Eggenfellner H6 Turbo Thrust Test

Yukon said:

Oh come on Bill, you'll be back! You just can't tolerate the contrarian opinion, huh Bill. Funny thing is , the Subaru isn't light or efficient, but compared to the drawbacks of the rotary, it's revolutionary!

You know you want a Lycoming for that 10, just go with it!

Click to expand...

I think Bill is too far along with plans for the 20B up front to consider a 540. The $40K price of the admission is sending quite a few other -10 builders to examine other engine possibilities. Jan has a bunch of turbo EZ30s almost ready to go out. Next year, 3.6L engines will apparently be available.

Bill, if you don't care about different leading/ trailing timing for your 20B, we may have an ECU for you sometime next year. We are looking at Gen 5 now with a new micro which will be able to do COP V8s like the LS1-7 and Ford 4.6. Hope you stick around here.

Ross,

A finished RV-10 is selling for 200K+. There should be room in the budget for a certified, reliable, PROVEN engine.

Wonder what a 10 will bring with an auto engine installed. Who's going to be the first to find out????

Jan has a bunch of turbo EZ30s almost ready to go out.

Really?

Seems to me the one flying kit he has sold doesn't have turbos yet, and is already having heating problems.....

What does ready to go out mean?

The best thing for all us not Lyco's builders to do is communicate! My frequent posting on this forum has put me in touch with someone in Australia who is further along in Vesta engine testing then I am. I am the furthest along with the installation and probably will be the first to fly the Vesta combo. But it takes time! It is not plug and play. But the potential to move the flying field further along in the development of more fuel efficient engines is worth the extra time. I may fail and Ross may fail but someone may succeed. We both might succeed. But atleast we tried and we will learn a lot! Some will say it is a waste of money. Well it's my money and if I want to "waste" it on experimenting on an experimental aircraft well that's my choice.

Yukon said:

Ross,

A finished RV-10 is selling for 200K+. There should be room in the budget for a certified, reliable, PROVEN engine.

Wonder what a 10 will bring with an auto engine installed. Who's going to be the first to find out????

Click to expand...

I don't build airplanes to sell them. If that is your goal, I'd fit a Lyco too as they appeal to more buyers.

Jconard said:

Jan has a bunch of turbo EZ30s almost ready to go out.

Really?

Seems to me the one flying kit he has sold doesn't have turbos yet, and is already having heating problems.....

What does ready to go out mean?

Click to expand...

No secret that deliveries are way behind schedule.

I counted at least 8 turbo engines on stands, with headers, mounts, rads etc. fitted. About to have the drives fitted and test run 2 weeks ago in Florida. There were 34 engines in total under final assembly. Their new cowling with oblong inlets and recent flight testing in mid '90s weather shows it works. I saw it for myself in the air.

Much work continues to be done on these installations and improvements are tested on an ongoing basis. These engines are currently at the low end of the RV10 hp scale but we found a bit more hp in the induction system and the new 3.6s should help some more. Evolution at work.

I have rarely met anyone so unflappable, tireless and dedicated as Jan. An amazing fellow and an amazing operation. The fab work is top quality and the whole package is really pretty and professional looking. The Gen 3 drives appear really bulletproof IMO and are simply beautiful to behold. (I have a CNC/ anodize fetish).

Well said Todd. Someone has to try the new stuff and advance the state of the art. Others prefer to sit back and criticize. To each their own I guess.

Todd and Ross,

As I have said many times before, my hat is off to you guys for your willingness to experiment. I too started into this RV business with a leaning toward alternative powerplants.

Ross, when you say people are going alternative because of the cost of Lycoming power, I just have to respond. If that makes me critical, so be it. When you or Todd say things that are off the wall, expect commentary from this group. If you want to go unchallenged, you should say those kind of things on the alternative engine "buff" forums if you want back-slapping agreement.

Now Todd is saying he is anticipating better efficiency than Lycoming with his Vesta. I see absolutely no indication that this is possible with any of the current conversions, barring maybe a diesel, but they don't seem to be gaining wide acceptance either. I suspect gearbox durability is always going to be a major issue with diesels.

Bill.......Jan may not be dishonest, but he is certainly overly optimistic. None of his engines have been a hands-down success, and now I hear you guys talking about the 3.6 as the "final solution". Four gearbox iterations, and they are still getting hot. That does not bode well for the concept. Planetaries don't get hot, why do these?

With Crossflow and NSI down, and Jan hopping from one engine configuration to the next with little success, at what point does the educated observer start to examine the viability of auto engines? I see the same flaws in the current crop of auto conversions that have strangled the concept since 1929.
Don't forget, the first real homebuilt with wide acceptance was the Pietenpol Aircamper, and it had a watercooled Ford. Don't think for a minute though that when the 65 horse Continental became available, those heavy and unreliable Fords weren't scrapped in a heartbeat!

There is no disputing the facts that the current turbo EZ30 turbo FF package is close to the same price as a basic 540 so Egg buyers are not saving any significant amount there. I was referring more to people like me and Bill- rolling our own. This is way cheaper. $9K including the prop on my 6A. Of course, this option is not for most people and I'm sure we'll all have issues to sort out.

I don't anticipate any auto conversion burning much less fuel at the same TAS as a Lycoming. I've been around engines for 30 years and seen a lot. If we can burn close to the same, I'm happy.

I don't think Jan is saying too much about performance of the atmo engines anymore- again facts don't support that the conversions are able to match speed numbers at medium altitudes. The turbo may match a 540 at high altitudes- again unproven so far.

Many people don't want an old air cooled engine up front and are willing to have a bit less performance at this stage to turn the key and go. The 3.6 is just the next engine available from Subaru. When something better comes along, Jan uses it. Just as the auto makers continually improve their engines and up displacement over the life cycle, we do the same. This was my thinking in using the older EG33 engine instead of the EZ30- 10% more displacement, I'll take that any time plus it is more suitable for boosted operation IMO.

The Gen 3 gearbox uses two gear meshes so will generate more heat than a single mesh design like the Marcotte or some planetary setups. I'm not a fan of planetary boxes for aviation except on sub 200hp stuff maybe. They have their issues too. A little bit more cooling air directed to the box seems to solve these problems. I saw no issues in hard climb tests during my visit with the gearbox. The gears come from OE automotive sources. This ensures quality, availability and lower costs. The price charged is far below something like the EPI boxes for example. As power has been stepped up, gearbox strength has had to follow, just like in auto gearboxes. No mystery there.


A Ford flat head can hardly be compared to an EZ30 engine but you are correct, if and when auto conversions exceed the performance of your typical Lyco or Conti, you will see many more people switching over to auto power for experimentals. In the meantime, a surprising number of people are not choosing traditional aircraft engines these days. Jan is not hurting for business and he is taking a good $1.5M+ in sales away from the big two already annually by my count. He has been wildly successful compared to NSI and Crossflow.

The current package for the RV10 is way lighter than the 540, so much so that the batteries have to be moved to the firewall, so that is one area where this setup is now superior. The engine does not develop 260hp however so they are not strictly comparable. Other stuff is under development to address fuel burn issues.

As someone who is used to flying EFI auto engines, I sometimes might not think too much about how different this is than an ol' Lyc. As I sat there, I thought, this is pretty cool- hit starter button and go flying. No priming, farting around with black magic FI hot starting techniques, no mag checks, no mixture control, no oil consumption, no maintenance (just oil changes) leave it WOT and adjust the prop for power setting. You just fly the plane. This is what I think attracts buyers. It ain't perfect yet but it is pretty neat.

The view of the Florida coastline was the same with the Subaru whirring away at 4000 rpm or a 540 pounding away up front at 2500. They both get you up there to enjoy the RV experience.

I am hoping to get similiar fuel flow maybe better but the true key is the auto fuel. I should be able to save $15 to $25 an hour on fuel costs all with my air conditioner(The real reason I wanted the Vesta engine!) blowing. The sound the engine makes is pretty cool too!

Stats

I too, was once in the auto conversion corner but then reality set in. The stats across the board are not in favor of the conversions. Weight, fuel flow, speed, climb performance, cooling, cost, simplicity etc.. all go to the LYC or clone. The only stat that favors a conversion is smoothness. Additionally, the technology changes too often. There have been many new models introduced in just a few years. As Yukon pointed out there have been several iterations of the drive unit in just a short time. Why buy something that becomes absolete soon after purchase.

I am very confident that the failure rate per hour flown is far greater with the conversions I know of one Subie person who has had 3 in flight failures with a low amount of hours. Not surprising the incidents were kept very quiet. The weak link still seems to be the PRSU's, fuel delivery and cooling. The hour meter just isn't there yet.

I know of two others that are running successfully but the performance is anemic. Speed, fuel burn and performance is not anywhere close published numbers from the company. Both are considering switching out to an airplane engine when money allows. Why own an RV if you are going to go 135kts and burn more fuel.

One of my friends suffered a failure during Phase I with his Eggy quipped 9 and totaled his plane. Fortunately, he got out relatively uninjured. He has now purchased another project with a new ECI engine.

I commend those who have the wherewithall to experiment with auto conversions. Those who have extensive mechanical experience may be successful.

With auto conversions still fairly new in the experimental world, specifically the Subaru product I always ask those considering it, "would you fly a member of your family behind this engine?" If there is any hesitation, the auto conversion is probably not for you.

Further, when it comes to an engine choice, make an educated, knowledgeable decision weighing all factors.

Well said Todd. Someone has to try the new stuff and advance the state of the art. Others prefer to sit back and criticize. To each their own I guess.

Ross,

I guess I just sit in amazement some days....yeah there may be 30 turbo 10 engines sitting in rows...but the only one flying still does not have its turbo chargers as I understand it...and require alot of rework, including a visit by Jan to make it functional.

I read the STI list posts....there are 30 some people out there who have been totally screwed and it seems that when they request support in the form of working parts or even information, they get scathing emails from Jan suggesting they go somewhere else. Is this what you mean by "unflappable" an unbending willingness to make unsupported claims, deliver unworkable solutions, and then tell the customers to shut up and screw themselves? Shocking that there are not more lawsuits, and frankly it makes me wish I were in private rather than public practice.

"Turn the Key and go?" is this what we are down to? An awful lot of risk and complexity to avoid learning how to start an airplane engine...geez

Ross, it seems to me you have recent and sudden level of support for Jan, do you have a commercial interest? Are we going to see SDS engine mgmnt on Egg products? Are you a paid consultant? What skin of yours is in Jan's game?

Wait!

rv6ejguy said:

. I'm not a fan of planetary boxes for aviation except on sub 200hp stuff maybe. They have their issues too. )

Click to expand...

Ross,
My Air Tractor's PT-6 just turned 8000 hours on Saturday and has the original twin planetary gear reduction gearbox. Bear in mind that my engine is 680 SHP rated and it produces over 1500# of torque daily for ten to fourteen takeoffs and landings and some reverse use. Furthermore, my engine turns 37,500 RPM (not a typo) at 100% and that's reduced to a prop redline of 2200RPM. Why can't a planet gearbox work with 200 or so HP? Granted we have to use synthetic oil but it only gets changed once a year or 400 hours.

Regards,
Pierre

Jconard said:

Ross, it seems to me you have recent and sudden level of support for Jan, do you have a commercial interest? Are we going to see SDS engine mgmnt on Egg products? Are you a paid consultant? What skin of yours is in Jan's game?

Click to expand...

Jconard,
It would seem this should go both ways. Are you an injured party?
What skin of yours is in Jan's game? I apologize if I have missed the posts where you have been directly involved with these issues.

-Mike

I was initially interested in the package when I first started to build, but after much research, including monitoring the various customer sites, and hearing their experience, I went another direction.

I am interested and dedicated to the concept of home built aircraft and concerned about its future. I am worried that other home builders will be taken in, and financially hurt or worse. I mentioned wishing I practice law in a private setting, because reading about the experiences on the STI site, there appear to be cases for those people, 30 or so, who were sold expensive packages, promised to be complete and functional, which appear to have been sold without any testing, without the ability to fly reliably, and with compnents that are "marginal at best", but that even when such defficiencies were discovered, the customer was to bear the cost of upgrade/replacement. Some of what I see posted by the factory borders on what I believe to be unconscionable business practices.

As to why I asked Ross the question, Frankly his posts for the last few months have been well reasoned and realistic. Lately though, it seems he has consumed the Eggenfellner Kool Aid. He also mentions spending much time in Jan's shop with the RV-10 issues. It is also no secret that the converted oem (car) engine management system has created several issues, and that the dream of closed loop operation has failed to materialize.

So, I guess I began to wonder if Ross is down there as a paid consultant to try and get the engine management issues sorted, or if Jan is going to start offering the packages with Ross's much more simple and basic engine management system. Either way, if Ross has an interest in the success of the packages, it would be important for readers to know that.

I will say right up front that the SDS package can only improve the situation. I also have no doubt that Ross may bring maturity and sense to the product line. I am familiar with his systems from the VW world where they are considered a pretty darn good replacement for the older factory injection systems.

Even so, if he is financially interested, that ought to be disclosed. I sometimes wonder if it would be better for him or others to simply offer the FWF packages. At least then they would be a best of breed collection of commercially available parts (psru for example), and based on long term real world success. And frankly I think they would be marketed honestly and supported better. A smaller company like Ross's may also have the courage to tell many builders "hey, if you want to bolt on and go you are not the ideal customer for this" Smaller companies often do not need to oversell and can instead focus on their best customer fit.

Oh well, my question remains unanswered...Ross...what's going on?

I'm with Pierre. Planetary gearboxes are quite common in aviation, including piston aviation; consider for example the M14-series radials. Ross, why don't you like them?

Side note; ya'll chill out a little, ok? We're friends, or should be.

Jconard said:

......Even so, if he is financially interested, that ought to be disclosed....

Click to expand...

And why is that? Private business is private business.

It is no secret the new ECU comes from Ross's company, at least that is my impression of the situation. The stock Subaru ECU was getting more and more complex and difficult to defeat for an aircraft operation. The move is a logical step forward. The simplicity of the unit is very attractive compared to the huge wire harnesses of the auto version.

To ask for a disclosure of any financial deal and expecting an answer is not realistic or productive. It's private business and should stay that way.

People need to remember we are all adults and as such capable of making decisions based on our own judgment, research and personal feelings, and accepting responsibility for such decisions. I am not in favor of private or government intervention in this process. Such policy would completely shut down inovation.

Wow, lots of questions.

First, nope, I'm not on Jan's payroll in any way. Second, I make no secret that we are involved in aviation products much like Stein or Barrett are here and who post regularly. I support VAF with an ad here but try to keep a distance from any direct marketing. I'll answer questions about our products here but think it is best we take sales off site.

Let's see, I go to Florida and all of a sudden there is some conspiracy? Again I make no secret that I'm an advocate of auto engine power. I help many people who are pursuing alternative power both on a private and commercial level at no charge. Of course we hope that they purchase our product. That is how I make a living. Is that some sort of crime? Jconard why don't you post your name and location here. Are you some sort of secret agent/ investigative reporter? Isn't that a rule to post here?

You want to start suing Jan? Just what we need in experimental aviation my friend. Your stated mission perplexes me and frankly worries me. If we all start suing because we have a failure on an EXPERIMENTAL part, God help us all. Go fly a certified plane and sue the companies with deep pockets- far more profitable. Were those big lawsuits helpful to Textron? Take responsibility for your decision to fly anything with any powerplant. If you think that nothing will ever fail, you are deluding yourself. If your mission is to protect us don't forget to serve Van's for those pesky nose gear legs, the EI manufacturers with phantom failures, glass panel makers for software glitches, prop guys...

I won't be discussing my commercial relationships on this forum. If people think I'm sugar coating information here, please tell me. I honestly try to tell what I see out there as factually as possible. I try to be tactful in publishing my views. If you search these threads, I've already stated that I don't think the STI was Jan's best product and there is no doubt that many clients are unhappy about that episode. I also don't think that Lycoming should have had crankshaft failures, ADs and had customers foot the bill in some cases after so long in the business. Such are the realities of engines and business and my opinion matters probably very little here and certainly cannot change what has already transpired.

I've seen many times in my relationships with engine package vendors the stupid customers who buy a package and then want to change parts of it or not follow recommendations. They then phone up and complain that something broke or doesn't fit. How do you deal with that? All you can do is ask them to leave things alone and sell them a new part I think.

My references to planetary gearboxes apply to piston engines, not turbines which have a very easy life comparatively. The present invariably use Ford based transmission parts with 3 planet gears. RWS has recently added a 6 planet setup which may help reduce bearing concerns. My views are pretty much mirrored by EPI here: http://www.epi-eng.com/GBX-Overview.htm.

I have no interest in supplying FF engine packages. This is way too much work for the rewards and liability exposure.

Darwin, failures kept quiet? I'm not sure this is possible with the internet these days. Can you tell me what type of failures this guy had? Always interested in how things might be improved. Would I fly a family member behind auto power? I would over safe terrain. Would I fly any single engined aircraft over the Rockies or at night? I wouldn't but many here would. Who is taking the greater risk if the prop stops?

Really, I tire of the constant babble by people who have never flown an auto engined aircraft and sprout off all this "knowledge" of products and projects with no first hand experience. You speculate on what is going on and some of your comments are frankly, inane. I also tire of the view that people who choose these packages are somehow mentally challenged. Some of you just don't get it and never will- people have different priorities in making choices. Why attack people for their different choices?
Should we all conform to having a Lycoming up front? Should we all drive Toyotas? I've said this before, as consumers, try to be informed, check other sources and customers for feedback before you buy. Use forums. Separate the hype from fact and know that not all your decisions will come out roses. There is plenty of misinformation on product performance everywhere.

If all this stuff just plain ticks you off for some reason- don't read it. Go flying and enjoy your RV or keep building- or fly an auto conversion and tell us what you think.

Who are we kidding here?

I am interested and dedicated to the concept of home built aircraft and concerned about its future. I am worried that other home builders will be taken in, and financially hurt or worse. I mentioned wishing I practice law in a private setting, because reading about the experiences on the STI site, there appear to be cases for those people, 30 or so, who were sold expensive packages, promised to be complete and functional, which appear to have been sold without any testing, without the ability to fly reliably, and with compnents that are "marginal at best", but that even when such defficiencies were discovered, the customer was to bear the cost of upgrade/replacement. Some of what I see posted by the factory borders on what I believe to be unconscionable business practices.


I have purchased an H-6 engine from Jan. He has been EXTREMELY helpful with my engine and provided a network of like-minded builders to provide further support. When I inquired about the STI vs H-6 engines, Jan said the STI provided more power but also required more work on the builders part. Robert Paisley has flown an STI engine for years with great success. I have followed one STI's builders website and many times he deviated from Jan's recommended procedure adding different pumps and electrical system to further enhance his engine. This builder bragged how much better his application was going to be. Now he is b*tching about things are not working quite right. I don't see how Jan can be responsible for someone deviating from the procedure.

I admire Jan Eggenfellner as a small business man doing the research, support and getting out a very fine product. Someone in a corporate setting does not see what it takes to produce the fine product like Eggenfellner and do it on a shoestring budget. I think the "poison-like" emails of many in the Lycoming group is a function of what the Subaru engine represents... the future. I look around and see the market share of Japanese products because they provide reliability. I drive a Japanese car as does my son, daughter and wife. My plane will mirror my car, electronic ignition, electronic fuel injection, no mixture, easy to start a hot engine etc.

Jan's website is full of testimonials from real builders. Jan cautions before you buy one of his engines, talk to one of the builders who have flown in an Egg powered plane. You sir, are not qualified to be the moderator of business practices.

Egg RV 7A
Painting

Would I fly a family member behind auto power? I would over safe terrain. Would I fly any single engined aircraft over the Rockies or at night? I wouldn't but many here would. Who is taking the greater risk if the prop stops?

Ross,

Why, my wife and I fly over the Rockies IFR all the time from Oregon to MT and points E... IFR meaning "I follow roads..." I-90 to be exact...

Just trying to inject a spot of humor in this very interesting, complex and controversial thread. As usual Ross, you are the voice of reason, so please don't waver...

BTW, there seems to be a new player in the Subie camp... http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/ They are the folks who took over from the former NSI and I understand they have no connection to previous operators. I hope they prosper. Interestingly, they advertise 185 HP out of their stock 2.5L

Regards,
Jerry

Good to see you post here Jerry. You are a wise man. And you are flying behind good old Lyco power right?

Yes, Maxwell is delivering engines now based on stock EJ25s. I like that idea but not sure how they get that extra 20 hp. Again take performance claims with a grain of salt. I wish them well in the business. Competition is good. BTW MPS decided not to use SDS after an evaluation against other products. We tried.

Good news

If Ross is helping or trading info with Jan. cool, great.

Ross's posts, I think, are based on fact. Sure he is a proponent, enthusiastic about auto engine conversions, clearly. Nothing wrong with that.

Appreciate Jconard strongly worded motivation: "I am worried that other home builders will be taken in, and financially hurt or worse," but I don't see any thing bluntly faults or miss leading. We are all big boys and girls and make our decisions based on facts and realistic expectations. The info is on the web for anyone to see.

When it comes to safety I do get wrapped up around the axial. I don't see there being a real safety issue. The Lyc is a known and a simpler power-plant. I say simpler because of less systems, re-drive, water cooling and electical only ignition fuel delivery. Still the reliability is reasonable on those extra auto engine systems.

Besides safety, good info and facts to make the alternative engine decision is important. Folks like Ross put their plane where their mouth is. Granted his installation may be better than the average Subie installation, still it shows what can be done. It's not all perfect & pretty, but he shows it all. You can't ask for any thing more.

Ross's business is not our business or questioning his motives needed. As long as I have debated Ross on this subject, he has been consistent and fair. Clearly if you want the Con of his Pro, just look other post, including mine. No need to repeat my self. When it comes to "truth" I don't think that's an issue, just different opinions or sides of a fair and valid debate.

The one thing I railed against in the past, my pet peeve, was rhetoric & propaganda for auto engine's that "they're modern". What does that mean? Nothing, "modern" is an emotional red herring. It has nothing to do with the complex issues of converting a car engine for aircraft use. Clearly the more you know about a Lyc, the more you appreciate the precision and special purpose design. It's still hard to beat a Lyc in almost every catagory (weight, cost, performance, simplicity), even if the basic design is 50 years old. Some times "farm tractor technology" works; the more things change the more they stay the same.

Electronics have changed the most in the last 50 years, but mags, mechanical FI, carbs and fuel pumps still work the same. The claim to fame of a self sufficient mechanical engine is no battery or alternator power needed to keep running. Don't confuse simple with crude. Simple is often elegant and promotes reliability. That does not exclude complicated designs, like a re-drive and EFI, which can be reliable as well.

Buyer beware? If Jan has a brand new part, like a new drive, I would not buy it until its flown for a year on several planes and has some hours, significant hours on it. Significant hours is what? You decided, 2000 hrs or more with a tear down inspection? It's just common sense to me, don't be an unpaid test pilot is my motto.

Clearly Jan's newest designs, re-drives or what ever, are unproven or less proven. Caution would tell builders wait till a new product is out and flying around before sending in money. Even an in person demo flight would be in order. At least that's what I would do. Others may go for it sight unseen. Some one had to buy the first, second, third...... RV kit. More power to them (pun intended).

New player

Jerry Cochran said:

BTW, there seems to be a new player in the Subie camp... http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/ They are the folks who took over from the former NSI and I understand they have no connection to previous operators. I hope they prosper. Interestingly, they advertise 185 HP out of their stock 2.5L

Regards,
Jerry

Click to expand...

Could the increased HP come from the drive ratio (2.13 to 1) allowing the enginge to turn faster? Are ther any RVers using this product?

For Ross: please don't let the naysayers turn you away from posting here. I am still on the fence regarding what engine to put in a 7A (ordering tail kit in December) and you have the most reasoned voice on the forums I've read. It has been difficult getting insightful information on alternative engines. I appreciate your candid posts.

Don

When Dynon employees were posting about Dynon competitive advantage we all cried foul. Based on the same premise, I inquired to see if the new ECU for Egg was coming from Ross....giving him a new reason to preach the Egg gospel.

It is confirmed now by David that in fact it is coming from ross. Good information, and as I already said before it will likely make the product better.

I am not claiming there is any conspiracy.

I cannot Sue Jan, because I am in public practice but in my opinion there are numerous problems including:

1. There are nearly 30 STI people left holding the bag, with systems that are non functional, or to quote Jan "marginal at best", none of them got waht they paid for and frankly the system was not sold as an experiment, but was sold as a complete, tested fwf package. None of those decriptions were true.

2. The hard number performance claims which lure people to buy these packages are simply false.

3. My interest was piqued because the discussion of the RV-10 turbo package seemed to neglect the fact that not a single RV-10 is now flying with turbo chargers. Egg's site has claimed falsely for months that 14 or so are flying.

4. This is on the heels of the 6-belt psru, which was sold...or at least deposits were taken, was marketed as tested and safe, was tooled up for production, before its catastrophic flaws were discovered.

It is of course not proper or lawful to make knowing mistatements of material fact, intending that the other party rely on such, and to based on that reliance sell them a product. At some point why are we all so tolerant of this kind of business practice? Speed, weight and fuel burn are generally considered material facts when it comes to the marketing of aircraft or aircraft components.

As I said before....I just wanted to know what if any interest Ross had in Egg
s future, for the same reason we wanted to know if a poster was a Dynon employee. Now we know.

Ross will in all likelyhood improve the breed and his involvement will be beneficial. Hopefully he can also encourage more honest business practices.

Just my opinion

Piddler said:

Could the increased HP come from the drive ratio (2.13 to 1) allowing the enginge to turn faster? Are ther any RVers using this product?

For Ross: please don't let the naysayers turn you away from posting here. I am still on the fence regarding what engine to put in a 7A (ordering tail kit in December) and you have the most reasoned voice on the forums I've read. It has been difficult getting insightful information on alternative engines. I appreciate your candid posts.

Don

Click to expand...

If the factory engine is rated for power peak at say 6000 rpm, turning it faster will result in less power. To get max power you need to turn it to 6000. The only way to make a lot more power is to process more charge, this is generally done through more camshaft duration and lift boosting VE, increased displacement or forced induction. Changes in exhaust system could increase power by this amount in some cases but probably not with an effective muffler in place. Higher compression ratios can add a few percent as well. If the prop is rated for say 2700, the engine would turn 5751 rpm max, a few hundred below power peak so almost certainly would produce a bit less than factory rated hp.

Since we don't know all the facts on this package, it is possible to produce 185 hp from this engine certainly. Current engines are 173 hp stock. Wait for the flight results to confirm claims.

<<flown for a year on several planes and has some hours significant hours on it. Significant hours is what?>>

As I've written before, total flight hours mean little in the context of a torsional system. The only thing that counts is the hours of operation at the F1, F2, and F-etc intersections, or (same thing, different measure) the number of times the system is cycled through the resonant intersections. The third factor is vibratory amplitude (ie, material stress); you know about stress and cycles. Same concept as a prohibited RPM range with a certified prop installation. You can run it there a little bit, but if you run it there a lot it may die.

Typical PSRU "testing" has people flying around at the smoothest RPM they perceive....making results quite meaningless.

Just polishing the pins old bean.

Run your numbers but there's nothing like real data

DanH said:

<<flown for a year on several planes and has some hours significant hours on it. Significant hours is what?>>

As I've written before, total flight hours mean little in the context of a torsional system. The only thing that counts is the hours of operation at the F1, F2, and F-etc intersections, or (same thing, different measure) the number of times the system is cycled through the resonant intersections. The third factor is vibratory amplitude (ie, material stress); you know about stress and cycles. Same concept as a prohibited RPM range with a certified prop installation. You can run it there a little bit, but if you run it there a lot it may die.

Typical PSRU "testing" has people flying around at the smoothest RPM they perceive....making results quite meaningless.

Just polishing the pins old bean.

Click to expand...

I have not read your informative post about vibration, but as some one with an engineering back ground, yes flight time is very important to sort out the unknown. Sorry I just disagree with you. This guy named Murphy has kicked my soft empannage many times. We can agree to disagree.

You can talk about analytical methodology all you want or how meaningless flying the actual part is but I think you are wrong; I've done my share of number crunching and know for a fact Boeing, GE, Pratt, RR do flight test with their planes and engines. Some times they make significant changes based on those flight test, despite the most advanced analytical methods. Look at Van's RV-12. It is going thru a total re-design after the initial design was extensively flight tested.

Even RWS re-drives, after many hundred hours on the "factory plane" and many sold, had a near failure mode, which came up. Fortunately the factory plane had the high time and was being checked regularly. The fix was minor, but if left longer a failure would have occurred. To RWS they where constantly flying and tearing down the their drive to find this issue first.

Of course you can't expect a little company to have years of R&D and flight test programs, but I would wait till many are sold and flown for a few years. Just my personal advice from experience.

Don't count on the numbers to tell you the whole truth about the design. Even professional engineers with huge budgets get vibration analysis wrong, Tacoma narrows bridge and Lockheed Electra to name two. One of the newer large turbo fan engines had a harmonic issue with plumbing during development, not discovered until ...(wait for it) flight test. The fix was simple but it was not found till they flew it after 100's of hours.

Despite your interesting point or observation of the critical modes for a re-drives, I personally want 1000's of hours on that design before I fly it. Again flight test pilots make lots of money, and I don't do flight test pilot duties for free. It's just my opinion.

Do you think that one failure Jan had was planned or expected or he did no analysis? Probably not. He no doubt thought it was bullet proof design. It may have been, but that Muryphy guy is a jerk.

You can NOT be too careful, and as a former nerd with a scientific calculator, I know enough to not trust analytical solutions alone, if at all possible. Drives are a dynamic thing, affected by engine, prop and airframe. It needs to be tested in my opinion and service hours accumulated, to assure a safe product, in my opinion. If any thing, TBO, wear and inspection schedules need to be determined. This is a critical part.

To each his own. I'm a libertarian, people should do what they like, just be informed. Fancy computer analysis and color plots don't impress me. Tell me it has 1000's of hours of reliable high performance operation, than I'm impressed.

Dan's point is valid. Few people in the sub 250hp drive business have done mathematical analysis or instrumented testing for TV. They should. As Dan has pointed out previously this is not that hard today and could save a lot of money, time and tears in the long run.

Many have simply gone to a heavy flywheel and a light prop to hopefully move at least F1 well below the idle range.

I also agree with George that there is nothing like flight time to prove something and you can have failures other than TV related ones on aircraft PSRUs. This has been seen many times before. If a drive had 20,000 trouble free hours with a fixed combination of parts attached to it, I'd have more faith in it but I'd also like to see the math or testing to see if something scary lurked in the operating ranges. The auto OEMs do actual testing to validate math models of everything and occasionally have a surprise that must be addressed.

Drive makers should be doing both in my view. EPI stands out as a company with the resources and knowledge to do this job well but even then, fools can and have broken their drives by doing foolish things. You never know what some people will do and then blame the product for failure. I'd be getting the entire story before condemning something.

The Rotax, Ross, Marcotte, RWS, Egg, Crossflow and NSI drives have all had issues which have resulted in modified designs or operational changes.

Old aviation saying...

"Never fly the 'A' model of anything."
Ed Thompson



John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Jerry Cochran said:

Would I fly a family member behind auto power? I would over safe terrain. Would I fly any single engined aircraft over the Rockies or at night? I wouldn't but many here would. Who is taking the greater risk if the prop stops?

Ross,

Why, my wife and I fly over the Rockies IFR all the time from Oregon to MT and points E... IFR meaning "I follow roads..." I-90 to be exact...

Just trying to inject a spot of humor in this very interesting, complex and controversial thread. As usual Ross, you are the voice of reason, so please don't waver...

BTW, there seems to be a new player in the Subie camp... http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/ They are the folks who took over from the former NSI and I understand they have no connection to previous operators. I hope they prosper. Interestingly, they advertise 185 HP out of their stock 2.5L

Regards,
Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

What ever happended to that 2.5 engine you bought and decided to not use?

Oh, for sure I don't discount the need for flight test. I merely note a detail; flight test won't find a resonant issue unless you just happen to fly the test hours at the resonant RPM....and too many avoid it even when it is obvious.

<<Few people in the sub 250hp drive business have done mathematical analysis or instrumented testing for TV.>>

Amen brother. With a vendor doing $1.5 mil plus, it is well past time to grow up.

DanH said:

Oh, for sure I don't discount the need for flight test. I merely note a detail; flight test won't find a resonant issue unless you just happen to fly the test hours at the resonant RPM....and too many avoid it even when it is obvious.

<<Few people in the sub 250hp drive business have done mathematical analysis or instrumented testing for TV.>>

Amen brother. With a vendor doing $1.5 mil plus, it is well past time to grow up.

Click to expand...

Roger Roger agree agree.

Three guys agree here. Now I'm worried!

Just to note, $1.5M in sales does not mean profit. I don't see Jan getting rich from all this. He ain't driving no Ferrari Enzo for a shop car! I see his business as his passion first. If you want a stress free, good paying job, this is not it!

I don't think most people here realize what it takes to make a FF package like this X 50-75 per year. It is an immense task with a small staff and budget.

rv6ejguy said:

Darwin, failures kept quiet? I'm not sure this is possible with the internet these days.
.

Click to expand...

Here's one that I have never heard discussed anywhere:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050825X01314&key=1

I posted a question about it on Jan's Yahoo list after reading the Bill was "rebuilding" his Glastar. Jan blocked the post and I have never seen anything about why Bill lost power and had a forced landing. Perhaps I missed the discussion? Can anybody enlighten me about it?

Certain incidents, such as DD's, Ray Doerr's, Jan's belt-PSRU failure, the Ohio STI cam-related incident, and Roger Everson's totalled RV-9A in Arizona have been discussed...but others, such as Robert Paisley's repeated STI engine power-loss incidents, have been kept quiet.

I suspect there are others....

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

djvdb63 said:

but others, such as Robert Paisley's repeated STI engine power-loss incidents, have been kept quiet.

I suspect there are others....

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

Click to expand...

You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

There are plenty of negative comments from STI owners and H6 clients on both Eggenfellner Yahoo sites for all to see including potential new clients. In the past 2 years, I don't see much censorship by Jan there.

In the case of the Glastar incident, cause is undetermined. Do we know what happened?

We see similar things happen with other engines like the mystery EI failure a few months back here on VAF and the pilot's successful landing on a highway. The same pilot had the misfortune of another engine out shortly afterwards and did another skillful landing. These were not failures of the Lycoming core. Engine outs happen every day. Be prepared no matter what engine you fly.

rv6ejguy said:

There are plenty of negative comments from STI owners and H6 clients on both Eggenfellner Yahoo sites for all to see including potential new clients. In the past 2 years, I don't see much censorship by Jan there.

In the case of the Glastar incident, cause is undetermined. Do we know what happened?

We see similar things happen with other engines like the mystery EI failure a few months back here on VAF and the pilot's successful landing on a highway. The same pilot had the misfortune of another engine out shortly afterwards and did another skillful landing. These were not failures of the Lycoming core. Engine outs happen every day. Be prepared no matter what engine you fly.

Click to expand...

Ross,

How can you possibly say there is no censorship on Jan's website? How could you possibly know? Lack of information is all that keeps that business afloat. If people knew how troublsome his motors really are, the party would be over. Smooth is nice, but how much safety and performance are you willing to give up for smooth?

Yukon said:

Ross,

How can you possibly say there is no censorship on Jan's website? How could you possibly know? Lack of information is all that keeps that business afloat. If people knew how troublsome his motors really are, the party would be over. Smooth is nice, but how much safety and performance are you willing to give up for smooth?

Click to expand...

You can read the posts on the STI group and there are dozens of scathing remarks from unhappy customers. Seems if Jan was censoring, those wouldn't be there. Same on the other group, lots of posts from clients with cooling issues, and not happy with late deliveries of their engines.

I have heard of people's posts not appearing on the forums a few years back but have no way to know if that is so.

If Jan is editing the negative comments today to sway opinion, he is doing a poor job.

Yes, there are unhappy customers and there are also many happy customers. This is a difficult business to be in. NSI and Crossflow had a lot more unhappy customers who got totally screwed- never even receiving parts or engines that ran in some cases.

rv6ejguy said:

Good to see you post here Jerry. You are a wise man. And you are flying behind good old Lyco power right?

Yes, Maxwell is delivering engines now based on stock EJ25s. I like that idea but not sure how they get that extra 20 hp. Again take performance claims with a grain of salt. I wish them well in the business. Competition is good. BTW MPS decided not to use SDS after an evaluation against other products. We tried.

Click to expand...

Ross,

Close. Flying behind a clone of the ol' Lycosaurus, aka Superior XP-IO360. Seems to propel 18XP just fine... Funny drill to start the injected engine tho...

Jerry

2.5 Egg

David-aviator said:

Jerry,

What ever happended to that 2.5 engine you bought and decided to not use?

Click to expand...

Hi David,

I sold it to a Mr. House up in Washington state. That was 4-5 years ago and no clue if he's flying or what...

Jerry

rv6ejguy said:

You can read the posts on the STI group and there are dozens of scathing remarks from unhappy customers. Seems if Jan was censoring, those wouldn't be there.

Click to expand...

Ross...the STI group does not belong to Jan. It belongs to Mickey Coggins and I do not believe Jan could edit it if he wanted to.

Regarding his own Yahoo list I believe Jan follows a policy of not blocking posts from active customers. Posts from interested persons who have not purchased anything from Jan are still selectively approved...as for instance when Jan blocked my inquiry on Bill Yamakowski's Glastar inflight power failure in Michigan last year.

In Jan's defense, I think it is reasonable to moderate the list and to potentially block input from non-customers. Some people are not fair in their inquiries and comments. But I believe Jan goes beyond fairness in his selective approval of list messages. He actively suppresses negative information even when it is fair. He does himself no favors in this regards.

I have been watching Jan's products and business since 2001. I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. He is clearly talented, persistent, and a survivor in a very difficult market. He has many happy customers. However I would no longer call him a "straight shooter" as Kitplanes did in their Egg review some issues back.

A current example of what bothers me is the PSRU situation. We are left to work backwards to figure out that the Gen 1 redrive has not proven itself very durable. There has been no clear presentation that I have seen about the problems with it. Just like with the original Quinti problems the only way to figure out the issue is to read between the lines. Eventually it comes out, but not from Jan and not in a clear factual manner.

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

djvdb63 said:

Here's one that I have never heard discussed anywhere:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050825X01314&key=1

I posted a question about it on Jan's Yahoo list after reading the Bill was "rebuilding" his Glastar. Jan blocked the post and I have never seen anything about why Bill lost power and had a forced landing. Perhaps I missed the discussion? Can anybody enlighten me about it?

Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

Click to expand...

The pilot is Bill Yamokoski. I spoke with him at OSH this year as he was at Jan's display with the airplane for several days. He did rebuild the machine (which I did not know had been wrecked) has about 700 hours on it and seems quite satisfied with the engine. His attitude about it is very positive.

David-aviator said:

The pilot is Bill Yamokoski. I spoke with him at OSH this year as he was at Jan's display with the airplane for several days. He did rebuild the machine (which I did not know had been wrecked) has about 700 hours on it and seems quite satisfied with the engine. His attitude about it is very positive.

Click to expand...

Yes David...but the issues are...

1. Discussion of the incident was actively suppressed (Jan blocked my inquiry on his list...which was a fair and objective inquiry about an important topic).

2. What happened? Why did Bill have in-flight power failure? Yours was a supercharger belt coming loose and damaging the timing apparatus as I recall. What about the Yamakowski incident? That's what normal pilots considering Jan's products need to know. I still don't know. Do you?

Dan

RV7Guy said:

You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

Click to expand...

Just to set the record reasonably straight, Darwin, I've hammered Jan numerous times and in fact he becomes down right irritated now and then with my comments, but nothing I've ever said has been deleted or edited. That's not to say some posts from non customers have not been deleted, but as far as I know, paying customers have free speech rights on the forum.

Not everyone is peachy happy about how things have gone but over all, many guys are satisfied. I have the first H6 in an RV and for sure there been issues with it but what is perfect these days? This morning, after reading a news item about a class action law suit against Lycoming, I downloaded the manditory service bulletin on failed crank shafts. It is 57 pages long, most of it serial numbers. No one is happy about that deal.

I don't know anything about an impending financial train wreck. He is still shipping engines, fixing and returning PSRU's (my GEN 3 was in for a seal leak), carving a new cowl, and genuinely trying to solve problems. His plate is full, some days much too full, but the show is going forward.

djvdb63 said:

Yes David...but the issues are...

1. Discussion of the incident was actively suppressed (Jan blocked my inquiry on his list...which was a fair and objective inquiry about an important topic).

2. What happened? Why did Bill have in-flight power failure? Yours was a supercharger belt coming loose and damaging the timing apparatus as I recall. What about the Yamakowski incident? That's what normal pilots considering Jan's products need to know. I still don't know. Do you?

Dan

Click to expand...

Dan, I don't know what happened. I think if it were a serious issue with the engine, Bill would have posted it. He sure has no qualms about flying with it today. You can find his e-mail address on the EGG forum with a little research, ask him what happened.

True Disclosure: Darwin Barrie

You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

In the pursuit of true disclosure, I have heard that you purchased a Subaru engine (not Eggenfellner) and the company went out of business leaving you in the lurch. Obviously it has prejudiced every post you make on this site, even though it was not Jan Eggenfellner that took your money. Since I have not heard the exact situation I can't comment on it except the fact that you have made it your mission to find every negative thing (true or rumor) and air it on this site. I think if you got burned by a perhaps less ethical supplier, you need to differential between Jan and your ex-wife [ed this bit here removed by dr - rules vio], and move on. We all love Van's and hold it up as the company that all other's are judged. But Van's has had many up's and down's, and I firmly believe Jan's company is headed in that same direction, and perhaps will one day, be the shining example of perfect business relations. Van's has had less than stellar moments and the company picked itself up and tried to improve the product. I believe that is what made Van's the company it is today. And back to Jan, he too has worked tirelessly to make the product better.

Since we are talking disclosure, I am trained as an engineer, passed the professional engineer exam and currently work in Louisiana as a consultant and small business owner. I chose the Egg H-6 engine based on the facts I had at the time. What won me over, a bunch of things. I look at Gary Newsted's site and he is the one person that out Checkoway Checkoway's fine site. Hard to do but IMHO, he made a technical installation look easy. If only Van's had the ability to do that.

I guess I can only say the mark of a man is the passion of his enemies, and in that light, Jan is on the right path.

What?????

Steve A said:

You got the one that never got any press. Also the protectionism of Jan and his site. Never say anything negative, it won't get posted. I have no use for his business practices and troublesome product. This is a serious financial train wreck in the developmental stages. Sad but true for those who have followed him to the promised land.

In the pursuit of true disclosure, I have heard that you purchased a Subaru engine (not Eggenfellner) and the company went out of business leaving you in the lurch. Obviously it has prejudiced every post you make on this site, even though it was not Jan Eggenfellner that took your money. Since I have not heard the exact situation I can't comment on it except the fact that you have made it your mission to find every negative thing (true or rumor) and air it on this site. End of Steve's quote.

Well, Steve, we don't know who you are, what you are building or flying and where you live (actually a requirement by Doug BTW in the signature box). Since you are relatively new to posting on this site I think those who know me will verify that I speak of nothing that I have not experienced, witnessed first hand, or given to me by someone I know and trust.

My conflict with Crossflow was no mystery. I was very limited on what I could post about it due to pending litigation. Additionally, Doug was not allowing any such stuff to be posted. In fact, someone else attempted to post some things about Crossflow and they threatened to sue him. Their typical attitude that "we can do nothing wrong." After a 3 year battle I finally got the engine and sold it at a considerable loss to someone. And, just so you know, I gave that person full disclosure as to my experience with Crossflow and that of others and the known issues with the company and their engine. I would do it no other way. My goal was to insure that someone else didn't suffer the 3 year nightmare that had gone through.

In Jan's defense, he offered me a package at a good price. At that point, the incidents of problems were growing and I decided, wisely, to go with ECI.

My comments are based on facts with knowledge from several Eggy customers, so don't tell me, and then post that my statements are rumors. Additionally, many have posted facts regarding this engine and company and if they appear negative to the Kool aid drinkers so be it. Ross has been a very vocal advocate of alternative engines. I enjoy his posts and although he is 'one of them' he has not succumbed to altar of Eggenfelner. He is voice of reason the alternative engine group. Now we hear of 30 plus people unhappy with the company as well as others. What about those Steve? [ed. sentence here removed by dr - rules vio....civility]

I would ask, with all the engines Jan has sold, where are they? Why are more of them not flying and appearing at fly ins and other events? At LOE there will probably be 300+ planes there. There will be at max 5 or 6 Subaru powered planes. Fact or Fiction? I've been there and done the counting.

Are you going to deny the anemic performance? I can point you to two people. Many others have posted that the numbers are not meeting those published by the company. I flew chase for my friend on his first flight of his Eggy powered 9 that later failed and crashed. I got an hour of very slow flight practice. I've flown chase for 3 other new RV's with Lyc's or clones and they flew at expected speeds. Steve are you going to deny these facts?

You mentioned you bought the H-6 with "facts you had at the time." Be honest, with the information you have now, would you make the same decision? Think grape as you make this decision. "Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory."

I could go on. Bottomline, the numbers (hours and performance) for these engines are not there. For the number sold there should be many more flying. And, although there are no quantifiable numbers I would bet a steak dinner that the ratio of problems with alternative engines to hours flown is disportionately higher than conventionally powered planes. Because of my background, I am very concerned about safety. All flying is a risk. I submit that risk is higher with an alternative engine.

Regarding your engineering degree, I congratulate you and wish you success. However bringing up your engineering degree with generalization of expertise is a very old technique and not germaine to the discussion. Is your engineering experience specific to the design of and operation of internal combustion engines, fuel dynamics or the related electronics? If not, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Remember, thermometers have degrees too, and you where they get stuck sometimes.

Click to expand...

djvdb63 said:

Ross...the STI group does not belong to Jan. It belongs to Mickey Coggins and I do not believe Jan could edit it if he wanted to.


Dan
Chicago
RV-9A empennage

Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on ownership of the STI group.

I'd support Jan's right to screen out non- customers who just post to stir the pot. Who has time for that? I'd recommend full disclosure of problems people might have which could benefit the user group, but only when root cause has been established and only if the installation was done by the book. Too often people have modded something or hooked wires up wrong etc. - and blame Jan. This is of course not always the case but your customer base can uncover problems you can't because of the amount of cumulative hours they put on a product. Very useful IMO to listen to common problems to devise fixes and improve the breed.

I've known Jan for about 10 years, first collaborating on a turbo EJ22 powered Lancair for a customer of his in Texas and followed his products since then as they are of interest to me.

I was impressed by Gary Newstead, a very smart ex HP software engineer and practical mechanical guy. He is a big asset to Jan in my view and he flies an Egg four in his RV so he understands the whole thing well. He tries his best to keep things moving along.

Yep, missteps have been made and maybe not all customers have been treated like gold but the same can be said about Lycoming over the last 5-6 years. I hope Lycoming and Eggenfellner continue to improve their products and treat customers well and with transparent honesty- this is the only way to ensure long term survival. Crossflow and NSI have clearly demonstrated what happens when you don't. I've met a couple very happy Egg users up here in Canada who have had no problems but also met one who is not happy.

With regards to drives, the Gen 1 seemed to give generally good service on the first 130-140 hp EJ25s for most people. There are many with 500+ hours of trouble free flight time. With the advent of the STI and H6, clearly something stronger was needed. The Gen 2 seems to have its share of problems but many were attributed to people not following the mandatory alignment procedure- so the drive gets a bad rep. I do tech for my company and cannot believe what some people do- you did what?- so I know what this problem is like.

Gen 3 is way, way stronger than the previous drives but has not had TV testing done nor accumulated thousands of hours of flight time to date. David may be the first to discover problems and I'm sure he'll tell us about them if he does.

Discounting Robert Paisley's STI running high boost, no Egg powered aircraft have shown speeds equal to their Lycoming counterparts. I think most people buying these engines realize that and I hope that RV10 buyers understand that 200-220 hp will not make their -10s perform like a 260-300hp Lycoming.

I see the new prop, drive, ECU, in cowl muffler, cowling etc. introduced lately all improve on concerns and lessons learned from the previous build. This business mirrors others in that technology marches on and improvements are introduced. Garmin doesn't give you a free 496 just because you bought a 296 a few years back. Microsoft doesn't give you a free Windows update either. The new engines will probably give better performance and service than older ones. That is life. Jan is giving Gen 1 and 2 owners good pricing to exchange these for a Gen 3. I think that is pretty fair.

Nobody is perfect and with Lycoming and the clones to choose from, you don't have to buy Jan's engines if you don't want to. That is the beauty of competition for the consumer.

Lycoming is from Venus, Subaru from Mars

<Well, Steve, we don't know who you are, what you are building or flying and where you live (actually a requirement by Doug BTW in the signature box). Since you are relatively new to posting on this site I think those who know me will verify that I speak of nothing that I have not experienced, witnessed first hand, or given to me by someone I know and trust.>

I think with both of our posts edited by DR, we are probably getting close to crossing the line on civility. Although I have not posted that much, I monitor this site almost every day. From that process, I notice several things. First of all, the Alternative Engine site does not have the positive helpful approach that the other Vansairforce sites have. My intent in calling you out individually is you seem to always be on the vanguard of negative.

I just think that there is a plethora of info on Lycoming as well as Subaru engines that we could throw bombs back and forth and accomplish nothing. Now as experimental builders, we all live in glass houses. Dan Checkoway recently was lamenting that there were too many experimental planes of all stripes falling out of the sky. I have no doubt he was talking about all engines and if you visit his site, he lists the number of RV?s that had accidents. I think the VansAirforce alternative engines site is supposed to be where we builders discuss problems with our engines and move forward. That is not really happening because I think a few have decided that it is their mission to ?set the record straight?.

You inquire about who I am and where I live. I stated in my post that I work in Louisiana and I live there also. I am building an RV 7A with the Eggenfellner H-6. I am painting and finishing my project. So we can move on, I will hopefully fly my plane soon and if I believe half of the vocal naysayers on this site, I will be slower than a comparable Lycoming RV 7A.
On the other hand, my subie engine on my plane will give me the option to burn 93 octane automobile gasoline as well as leaded 100LL. Mogas will always be cheaper and even if a Katrina-like storm blows the one refinery that makes 100LL into the marsh, I will be flying along (slowly) as you will be grounded. My application is straight out of Gary Newsted?s installation manual with the dual fuel pumps, dual batteries and fail-over relay switches. I love this approach and feel it is an eloquent solution to the safety issue. That is something that time will tell.

<My comments are based on facts with knowledge from several Eggy customers, so don't tell me, and then post that my statements are rumors.>

If you read my post I said truth or rumors. I am not calling you dishonest. My whole point was you have had a very negative experience and you go out looking for every unhappy customer, every builder who may not have the skills to complete his project and use his discontent to fuel your ?agenda?. My point is there is a ton of unhappy builders with any application. Regarding the STI situation, when I ordered my H-6, I discussed the H-6 vs the STI with Jan. Jan told me the STI was a more technical and challenging application and that is certainly proven to be the case. You mention the RV 9 builder who had an off airport incident with the Subaru engine and you put all the blame on the engine. But we all are building experimental airplanes and under the best of conditions, we are being na?ve to say any builder can make the most of any application. I think this is like the liability issue that drove Cessna and Piper from the single engine airplane market, pilots with marginal skills became accidents and the manufacturer gets sued. The vast majority of accidents were due to pilot error, not mechanical malfunction.

You question where are all the Subaru applications. Well I can speak from my experience down here, my little group has a Eggenfellner Ch801, a RV 7A Lycoming, a Cessna 182 and a Cub. I think your analogy is a little like the Harley Davidson riding clubs. Showing up with a Honda is not too cool. Your peer group does everything possible to serve your own brand of ?Kool Aid?. By that I mean the Eggenfellner engines are going out to the hinterlands. In areas with strong EAA chapters, the prevailing standard is Lycoming and if I had a strong EAA group that would help me, then my choice may have been different. I get my info from the internet and that is why I am passionate that there are more sites where alt engine builders can feel free to voice concerns and problems.

In closing, I am not trying to make enemies with all of this. As we all know, words written in one vein can be interpreted totally different. One reason I see so many builders starting another project after completing one is we learn so much in the process of building. I am one to keep the choices many and varied. So with that, give us poor alt engine folks a break. We get it, we will be slower, that is until the E-6 turbo comes on stream.

Steve Anderson
RV 7A (s)
Lafayette La.
Finishing Painting

Oh by the way, to earn your steak dinner (may I recommend the crawfish ettouffie instead) come down here and help me finish painting. That way I can get in the air and then we can race.

Steve

See, that wasn't so hard was it. I hold no grudges and look forward to meeting you. I will be in Lafayette, hopefully before the end of the year for training at Petroleum Helicopters.

Regarding the looking for negative or unhappy customers, I don't have to, they are all over. Just read the posts. Plus I had occasional contact with the local guys.

Another argument they AE people like to use is the ability to burn car gas. That would be great but the volume of airports that have car gas is not 100 percent convenient yet. Improving but not great. The other thing about auto gas is the variety of mixtures throughout the country. I'm not knowledgable enough to know if these different blends could have an affect on performance or not. I do know that 100LL is 100LL anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I want AE's to be successful. All of the initial hype of cheaper acquisition cost, easy of installation, better performance, less fuel use etc... is just not happening.

"Get ouf of town" another RVer in Lafayette

We sir let me buy you dinner. I always enjoy learning from RVers, the problem is I just don't get to hang with enough of them. Give me about a week's notice and I will try and show you around.

I assume you fly helicopters for a living. Cool. There are many pilots at PHI but I don't run with that group.

You notice my last post was at 1:30 am. Obviously I was having a few additional thoughts that was disrupting my sleep. I suppose RVers have passion and sometimes that comes across a little too aggressive. Maybe too much fiberglass dust or isocyanate in the brain.