A Little Eggenfellner History
 

Truth is, Dan Horton's thread is locked down because there are mind sets here that have judged the alternative engine effort a failure and the issue is closed. Another way to say it - don't bother with me with facts, my mind is made up. No amount of "hard core technical exchange" will change that situation and yet, there is a continuing request for more information as what has been discussed does not satisfy an appetite that can not be satisfied. Sort of like feeding herring one at a time to a great white shark .

OK, what are some facts in the world of experimental engines and experimental airplanes. Zoch and Delta Hawk have been leading us around the track like dogs at a dog track going on at least 25 years. What is there to show for it - zip, nada - no one is flying behind one beyond their eternal test programs.

Eggenfellner on the other hand has bolted one engine after another on an airplane to see if it will work. His first effort was with a VEZ. It failed. Many frustrating failures along the way and a few successes - the Italian 4 seater, the GlaStar and the RV's. An effort with the Defiant, it failed but is on going - brand new engine burned up when a cooling system failed.

The clamor for more and more technical data is boring. Zoch and Delta Hawk probably have a couple semi trucks full of technical numbers but neither engine is a success in terms of EAA members flying behind one. There are many pilots flying behind a Subaru and satisfied. I am not about to suggest everything here is perfect, but these engines are working reasonable well considering the world we live in.

For those who do not like Subaru, move on to something different. But please do stop whining about the product and others who are trying to make it work resulting in threads being locked down.

We don't all pull our pants on the same way. :)

Good post David!

<<Truth is, Dan Horton's thread is locked down because there are mind sets here that have judged the alternative engine effort a failure and the issue is closed.>>

Well Dave, best I know the thread is still open. I've merely quit posting there because it has been dumbed down so badly. And it's not my thread.

Speaking for myself, I have a sincere interest in engines of all kinds. As we speak my shop contains three new engines; a Barrett IO-390, a prototype fixed pitch M14 radial, and a 2.5 Subaru. My last alt-engine aircraft (built from scratch, both airframe and engine conversion) was Suzuki-powered, and the subject of feature articles in both Sport Aviation and Experimenter. For those of you looking for a bias against alt-engines, you're looking in the wrong place. For sure, I'm not anti-anything except mechanical ignorance, and Lord knows, I've tried to remedy that problem.

Jan's packages look nice. I'd love to declare them the best thing since sliced bread. I can't because too many unknowns remain.

Airplanes fly by entirely technical means. Only angels fly on faith.

Thanks Dan
 

That's the only impression I've ever taken away from your posts, Dan. There must be more folks than just me that appreciate your focus on aviation science, sans emotion. When you started that "technical only" thread I grinned and said to myself, "why isn't that the norm, rather than the exception?". :rolleyes:

Thanks,
T.J.

Excuse me?
 

It is a dangerous precedent to lock down a site because "some minds have judged the alternative engine effort a failure and the issue is closed". In other words, the thread is being blocked because a moderator is unhappy with the way the thread is unfolding, rather than any particular content that is "offside".
I have followed the thread with interest. My mind is not closed, in fact I applaud alternative engine efforts and admire those that try an alternative solution. I used to build (in a very low budget and amateur way), auto race engines and am fascinated with engine technology.
This site is about information exchange. It is of great interest to me what Eggenfellner is offering, what issues and problems he encounters, what he is preapred to share or not. It is useful to me to know what opinions/questions/considerations other builders have.
So why is the thead shut down? No one who does not wish to participate needs to. If there is no interest, it will die a natural death.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A

David...you hit the nail on the Great White Shark's head

Apples and oranges. Zocke, Deltahawk, Innodyn and so on clarely (to me at least) is in it for the business opportunity. They have the technology, one or two working prototypes, and hope to be purchased for an insane amount of money when this "new and expanding" market of non-gasoline engines starts to evolve. Regardless of the facts that both Zocke and Deltahawk have some major basic design flaws, Thielert has now punctured all business opportunities. The WAM engine could really be something, but what happened? does anyone really know?

The Egg propeller reduction gear looks to me to be a homemade untested experimental prototype that is made "by heart" more than the brain. The new version may very well work OK, only time will tell, but that is also the problem: Only time will tell, and for us that are more into engineering than the average persons, this is a bit strange to put it mildly. 90% of what engineers do is to make sure that time will not only tell us something, but tell us exactly what we want to hear (with a high degree of certainty).

It seems clear that Zoche will never actually offer his engine for aircraft after all this time and if he does, it will be silly expensive. Deltahawk has much to prove as far as longevity and real world numbers go. WAM appears to be locked in a cottage industry loop. Thielert is a good example of a project with top notch, F1 level engineering behind it with considerable validation but not being up to snuff in the real world and really too expensive for experimental aviation. Their reputation is not off to a good start and they are now having to re-design from real world experience to fix some serious problems that the engineers did not get right the first time.

Engineering can help weed out many potential problems in a design but it is NOT a guarantee that this will be so. It will generally save time but maybe not money in the long run.

Read what David wrote. Jan's FF packages are flying quite successfully in relatively large numbers at prices many people can afford. I think many here have NO concept of what it takes to make a project like this a commercial success. Could someone take $2M and design a better FF package than Jan's? Undoubtedly but the unit costs would have to exceed $50K to ever recover the development costs at the quantities produced for this market.

Costs and QC are big factors in using off the shelf gears and shafts as opposed to having these parts custom made in low quantities. RWS does a similar thing successfully. You do an all custom PSRU with complete engineering and testing and you end up with A $12-13K piece like EPI offers. A nice piece but out of the budget for many.

I'll say this again, I'll take flight time on a system over a ton of theory any day but I'd like to see full TV tests done on the finished product as well so one can worry less about spinning things up front.

Jan's doing it. The others are just talking about it. There is a world of difference there.

I'd invite those who criticize Jan's methods to give the market a try for yourself. Better have plenty of financing in place before you start.

I'm not one to criticize anyone and I do admire one that ventures into new evolving equipment, but I wonder why people find it necessary to reinvent the engine wheel. Lycoming and Lyclones are certainly not perfect but they do work quit well and are well proving over the long hall. Sure I know there have been recalls, but isn't that what refines the aircraft engines that we use? I know that cost is a factor for new engine but there plenty of quality used engines out there.
When building my -8, I made miner changes to the construction but followed most of what Van engineered, I read many of his thoughts on different engines and decided to use what he designed to work best with that airframe, a Lycoming. The kit is designed to receive a Lycoming,, not because it's better but it works. There is little change to the kit and there are plenty of after market parts to help speed up the build time. For me I didn't want to be a test pilot when it came to the engine, I wanted to to use a engine that has been proving itself for many years, one that was designed for aircraft use.

But that's just my opinion!

I closed the technical discussion thread because it had run its course. Without the manufacturer engaging a discussion with the group in a technical way, the thread title could no longer be supported.

For that particular thread which I was specifically asked to moderate to keep it on track with the thread title, I closed it.

after 16 pages, lots of good discussion, it was an interesting thread which I enjoyed reading and moderating.

Id be happy to do another if someone asks. I thought the topic was worth the extra effort.

Best,