high, keep your price low and no one will be able to come close to doing what you are doing. But, try to play at the same game as the existing businesses (Lycoming, Continental, ECI, PENN-YANN, Mattituck, etc. ad nauseum) and you will always fight them for market share.

Ok, I did not intend to high jack this thread. I hope my writing this will not divert the topic from the valuable technical entries others may post. This is my $.02 worth on the issue of price in our aviation world that I am sure many would think is not worth that much. But I shall continue to believe that if you could trick out a street rod with a GM crate engine and make it scream for less than $10,000 there should be no reason we cannot do the same with our RV's at a similar price.
RVBYSDI
Steve

Subaru Engines

RVbySDI said:

Why the H E Double hockey sticks does an engine package, that includes, as its core, a 4 or 6 cylinder engine that any yahoo, with less than $2000 in his pocket, can purchase by driving his pickem up truck to the back door of the local Subaru dealer and loading up a brand new engine still in its crate, cost North of $30,000?

Click to expand...

Wow - where can you get one for $2000? All the checking I did had it closer to $7000. Please do tell!

RVbySDI said:

I have said this before in another thread. . . I do not understand business plans that do not take advantage of demand for their product to make themselves a butt load of money. ...

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, he's selling more engines than he can make now, and making more money than he can spend. I don't know Jan except as a customer of his, so I have no idea what motivates him. However, having lived and worked in Europe for more than a decade, I know that what motivates Europeans is not always the same as what motivates Americans. You can just about get any American to do just about anything for money. Europeans don't work that way. Believe me, when you're the boss, and you're trying to get your European employees to do something they don't want to do, it's a real pain. In the US, you just offer more money. Here, it's much more complex, and sometimes frustrating.

So, perhaps Eggenfellner is not trying to become Lycoming, and by raising prices, as he has done steadily over the last few years, he can keep his company at the size he wants to manage.

RVbySDI said:

Why the H E Double hockey sticks does an engine package, that includes, as its core, a 4 or 6 cylinder engine that any yahoo, with less than $2000 in his pocket, can purchase by driving his pickem up truck to the back door of the local Subaru dealer and loading up a brand new engine still in its crate, cost North of $30,000? No matter what anyone may think about the price of a bushel of corn. $28,000 is an awful lot of money needed to fabricate the rest of the metal, fiberglass, bolts, nuts, radiator, alternator, battery and what nots to make it fit in my RV!
RVBYSDI
Steve

Click to expand...

There's no way there's $20k worth of engine in any lyc or clone engine either, but everybody pays it, because they are all priced in that area.

The cheapest new H-6 I've ever seen is around the $7k mark, as Mickey pointed out. There's a lot more that goes in to the FWF package than that...and Jan has to make a living-he developed it, he deserves whatever he's making off of it in my opinion.

Also, there's no need to make any major mods to the metal, fiberglass, bolts, nuts, radiator, alternator, battery, etc. The new engine with the belted redrive uses the SJ cowl, and there is no metal work that I'm aware of. All the other stuff is already positioned to fit.

What work are you referring to?

Just curious...

rv8ch said:

Wow - where can you get one for $2000? All the checking I did had it closer to $7000. Please do tell!

Click to expand...

My apologies for making assumptions without basis in fact. I know that I can buy a crated 350 from Chevrolet for about $1500-$2000 so my error is in the assumption that a 4 or 6 cyl subie would be in the same ball park. Having said this, I think if Eggenfelner can buy the engine for $7,000 and only have to fabricate various parts to make it work on the RV and not, as they have claimed, have to alter the engine from stock, it should not cost another $23,000 to do so. There is enough profit built in to their price that I will concede the $5,000 difference you are telling me I errored with and still think that I am paying a heck of a premium to have them fabricate the package.

rv8ch said:

As far as I can tell, he's selling more engines than he can make now, and making more money than he can spend. I don't know Jan except as a customer of his, so I have no idea what motivates him. However, having lived and worked in Europe for more than a decade, I know that what motivates Europeans is not always the same as what motivates Americans. You can just about get any American to do just about anything for money. Europeans don't work that way. Believe me, when you're the boss, and you're trying to get your European employees to do something they don't want to do, it's a real pain. In the US, you just offer more money. Here, it's much more complex, and sometimes frustrating.

So, perhaps Eggenfellner is not trying to become Lycoming, and by raising prices, as he has done steadily over the last few years, he can keep his company at the size he wants to manage.

Click to expand...

That is a fair statement that I have no problems accepting. My point about the profit is that anyone can make money selling a quality product without having to price it at or above the competitions price. I think Eggenfelner has a fantastic product. I am very interested in it. The limiting factor that I have and was agreeing with Chuck on is not the weight issue. It is the price issue. My thoughts are that people like me would not even consider another alternative than to go with the Eggie Subie if the price were not so rediculously overpriced (And I mean the use of the word rediculously to be non-exclusive because I think all products marketed to aviation are rediculously overpriced). When I hear someone tell me that $20,000 - $30,000 for an engine and transmission is "cheap" I start feeling that nervous twitch above my eyebrow start going off.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply to my post. I appreciate all opinions and enjoy reading everyone's posts on these forums. Reading them has helped me immensly. Sometimes I just feel the compelling need to stick my $.02 worth into the mix.

RVBYSDI
Steve

cjensen said:

There's no way there's $20k worth of engine in any lyc or clone engine either, but everybody pays it, because they are all priced in that area.

Click to expand...

I definetly agree with you on this part. Which is why I stated in my previous post that I think ALL aviation products are overpriced.

cjensen said:

The cheapest new H-6 I've ever seen is around the $7k mark, as Mickey pointed out. There's a lot more that goes in to the FWF package than that...and Jan has to make a living-he developed it, he deserves whatever he's making off of it in my opinion.

Also, there's no need to make any major mods to the metal, fiberglass, bolts, nuts, radiator, alternator, battery, etc. The new engine with the belted redrive uses the SJ cowl, and there is no metal work that I'm aware of. All the other stuff is already positioned to fit.

What work are you referring to?

Just curious...

Click to expand...

Chad, the work I was referring to was the work that Eggenfelner does to take that $7,000 stock subaru engine and make it work on a car with wings for another $23,000+. You further support my idea that these prices are beyond the idea that "he deserves whatever he's making off of it. . ." in your next paragraph when you imply that the SJ cowl is used in the FWF and no other metal work is needed. . . Other than mounting a radiator system, a couple of batteries, maybe an alternator, perhaps a heater for my cabin heat, oh yeah, and buying someone else's engineered PRSU and prop, Eggenfelner is not doing a whole lot of extra engineering to the engines to make them work. Yet, they are pricing the package at a high premium price.

I do not believe that the "price of doing business" is driving his escalating price increases. Now, I could be wrong. God knows I have no factual knowledge of what it cost him, or Lycoming for that matter, to put together an engine for an RV. But everything I do believe tells me that it doesn't cost him anywhere near that $30,000+ price. What I am saying is that even if he sold his engines at a more reasonable price he could still make a comfortable profit. In fact, my contention is that if everyone sold their products at a more reasonable price they could still make a comfortable profit and all of us as consumers would be happy as clams, not struggling with ways to figure out how to afford flying and we would not be arguing about whose product is better.

RVBYSDI
Steve

My appology for high jacking

I hoped to not be guilty of another high jacking. My appologies to all for doing so. I am very interested in the H-6 with FP prop numbers. I hope others will post their thoughts on this issue as I am indeed very interested in the performance of the Eggenfelner engines. Futher my appologies to Mr. Jan Eggenfelner if he is reading and to all his supporters. My opinions about engine pricing are not meant to be personal in any way. I hope none were construed to be so. I am very interested in the Subaru engines and very interested in their performance numbers.

RVBYSDI
Steve

RVbySDI said:

I definetly agree with you on this part. Which is why I stated in my previous post that I think ALL aviation products are overpriced.

Chad, the work I was referring to was the work that Eggenfelner does to take that $7,000 stock subaru engine and make it work on a car with wings for another $23,000+. You further support my idea that these prices are beyond the idea that "he deserves whatever he's making off of it. . ." in your next paragraph when you imply that the SJ cowl is used in the FWF and no other metal work is needed. . . Other than mounting a radiator system, a couple of batteries, maybe an alternator, perhaps a heater for my cabin heat, oh yeah, and buying someone else's engineered PRSU and prop, Eggenfelner is not doing a whole lot of extra engineering to the engines to make them work. Yet, they are pricing the package at a high premium price.

Click to expand...

The only issue I take with this paragraph is that the $23k price includes that $7 Subie...all you need beyond the 23 is a prop, and there are definately others that will work for less money (like a Quinti/Warp Drive for about $1500). The prop price is driven from the manufacturer (MT and Sensenich), and he sells 'em at a discount to his customers. The MT, for example, is a $12,000 prop that he can sell for $8900.

Oh, maybe I'm wrong about this, but it's my understanding that the PSRU now used is Jan's design? I stand to be corrected easily on this one...

RVbySDI said:

I do not believe that the "price of doing business" is driving his escalating price increases. Now, I could be wrong. God knows I have no factual knowledge of what it cost him, or Lycoming for that matter, to put together an engine for an RV. But everything I do believe tells me that it doesn't cost him anywhere near that $30,000+ price. What I am saying is that even if he sold his engines at a more reasonable price he could still make a comfortable profit. In fact, my contention is that if everyone sold their products at a more reasonable price they could still make a comfortable profit and all of us as consumers would be happy as clams, not struggling with ways to figure out how to afford flying and we would not be arguing about whose product is better.

RVBYSDI
Steve

Click to expand...

Agreed. But since I want one, I guess I'll pay his asking price...as I would have to with any engine product.

RVbySDI said:

I hoped to not be guilty of another high jacking. My appologies to all for doing so. I am very interested in the H-6 with FP prop numbers. I hope others will post their thoughts on this issue as I am indeed very interested in the performance of the Eggenfelner engines. Futher my appologies to Mr. Jan Eggenfelner if he is reading and to all his supporters. My opinions about engine pricing are not meant to be personal in any way. I hope none were construed to be so. I am very interested in the Subaru engines and very interested in their performance numbers.

RVBYSDI
Steve

Click to expand...

Nice disclaimer!!

RVBYSDI said:

When I hear someone tell me that $20,000 - $30,000 for an engine and transmission is "cheap" I start feeling that nervous twitch above my eyebrow start going off.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. There are *a lot* of nice cars on the market for $23,000, and that's the whole car, and brand new!

The cost of Plasma II Plus, when purchased with the engine is around $1,000, you don't need to buy mags and then buy EI if you are buying new.

My point in picking technology, is that you should pick only what is necessary to make performance on fuel equal. Lyc with carb and mags is equal or better than current sube.

Would it be nice to have EI and FI...perhaps, but it is not necessary for performance parity.

I also had a thought on the way home today...if you loose an injector or spark plug, would the rough running destroy the re-drive? I imagine the pulses and propeller whip would be horrendous. On direct drive this does not typically present a challenge, but I bet on a gear drive it would, and maybe on a belt drive. This makes redundant fuel and spark more critical I think on a reduction drive engine.

Jconard said:

I also had a thought on the way home today...if you loose an injector or spark plug, would the rough running destroy the re-drive? I imagine the pulses and propeller whip would be horrendous. On direct drive this does not typically present a challenge, but I bet on a gear drive it would, and maybe on a belt drive. This makes redundant fuel and spark more critical I think on a reduction drive engine.

Click to expand...

That's a good question. Maybe someone here that's running one knows...In the meantime, I'll post it on the yahoo board, and see what Jan says, and get back to you.

RVbySDI said:

I definetly agree with you on this part. Which is why I stated in my previous post that I think ALL aviation products are overpriced.

in your next paragraph when you imply that the SJ cowl is used in the FWF and no other metal work is needed. . . Other than mounting a radiator system, a couple of batteries, maybe an alternator, perhaps a heater for my cabin heat, oh yeah, and buying someone else's engineered PRSU and prop, Eggenfelner is not doing a whole lot of extra engineering to the engines to make them work. Yet, they are pricing the package at a high premium price.


RVBYSDI
Steve

Click to expand...

OK, Let me try to place a handle on a few of the reasons these things cost so much and inject a little correction at the same time.
Steve, If you buy an Eggenfellner motor you WON'T need to mount radiators etc... They come installed. The package comes ready to run on the shipping crate. Connect the fuel and top up the fluids and start the thing. Many mechnically inclined buyers start the engine THE SAME DAY it arrives. This is why people are interested despite the pricing, which is outragous! The battery? Your Lyc starts without one? Or perhaps you always hand prop your engine?
I am not a Egg motor buyer but can explain some of the costs. First, I believe he IS pricing to limit the size of his operation. Second, all of the needed secondary parts for the Egg OR Lyc are by industry standards prototype or "one-off" quanities. Eggenfellner or Lycoming don't ever really make enough of anything to bring the cost down. Even after the initial engineering is done the re-order quanities just aren't enough to bring down the cost. The way this works can be explained by the costing of avgas as an example. The reason avgas is always expensive is they make so little of it. The annual production of all brands of avgas runs around 50,000,000 Gallons. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Regular motor fuel (gasoline only) runs about 200,000,000 gallons...per day! We amount to less than .05 percent of yearly production. The same is true of engine components, Toyota and GM make more engines in less than a year than Lycoming has made in their ENTIRE production existance. All specialty items be they the entire engine, or the gear box or FWF package are so few for aircraft that the cost will always be like making the start of a run for anything else. Read up on what prototypes cost the major manufactuurers and you'll see why we get to pay so much. (I am a mechanical engineering contractor and have been building and ordering capital equipment parts for years)
All that said the prices for aircraft stuff are outragous, which is why there are "clone" engines being built in the first place. I'm glad someone will still try to make us stuff. The new prop and reduction from Eggenfellner is a wonderful attempt to make a totally new package. The first numbers look good, which is super. If it was really as easy as some people think everybody would be doing it.

Rotary10-RV
Bill Jepson

Rotary10-RV said:

Steve, If you buy an Eggenfellner motor you WON'T need to mount radiators etc... They come installed. The package comes ready to run on the shipping crate. Connect the fuel and top up the fluids and start the thing. Many mechnically inclined buyers start the engine THE SAME DAY it arrives.

Click to expand...

Yes I understand about the fact that it is ready to go right out of the crate. That was my point. That the difference between the price for the Subaru engine if you go out and buy a new one and the price for the crated engine from Eggenfelner ready to bolt onto the RV is a substantial difference. That is the extra fabrication of what nots that I was refering to. Not the extra fabrication that I as a builder have to do. What I was trying to say (I guess I was not very clear on the idea) was that the price for Eggenfelner to put that together seems steep to me.

Rotary10-RV said:

I believe he IS pricing to limit the size of his operation.

Click to expand...

I believe this too but do not agree with the idea. I am sure that he is concerned that he could loose control of the quality of his product if he grows demand faster than what he believes he can handle. This is a business philosophy that he has chosen and I am sure he absolutely believes that it is the best thing for him to do. I am not sure that it is the best thing for his customers though. Of course, he has to look out for himself and his workers before he worries about his customer base.

Thanks for the info. As I have said in the above posts I am very interested in this engine and would love to have it in my RV. I am just struggling with justifying the cost. The same struggle is going through my mind in terms of paying the cost of putting a Lycosaure whatever in it. Perhaps this is just something I have to overcome for myself if I ever intend to produce a flying RV. As Chad replied in an earlier post "But since I want one, I guess I'll pay his asking price...as I would have to with any engine product." So I guess we are somewhat of a captured market for any of these engine producers and I just need to suck it up and pay the price of admission to get into the game.

Happy Building and Happier Flying,
RVBYSDI
Steve

Jconard said:

I also had a thought on the way home today...if you loose an injector or spark plug, would the rough running destroy the re-drive? I imagine the pulses and propeller whip would be horrendous. On direct drive this does not typically present a challenge, but I bet on a gear drive it would, and maybe on a belt drive. This makes redundant fuel and spark more critical I think on a reduction drive engine.

Click to expand...

Ok, here's the best answer/explaination I've received so far from the Yahoo group on the issue mentioned above-

"I have some experience during early testing of the 2.5 of running on
3 and then 2 cylinders. This was during high-speed taxi tests
fortunately. I had washed my engine (the only time I have ever done
this in five years) and must have gotten some water down in the spark
plug boots. Steam pressure popped the boots off. A well known thing
it turns out... I put small metal retainers on the boots just for good
measure, but I think the important thing is simply not to spray high
pressure water directly at your plug boots.

Anyway, aside from a noticeable loss of power, the roughness was not
bad, certainly nothing that would cause problems for the gearbox. We
have some experience running an H6 on 5 cylinders too. You hardly
notice it. There is enough flywheel mass to keep the engine happy."

From Gary Newsted

Click to expand...

Superior was just bought by Thielert for a measly 10 million with only 3 million in cash. That tells you they ain't making money.

I've been there first-hand. The amazing thing is that these engines come in as low as they do!. Yes, I said 'low'. When you know the true costs as I do, it's downright scary how expensive it is to make/build a REAL aviation propulsion package....auto conversion or not.

With all due respect to the "engine cost" dreamers, the reality is that AT BEST the engine makers are BARELY making money and several are losing money on every engine. The actual direct out-the-door manufacturing cost of a Lyclone (no liability, no capital equipment, etc) is WELL over $10,000.

Bill does a great job explaining the cost dynamics, but there are several other factors and some misperceptions.

Allow me to make some minor corrections and add some observations from first-hand knowledge of aviation engine manufacturing. This is NOT a flame on Bill...I'm simply using his excellent post as the framework. P.S. I also have a family member who is top exec at ConocoPhilips which makes 80% of all avgas (no, it's not going away anytime soon).

Rotary10-RV said:

First, I believe he IS pricing to limit the size of his operation.

Click to expand...

false.

Rotary10-RV said:

Second, all of the needed secondary parts for the Egg OR Lyc are by industry standards prototype or "one-off" quanities.

Click to expand...

true

Rotary10-RV said:

Eggenfellner or Lycoming don't ever really make enough of anything to bring the cost down.

Click to expand...

true

Rotary10-RV said:

Even after the initial engineering is done the re-order quanities just aren't enough to bring down the cost.

Rotary10-RV said:

The way this works can be explained by the costing of avgas as an example.

Click to expand...

True. But there's more to it. Avgas is also more highly taxed, more tightly controlled during refinement AND more highly regulated by DOT's and feds.

Rotary10-RV said:

The reason avgas is always expensive is they make so little of it. The annual production of all brands of avgas runs around 50,000,000 Gallons. Regular motor fuel (gasoline only) runs about 200,000,000 gallons...per day! We amount to less than .05 percent of yearly production.

Click to expand...

the numbers are incorrect but the percentage is about right. total 100LL fuel for a year can be produced in 2 days.

Rotary10-RV said:

Toyota and GM make more engines in less than a year than Lycoming has made in their ENTIRE production existance.

Click to expand...

Actually, Toyota and GM make this many in 3 weeks...EACH!!

Rotary10-RV said:

All specialty items be they the entire engine, or the gear box or FWF package are so few for aircraft that the cost will always be like making the start of a run for anything else. Read up on what prototypes cost the major manufactuurers and you'll see why we get to pay so much. (I am a mechanical engineering contractor and have been building and ordering capital equipment parts for years)

Click to expand...

True. Aviation engines (not auto conversions) also have the cost of PMA certification and liability insurance, which can run upwards of $2000 PER engine for the largest mfrs. Smaller companies are running up to $4k PER ENGINE -- if they can get it. Thanks to the lawyers. EGG will hit the "liability" wall sometime in the future. It's only a matter of time.

Rotary10-RV said:

All that said the prices for aircraft stuff are outragous, which is why there are "clone" engines being built in the first place. I'm glad someone will still try to make us stuff.

Click to expand...

I'm counfused on this one. Why are the prices "outrageous" after you did such a good job explaining WHY they are so high? The term "outrageous" implies a deliberate "rip-off" or monopoly pricing. Expensive, yes. Rip-off, no.

Rotary10-RV said:

The new prop and reduction from Eggenfellner is a wonderful attempt to make a totally new package.

Click to expand...

Very expensive. The cost of that reduction drive is brutal. I don't know the actual cost but I can estimate it to within $100.

Rotary10-RV said:

If it was really as easy as some people think everybody would be doing it.

Click to expand...

Correct. And it's very expensive.

The bottom line is that the costs are high because ... the costs are high!!! You get what you pay for.

There will N-E-V-E-R be a "worthy" $10,000 engine above 100hp for aviation. If there is, I certainly won't fly behind it. I would LOVE to get there, but it isn't reality.

Click to expand...

Nice post ship and Bill. Very informative.

ship said:

There will N-E-V-E-R be a "worthy" $10,000 engine above 100hp for aviation. If there is, I certainly won't fly behind it. I would LOVE to get there, but it isn't reality.

Click to expand...

Your statement is based on some specific assumptions that keep you from thinking outside the box because you are stuck with limited ideas that exist in the current paradigm that you currently call "reality". This is what convinces you that Rotary10RV's and other's thoughts about a new way of doing business should not be attempted. In fact, it sounds like you not only think they should not be attempted because they are an imposibility but that any attempt will N-E-V-E-R succeed so imminent failure should convince everyone to just accept what is because "it is the way it is".

What if a few variables that currently convince you that "N-E-V-E-R" will ever happen changes? What if metal to make the core dropped to, say, 1/100th the current price? Better yet, what if there was a discovery that used an entirely new material that was as plentiful as dirt and cost virtually nothing to produce and that material could be used to produce engines? What if labor costs plummetted while quality control increased at the same time? What if a new design changed the way we extract motion out of chemicals, or heat, or reciprocation? What if reciprocation was replaced with some totally different design? What if humans quit being so garsh darned greedy and quit expecting an inflated CEO salary for every new thing they brought to the market? What if instead of 400,000 aircraft in the country there were 100,000,000 out there flying? What if the airplane replaced the automobile as the main means of transportation because of some unforseen change in the way things work and everyone had 2.3 airplanes per household instead of 2.3 automobiles?

These are all hypothetical "What If's" but any one or multiples of them could happen to create a totally new pardigm shift that could change your concept of reality. Would you still say N-E-V-E-R? I was taught that I should never say NEVER or ALWAYS unless I wanted to continually be proven wrong everytime I said them!

Experimental aviation brings two bipolar types together, the engineer and the dreamer. The engineer wants to deal with the world in tangible and concrete terms that are well defined so "reality" is what rules the world. The dreamer wants to deal with the world in theories and abstracts that are not defined at all so "reality" is simply a state of mind that can and should be changed in order to realize the dream. Without either of these what would our world be like? So which type of aviator are you?

RVBYSDI
Steve

RVbySDI said:

What if instead of 400,000 aircraft in the country there were 100,000,000 out there flying? What if the airplane replaced the automobile as the main means of transportation because of some unforseen change in the way things work and everyone had 2.3 airplanes per household instead of 2.3 automobiles?

Click to expand...

I'll give you this one. The reason aircraft engines are so expensive is because there is a limited market for them. All other reasons are relatively insignificant by comparison.

I understand your frustration, but general aviation is a tiny market. Aircraft engines will not be as inexpensive as car engines until aircraft are as plentiful as cars. You can "what if" all you like, but it changes nothing until one of those unlikely scenarios actually happens.

So which type of aviator are you?

Click to expand...

I much prefer flying to dreaming.

Eggenfellner prices (and Lycoming too!)

RVbySDI said:

What if a few variables that currently convince you that "N-E-V-E-R" will ever happen changes? What if metal to make the core dropped to, say, 1/100th the current price? Better yet, what if there was a discovery that used an entirely new material that was as plentiful as dirt and cost virtually nothing to produce and that material could be used to produce engines? What if labor costs plummetted while quality control increased at the same time? What if a new design changed the way we extract motion out of chemicals, or heat, or reciprocation? What if reciprocation was replaced with some totally different design? What if humans quit being so garsh darned greedy and quit expecting an inflated CEO salary for every new thing they brought to the market? What if instead of 400,000 aircraft in the country there were 100,000,000 out there flying? What if the airplane replaced the automobile as the main means of transportation because of some unforseen change in the way things work and everyone had 2.3 airplanes per household instead of 2.3 automobiles?

These are all hypothetical "What If's" but any one or multiples of them could happen to create a totally new pardigm shift that could change your concept of reality. Would you still say N-E-V-E-R? I was taught that I should never say NEVER or ALWAYS unless I wanted to continually be proven wrong everytime I said them!

Experimental aviation brings two bipolar types together, the engineer and the dreamer. The engineer wants to deal with the world in tangible and concrete terms that are well defined so "reality" is what rules the world. The dreamer wants to deal with the world in theories and abstracts that are not defined at all so "reality" is simply a state of mind that can and should be changed in order to realize the dream. Without either of these what would our world be like? So which type of aviator are you?

RVBYSDI
Steve

Click to expand...

Steve,
I understand and would love to see the cost of engines come down. I am not convinced that there aren't possibillities for profit for less than current prices. You would have to be VERY well organized and use the most modern production techniques available. I fear for the success of a start up due to liability costs as well. Small production runs will always have outragous prices. (Ship please note I said outragous. not unjustified)
Steve, as a little production primmer you should know that the average $30.000.00 car contains less than $2,000.00 worth of raw materials and that may be an overestimate of the materials. So if the manufacturer could get ALL the raw materials for FREE and passed along ALL the savings to the customer the car would still cost $28,000.00! I'd bet you that the typical 4 cylinder Lycoming contains LESS than $1000.00 in raw materials. That number even takes into account that the materials must be purchased in small quantities. (which does cost more) In all technical items it is production, labor. or even uniqueness that costs. A top-of-the-line microprocessor for a desktop PC costs around $800-$1,000 AND IT IS MADE OF SAND which is only slightly more expensive than dirt. The manufacturing process is incredibly complex which is what costs. Mazda is the only manufacturer that found a reasonably economical way to grind the unusual shape of the Wankel rotor housing. They will not allow cameras into the production area, and you must be well connected just to be allowed in! Both of these examples show that IT CAN BE DONE. The hardest part for us is to get someone to make parts for our small market. I would love to do it myself, but I wouldn't get much flying time in the next few years.
Rotary10-RV
Bill Jepson

Rotary10-RV said:

In all technical items it is production, labor. or even uniqueness that costs. A top-of-the-line microprocessor for a desktop PC costs around $800-$1,000 AND IT IS MADE OF SAND which is only slightly more expensive than dirt. The manufacturing process is incredibly complex which is what costs. Mazda is the only manufacturer that found a reasonably economical way to grind the unusual shape of the Wankel rotor housing. They will not allow cameras into the production area, and you must be well connected just to be allowed in! Both of these examples show that IT CAN BE DONE.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree that it can be done. That is why I believe the way I do. I believe the high costs are in the labor not in the materials. Which is why I eluded to the idea of: "What if humans quit being so garsh darned greedy and quit expecting an inflated CEO salary for every new thing they brought to the market?" This includes the lawyers, the insurance companies, the factory workers, everyone down the line of production. Not just the guy at the top. Our world has evolved into a world where it doesn't matter whether we are flipping burgers or building a nuclear power plant we all think it is our right to have immediate returns of wealth doing it. Why does a manufacturer have to return all of its investment on R&D within the first years of the production? Why could it not be spread out over the life of the product. If you truly believe in the viability of your product this should not be a concern. Of course, that requires quite a bit of faith and belief in what you are doing to achieve I suppose.

Just so everyone knows, I do understand the fact that there are certain things that limit our wish list of ideas we would like to see changed. However, as I stated in my post in reply to Ship, I think there are some things that could change our way of thinking about things that would change the world enough so that how we do things now would no longer restrict us. So, in my mind, saying that things will "never" happen seems a little short sighted. Human history has continually proven that the status quo does not remain the status quo for very long. We are always changing, growing and coming up with new or better ways to do things. As evidenced by the fact that Jan Eggenfelner is placing those ghastly auto engines on beloved aviation machines and making them work. Who would've thunk it could be possible? I don't think anyone in the big bore aircooled Lycosaur engine world would've thunk it for sure! But someone did and look how it seems to be changing the status quo!

RVBYSDI
Steve
Yes I am a dreamer as I am still building my RV and therefore can only dream of the day I will be flying this wonderful machine.

Jconard said:

You will not have hours, the twin fuel pumps alone will draw close to 20 amps.

Click to expand...

Hi everyone, my first post! Thought I would jump in here and say that battery technology is also advancing along as well. Valence has a unique battery that maybe suited for this application:
http://www.valence.com/ucharge.asp
Better weight, AHr and endurance. Don't know how they would fair with other params such as atmosphere and temp. Worth looking at though. Cheers!

Stephen

sn-rv10 said:

Hi everyone, my first post! Thought I would jump in here and say that battery technology is also advancing along as well. Valence has a unique battery that maybe suited for this application:
http://www.valence.com/ucharge.asp
Better weight, AHr and endurance. Don't know how they would fair with other params such as atmosphere and temp. Worth looking at though. Cheers!

Stephen

Click to expand...

Stephen,

I looked at the Valence site and do not see the advantage over proven Odyssey batteries. Odyssey can be shipped non-hazardous, does not gas out, and they last. I changed batteries this year after almost 4 years of service with 2 engines, and sold the old ones to a friend who needs some test power while completeing his project. Both batteries were still working fine.

For some unknown reason, I missed this thread completely last May, must have been busy mowing the lawn or something that month.

I have a friend flying the RV-9A with the H6/MT. I gave him a check out in my -7A and helped get some issues squared away before first flight. The airplane has been flown out of phase one since then.

Performance is very good as the owner lives in the country on 1300' of grass. He flew the first flight out of his strip. But he could not do it with a FP prop. I am convinced of that.

Jan is interested in selling engines and he'd like to simplify things by having one engine for all airplanes. The obvious choice is the H6 but the situation is complicated because some customers want the original used 2.5 for its lower price and less weight. The 2.5 is a very good engine for the -9 as Gary Newsted and Nathan Green and Gus and others have proven. The H6 is over kill. To limit the engine to 150 HP with a FP prop is not realistic because no one will do it. It would ruin the basic performance capabilities of the airplane, plus incure a weight penalty. It doesn't make good sense.

I've done some FP testing with the 2.5 and the H6 and found the compromise in perfomance too much for me. With the 2.5 and Quinti, you can set any prop pitch you want and go fly in manual. There was not a pitch setting that was satisfactory. The airplane flew like a lumbering bomber or power had to reduced before climb speed to stay under rpm limits. With the H6, I had a wood prop built to Lycoming 0-360 specs (for lack of another base line) and it, too, got off the ground but not at all spectacularly and in flight was power limited due to rpm limits.

Perhaps some can accept these performance limitations to have a Subby with FP, but not me. The difference compared to CS is incredible, not at like comparing Lycoming with FP and CS.

As usual, just my 2 cents worth....


dd
RV-7A
H6

FP Subies

I'd second David's observations of Subies and fixed pitch props- not a good combination. Flying our turbocharged EJ22 and IVO prop (inflight adjustable) you can experiment in fixed pitch mode easily.

Lock the pitch at the cruise setting and the takeoff roll is almost tripled even with the much higher torque of the turbo engine at medium rpms. The climb rate is about half as well. Lock it at takeoff pitch and as soon as you lower the nose in cruise, rpms will rise over 6000 and you just waste fuel and increase noise level and actually go slower.

Take your pick, MT, Quinti or the dreaded IVO , you'll need one of these to extract maximum performance from the Subaru.