Eggenfellner H6 Turbo Thrust Test

We just performed a thrust test on the RV6-A turbo H6, 4 blade
> Sens/Quinti, new gearbox combo at the Egg factory.
>
> As a reminder, previous thrust testing showed:
> 765 lbs thrust, Dan Checkoway's, 200hp IO-360 RV-7
> 796 lbs thrust, Robert Paisley's, STI RV-7
>
> 922 lbs thrust today with the turbo H6 - WOWWWWWWWWW!
>
> Robert Paisley
>

Results please

Very good numbers so far but kindly post realtime cruise speeds. The high drag radiators/cooling may well need all that thrust..

pierre smith said:

Very good numbers so far but kindly post realtime cruise speeds. The high drag radiators/cooling may well need all that thrust..

Click to expand...

And fuel burns at those cruise speeds.

NEAT. As long as it stays RUNNING and Jan doesn't have to hop a jet to ANYwhere anymore to find out "what happened". I wouldn't care if it put out 1000hp burning 10gph of liquified Jello. Reliability first and foremost. Everything else is just gravy...uh...gelatin.

I really need to back away from the dessert table.

Brian Denk said:

I really need to back away from the table of faux derivation.

Click to expand...

fixed.

I'm sure if you were the owner of this company you would Hop a plane asap to see what happened to your own creation and the circumstances involved. your post seems venomous, biased and without much merit.

Intersting spreadsheet, but poor math. The lowest category for hours to failure was something like 8,000 hours, none the less a calculated MTBF of 1800???

I suspect that the same individual installation experienced multiple failures, indicating a troublesome installation, or perhaps an incomplete repair of initial damage.

Also, as I read this it is a sample of Lycs installed in Cozy aircraft only...and appears to be a set of 150 aircraft, without actual known hours flown. In short, a pretty poor example of freshman stats.

One day (maybe) we will have many autos having run to TBO and such comparisons can be made. But other than gyroplanes, I am currently unaware of any RV's with even 1000 hours on a single engine install of an auto conversion. Paisley is probably one of the best out there, right up there with Ross, but Paiseley has had how many different engines? And Ross has how many hours?

In the meantime, give me some Checkoway style reliability...fast, simple, fuel efficient, and apparently almost 1200 hours with next to no maintenance.

Mo info pls

Could u post Weight & Balance, empty, cg. Thanks

Jconard said:

One day (maybe) we will have many autos having run to TBO and such comparisons can be made. But other than gyroplanes, I am currently unaware of any RV's with even 1000 hours on a single engine install of an auto conversion. Paisley is probably one of the best out there, right up there with Ross, but Paiseley has had how many different engines? And Ross has how many hours?

In the meantime, give me some Checkoway style reliability...fast, simple, fuel efficient, and apparently almost 1200 hours with next to no maintenance.

Click to expand...

Charlie Walker, who lives somewhere west of Seattle, posted this message on the Subby forum about a month ago.

"Subies and wanabe's,

Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle I had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so they were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc. trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!

We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))

Charlie
762 TROUBLE FREE hrs."

Also, need you be reminded, the accident airplane in Oklahoma 2 weeks ago that killed 2 people had a new Lycoming clone that was reported to be not running properly when it went down. Generally, these engines ARE very reliable - but not always.

I fly behind the H6 a couple times a week weather permitting and the confidence factor is going up on each flight. But it doesn't matter what engine is up forward, the pilot must always be thinking "...what am I going to do if this SOB quits?".

Statements like "In the meantime, give me some Checkoway style reliability...fast, simple, fuel efficient, and apparently almost 1200 hours with next to no maintenance." serve no usefull purpose whatever.

Some engines don't make it to 200 hours while others may go to 2500. There are no guarantees. The pilot/builder must always be thinking about surviving, not thinking how reliable his engine is or how smart he was choosing what he chose.

dd

David-aviator said:

[
Some engines don't make it to 200 hours while others may go to 2500. There are no guarantees. The pilot/builder must always be thinking about surviving, not thinking how reliable his engine is or how smart he was choosing what he chose.

dd

Click to expand...

I'd concur with this thinking. We don't have a true MTBF on either Egg Subes or Lycomings. Most people perceive that Lycomings are more reliable but this may well not be the case. From some past posts on various Sube forums, I can count at least 11 Sube fliers with over 500 hours on their engines with no problems at all and 3 of these have over 700 hours.

I agree that until a bunch start reaching 2000 hours (if they go that long), we don't know what typical lifespans will be like.

Robert Paisley is doing R&D for Jan which is why the multiple engines have been installed. None of them failed or wore out. In fact Robert's Supercharged EJ25 is now in possession of a friend here in Calgary to go into a new RV7 so I can watch the hours build up on this engine again.

To my knowledge there has never been a core failure on an Egg Sube (correct me if I'm wrong here). There have been 3 supporting system failures identified to date, all several years ago. The fixes devised at the time seem to have kept the rest of the fleet in subsequent years from experiencing the same failures.

The latest Glastar incident remains to be investigated and could be anything from fuel exhaustion to mechanical or electrical failure.

Being prepared for an engine failure irregardless of engine type fitted is sound advice.

Wow,

so the glastar composite aircraft has less drag than a cessna 120 and some super cubs......and better heat/cabin sealing...this means what exactly?

I was responding to the linked spreadsheet, which if you review has the statistical flaws I pointed out.

To be fair, your statement would be more accurate if you said "Most (aircraft) engines go thousands of hours, some fail early."

Fair enough about the oklahoma plane....one in 4,000 among RV's and 150,000 among 4-cylinder U.S. flag lyc planes....

Quote:
We don't have a true MTBF on either Egg Subes or Lycomings. Most people perceive that Lycomings are more reliable but this may well not be the case

The experience of thousands of pilots over 50 years has established a pretty good MTBF floor, which is about 500 hours for mags, and about 2,000 hours or slightly better for the engine.

The EAA just released data, published in kit planes, documenting the comparable accident rate of experimentals with the different engine approaches. Not much more for me to say about that.

As to core failure...double supercharger failures, leading to a forced landing would seem to count as well as the recent self destruction of the multi-belt psru which was called a prototype, but already had been sold (though not delivered like the 14 turbo-rv10 packages currently posted on the site) to customers. These are just off the top of my head.

Frankly Ross, I have a hard time not classifying your forced landing as core...your engine is electron dependant and youwent down because it lost the juice. If a lyc lost both mags, would that be a core failure?

And, as I have said a thousand times, I hope one day to look at a sea of proven alternatives. All I want is identical speed, fuel, weight, and simplicity.

BoomerSooner said:

fixed.

I'm sure if you were the owner of this company you would Hop a plane asap to see what happened to your own creation and the circumstances involved. your post seems venomous, biased and without much merit.

Click to expand...

Good grief man, sorry I stirred the pot. My attempt at holiday mirth clearly backfired. "Venom" has no place here, nor did I intend for my post to sound that way. I personally was involved in Jan's first RV testbed. I inspected it for purchase by a local investor who then offered it to Jan. I admire his technical skill, and ethics in attending to every issue encountered and wish him well. I've flown behind an Egg Sube in a -9A and liked it, but not nearly enough to buy one...yet. Ten years down the road with thousands of hours on them and several tear downs to find wear patterns and I'll consider it.

I'll now go back into hibernation and study up on my use of faux derivations.

Jconard said:

To be fair, your statement would be more accurate if you said "Most (aircraft) engines go thousands of hours, some fail early."

Fair enough about the oklahoma plane....one in 4,000 among RV's and 150,000
The experience of thousands of pilots over 50 years has established a pretty good MTBF floor, which is about 500 hours for mags, and about 2,000 hours or slightly better for the engine.

As to core failure...double supercharger failures, leading to a forced landing would seem to count as well as the recent self destruction of the multi-belt psru which was called a prototype, but already had been sold (though not delivered like the 14 turbo-rv10 packages currently posted on the site) to customers. These are just off the top of my head.

Frankly Ross, I have a hard time not classifying your forced landing as core...your engine is electron dependant and youwent down because it lost the juice. If a lyc lost both mags, would that be a core failure?

Click to expand...

I'll kinda buy your first statement refining it by saying that many cert engines go to 2000 hours without touching them but many don't. By this I mean many require jugs or topping to get there. I can count 8 engines I know of at my airport that did not make it to TBO without major work in just the last 3 years, 2 were catastrophic failures.

I hope you are wrong on the MTBF on Lycomings. I think it is more like 8500-10,000 hours between major failures. I don't include accessories in this like mags.

Core failure= internal failures like crank, rods, dropped valve etc. Mags not included.

The Egg belt drive was still in testing although released for production- now dropped.

As I said the previous Sube failures have been addressed with fixes (including mine) which seem to have stopped further ones of the same type. I'll say I seriously overlooked not installing a second battery and buss from the start. Lesson learned and applied.

Ahhh...

If that's what you mean by MTBF, I suppose you are correct that 8-9K hours would be a conservative guess.

If the hours are done correctly there would be metal testing at overhaul every 2-2.5K hours.

Flown and maintained properly, I would suggest that the majority of certs get to TBO. But, you throw in the inactivity, or ham fisted driver, or chintzy owner, and who knows. Same in the VW world, I regularly get tremendous wear out of my VW's many do not....but I change alot of oil, and drive it properly. 113,000 out of the original clutch so far on a VR6. Who says heel-and-toe is for the track only.

We will always disagree as to whether that PSRU was still a prototype. They were sold to customers, money was taken by Egg, and they were represented to customers as flying and tested.

I will say this, if I ever do a Subaru, it will not be an Egg for that reason. The lies, and half truths. I would have to committ myself to a roll-your-own approach. For example, he now claims 14 turbo H-6's delivered....totally untrue, not a single RV-10 H6-Turbo package has been delivered.

In the begining, I was totally attracted to the claims on his site....now as I sand every more of the tips and other finishing work, I am glad I went the easy route. Ever with a certified engine, the thought of a forced landing with a C/S prop on a 7 is a concern to me.

If I could ever find a cheap core, a 3.0 911 SC engine would make a cool conversion. But, I digress.

I often wonder why Porsche sixes are not used more in experimental aircraft. They are very robust, good power to weight ratio, not too expensive (relative to cert type engines). If you are inclined sometime, I'd love to see one flying in an RV.

I think the Egg belt drive deal was one of those things with new products- how long do you test before releasing for production? Personally, I'd be getting a couple thousand hours on something like this before release but is that even enough? At least Jan did the right thing and pulled it. The buyers signed up had to wait longer but hopefully get a better, safer product in the end.

Many new jet engine designs only have a few thousand test hours on them before production release and certification to carry passengers. Sometimes this has not been enough and faults are found in service. Design changes are made to fix. All facets of engineering go through redesign based on service use. I can think of several designs from Pratt, GE and Lycoming which were certified, tested, represented as good to go but were not. Jan is not producing a certified product here.

I know many people complain about Jan's "lack of transparency". Jan has his own way of running his business. It is different from how you or I might run our businesses. He is the only serious alternate engine vendor left standing today and is selling a lot of engines. Hard to argue with that success. I have more of a problem with Lycoming who were found guilty of fraud in the $96M judgement against them in the one of many crankshaft fiascos on CERTIFIED engines.

I think that Egg's site says 17 engines sold for the RV10. It does not say delivered. Everyone knows that no H6 turbos have been delivered at this time. They are still being flight tested.

Coming back to the thread, I don't doubt that a Lyco IO-540 with an 80ish inch prop will make around 1000 lbs. of static thrust so I don't think the H6 turbo will offer any huge speed advantage on RV10 type airframes but it may be in the ballpark.

hallelujah! Very well put. And I *was* a customer for quite some time. I was one of those immediately alarmed at the "production" sales of the new belt PSRU.
My Egg experience

Jconard said:

Ahhh...

If that's what you mean by MTBF, I suppose you are correct that 8-9K hours would be a conservative guess.

If the hours are done correctly there would be metal testing at overhaul every 2-2.5K hours.

Flown and maintained properly, I would suggest that the majority of certs get to TBO. But, you throw in the inactivity, or ham fisted driver, or chintzy owner, and who knows. Same in the VW world, I regularly get tremendous wear out of my VW's many do not....but I change alot of oil, and drive it properly. 113,000 out of the original clutch so far on a VR6. Who says heel-and-toe is for the track only.

We will always disagree as to whether that PSRU was still a prototype. They were sold to customers, money was taken by Egg, and they were represented to customers as flying and tested.

I will say this, if I ever do a Subaru, it will not be an Egg for that reason. The lies, and half truths. I would have to committ myself to a roll-your-own approach. For example, he now claims 14 turbo H-6's delivered....totally untrue, not a single RV-10 H6-Turbo package has been delivered.

In the begining, I was totally attracted to the claims on his site....now as I sand every more of the tips and other finishing work, I am glad I went the easy route. Ever with a certified engine, the thought of a forced landing with a C/S prop on a 7 is a concern to me.

If I could ever find a cheap core, a 3.0 911 SC engine would make a cool conversion. But, I digress.

Click to expand...

rv6ejguy said:

I think that Egg's site says 17 engines sold for the RV10. It does not say delivered. Everyone knows that no H6 turbos have been delivered at this time. They are still being flight tested.

Click to expand...

http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/News.htm

If you look about 1/4 way down the page, he claims 14 E6T's delivered. I have absolutely no knowledge about Jan's deliverys, etc...just pointing out the link where he probably got the "14" number, that's all.

jcoloccia said:

http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/News.htm

If you look about 1/4 way down the page, he claims 14 E6T's delivered. I have absolutely no knowledge about Jan's deliverys, etc...just pointing out the link where he probably got the "14" number, that's all.

Click to expand...

Ahh. Thanks. I was looking in a different spot on his site. I stand corrected.

scard said:

hallelujah! Very well put. And I *was* a customer for quite some time. I was one of those immediately alarmed at the "production" sales of the new belt PSRU.
My Egg experience

Click to expand...

From your written report regarding the EGG Factory:

After more than eight months of EAAINC holding full payment and clearly demonstrating a lack of interest in delivering our order, I requested a full refund. Our payment was promptly returned with a note stating ?We are sorry we were unable to deliver your order as promised.?

You do not have a serious gripe - you got your money, all of it. Over the years, lots of people dealing with other companies have not. Count your blessings.

Jan Eggenfellner may fall behind in deliveries but generally customers get their Subby in a reasonable amount of time. With a little verbal finesse, you can get what you want when you want it. I traded delivery positions with a guy who was not ready....everyone was happy.

The belted PSRU failed in flight test and Jan was lucky to crawl out of the flipped RV-7A and walk away from the wreck. I failed a super charger with my 2 cents worth of flight testing and walked away from a similar wreck. The important thing is we learned something from these events and adjustments were made.

It is amazing people are critical of the EGG Factory for not delivering a failed product or making adjustments in delivery schedules when conditions warrant.

You-all need to give our Norwegian friend a break. He is trying to do the right thing.


David Domeier
RV-7A
H6
Troy, Missouri

Flying Porsche

rv6ejguy said:

I often wonder why Porsche sixes are not used more in experimental aircraft.

Click to expand...

Mooney tried that in the late 80's. It had a single lever deal, FADEC, throttle, prop and mixture control in one. It never took off. Here is an article why:

http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

This was a rebuttal to the article

http://www.gatm.com/flying/pfm.html


I'm a Porsche fan and have had a 911's in the past. Yea they are good engines but I would not go so far to say they are bullet proof. They are what air cooled engines are, light and powerful and thankfully if you like hearing mechanical things loud. That is part of the why Porsche stopped making air cooled engines in 98, federal noise and pollution standards in the US and Europe. Still great engines, they could have done a 100 things to make the specs but at loss of performance and weight. That is why they stopped making two stroke street bikes in the 70's.

I like the lope and the rhythmic sound of all the parts flying around inside cylinders, heads and case of my Lyc or 911. Water cooled car engines, like my Acura....... a boring sewing machine. Might as well be electric. I love, you can't hear it run, for comfort, but it's boring.

Since plane engines are not subject to noise or pollution standards the Lycoming is still king. I guess all Lycoming haters can lobby congress to put car pollution standards on planes. Than we all can fly Japanese Subaru's with big catalytic converters and mufflers and go real slow and add lots of weight. May be should not do that and enjoy the freedom we all have to choose the engine we want. Really the "paradigm" of aircraft and cars are totally different. The pollution all little planes produce in 10 years is likely less than what all the cars, trucks and buses produce in one morning rush hour.

With that said, 92UL fuel for planes is coming. Possible Swiss noise standards next? (The latter one, noise, please be polite pilots and not anger the folks on the ground for all of our sakes.) They did it to jets why not little planes. More Gov intrusions and loss of freedoms.

PS as far as static thrust that is good data. However that is a corner of big picture. I'll let you guys debate it. I am just curious how a H-6 got on the front of a plane with a 1600 lb gross.

gmcjetpilot said:

..... I am just curious how a H-6 got on the front of a plane with a 1600 lb gross.

Click to expand...

George,

The EGG factory was rolling along, keeping very busy delivering the used 2.5's. The super charger was introduced and performance numbers were in 0320 range and nearing 0360 in some airplanes like Robert Paisley. (I flew with Jan at OSH one year and saw 185 indicated in the -6A)

Meanwhile, Jan installed the H6 in an Italian homebuilt 4 seater and flew it to OSH a couple times. Not much of a scientific observation, but I loved the engine for its looks and sound. I talked with Jan about making it available to the RV's - he was thinking about it.

What was really on his mind was 2 of them on the Defiant for a trip to Norway. That actually happened except for the crossing - at least one engine was burned up trying to solve the aft end cooling challenge. They damaged the front engine, nose gear structure and prop in a hard landing and that set the project way back but I think they are still working on it, at least that was the case the last time I was in Florida about 18 months ago. (The Defiant was built by a guy from New England who knew Jan from his days there where he tried one or two engines in a VEZ. I met the Defiant guy in 1982 when I first flew my LEZ. I never met the Jan in those days, but did reconnect with the Defiant guy a few years ago in Florida. Jan Eggenfellner is a consumate experimentor, something that drives some customers nuts because things keep changing)

About that time, I had the super charger belt jump the pulley event, which penetrated the plastic cover over the timing belt on the 2.5. After the inspection, Jan said there really isn't anything wrong with the engine and it was OK to fix and fly. But I asked about a trade for the H6 which has a metal cover over a timing chain. We made a deal and I managed to get the first one flying in about 6 months after the 2.5 event. The decision to sell the H6 had been made based on its success in the Italian 4 seater.

That, basically, is how it all evolved. Now they are going with the turbo version, which lots of guys want to try....different strokes for different folks....that engine does snort with the new 2:1 PSRU.

dd

Yep pretty cool, looking fwd to side by side flt test

David-aviator said:

That, basically, is how it all evolved. Now they are going with the turbo version, which lots of guys want to try....different strokes for different folks....that engine does snort with the new 2:1 PSRU. dd [/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Most excellent INFO Mr. dd.

I was referring to the H-6 and the RV-6 airframe combo and the weight issue. The RV-7 would be better CG and W&B wise. The RV-6 has the lower gross and designed for lighter engine/props. The H-6 weight is what I am concerned about, not safety or performance. I am real conservative about the limits Van sets, that is all. Being experimental that is cool. The RV-7 has 200 lbs more gross, more acro weight and is really designed for a heavy IO360 (200HP) and metal prop. The RV-6 is nose heavy with that comb, and the RV-7 is tail heavy with a 320/wood prop. There is no argument that the H-6 set up is heavier than any Lyc, even the heavy IO360 angle valve. Some weight ground can be made up with a light MT prop but not that much, at least on a RV-6.

My main issues, in order, with the H-6 is: weight, drag (radiator), cost and safety. The last item safety has never been a real concern for me, but we are all smart and know that tractor technology: mags, mechanical fuel system gives the Lyc an electrically independant advantage. No belts and water pumps is also a plus on the Lyc; if it's not there it can't break. Still that is not the main issue with me, the Lyc is reliable and the H-6 can be reliable as well.

It has always been about weight and performance (drag). As you point out performance has steadily been going up and and expect it to continue.

Weight is a subtle thing. I have flow light RV's and heavy ones, even with in the CG and max weight limits. The light weight ones are just better. A preference. Weight is a big turn off to me. That is also going to be the biggest challenge for Egg or any auto engine. The mazda/power sport got right down to the heavy IO360/Hartzell weight, a little more but not much.

It is hard to get real W&B info from many planes with auto engines and they are sensitive about it. There has been progress in the weight area but there will be a plateau. Weight will always be heavier and Jan seems to be a little lacking consistency in reporting empty weights. To be fair he does not make the planes. However he never reported the H-6 RV-7 empty weight. My ball park is about 60-100 lbs more (at least) for the total EGG installation than a Lyc, especially a 320/wood prop combo. That is a lot.

Some folks don't care about weight. I want to do acro and get into and out of short grass strips in the mountain. Also I am not going fly over Van's gross limits. Turbo is nice for the latter mission (high altitude) regardless of weight, but I don't want to deal with a turbo. A turbo will also add even more weight.

Cost is a factor in that its not cheaper than a Lyc and leads you down the expensive prop path. Its a simple cost advantage optimization for me. Even if its more, I would buy it if it was better (lighter, faster, less fuel burn).

I have NO PROBLEM WITH EGG or SUBARU. Like you say different strokes. I am thrilled the performance has come up. I would like to see some side by side test at Van's, the natural third party. Not to say SEE I told you just for knowlege, experimentation and knowing without the hype or spin. I am not sure Jan wants that. If something is way better you expect them to show it off. We shall see and if the H-6 turns out to be a better mouse trap I could not be happier.

rv6ejguy said:

I often wonder why Porsche sixes are not used more in experimental aircraft. They are very robust, good power to weight ratio, not too expensive (relative to cert type engines). If you are inclined sometime, I'd love to see one flying in an RV.

I think the Egg belt drive deal was one of those things with new products- how long do you test before releasing for production? Personally, I'd be getting a couple thousand hours on something like this before release but is that even enough? At least Jan did the right thing and pulled it. The buyers signed up had to wait longer but hopefully get a better, safer product in the end.

Many new jet engine designs only have a few thousand test hours on them before production release and certification to carry passengers. Sometimes this has not been enough and faults are found in service. Design changes are made to fix. All facets of engineering go through redesign based on service use. I can think of several designs from Pratt, GE and Lycoming which were certified, tested, represented as good to go but were not. Jan is not producing a certified product here.

I know many people complain about Jan's "lack of transparency". Jan has his own way of running his business. It is different from how you or I might run our businesses. He is the only serious alternate engine vendor left standing today and is selling a lot of engines. Hard to argue with that success. I have more of a problem with Lycoming who were found guilty of fraud in the $96M judgement against them in the one of many crankshaft fiascos on CERTIFIED engines.

I think that Egg's site says 17 engines sold for the RV10. It does not say delivered. Everyone knows that no H6 turbos have been delivered at this time. They are still being flight tested.

Coming back to the thread, I don't doubt that a Lyco IO-540 with an 80ish inch prop will make around 1000 lbs. of static thrust so I don't think the H6 turbo will offer any huge speed advantage on RV10 type airframes but it may be in the ballpark.

Click to expand...

You did not mention the Porsche engine that was used by Mooney, I think in the eighties. Somewhere I have a link to an article about that engine. Here's the link.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

The normally aspirated Porsche six cylinder engine weights about 415lbs and puts out anywhere from 180 to a high of 300hp depending upon state of tune. Add a reduction drive and you will probably add 50 or more lbs. 465lbs is a lot of weight for an engine that will probably develop around 225 hp at 5000 rpm. Especially when a 210 hpsix cylinder IO-360 Continental weighs 300lbs or 300hp IO-540 weighs 450lbs. The engine fan added complication and I believe was difficult to work into the cowl. And Porsche rebuilds are not cheap, look at $10-15,000 for a high quality rebuild. Remember the Mooney PFM did not work because the Porsche engine was too complicated and expensive so it fizzled.

I really enjoy reading this thread about alternative engines. But I wonder if putting a Subaru engine on a plane is any improvement. Even though Lycomings are crude by comparison they are simple, generally work well, are lighter for power output, don't need tricky reduction drives, are simpler to cowl, and don't burn anymore fuel for comparable horsepower. Its also easier to sell an experimental airplane with a certified engine, and if your engine breaks down somewhere you can get someone to work on it. And this is from someone who has had an O-320 eat a lifter, camshaft, break a piston skirt and put three holes in the case in mid air. Still ran and cost (only) $5500.00 to fix.

I love the Subaru fours and sixes, I have a Forester myself. Another question I have is how are the engines built up or otherwise internally modified to handle the stress of operating continuously at high revs. For example, do you use a closed deck, semi closed deck or open deck block? Do you change the pistons to lighten and strengthen them? In the six cylinder do you replace the wimpy stock rods with some stronger aftermarket ones, like Pauter or Carillo rods? I don't know if I would trust some of the stock Subaru motors for sustained rpm use in an aircraft without doing significant internal mods which are expensive, even on a Subaru. Check out the Cosworth site for some prices. http://www.cosworth.com/

Maybe Subaru or Honda will design a dedicated aircraft engine. There's always hope.

rrnixonjr said:

I love the Subaru fours and sixes, I have a Forester myself. Another question I have is how are the engines built up or otherwise internally modified to handle the stress of operating continuously at high revs. For example, do you use a closed deck, semi closed deck or open deck block? Do you change the pistons to lighten and strengthen them? In the six cylinder do you replace the wimpy stock rods with some stronger aftermarket ones, like Pauter or Carillo rods? I don't know if I would trust some of the stock Subaru motors for sustained rpm use in an aircraft without doing significant internal mods which are expensive, even on a Subaru. Check out the Cosworth site for some prices. http://www.cosworth.com/

Maybe Subaru or Honda will design a dedicated aircraft engine. There's always hope.

Click to expand...

The engines are not generally modified internally in any way as they are well proven to run at high rpm with no concerns. This has been explored here at great length previously. The stock rods are not wimpy being of forged, alloy steel as is the crank. Stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000+ rpm and the case and crank to over 900hp and 9000 rpm so 150 hp at 4500 is nothing.

Closed deck EJ22Ts, open deck and semi closed deck EJ25, EZ30 and EG33 engines have all been used successfully in aircraft.

rv6ejguy said:

The engines are not generally modified internally in any way as they are well proven to run at high rpm with no concerns. This has been explored here at great length previously. The stock rods are not wimpy being of forged, alloy steel as is the crank. Stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000+ rpm and the case and crank to over 900hp and 9000 rpm so 150 hp at 4500 is nothing.

Closed deck EJ22Ts, open deck and semi closed deck EJ25, EZ30 and EG33 engines have all been used successfully in aircraft.

Click to expand...

I agree that 150hp should not be a problem. It would be great to read some of the articles you are talking about. My intent is not to rain on anyone, but to learn more about what is being done.

Most of my references are from builders of turbocharged high performance Subarus for use in cars, so a 200 hp engine can probably get away with no internal modifications. And there are many different engines to choose from, some are stronger than others. Still, to say that stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000rpm with no modifications does not agree with what I have read specialist engine builders say about Subarus, they change rods, and pistons and used closed and semi closed decks. They are not stock engines or normally aspirated engines with added turbochargers, they would not handle those pressures for long.

Also, my comment on the six cylinder Subaru rods is more a question of their suitability for a turbocharged configuration, with high boost and high power. I am echoing some automotive engine builders who are considering turbocharging the sixes for sand rails, etc. And then there is the question of which six cylinder to use, I guess the new 3 litre is the one being set up for aircraft, let me know if I am wrong.

The benefits of having a water cooled engine are substantial. I would be interested to see how these engines do in the long haul, especially the six cylinder ones.

rrnixonjr said:

........
The benefits of having a water cooled engine are substantial. I would be interested to see how these engines do in the long haul, especially the six cylinder ones.

Click to expand...

There is an easy way to find out. Buy one and do it. They are not difficult to install and run just fine. When the plug is pulled on 100LL, you'll be all set.

rrnixonjr said:

I agree that 150hp should not be a problem. It would be great to read some of the articles you are talking about. My intent is not to rain on anyone, but to learn more about what is being done.

Most of my references are from builders of turbocharged high performance Subarus for use in cars, so a 200 hp engine can probably get away with no internal modifications. And there are many different engines to choose from, some are stronger than others. Still, to say that stock bottom ends have been capable of producing in excess of 500 hp at 8000rpm with no modifications does not agree with what I have read specialist engine builders say about Subarus, they change rods, and pistons and used closed and semi closed decks. They are not stock engines or normally aspirated engines with added turbochargers, they would not handle those pressures for long.

Also, my comment on the six cylinder Subaru rods is more a question of their suitability for a turbocharged configuration, with high boost and high power. I am echoing some automotive engine builders who are considering turbocharging the sixes for sand rails, etc. And then there is the question of which six cylinder to use, I guess the new 3 litre is the one being set up for aircraft, let me know if I am wrong.

The benefits of having a water cooled engine are substantial. I would be interested to see how these engines do in the long haul, especially the six cylinder ones.

Click to expand...

You can search the forum here if you want references- they are here by the bucketful. I've been building turbocharged race engines for over 25 years and I've only ever put aftermarket rods in 3 engines which were extremely high output road racing engines. Most Japanese engines have very good stock rods unlike many older American engines. I've quintupled the factory output on stock rods on some Toyota engines and the Subarus have superior rods to these engines.

Boost is rarely a factor in rod failure. Usually very high rpms (like 2000 rpm over stock redline) with a heavy piston more likely causes failures. Many builders are wasting their clients money on aftermarket rods IMO.

The EJ22 turbos probably have the strongest blocks of the 4 cylinder Subes. These are a closed deck design and are really bulletproof. Many people have beat on these things for hours at very high boost pressures.

Most Hondas have open deck designs yet are pretty reliable at up to about triple their stock output until before cylinder walk becomes a problem. With mods, these have produced over 1000hp at 10,000 rpm for short periods. In aircraft use, we are generally talking about rpms under 5500 for takeoff and under 250 hp so the stresses are a small fraction of these levels.

The two popular Sube sixes for aircraft are the 3.3L EG33 from the SVX sports car- mid '90s and the new EZ30 3.0L. Both I feel are adequately strong for mild boost levels and are capable of running at 4500 rpm all day long for hundreds of hours. Eggenfellner is using the EZ30 engine in his conversions. I'm using an EG33 in mine.

Ross,

Thanks for the update on the Subaru engines, sounds like you really enjoy the experimental engine building. I would love to see how the EG33 works out for you. Are you going to turbocharge it? Love to see the output and finished product. By the way, what airframe are you going to put the engine in and what propeller will you use? Regards.

David-aviator said:

There is an easy way to find out. Buy one and do it. They are not difficult to install and run just fine. When the plug is pulled on 100LL, you'll be all set.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but which engine would I purchase and from whom? I would not want to engineer it myself. Instead, would rather watch the guys on this forum and maybe someday one will put out a kit I would buy. Until then, if I built an RV I would install a Superior XP-360 or 400. Easier to install and much easier to sell if you need to. That is until someone comes out with a proven
package that has been installed in hundreds of aircraft. I am no pioneer but am impressed by what you guys are doing. I appreciate your message.

Complete package available now

Hi,

Check this website: http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/

He sells a complete package.

Mickey

rrnixonjr said:

Ross,

Thanks for the update on the Subaru engines, sounds like you really enjoy the experimental engine building. I would love to see how the EG33 works out for you. Are you going to turbocharge it? Love to see the output and finished product. By the way, what airframe are you going to put the engine in and what propeller will you use? Regards.

Click to expand...

Yes, the EG33 will be twin turbo with an MT prop. Just finishing the turbo system and intercooler plumbing. Some pix here: http://www.sdsefi.com/air46.htm

Not fun fitting this under the stock cowling.

The flying RV6A is at: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html

100LL is not dead

David-aviator said:

There is an easy way to find out. Buy one and do it. They are not difficult to install and run just fine. When the plug is pulled on 100LL, you'll be all set.

Click to expand...

The death of 100LL Avgas is exaggerated. At some point the defacto aviation fuel will be likely go to something like 95UL. Keep in mind this is 95UL is 95 octane on the aviation scale, which is 5 points higher than pump car gas. So av 95UL is equiv to 100 octane car gas. Any way the whole fleet will run on 95UL except for a few planes that need 100LL, but that does not apply the Lycs we use which are rated for 92 octane. Sorry the death of Lycoming is not any time soon. Those planes which need 100LL will probably be able to use 95UL with reduced timing.

Also 100LL is a killer on the O2 sensor on the Subaru and requires it to be replaced (a lot). Since autogas is not always available you have to use 100LL. 95UL should be a plus for the auto engines with the O2 sensor.

As far as water cool benefits, there are some draw backs, weight and cooling drag (where to put those radiators). Other wise cool beans. I would also say an air cooled engine is easier to install just because the airframe is set up for it and the parts and design are well established. The electrical and fuel system as well as water are more complicated for the Subaru, even with the firewall forward kit.

The Egg Subes can run either fuel with no problems which offers a nice choice to users. With the addition of Decalin TCP, O2 sensor life is excellent. '07 engines don't require an O2 sensor in any case. Studies using an OBDII reader showed that most engines were not in closed loop under typical aircraft use power settings- above 22 inches and 2900rpm and as low as 11" and 3750rpm anyway.

rv6ejguy said:

Yes, the EG33 will be twin turbo with an MT prop. Just finishing the turbo system and intercooler plumbing. Some pix here: http://www.sdsefi.com/air46.htm

Not fun fitting this under the stock cowling.

The flying RV6A is at: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html

Click to expand...

Nice looking install so far on the -10. I'll be watching to see your numbers . I think in reality we all know the weight of the H-6 with the turbos is going to be heavy. Compairing thrust #'s isn't really fair to an IO-360. You want apples to apples, you in the weight range now of a IO-540 (Parallel valve) so... Thrust numbers Kahuna?

osxuser said:

Nice looking install so far on the -10. I'll be watching to see your numbers . I think in reality we all know the weight of the H-6 with the turbos is going to be heavy. Compairing thrust #'s isn't really fair to an IO-360. You want apples to apples, you in the weight range now of a IO-540 (Parallel valve) so... Thrust numbers Kahuna?

Click to expand...

Quite right. My creation is intended to replace an IO-540 not the 360. Total installed weight so far looks to be very similar to this powerplant. My turbo installation adds about 35 lbs. over a muffled naturally aspirated EG33 engine.

The Egg EZ30 turbos were initially mainly aimed at the IO-540 market as well but many -7 and 8 builders are planning to install them now. I agree, they are quite heavy for these airframes. The Egg turbos are probably at least 30 lbs. lighter than mine due to a small single turbo, different engine and no intercoolers to my knowledge but still far in excess of a typical O-360 installation.

To date they have exceeded 1000lbs. of thrust at 34 inches.

I suspect mine will deliver well in excess of 1300 lbs. of thrust at 38 inches and 5400 rpm. The true numbers will be interesting when completed and tested.

As stated previously, I don't doubt a good IO-540 will exceed 1000 lbs. of thrust.

rv6ejguy said:

I suspect mine will deliver well in excess of 1300 lbs. of thrust at 38 inches and 5400 rpm. The true numbers will be interesting when completed and tested.

As stated previously, I don't doubt a good IO-540 will exceed 1000 lbs. of thrust.

Click to expand...

This'll be great for all the guys looking for an aircraft to pull stumps. The rest of us will be very interested after you get flying to learn about empty weight, cruise speed, cruise fuel flow, climb rate, etc.

The optimum blade twist varies with the TAS, power and rpm. So, a prop that works great at a static condition is not optimized for high speed. And vice versa. So, static thrust numbers don't really tell us anything useful.

gmcjetpilot said:

Also 100LL is a killer on the O2 sensor on the Subaru and requires it to be replaced (a lot). Since autogas is not always available you have to use 100LL. 95UL should be a plus for the auto engines with the O2 sensor.

Click to expand...

Define " a lot" I have over 600 hours on my Egg/sube with an O2 sensor, at least half of which has been while running 100ll. Still works just fine.

Subaru to Chevy

Hey Ross,

I loved your nice intake fabrication for the Subaru engine. Lovely work.
Just wanted to ask why you chose the EG33 instead of the EZ30. The EZ30 is lighter, smaller in size, and has chain driven cams which I would think helps with maintenance.

Also, I wanted to know what you thought of the link I sent you about the Porsche engines. You said they were light in weight for their power (despite weighing 500lbs for 220hp, despite being aircooled) and would like to see one installed in an RV. Considering the fact that they did not work in the Mooney I would like to know how they might do so in an RV. Any thoughts?

Heck, if you can put a Porsche engine in an RV you could probably put in an aluminum block Chevy, that would really give you some horsepower, and with not much more weight, maybe 50lbs.

...already being done-





Belted Air Power

Chevy in RV-10

I assume that is a V-6. Nice installation. Have any performance figures? Anyone doing a V-8 in an RV-10?

I had some experience with the EG33s and turbocharging in cars and a friend offered me one for $100 plus several others were already flying them. The 3.3 has the potential for more torque and I prefer short stroke designs. The EZ is shorter and about 20 lbs. lighter. Lots of room lengthwise in the RV10 cowling. Power peak on the EG is at 5400 rpm vs. around 6500 for the latest EZs. No variable valve timing on the EG either. I'll be posting some new photos of the whole shebang in a couple days. Just got the rest of the plumbing done.

The Porsche engines are well under 300lbs. bare and should be under 400 with accessories. The Mooney episode was more that Porsche changed their mind about the whole thing and ceased development and support. I've done some work with these engines, turbocharging and putting EFI on them. Very reliable engines with good power potential. Cheap they are not however and this is where the Subes come in. I think the Porsche is a bit heavy for a 6/7/8/9 airframe but would be fine on an RV10. The latest versions have pretty impressive power even in naturally aspirated trim.

Yes Vesta is preparing LS-2 V8 engines for RV10s but I feel these are a bit too heavy for an RV10. They will work of course but will likely require ballast to get a decent C of G range. One forum member is already planning to install this in his RV10 under construction. These are great engines and would be my choice if I was building a IV-P or something similar.

There is a guy here on my field that has a twin turbocharged 350 V-8 on his IV-P. It flew once a couple of years ago, and lost power about 50 feet off the runway. They landed safely, and have been working since then on another engine, same type, same company. It should have it's second first flight this spring.

Thanks to everyone to contributing to my education. One of my friends in a neighboring hanger is building a Glasair and has an NSI Suburu engine which started my interest in the idea of alternate engines. I can't wait to see how it works.

I never read the rebuttal to the first article, and wanted to comment on it. The first article basically made two important comments about the Porsche engine, it was 250lbs heavier than the Lycoming and made no more horsepower, and burned as much fuel.

Obviously, the Porsche engine is not a good replacement for an aircraft as it is very heavy for an aircooled engine, 415 lbs, and very expensive.

Too bad the rebutting author was so defensive, he got personal, and did not prove his point.

The Subarus offer many advantages, one of which is liquid cooling in addition to lighter weight. Also, they are less expensive than Porsches. My only question is how an H-6 will perform compared to an I0-540. My brother owns a 231/turbocharged, and has always lusted after the Rocket conversion. Nothing is a substitute for horsepower. Look forward to seeing some comparisons.[/FONT]



QUOTE=gmcjetpilot]Mooney tried that in the late 80's. It had a single lever deal, FADEC, throttle, prop and mixture control in one. It never took off. Here is an article why
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

This was a rebuttal to the article

http://www.gatm.com/flying/pfm.html


I'm a Porsche fan and have had a 911's in the past. Yea they are good engines but I would not go so far to say they are bullet proof. They are what air cooled engines are, light and powerful and thankfully if you like hearing mechanical things loud. That is part of the why Porsche stopped making air cooled engines in 98, federal noise and pollution standards in the US and Europe. Still great engines, they could have done a 100 things to make the specs but at loss of performance and weight. That is why they stopped making two stroke street bikes in the 70's.

[

Theoretically the performance of the naturally aspirated Subaru EZ30 (250hp) should be close to an IO-540 if the reduction gear allows it to spin to 6000-6500 rpm for takeoff. Weight wise it should be 30-40 pounds lighter as well. The turbo EZ would be about the same weight and a bit more power running 34 inches. It could get away with a bit less rpm for the same rated hp.

Porsche engines would work fine given the right redrive and elimination of the fan- they are just too expensive to start with.

A look at some auto conversions I think we will see more of in the future.

- 2.0 TDI: 4: 143 hp, 236 lbft
- 2.7 TDI V6: 190 hp, 295 lbft
- 3.0 TDI V6: 240 hp, 369 lbft
- 4.2 TDi V8: 326bhp
These are aluminum engines and these figures are below 3000 rpm's
Also VW Audi just plays with the software to change the horsepower.
After owning a VW TDI I can vouch for the realability.
From what I hear the 2.0 is less then 300 lbs.
Just something to watch.

Fully flight ready with exhaust, cooling and redrives, these engines are all way heavier than their gasoline counterparts unfortunately and their reliability is unproven at the sustained boost settings required for aviation use. The Thielert diesels are not showing good life to date. Piston ring, ring land and exhaust valve issues are coming up at far less than half of their projected TBRs in many cases.

Diesels seem like a great idea on paper but have not proven themselves yet in this application IMO.

I wish more people were experimenting with them, there seem to be very few flying in homebuilts. Lots of people theorizing, few people doing.

Suburu Conversions

I have been reading through many auto conversions and lycoming debates and I have noticed that much of the data for auto conversions have been derived from auto reliability, The flaw I see in this data is that the average suburu driving down the highway gets about 30 or so mpg and runs oh about 1500 to 2000 rpms and generating what maybe 10 hp to maintain that speed. this data is then used to project that a suburu is more reliable then a lycoming running at 65% to 75% power. I would like to see more performance and economy data before I decide.

dserratt said:

I have been reading through many auto conversions and lycoming debates and I have noticed that much of the data for auto conversions have been derived from auto reliability, The flaw I see in this data is that the average suburu driving down the highway gets about 30 or so mpg and runs oh about 1500 to 2000 rpms and generating what maybe 10 hp to maintain that speed. this data is then used to project that a suburu is more reliable then a lycoming running at 65% to 75% power. I would like to see more performance and economy data before I decide.

Click to expand...

The Subaru EJ engines have demonstrated their ability to produce high power for extended periods in aircraft with well in excess of 100,000 flight hours in gyrocopters from RAF and Groen Brothers alone over the last decade. Typical cruise is near WOT and 4000-4800rpm. Many other private conversions and those from Eggenfellner have put in tens of thousands more.

I'm not saying that Subarus are the best choice in auto power, only that they have been proven with more flight hours than all other auto engines combined most probably. Fuel economy appears to be slightly inferior for the same speed as the trusty Lycoming. Few if any naturally aspirated piston auto engine conversions can match the speed of a good Lycoming to date so if speed is an important requirement, consider turbocharging.

Even the latest versions of the 2.0L TDI are only capable of putting out about 120-125hp at 2700rpm so they still require a redrive to produce competitive power while maintaining efficient propeller rpm. Redrives and diesels require extra careful consideration of torsional vibration issues and likely a very heavy OE style flywheel.

Pax on them all

Ross,
You are the most tolerant man I have ever read. The same lame arguemants re-hashed a million times. Jan is, either, rotten, a chisler, a proffiteer, or if you're in the other camp, the sun shines from his every orafice.
If you like the idea BUY HIS STUFF. If you don't, then DON'T.
Car engines can't run high RPMS...bla...bla...bla. If it doesn't perform EXACTLY the same as my Lycoming it sucks. (Even if it's better in some areas.) If most of these guys had their way we would be running out engines with a heated plate evaporative carburetor. Wing warping using canvas would be the only way to bank. Thats the way the Wrights always did it...
I rarely even look at this segment anymore which is sad. When I defend a good auto engine, it's where you gonna put them radiators? When I suggest a manufacturer of a FWF package like Vesta, (Which seems to have many good points), should post some photos of their flying examples on their website, somebody asks where I get my expertese. I'm too critical. A pax on both their houses. These guys just want to argue, and have little to nothing to offer in a constructive fashion. The fact that you Ross can tolerate them as well as present your typically reasoned responses is a compliment they rarely deserve. You have the needed skills to produce some fine products! (I persent an un-biased opinion since Ross doesn't make an EFI I can use on my 20B 3 rotor wankel.)
I can take it any more, they have succeded in driving me away. At least to other sites, good luck!
Bill

Rotary10-RV said:

Ross,
You are the most tolerant man I have ever read. The same lame arguemants re-hashed a million times. Jan is, either, rotten, a chisler, a proffiteer, or if you're in the other camp, the sun shines from his every orafice.
If you like the idea BUY HIS STUFF. If you don't, then DON'T.
Car engines can't run high RPMS...bla...bla...bla. If it doesn't perform EXACTLY the same as my Lycoming it sucks. (Even if it's better in some areas.) If most of these guys had their way we would be running out engines with a heated plate evaporative carburetor. Wing warping using canvas would be the only way to bank. Thats the way the Wrights always did it...
I rarely even look at this segment anymore which is sad. When I defend a good auto engine, it's where you gonna put them radiators? When I suggest a manufacturer of a FWF package like Vesta, (Which seems to have many good points), should post some photos of their flying examples on their website, somebody asks where I get my expertese. I'm too critical. A pax on both their houses. These guys just want to argue, and have little to nothing to offer in a constructive fashion. The fact that you Ross can tolerate them as well as present your typically reasoned responses is a compliment they rarely deserve. You have the needed skills to produce some fine products! (I persent an un-biased opinion since Ross doesn't make an EFI I can use on my 20B 3 rotor wankel.)
I can take it any more, they have succeded in driving me away. At least to other sites, good luck!
Bill

Click to expand...

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!