VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Alternative Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 03-25-2013, 05:19 AM
SvingenB SvingenB is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Norway, Stj?rdal
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL_O_Dine View Post
Subaru drove off. But I guess a Viking ship has arrived. Does the ship have holes in it? Time will tell.
The Viking engine is a better package all together for several reasons, but most importantly it attacks an easier and much larger market. On the other hand several new aero-engines are popping up now, built from scratch for aviation.
__________________
RV-4 #4520, Slow built
B Svingen
RV-4 Project Log
Onex Project Log

EAA Chapter 573 Norway
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-25-2013, 07:52 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL_O_Dine View Post
Yes. Customer service. Wouldn't it be great if we had a ton more of that.

Subaru drove off. But I guess a Viking ship has arrived. Does the ship have holes in it? Time will tell.

Unfortunately, experimental aviation being what it is, anyone can pitch a tent, sell products and make claims. Ultimately many buyers become the product testers, and with some items, that is definitely not a good thing.

As far as websites, even Vans was guilty of being behind the times on their website design for quite a while. But at least they have some standardization and logical flow of information.

I can't say the same for RWS's website. I have been looking at a lot of it. But I have not seen any recent updates other than on the main page with the green section about parts. The rest of the site seems to be a ghost town of old posts and no updates. Even on his own plane. The "most recent" dates I keep seeing go back to 2003- 2005. Yikes.

So if I were a new person to Oshkosh and got interested and wound up on his web page, it certainly would not fill me with confidence that all was well behind the scenes. It's fine if you are in the know and have done your asking around and research. But anyone new looking at that, it is not going to make a good impression. So he is shooting himself in the foot with that in regards to new viewers who may not have the lowdown on who is who yet. even if after the fact, they hear good things, that initial impression may leave lingering doubts.

Even their customer list with links to their customer's websites is not up to date. More than half of them are dead or useless links.

Such is life in the online world though.

Oshkosh is fun and interesting. But if you are going to get involved, you really have to do your research on vendors or you could wind up throwing a lot of cash out the window, or worse.
You make many good and valid points here, especially about customers being beta testers.

Yes, the Viking ship has many holes in it. Again customers were supplied with stuff which was not thoroughly tested before delivery and dissent has been quieted to make things look rosy. Seems some people never learn...

I find Van's site much better than before and it presents the basic information (the important part) well plus their parts ordering system is state of the art, works well with no glitches. As someone who maintains my own company website for 17 years, I find too much hype, useless graphics and cluttered layout often used today does nothing for you except annoy customers. I stick with a traditional, vertical scrolling, informational layout and it works well for us yet, every month I get emails from web developers offering to "improve the look" of our site. Improving the look does nothing to improve our product sales. I have the web/ sales stats and the email complaints to prove it. People often like familiarity. Look at the backlash on Yahoo when there was a format change recently, I know I left at that point.

I think many people who don't run their own businesses don't realize what is involved. When you are swamped with orders, the last thing on your mind and you have time for, is web updates. I know I have a long list of things to do to mine and only managed to make a small dent in the list recently. When business slows down and I have time, I will certainly attend to it. Tracy may be in the same boat. I make money by shipping product out the door, answering sales and tech calls and emails to keep future and existing clients happy, simple as that. If I was twiddling my thumbs, it would be time and I'd have the time to work on the site. I agree though, no updates for 5 years does not look good but more importantly, you have to answer customers promptly and treat them honestly. I am always surprised when customers tell me several other vendors they contacted took a week to reply or never did! Big flashy website but no customer service so they lost the sale right there. I will also tell customers sometimes that our product is not the best choice for what they want to accomplish and even steer them to a competitor. I want a satisfied customer, not just a sale because I am looking down the road and rely on word of mouth to a large degree for future sales.

Bad websites have not sunk any of the Subaru FF vendors, bad products and/or bad business have done most of them in with Maxwell Propulsion being the exception there.

You are right to say that anyone can set up a tent or website and start making claims and sell products and that is often what we see in this field unfortunately. Not much engineering or testing followed by poor customer support. How could anyone go wrong with that recipe?
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 441.0 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 03-26-2013 at 09:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-25-2013, 07:57 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SvingenB View Post
The Viking engine is a better package all together for several reasons, but most importantly it attacks an easier and much larger market. On the other hand several new aero-engines are popping up now, built from scratch for aviation.
The Honda engine is great, what is non- factory engineered/ tested and bolted to it is the unknown part.

I do see several new engine designs coming out of Europe now which could be good. Time will tell but I think they will be no cheaper and really no better than existing legacy aero engines, especially from a support/ service standpoint where the legacy suppliers have a huge advantage.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 441.0 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm


Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-25-2013, 11:00 PM
AL_O_Dine AL_O_Dine is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: US
Posts: 39
Default Marcotte, Mazda, Vans, Lycoming

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post

I think many people who don't run their own businesses don't realize what is involved. When you are swamped with orders, the last thing on your mind and you have time for, is web updates.

..... I want a satisfied customer, not just a sale because I am looking down the road and rely on word of mouth to a large degree for future sales.

You are right to say that anyone can set up a tent or website and start making claims and sell products and that is often what we see in this field unfortunately. Not much engineering or testing followed by poor customer support. How could anyone go wrong with that recipe?
Running your own business is more work than working for someone else. That is indeed true. You have to wear all the hats. One big plaque on your desk reads: Human Resources, Sales, Marketing, Customer Service, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Product Development, Web Design and Maintenance, Building Maintenance, Shipping, Receiving, and Marketing.

I doubt many of the companies at Oshkosh actually have engineers on staff save for ones that it really is a necessity. I worked for an "engineering" company for many years. Not once in my entire time there were there any actual licensed engineers on staff. It was a common joke amongst some of the employees. Thankfully, they are not in aviation.

I look at much of what I see at Oshkosh and other places with a very suspicious eye. But that is just how I am. And partially because of places I have worked and things I have seen done. There are others who get excited by the hard sell and perfectly displayed parts, and figure it's experimental anyway, so what the heck, I'll risk my life on it.

I am sure the attitude of some of the companies at Oshkosh and other areas is, why should we hire outside engineering analysis and work hard on getting it right, when we can just sell it to you and let you give us feedback....if you live. First, let's have you sign off on this disclaimer sheet. Cash, check or charge.

Back to the alternative engine topic. Let's hope that Guy Marcotte, Autoflight, and others, who have successful product designs, look to the future and do what they need to in order to keep the products available for future generations to see, understand, and improve upon. No sense having to reinvent the wheel every generation.

I was following the 4 cylinder Subaru for quite a while. But then the wave of discontent gradually built up on that, and what looked very promising and workable in the beginning, wound up getting a very bad reputation. Not the engine itself, but systems added to it for flight. And here is where the customer service bit and how you approach business becomes very clear.

Coming up with completely new aviation specific engines is without a doubt terribly expensive. And then you are forced to compete on price with Lycoming and Continental who have economies of scale and lots of staff and experience.

The converted auto engines are great if they work consistently and reliably. But the availability of them and spare parts is up to whatever the auto maker does. Corvairs are no longer produced. And nobody is casting engine blocks for them. So you have a limited supply that will eventually get scarce. Same with the Mazda rotary. Finite number of units. Casting of the main body of the rotary is highly specialized. So the shop down the block is not going to be producing them ever. Admittedly, it may take many decades. But eventually it will happen, supply will run out. New auto engines will be considered for conversion as time goes on, and more posts on who can make a psru for it and round and round it goes. No consistency.

That is where being a old dinosaur like Lycoming and Continental have a distinct advantage. It's old, boring, and not exactly high tech. But it works, and continues to have parts availability, plenty of knowledge coast to coast as to how to inspect, maintain, and fix them. They are not the latest and greatest, but they continue to chunk them out, year after year, relatively unchanged since production began long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Now if we could just get that with new technology at half the cost.
I know...a pipe dream.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:32 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
Default

Perhaps a reason aircraft piston engine development came to a stand still years ago is the turbine engine.

Once jets hit the market their was no incentive to advance an air cooled engine that found a market only on small airplanes - a market always short of money. The only boom general aviation ever had was when the GI bill paid for it. Even at that, there was no incentive to invest in engine development in a market that was so well served with the old piston engines.

Turbine engine development had a huge commercial market, it was more efficient and most important, more reliable and provided for much quicker transportation. None of those features were needed or possible (economically) with light aircraft.

So that leaves us with individuals who are fascinated with the advance of auto engines and the possibility of transferring that advance to a small airplane. My '06 Honda Pilot has 171,005 miles as of today, leaks on oil, uses no oil and is as strong and efficient as the day it was new - wouldn't such service be great in an airplane.

It would be. But no one has come up with a RSRU that is reliable or offers efficiency in terms of weight. The fascination ends there - especially after spending a lot of money experimenting with the idea. Some, like Bud Warren and his daughter, have paid a much higher price. Those who lost only money are lucky.

So as the previous message says, dream on. But endless dreaming does not fill the bill for many of us, I'd rather fly behind a trusty Lycoming than not fly at all, or fly wondering when and where the flight would end.
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!

Last edited by David-aviator : 03-26-2013 at 08:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-26-2013, 09:24 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL_O_Dine View Post
Running your own business is more work than working for someone else. That is indeed true. You have to wear all the hats. One big plaque on your desk reads: Human Resources, Sales, Marketing, Customer Service, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Product Development, Web Design and Maintenance, Building Maintenance, Shipping, Receiving, and Marketing.

I doubt many of the companies at Oshkosh actually have engineers on staff save for ones that it really is a necessity. I worked for an "engineering" company for many years. Not once in my entire time there were there any actual licensed engineers on staff. It was a common joke amongst some of the employees. Thankfully, they are not in aviation.

I look at much of what I see at Oshkosh and other places with a very suspicious eye. But that is just how I am. And partially because of places I have worked and things I have seen done. There are others who get excited by the hard sell and perfectly displayed parts, and figure it's experimental anyway, so what the heck, I'll risk my life on it.

I am sure the attitude of some of the companies at Oshkosh and other areas is, why should we hire outside engineering analysis and work hard on getting it right, when we can just sell it to you and let you give us feedback....if you live. First, let's have you sign off on this disclaimer sheet. Cash, check or charge.

Back to the alternative engine topic. Let's hope that Guy Marcotte, Autoflight, and others, who have successful product designs, look to the future and do what they need to in order to keep the products available for future generations to see, understand, and improve upon. No sense having to reinvent the wheel every generation.

I was following the 4 cylinder Subaru for quite a while. But then the wave of discontent gradually built up on that, and what looked very promising and workable in the beginning, wound up getting a very bad reputation. Not the engine itself, but systems added to it for flight. And here is where the customer service bit and how you approach business becomes very clear.

Coming up with completely new aviation specific engines is without a doubt terribly expensive. And then you are forced to compete on price with Lycoming and Continental who have economies of scale and lots of staff and experience.

The converted auto engines are great if they work consistently and reliably. But the availability of them and spare parts is up to whatever the auto maker does. Corvairs are no longer produced. And nobody is casting engine blocks for them. So you have a limited supply that will eventually get scarce. Same with the Mazda rotary. Finite number of units. Casting of the main body of the rotary is highly specialized. So the shop down the block is not going to be producing them ever. Admittedly, it may take many decades. But eventually it will happen, supply will run out. New auto engines will be considered for conversion as time goes on, and more posts on who can make a psru for it and round and round it goes. No consistency.

That is where being a old dinosaur like Lycoming and Continental have a distinct advantage. It's old, boring, and not exactly high tech. But it works, and continues to have parts availability, plenty of knowledge coast to coast as to how to inspect, maintain, and fix them. They are not the latest and greatest, but they continue to chunk them out, year after year, relatively unchanged since production began long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Now if we could just get that with new technology at half the cost.
I know...a pipe dream.
Very good post. This is pretty much how I see things as well on this topic.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 441.0 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm


Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:21 PM
simpkinsona simpkinsona is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
You don't have a dual mass flywheel, and it's not a damper.
Well I'm glad to know you're an expert on my airplane. I guess the 2 pieces of my flywheel coupled with a spring are just pretending to be a dual mass flywheel and all car manufacturers that use them only use them for the extra weight not the damping.

-Andy
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-26-2013, 06:27 PM
simpkinsona simpkinsona is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
There have been catastrophic failures of the Gen 3 boxes. Do you remember the one that ended up on federal land last year? "Very reliable" is not the words I'd use to describe these boxes. Broken welds, broken input shafts, disintegrating flywheels, bearings shedding metal, leaking seals, serious F1 kickback for a good percentage of users etc.

I am glad your box is working well with over 500 hours on it, many others have not been so fortunate.

I do agree that Jan should have stuck with the fours and that with the right combination of parts, they can work well and be more competitive in the weight department.

I am glad to see your post here so people can see that there are successes. You are happy and stuck with it unlike many others.
I do remember that failure where the aircraft landed on federal land. It was a failure of the spined shaft and caused Jan to recommend grounding all non-dual mass flywheel installations. All the failures you mention occured with non dual mass installations, or are failures of other parts, not the gearbox.

I'm glad to see all the work you are doing for the alternative engine community, I just hate to see people pass up a reliable option.

-Andy
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-26-2013, 09:04 PM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpkinsona View Post
Well I'm glad to know you're an expert on my airplane. I guess the 2 pieces of my flywheel coupled with a spring are just pretending to be a dual mass flywheel and all car manufacturers that use them only use them for the extra weight not the damping.
Always glad to help.

2008 was a bit before you joined us. Read these:

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...5&postcount=30

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...9&postcount=33

As for being a damper, please study the following classical illustration. You'll find one like it in the first chapter of any serious text on vibration.



In this particular example.....

k = spring rate
m = mass
B = damping coefficient
F = force

You have a k and you have an m....but you have no B.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390

Last edited by DanH : 03-26-2013 at 09:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-27-2013, 05:26 AM
SvingenB SvingenB is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Norway, Stj?rdal
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
I do see several new engine designs coming out of Europe now which could be good. Time will tell but I think they will be no cheaper and really no better than existing legacy aero engines, especially from a support/ service standpoint where the legacy suppliers have a huge advantage.
What exactly is a "legacy" engine? The Rotax 912 has been around for some time now, is that a legacy engine (it's 25 years old, more than 40 thousand units sold) ? An engine is an engine in my opinion.

The main thing is the market for aero-engines and how that is changing. Everything else is minor compared with the market governed by rules and regulations.

The 912 was created for the UL market in Europe that really took off in the late 90's in it's modern form with high performance light aircrafts (carbon composites, advanced aerodynamics etc). Later came the Light Sport in NA, and the 912 fits right in there as well since most LS aircrafts are modified European ULs.

Since the European ULs performs better than legacy private aeroplanes (Cessna types) in almost every category except MTOW, and is considerably cheaper and simpler to purchase and operate, UL is blooming and legacy is withering away. The same thing is happening in NA with LSA blooming. The other thing that happened, was the 912 (along with a few other purpose built aero engines) also wiped away the competition consisting of VW conversions, motorcycle engine conversions and so on.

Right now the market for 150+ ish HP engines is fading away while the 80-120 HP range is blooming, but it is blooming mainly for purpose built aero engines. The Viking engine is simply surfing the wave, but will it last when people start to sell their used aircrafts with an auto conversion? That depends entirely on the quality of the engine and customer relation.

But more things are happening in Europe. The new categories ELA1/ELA2 and CS-LSA are already here. The CS-LSA is a European version of the LSA (with some modifications), while ELA1/ELA2 is an "LSA" class with MTOW 1000/1200 kg (2200/2600 lb). The UL class will still be there and also the old private aeroplane category of MTOW 5700 kg. The CS-LSA and ELA1/ELA2 are certified classes (unlike UL), but with much simpler certification process and maintenance system than the legacy private aeroplane. ULPower is heading straight into that direction with their 6 cylinder engines.

So, there will eventually be a market also for the 150-200 HP category of engines with much relaxed certification processes. Then we will see if people want old manually operated dinosaurs or modern light weight FADEC engines.

For the first time since WWII at least, do we now have a real market and a real ecosystem for GA in Europe. Manufacturers of aviation products can start with UL (no certification of any kind), then move up the ladders CS-LSA, ELA1/2 (easy and cheap certification) all the way to commercial airline type products. In theory a manufacturer can produce the same basic airframe with the same basic engine and avionics in UL, CS-LSA, ELA1/2 and even a commercial GA with only minor changes (more or less), and this is exactly what they do. Earlier, before UL became a reality, they had to start directly with commercial GA type certification (for airframe and engines). An impossible task for anybody except those with tons of money somewhere, and even with tons of money, why head into a dwindling market? This is the main reason why Lycoming have survived all these years (with no development since the 50s), but this is all changing now.

Experimental aviation will only benefit from this, with more products to chose from, engines and avionics in particular.
__________________
RV-4 #4520, Slow built
B Svingen
RV-4 Project Log
Onex Project Log

EAA Chapter 573 Norway
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:41 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.