Eggenfellner engines

[DanH]

Jan,
I think we can form our own opinion regarding disgruntled builders. I'd prefer some discussion of fundamental engineering issues. Are you willing?

[Bevan]

What am i missing here? I know that Jan wants everyone to upgrade to the new version of the PSRU. But on what authority can a parts manufacturer ground an an experimental airplane (let alone the whole fleet) which is using it's part? Even, in the certified world, doesn't the manufacture apply to the FAA to issue AD's etc which in turn does the enforcing?

If there hasn't been catastrophic failure of the earlier PSRU's, why the "strong" recommendation to upgrade at all, and is the G3 been fully tested including tortionals, max power capabilities, failure mode/point etc? In other words, how does the manufacturer know G3 is significantly "better"?

Maybe I have missed something as I have not been following the Egg story closely lately.

Bevan

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by Steve Mills

How can you say that Jan should not take the attacks personally...he has been called a crook and a liar...I'd take that personally. Additionally, myself and my fellow Egg customers, have been told we are stupid, and do not love our families because we would consider putting them in our airplanes.

I repeatedly hear that the alternative engines are far more expensive than the Lyco counterparts. I' am building an RV-10, and have just over $40K invested in the F/F engine, and prop. Compare that to the $38-42K for a new IO-540 bare engine with no prop, and your claim is questionable.

Steve, you must be talking about me. All I said is I have not seen these personal attacks. May be I filter them out. Sorry to get you upset, apologies.

As far as people calling you stupid is another thing I have not seen that either. That line between lively debate, disagreement and may be teasing, verses personal comments, gets mixed. Some feel that the Lycoming is a better choice. They are entitled to their opinion.

I find it hard to believe any one wants bad things to happen when it comes to aviation safety, regardless of the engine you fly behind. I hate to have a "kum by ya" moment but we are all brothers and sisters in aviation. I guess if someone feels strongly and makes negative comments, may be its out of care and concern, not a mean spirit.

Your clarification and comments regarding the status of PSRU groundings and the price of new 540 Lyc's is fair. I just want to point out, a used 540 core, rebuilt is less than $39k. What I hear or read, at least in the past, was alternative engines are a lot cheaper. I don't think that is true either. Also prop selection for the Lycoming tends to be larger and less expensive than for alternate power-plants (hyd v elec c/s props). Performance for the Egg RV-10, is really yet known, which is another topic. The performance of the Lyc is a known. That is all I am saying, and it does not make your choice bad. I wish you the best with your project.

I don't want to high jack the thread, since this seems to be more about an emotional healing tonic, than a technical discussion.

[DanH]

Perhaps we could try a social network experiment.

Moderators, is it possible to strictly limit a thread to technical discussion? In this case, no Lycoming comparisons, no discussion of business practice, no personal stuff.....only physics, engineering and design?

Jan, would you fully participate in a thread under those conditions? It wouldn't be a free pass (you should expect hard questions), but it might be a good opportunity.

[Kahuna]

We could try that Dan.
Id love to see it.
Ill help if I can.
Several aviation product manufacturers simply will not engage in a factual discussion and its a shame. Ive had personal experience with this and its frustrating.

If you would like to start a new thread, shoot me a pm, and Ill subscribe to it and do the best I can. Make the title reflect the engineering discussion you desire. You list of wants to keep out seem reasonable to me except product comparisons. These to mee add significantly to folks ability to relate to engineering discussions they may not fully understand. So to me, comparing the designs of products allows for a more interesting discussions of design and engineering principles. But the others stuff you mentioned I agree with completely.

I like to idea of trying to keep a discussion directly to the ORIGINAL thread title which was the intent of the author who started it. If it veers off course, start a new thread.

Best,

[N395V]

Moderators, is it possible to strictly limit a thread to technical discussion? In this case, no Lycoming comparisons, no discussion of business practice, no personal stuff.....only physics, engineering and design?

Sure it is possible but one of us would have to review and edit 50% of the posts and we just do not get paid enough to do that.



Ironflight commented on this recently in his post talking about the difficulty in moderating a thread that walks a fine line between useful criticism/negative experiences and downright beligerence. He is absolutely correct in stating that from a moderators perspective these particular threads are a tough read and tough call.

A better alternative would be personal restraint on the part of those who post.

[janeggenfellner]

So far I think there are only two questions: 1) Why we would recommend a better drive unit if it is available and 2) What is better / different about the new drive.

1) We are morally obligated to suggest that a part should be updated if a better one is available. As you are all aware, the reduction drive is the single most important part of an auto conversion engine. Two of the several hundred earlier drives have failed so far. That is enough and we feel that it is now irresponsible not to change to the new and stronger unit. We offer these units at our cost. If anyone feel that we somehow should "give" these away, you are not being realistic and there would be no more auto conversion engines from Eggenfellner. These are in fact experimental engines and will need updates at times. A rational being would be exited to know that an improved part is available to increase flight safety.
2) The new drive unit is our second production drive. It is based on the earlier G1 and G2 (same drive with minor changes) but has the advantage of 20 years of improvements. From inspecting G1/G2 drives up through the years, we learned what parts would wear faster than others. This new drive has additional bearing support, stronger housings, larger shafts and an increased drive ratio. It also has a built in oil separator for the venting, larger fill and drain ports, a high temperature,. oil level, sight glass, Viton oil seals and a more universal propeller hub.

Some other things to mention:

Our engines operate quite well (see the latest video of Don Russel on our webs NEWS page) as many 500-1000 hr airplanes can prove. Someone, obviously not at all in tune with how far auto conversion engines for aircraft, has come, mentioned earlier that he tought a handful was flying These engines are at airports all over the US and around the world, flying in Australia, Africa, Germany, Norway, The Netherlands, Russia, Lithuania, New Sealand, Taiwan, Finland, Portugal, Danmark, France and a lot of other countries. I think it is important for you all to realize that what we build has been working for a long time and that there are more of these engines than you might realize. Also, I feel that the recent engine packages are at a level where we can be truly proud of our accomplishements. Not only are the E-6 packages mechanically sound, they also have very nice PDF installation manuals, new custom cowlings for max cooling, very nice look, professional wire looms, a new and custom programmed ECU and a competitive price. And lastly, if anyone is an engineer that has to prove his formulas for everyone to see, I am not interested in "sparring" with you. I am already sure that you are much better than me My 4 year degree (1990) was in flying, business, aviation technology and constantly working on my 1979 VW camper bus engine. (College home)
Jan

[DanH]

Thank you Jan. Welcome aboard.

Kahuna, I'll have the new thread up in a few minutes. Look for "Eggenfellner Engines- Technical Only".

Milt, you're right, but if Kahuna is game let's give it a shot.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by DanH

Perhaps we could try a social network experiment.

Moderators, is it possible to strictly limit a thread to technical discussion? In this case, no Lycoming comparisons, no discussion of business practice, no personal stuff.....only physics, engineering and design?

Jan, would you fully participate in a thread under those conditions? It wouldn't be a free pass (you should expect hard questions), but it might be a good opportunity.

Dan, your idea seems to be taking off, so in the future, everyone please use this thread http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=26477
for the EGG comments.

This thread has run its course.