RV-7 Egg H-6 - Page 2

cjensen · #11 06-23-2007, 12:04 PM

Well, between here and RB, I feel like I've learned my lesson with posting videos. I thought this would be a neat "fun" idea, but it did nothing but spark arguments and speculation with endless comparison about performance.

I've gained some experience in Lyco and Subie RV's, and no matter what you think you see in the video, it'll never fair well with anything I can say about it, bad or good.

I'll be removing the videos.

As I told John (Yukon) the other day, imagine if we would've flipped the thing over on landing...Holy ****!! That would've REALLY started something!

flyeyes · #12 06-23-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjensen

Well, between here and RB, I feel like I've learned my lesson with posting videos. I thought this would be a neat "fun" idea, but it did nothing but spark arguments and speculation with endless comparison about performance.

I've gained some experience in Lyco and Subie RV's, and no matter what you think you see in the video, it'll never fair well with anything I can say about it, bad or good.

I'll be removing the videos.

Chad, please don't do that. Like I said, I think there's a lot to be said for the auto conversions, but most people have little experience with them.

Videos like yours are important to open dialog, and you will get some strident opinions, but the videos are what they are.

I have been looking at various conversions for years, but haven't found one yet that meets my personal needs/wants.

My biggest problem with the Sube conversions has been the lack of real world information available about them. Jan Eggenfellner has sold something like 500 packages at an average of maybe $25K each, but still doesn't have any dyno data. He states on the website that flight testing confirms the power output but it doesn't seem to.

In flight videos are hugely helpful in "lifting the veil" and providing more information so that everybody can discuss this with real information.

I didn't post my video to criticise you, but to add another data point. My airplane has pretty typical RV performance. It meets Van' specs right down the line. When I saw your video, the climb rate looked low to me, so I looked to see what I had lying around--my airplane (which has average performance) climbs more than twice as fast as the EggSube RV-7.

I'm curious as to why the performance is what it is. I know that some of the supercharged Egg engines are faster than NA lycomings at altitude, but a fairer comparison would be to supercharged lycs.

I'm not saying that the sube isn't a good engine for these airplanes (it has a lot of advantages) but I don't think it has the performance of a Lycoming currently (I wish it did).

Tandem46 · #13 06-23-2007, 12:40 PM

Chad,
I 2nd that, please don't remove the videos. You have no idea how many folks enjoyed viewing your videos and simply didn't post a response. Don't let a few ruin it for the masses. I'm sure your vidoes will benefit others in the future.
Tobin

cjensen · #14 06-23-2007, 12:56 PM

I appreciate your comments James, and you are right. The problem is, is that MOST Lyco fanatics just can't take it for some reason. That's the part I DO NOT understand. There is NO ONE out there that isn't going to do their due diligence when it come times to spend $25-30k on an engine...if someone doesn't, they get what they deserve. A lot of people claim that "newbie' just don't understand. That may be true for a very short time. I was once a newbie too, and I've learned a TON about alternative's since then. I am one (among many) who likes 'em. I like Lyco's too...I fly behind them almost daily at work. I have no problem with them, other than the cost to maintain them. I just don't know if I want one for my RV.

This was ONE airplane, and soon enough, it's the standard of all Egg Sube's because people aren't putting video's or real info on the most popular forums. There is PLENTY of data available in the Yahoo group. More and more is being posted all the time, and I truly think the numbers will continue to improve. There are three Gen3's flying on H6's, other than Jan's, that I know of, and one on Gary Newsted's H4. The numbers are better, but these engines are a couple years old, and there have been cooling improvements that have been implemented on the newest engines.

I've already removed the video's, but I will consider putting them up again, however the links are already broken. I apologize to those that did enjoy them. You'll be able to find them again on YouTube at some point.

The RV-9A H6 that I flew in was really different than the 7 H6. I can only report what I saw personally in each airplane, and I'm not interested in everyone breaking down the videos.

Thanks though.

cjensen · #15 06-23-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukon

Very disappointing Chad. Book burning went out of fashion years ago.

Bummer.

Yukon · #16 06-23-2007, 01:08 PM

Therein lies the problem Chad. It's not possible to do due-diligence on this engine. Jan refuses to dyno the engine, his website is nearly devoid of weight and performance numbers, and now you take down the only H6 takeoff video available. If there are impressive videos, let's see them.

There are hundreds of those "165 hp" 4 cylinders out there. You think we would have one good takeoff video by now.

cjensen · #17 06-23-2007, 01:19 PM

Here are two video's from Egg's site. Not the best, but they do show some performance. I can't speak for either one since I was not there. I'll repost a couple of the video's along with the 9A takeoff sometime this weekend.

Gary Newsted's 4 cyl Gen3

Andy Parish H6 Gen3

captainron · #18 06-23-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjensen

I can only report what I saw personally in each airplane, and I'm not interested in everyone breaking down the videos.
Thanks though.

No, you're not interested, but others are, and are viewing them with critical eyes. Most of us are not "Lycoming fanatics", but we are just looking for solid, proven, and safe performance from our 25K purchases. If we were after all-out performance, we wouldn't be building Vans. What I want, and what I suspect most of us want is the excellent performance that these planes provide, the satisfaction of building it yourself, and the peace of mind that comes from the realization that the powerplant is NOT a somewhat risky unknown.
This is the formula that has made these kits so successful. I'm sure that E-Sub people believe in their product; after all they are trying to make a living from selling them. I'm sure that the Innodyne people believe in themselves and their product also. It's up to us to decide for ourselves what looks good and what doesn't. What apparently several of us saw in the videos wasn't a glowing endorsement for a product that most have already shied away from. The video of the plane flipping over has made us take yet another look at the "A's" and has produced a lively exchange of opinion on this forum. Nobody posted this video with the admonition of "No comments, please". Post, or don't post, but please don't whine when you do and people comment on them. This IS a forum after all.

flyeyes · #19 06-23-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjensen

Here are two video's from Egg's site. Not the best, but they do show some performance. I can't speak for either one since I was not there. I'll repost a couple of the video's along with the 9A takeoff sometime this weekend.

Gary Newsted's 4 cyl Gen3

Andy Parish H6 Gen3

Thanks Chad.

The video(s) you linked (I'm getting two copies of the same video I think) are entertaining, and give a sense of what the airplanes sound like, and they clearly have at least reasonable performance, but they aren't nearly as infromative and useful as yours.

Your videos showed instruments clearly enough to estimate performance. I can't recall ever seeing that before, and I've been looking with interest for years.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to fly along side Tracy Crook's Rotary RV4, and then briefly fly it. That airplane, although cosmetically very rough, is clearly capable of outperforming an O-320 powered RV4. His cruise fuel burn is very similar to a Lyc in loose formation (verified by Bernie Kerr, who is a mutual friend). Tracy's RV is very smooth and very loud. It is also a fixture in air races and there is little doubt about his claimed performance.

Ross Farnham's numbers seem to be pretty good too, although he admits his FWF is a little heavier than an o-360 and (in spite of Turbocharging) he is slower below 8000 feet and faster at high altitudes.

Jan, on his website, claims 175 knots/201 mph on 8.9 gph at 8500' with a normally aspirated H-6 on an RV-7A which is a pretty good cruise number, but is typical of an O-320 (160 HP) RV. That's about my economy cruise number (LOP) and I'm burning 10% less fuel (although 100LL is significantly more expensive than mogas). Dan Checkoway and others report similar Lycoming numbers.

Robert Paisley (from Jan's website) is reporting 210 mph/16 gph with his supercharged engine. Our Cirrus SR22 (LOP economy cruise) will do 170 knots on 15% less fuel than Robert's RV at 180 knots.

A lot of us are really interested in these engines, but crave real data. Your video was the best some of us had seen to date.

I would love to see more, and if your friend with the RV-7 is willing, I'd love to swap rides and/or fly formation. I promise if we do I'll post video.

cjensen · #20 06-23-2007, 03:01 PM

James, and others,

I apologize for removing the videos, and I will re-post them with a new link later today (I'm out in the garage working on fuselage top skins right now). I will post the other 9A video that I have as well.

I know none of you are criticizing me, but the owner of that 7 is not on the forums (nor does he have time). I feel like I need to try and defend some of the data that is "drawn" from the video, and all I get is more criticism.

We'll see what happens...

We will do more videos in the coming months after he puts his new redrive on, and I am doing my best to get the real data out there...I'm just as curious as you to see the real numbers. David, Ross, Nathan, among others are doing a great job of posting what they are seeing. None of the newest batch of E6 motors are flying yet, but I hope to see some later this year.