Eggenfellner Engines - Technical Only

[Ted Johns]

Originally Posted by DanH

Whoa Nellie.....

Speaking for myself, this is not a case of a professional engineer picking on the weak. (snip...)

Three, the only agenda is to shine light in the dark places. We may find gold, or we may find cockroaches, or we may find both....but I didn't set out to find just one in particular.

Agree 100% with Dan. I haven't seen anyone trying to insult Jan. I have seen some difficult questions. These are exactly the questions I'd want good answers for before buying Sube.

I'm just the demographic Jan should sell to, by the way. I'm a fairly early adopter of new technologies, and I'm competent enough in the relative disciplines to install a "alternative" engine without hand-holding. I'm going to need an engine in a few years (I hope!) and have no bias against Subaru. However, just as I know exactly what I'm getting design-wise with Lycoming, I'd expect to know exactly what I'm getting design-wise with any alternative engine before I plunk down 20 - 25K.

It was mentioned that Lycoming wouldn't be responsive to questions about the crankshaft recalls. I found all I needed to know, including metallurgical reports and expert testimony, with a few minutes worth of googling.

T.J.

[janeggenfellner]

Returning to the quote above, a single specific question please, and "yes or "no" is fine: Did you apply a strain gauge to the propshaft and record vibratory torque?

Yes we did.

Jan

[janeggenfellner]

As you now know, the exact testing requested was performed by some of the "big guys" in the industry. Namely MT propellers, Germany. They sell certificated propellers to million $ airplanes and are experts at this very thing. Every STC need detailed information of this sort, before the propeller can be bolted and flown on a certificated airplane. As a company selling experimental engines, we do not have to do any of this but we still did.
Jan

[Jconard]

Test results from industry standard tests are not intellectual property, nor are they trade secrets.

Any organization may choose to publish or not publish whatever it wants, but just to clarify since we are throwing out legal terms of art here, nothing which is being requested would be considered a "trade secret" or "intellectual property" Those terms would typically apply to unique designs or processes which are not standard, nor widely practiced, and which give a company a competitive advantage.

The fact that a company does or does not perform certain testing, and the results of that testing would not be shielded or protected as trade secrets or intellectual property in any proceeding between a customer and a vendor for example, unless the vendor could establish that the tests themselves were unique enough that revealing the results of the test would reveal the methodology, which would reveal a design that was unique.

As I understand it the claim is that industry standard tests have been performed, by a third party (MT), the follow up question is simply for the results of those tests so that claims and designs can be vetted. In addition, folks are interested in where the resonance falls in the spectrum, which frankly I find fascinating.

A clip from an email, which offers a single conclusory statement that loads are lower than direct drive engines is of little help, as I understand the question here. I think folks are looking at the system before the propshaft as well as whatever loads ultimately lead to the prop. I think from reading the whitepapers, that simply measuring prop loads/vibration actually tells you very little about what is going on, resonance wise, in the rest of the system.

Seems like releasing the data for such vetting would be a competitive advantage especially since such hardcore verification is unavailable from the less prolific alternative vendors.

I do not think it is insulting at all to follow up on generalized answers with more direct pin point questions clearly designed to get at the specifics.

I wonder if there is just a "failure to communicate" it seems that Jan wants to discuss "how well these things run", and the nerds (term of endearment) want the detailed information supporting the claims about "how well these things run".

But it seems that the questions are appropriate, given the nature and stated purpose of this thread. I for one am excited at the prospect of hearing and reading the analysis. The information shared thus far on torsional resonance and such has been really educational for me. I don't think anyone has insulted Jan.

But I wonder if, given the different goals between Jan, and the folks asking the technical questions, if this thread will meet its stated goal. It certainly seems to be a great opportunity to go beyond marketing and enter the realm of truly educating the market, with facts, on the Egg package.

I am not Jan, but I think such openess would pay huge dividends for years to come, in terms of new customers, more installations, and more successful installations....I would have to imagine that it would help both Jan and the industry as a whole. JMHO

I hope the discussion continues and the facts come out.

[DanH]

Jan, please forgive a request for clarification.

The specific question was "Did you apply a strain gauge to the propshaft and record vibratory torque? Your response was "Yes we did."

However, in a post a few minutes later you refer to an MT-conducted propeller test as "the exact testing performed".

Very large difference between the two. Could you clarify? You conducted a test per the above question and MT did a prop survey?

[Steve Brown]

Originally Posted by janeggenfellner

........we have decided that the information requested is for company use only. We are not willing to share testing that cost thousands of $ and countless hours to generate. We are happy to share general information but that is not where this is going.

You still have the opportunity to use this thread for what I thought it was about. Namely, discussing how our engines go together and why they work as well as they do. General information about ECU's, cooling, exhaust, reduction drives, engine mounting, etc. Is available from me. Company collected data, used to make our engines work, is not available. Like you know, it is all in the details. We are keeping the details.

Representatives from Honda discussed harmonics with their engine project with me recently. Very interesting and fun.

Jan

Jan,

I don't want to question your integrity, but neither do I agree with your assertion about questions and test data.

I'm considering an engine change in 5-to-6 years. Considering the lead time on your product, that is not too far in the future. Options range from an IO360, some TBD diesel, your product, etc. Information about the color of valve covers is interesting, but, as a potential user of your product I have a desire for more substantial information.

I'm an EE in the semiconductor industry. We supply product test data of almost every form imaginable to our customers so that they will know how to use it, what to expect in terms of performance and operating limitations, and how it compares to the competition. On top of that, many customers will request and get customized testing on issues they are concerned about.

I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to imagine denying a request for information relating directly to a potential failure or operating life of a product. Taking additional data, which costs money, is negotiable. Sharing existing data is just a given. Know-how, in terms of how you achieve that performance is a different story. I can see how sharing that would be a problem.

While I'm writing, I drive a 2004 WRX STi. I really like that motor and use all 300 horses as often as possible. I've got close to 40k on it, with no problems. That experience has caused me to be naturally drawn to your product and I have been periodically checking your web site for updates and information.

The power, reliability, simplicity of operation, and economy of the modern auto engine are all a draw.

As someone with limited wrenching skills & experience, however, it seems like your product is too experimental for me. I do not get the feeling that I can bolt in your motor and go.

That doesn't mean the motor is bad for others, but what ever motor I choose is going to need to be very turn-key in terms of installation and maintenance.

Also, there is going to have to be data that makes me feel like I'm not going to become a glider pilot with one of my grandchildren in the right seat. That data can be in the form of test data or in the form of successful flying hours (like the lyco), but I've got to have it.

[Steve Mills]

Steve:

I am not an engineer, I am not a engine mechanic, I am a salesman: however, I have assisted in installing an IO-540, and have just completed installing an Eggenfellner E-6TI on my RV-10. From experience, I can tell you that the Egg is much easier. Just about everything is already installed. I installed the engine with a hoist, by myself, and have now just about completed the wiring, and will do a test run, probably next week.

With the Lyco, we had to do baffling, oil cooler, starter, alternator, etc etc; all this is done on the Egg.

I guess you can make a case for needing all this test data, if you want, and have the engineering slant to analyze it, however, I went with the data I got from the satisfied customers I talked to, and the excellent reputation that Subaru engines enjoy.

My last airplane was a Piper Arrow, and that engine was a maintainance nightmare. It contributed to my decision to go alternative, and made me question the belief by many on this list that the air cooled Lyco is the panacea they think it is.

In summary, I am sure you can find many reasons to decide to go Lyco, but don't use installation difficulty as one of them.

[Steve Brown]

Originally Posted by Steve Mills

Steve:

I am not an engineer, I am not a engine mechanic, I am a salesman:......

In summary, I am sure you can find many reasons to decide to go Lyco, but don't use installation difficulty as one of them.

That's a helpful data point, but your career choice doesn't hinder you from being a great mechanic.

I don't think being an EE helps my wrenching at all. It probably does make me predisposed to liking lots of data.

I have a general uneasiness with withholding TEST data.

Another pilot made this comment: " If you called up Ford, GM, or Toyota and asked for their test data they would laugh you out the door"

Since the cost of the motor and the cost of the cars are about the same, its a somewhat valid comparison. So:

If Jan makes samples of his motor available for testing by several aviation magazines + adds a significant warranty + local dealers who can solve product problems, then we'll have an apples to apples comparison.

I still have 5-to-6 years to make my choice, so I haven't closed the subi out as an option. I'm just saying that withholding test data doesn't warm me to the idea at all.

Open exchange of information builds trust.

AND - I am not hostile toward Jan or his product. I think its a cool product that may have specific advantages. Maybe I'll be flying behind one eventually.

I'm just being open about my thought process in terms of considering it as an alternative.

[DanH]

I took a few minutes to follow up on Bill's comment regarding Powersport's torsional guy, to wit:

<<I'm rotary oriented and got to be pretty friendly with the guy that did the newest Powersport drive. He did his PHD thesis on the vibration studies of the PowerSport rotary and drive combo. He wouldn't reveal the info to outsiders either.>>

His name is Steve Weinzierl. The Powersport analysis was for a Master's. He was with Polaris, consulted for Powersport and is apparently with Schrick Inc today, working on lightweight geared aviation diesels:

http://ftp.uspto.gov/web/patents/pat...-20070320.html

If he was in fact a hired consultant to Powersport, he lips would be sealed by contract, a normal practice in consulting.

However, that hardly means information is not available. I direct you to a few pages of the Powersport website:

1. Complete Solidworks drawings of the engine and PSRU:

http://www.powersportaviation.com/Ho...on%20drive.htm

2. Photos of torsional measurement using the encoder method;

http://www.powersportaviation.com/Ho...ng/Testing.htm

3. A Campbell diagram; 1st and 2nd natural frequencies plotted with a full series of engine orders, ie, the forcing frequencies. They did indeed use the "very stiff" approach; F1 about 340 hz:

http://www.powersportaviation.com/Critical2.xls

I guess ya'll get the point.

On a personal note, I really like this Weinzierl fellow. I offer two quick snips from web search results.

First, he has the respect of Kevin Cameron, my all time favorite gearhead:

<<Steve Weinzierl had that case of the prototype triples that Fuji had built for Polaris a number of years ago. They all broke cranks in testing (20 of them, and not cheap either!) and the Polaris people were just throwing up their hands. Steve, in his methodical way, got out the thick books on crankshaft math simulation and plowed through it all - approximating the flywheel discs as separate masses and working up all the shafts as torsion springs. And the math showed about what they had - a bad maximum at 8500. He added 2-mm to one or two shafts, parts were made, and on test everything was sweet and calm. KC >>

....and a bit from a Forbes Magazine article on Victory Motorcycles (a division of Polaris):

<<Testing the cooling system fell to development manager Steve Weinzierl.
Working on a tight budget, Weinzierl strapped a Czech-built Velorex sidecar onto a prototype Victory bike and, with colleagues, took it to Death Valley, Calif., for worst-case cooling trials. For this kind of testing, one guy rides the bike, which is studded with temperature-sensing thermocouples like a patient prepped for an electrocardiogram. Wires from the thermocouples lead to the sidecar, where a second guy records the temperatures.

One day Weinzierl decided to use the instruments on the Victory bike to record the oil-sump temperature of a Ducati Monster, which he sees as the benchmark for this sort of cooling system. "We drilled a hole in the Monster's oil plug and put in a thermocouple," he recalls. "It was 121 degrees in the shade. I rode the Ducati, and while we were rolling I'd pull over to about ten inches from the Victory and hand the guy in the sidecar the wires from the thermocouple. This was at speeds up to 90 mph. It wasn't entirely legal, but we got the data." >>

My kind of guy. <g>

Ya'll lighten up and let's talk tech.

[Rotary10-RV]

Originally Posted by DanH

I took a few minutes to follow up on Bill's comment regarding Powersport's torsional guy, to wit:

<<I'm rotary oriented and got to be pretty friendly with the guy that did the newest Powersport drive. He did his PHD thesis on the vibration studies of the PowerSport rotary and drive combo. He wouldn't reveal the info to outsiders either.>>

His name is Steve Weinzierl. The Powersport analysis was for a Master's. He was with Polaris, consulted for Powersport and is apparently with Schrick Inc today, working on lightweight geared aviation diesels:

http://ftp.uspto.gov/web/patents/pat...-20070320.html

Correct about his masters, but like so many people good in the T/V world he was sucked up by the automotive world so fast it was like he vanished. I believe he is now a VP at Schrick USA and was responsible for the crank and crankcase of the VW W-12 and by association the Bugatti Veron W-16! hardly typical. I bet he is going crazy in a management position!


If he was in fact a hired consultant to Powersport, he lips would be sealed by contract, a normal practice in consulting.

However, that hardly means information is not available. I direct you to a few pages of the Powersport website:

1. Complete Solidworks drawings of the engine and PSRU:

http://www.powersportaviation.com/Ho...on%20drive.htm

Hardly unique, since Jan has shown disassembled Gen-3 reduction drives.

2. Photos of torsional measurement using the encoder method;

http://www.powersportaviation.com/Ho...ng/Testing.htm

3. A Campbell diagram; 1st and 2nd natural frequencies plotted with a full series of engine orders, ie, the forcing frequencies. They did indeed use the "very stiff" approach; F1 about 340 hz:

http://www.powersportaviation.com/Critical2.xls

Very unusual which is why I contacted him in the first place. The rotary is unique in the ability to use the "very stiff" setup due to the super strong nature of the straight through e-shaft. Additionally he was more than a consultant at Powersport. They licensed him the ok to build all engines >300 HP as a separate company. To bad that for all that Powersport is now all but a non-entity. Not Steves fault, but my point is that disclosure of test results won't pay the bills for you.

I guess ya'll get the point.

On a personal note, I really like this Weinzierl fellow.

<snip> So do I. Bill

My kind of guy. <g>

Ya'll lighten up and let's talk tech.

We face several technical and legal troubles with producing parts for aircraft. A super small pool of buyers and a legal profession waiting buzzard-like for anybody to mess up. I'd love to have that F1 data on all the new engine packages, but I'd wager that half (at least) would give you a blank stare if you asked them what the F1 frequency of their system is! The people who know are charging a bunch for all their parts. Check out the prices for some of the EPI stuff Ross linked too earlier. Dan and Mike I'm really on your side, but when we have a manufacturer gutsy enough to even come on the forum I'm supprised and pleased. I'd go on but it's really off-topic in this tech-thread.
Back to lurking.
Bill Jepson