Propelled Engineering-NEW Rotary FWF company!

[PJSeipel]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

BTW, PJSeipel what is your point, besides hating on me?

I'm not hating on you. I asked what I thought was a simple question, and yes I used some exageration to make my point. Okay, bad idea, I won't do it ever again.

Here's what you said before you edited your post:

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

I HIGHLY recommend that interested people wait, in my opinion and recommendation, to wait until they have many customer built RV's with there FWF and get some data.

Let me re-state my question without any exageration and using your words: how are they supposed to get data on many customer RV's if your first response is to HIGHLY recommend people stay away from them? Frankly I agree with you that it may not be the best engine for an RV, that they're overpriced, and that they may be overstating their performance. Those are good reasons to not like their package. The fact that they're new is a poor reason not to like their package, and is what I took away from your first post on the subject. If that was incorrect, then I appologize for misunderstanding.

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032

[Jconard]

They should buy an rv, kit or complete. Then they should install their package on that rv, while documenting all the steps. Then when the package, really is a package, they should go fly a detailed test flight plan, in hot weather and cold weather etc.

After all of this they should sell the package. The market does not need another "package" whic although its claims to be tested, has a mysterious meltdown, and becomes a prototype.....

And, no offense chad, but you can easily get a lycoming installed for less than $4k FWF, probably half that.

But when you are counting install costs, do not leave out duel electric pumps, batteries, relays, a pair of $100 four pole double throw switches just for the automatic fuel system, etc...

Installing a lycoming, with similar in plane performance, will cost much less. In an RV7, you could install a simple carbureted, mag fired, O-320, with a hydraulic prop, and get the same speed for fuel burn or better, and at hundreds of pounds lighter, than your H-6.

The above based on following this through my building time, perhaps your install will be the first to avoid the above.....doubt that it will, but for your sake I hope it does.

As to some of the other stuff that's popping up related to Fadec etc....I struggle to understand how replacing one bowden cable with a red knob on one end and a heim joint on the other, with 10 pounds of wire, a handful of mission critical relays, and a software driven computer is "simplifying" the plane.

As I have said before, I will consider these in a future for another project, but only if they are cheaper, lighter, less complex, and with better numerical performance on a speed/fuel burn basis.

Until then I await verifyable data from people who have built and who currently fly these things.

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by Jconard

And, no offense chad, but you can easily get a lycoming installed for less than $4k FWF, probably half that.

None taken, but show me. Exhaust alone will run $1700 or so for Vetterman or similar. That's almost half of it right there. My $4-5k figure was strickly speaking of using Van's FWF kit, which has been discussed at length here. The general consensus was that using their kit or piece-mealing it, it would cost about the same. I would love to be corrected on this, because I don't want to speak about something I'm wrong about.

Originally Posted by Jconard

But when you are counting install costs, do not leave out duel electric pumps, batteries, relays, a pair of $100 four pole double throw switches just for the automatic fuel system, etc...

Dual electric pumps are included...at least in the Eggenfellner package...
You need batteries and relays for the Lyc as well, so that's a wash. The fuel system will add some cost. Believe me when I say that I've considered ALL parts and pieces that would be needed to get either engine running. I have a very good source available to me downstairs...our maintenance department.

Originally Posted by Jconard

In an RV7, you could install a simple carbureted, mag fired, O-320, with a hydraulic prop, and get the same speed for fuel burn or better, and at hundreds of pounds lighter, than your H-6.

Agreed 98%. BUT, your way off in comparison here. A mag fired, carb'd O-320 is a far cry from the H-6. These two engines simply can't be compared to each other. One is 160hp, the other is 200hp. One is mag fired, the other electronic. One is carb'd, the other fuel injected. The H6 has already proven to be as fast as an O-360 with the same fuel burn.

The other 2% I won't agree on is "hundreds of pounds lighter." The H6 IS heavier, but not by hundreds of pounds. That's simply not true. The H6 is about 50-60 pounds heavier than an O-320, 25 pounds heavier than an O-360, and 10-15 pounds heavier than an angle valve.

Originally Posted by Jconard

The above based on following this through my building time, perhaps your install will be the first to avoid the above.....doubt that it will, but for your sake I hope it does.

Me too!

Originally Posted by Jconard

As to some of the other stuff that's popping up related to Fadec etc....I struggle to understand how replacing one bowden cable with a red knob on one end and a heim joint on the other, with 10 pounds of wire, a handful of mission critical relays, and a software driven computer is "simplifying" the plane.

It's not at all. It is simplifying flying the airplane though. No mixture to mess with since it's all set for you depending on conditions. I don't like trying to figure all that out...I do it enough at my day job.

Originally Posted by Jconard

As I have said before, I will consider these in a future for another project, but only if they are cheaper, lighter, less complex, and with better numerical performance on a speed/fuel burn basis.

Until then I await verifyable data from people who have built and who currently fly these things.

Well, that remains to be seen. I will verify everything I find, whether it's higher, lower, better, or worse.



__________________

[rv6ejguy]

I've noticed than most alternative engine posts quickly generate plenty of debate. Must be lots of people interested in alternative engines or they just like to watch the show here!

Thanks Chad for posting the interesting link and it's something we can watch in the future.

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by Pilottonny

This is not the only FWF rotary package becoming available!! Mistral from Switzerland have a 2 rotor (190 / 230 hp) and a 3 rotor (300 / 360 hp) rotary engine, which are actually flying. http://www.mistral-engines.com/

You are absolutely right Tony. I shouldn't have said the only one becoming available. I talked to Francois about a year ago, and things seem to be going well for them. According to their website, though, the FWF stuff if still in development, and will add to the already staggering price of $31,500 USD for the 190hp two rotor.

I think they have a winning engine package coming together, and with a couple of years of flying the Arrow, they are on track, and proving it.



__________________

[SvingenB]

Originally Posted by Jconard

As to some of the other stuff that's popping up related to Fadec etc....I struggle to understand how replacing one bowden cable with a red knob on one end and a heim joint on the other, with 10 pounds of wire, a handful of mission critical relays, and a software driven computer is "simplifying" the plane.

I agree 100%. A common answer is that the car-industry have used ECUs for years, decades even, and it is therefore the way to go. But what nobody seem to ask is why they use ECUs, because it will definitely not simplify the engine, and has absolutely no effect on how cars are driven (except F1). Emmision control over a wide rpm and load ranges, and flexibility in performance characteristics for the same mass produced units are key factors. I don't see how those factors can be directly related to GA aircraft engines.

[rv6ejguy]

FADECs are slowly coming into more widespread use in GA. I see Diamond's new Superstar has a FADEC controlled, twin turbo Conti 550. I think these do make sense with upscale models using $55K engines. People will in fact expect it on $300-500K airplanes. This is 2007, not 1957 after all.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by SvingenB

Emission control over a wide rpm and load ranges, and flexibility in performance characteristics for the same mass produced units are key factors. I don't see how those factors can be directly related to GA aircraft engines.

AND, gov mandated fuel economy standards-----------------and surprisingly it has worked--------although there were a few "growing pains".

EGAD!!!! here I am sounding like I am for gov telling industry what to do.

As to these factors being directly related to GA,-------- I would submit that an aircraft engine designed with full electronic ignition, and electronic fuel management, controlled by a cpu programed to optimize performance in an aircraft enviornment, will out perform an engine with mags and carb or mechanical f/i and a pilot in control.

The real question as I see it is one of trade offs. Cost, weight, complexity, and reliability are the driving factors here.

And of course, restrictive gov regulations-----------there, I feel better.

Mike