H-6 with FP prop EARLY numbers

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by cjensen

I've pretty much stopped reading your posts George, but
for some reason, I did read this one. You are correct that this thread is about
the H-6, but I NEVER said anything about weight. It's about the H-6 and
PERFORMANCE with the FP version of the VERY light 4 blade prop.

Frankly, the weight of the engine is somewhat beneficial to me anyway, as I
am building a -7 .................

Your comments on weight related to Subies can be turned just as easily on
ANY engined airplane. There's a lot more to empty weight than the engine
(panel, interior, paint, primer). You know that, right?

how can you "disagree" with Jan and his comments about comparing the
weights of the H-6 and the IO-360? Have you weighed both engines full
firewall forward as he has??? Just wondering since you are always right on
target and topic.

At this point, I too will join the others, and leave you to your opinions.
Enjoy

Thanks for reading and replying to my post. I like to comment on your reply if I may.

You made some good points, but weight is a big consideration of performance and
that's my story, sticking to it. Bottom line keep is as light as possible, regardless
of engine, that's all.

I agree the RV-7 can handle nose weight and I said that above, I am building a
RV-7. The RV-7 is a better match than the RV-9A for the H-6, in my opinion.

cjensen, good point, empty weight is more than the just engine/prop, but just a
quick look at empty weights listed above shows this variation in weights. Still
the average is very consistent (small deviation). There is a correlation direct
between engine choice and empty weight.

I tracked/recorded RV empty weights for a few years, noting which engine
and prop they had. The data I posted above is direct from Dan's excellent
weight and balance data base: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/

This correlates well with my "sample group". There's only so many things can
leave off the airframe (panel, interior, paint, primer) to make up for a heavy
engine.

Anyone, You, rv6ejguy can look at empty weights and draw the same
conclusion with out name calling. May be not? Some people don't like facts.
Its no mystery RV's with 320's are lightest. RV's with the angle
valves (200HP IO360's) tend to be the heaviest, (I)O360's in the middle.

Of course as you point out there are variations in how the planes are equipped,
painted, upholstered etc..... but, simple averages (or statistical median)
show a consistent trend; the engine and prop drives empty weight.

Of the Eggenfellner installations they almost all come out close to the top of
the heap (heaviest) in empty weight, not all, but the average. Sorry, I find it
interesting and wanted to share, sue me.

I corresponded with Jan. He gave me his good "faith estimate" that the
installed weight for the new H-6 is 40 lbs more than current installations. To
be fair it was not a guarantee, just an estimate. I showed him the empty
weight data, and he agreed, these where typical empty weights RV's with
Eggy installations.

Its a simple matter of adding 40 lbs to the current average empty weight of
current flying Eggy RV's. THIS IS WHERE THE PROP COMES IN? The
new unbelievably light weight 17 lb prop will help. Tell me more? That is
very light. Instead of name calling how about some more info, like the empty
weight of the test plane?

It does not matter what the engine and prop weighs hanging on an engine
hoist. What matters is the installed weight. I think everyone knows water
cooled engines weight more with their associated radiators, pumps, hoses
and fluids?

IS ANYONE THINKING THE 6 CYLINDER H-6 WILL WEIGH THE
SAME AS THE OLD 4-CYLINDER INSTALLATION? I DON'T THINK I
AM BREAKING NEWS?

I leave you and rv6ejguys to your "opinions", Sirs; have a nice day. I am just
sticking with the facts. Its hypocritical of either of you Gent's to get all preachy
and all up in your own @$$ about hi-jacking threads, we all do it, including you
two, Enjoy yourself.

Oh yea, please block my post from your view, I don't want you reading them. I don't
care if you read or like my post, many do, but not to pejorative, if you are going
to be hostile and intolerant, I prefer you not read them so you are not tempted
to make rude comments. That would make me happy. Thanks

Cheers George

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by cawmd82

Back to price----Why--exactly--do we get to pay $5-7 k beyond Lyco clone-Hartzell prices to be "Chief Test Pilot--Egg RV8"


Chuck Wallace Dallas Texas

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the write up on the visit with Jan.

Can you or someone tell me where I can get a new Lyclone-Hartzell combo installed and running for $5-7k less than the Egg? My very simple math numbers indicate this-

A new 360 from ECi (pick one, they all are about the same) costs $22,000. Add the Hartzell at $5900 (from Vans). Add the firewall forward package $4725 (from Vans). And electronic ignition $1800 (to compare apples to apples to the Egg with EI). That adds up to $34,425 ($32,625 w/o EI).

A new H-6 costs $23,995 (this includes all firewall forward accesories). Add the CS prop for $8000. Add the hot water heat package $595. That adds up to $32,590.

Since this is a thread on the H-6 with the FP prop, here are those numbers-

360, $22k, FWF $3,350, Sensenich prop $2,025, and EI $1,800=$29,175

H-6, $24k, FP prop $3,200, Hot water heat $595=$27,795

Not an argument. Just curious as to where the cheaper clones are...

[Deuskid]

The best answer is refined in the crucible of open debate [and the greatest but necessary cost is the 'chaff' that some interject that has no value what soever]

I read eveyone and over the course of time give each man/woman's obeservations a weighted value earned by the proponderance of their cumulative offerings [there are a few at this point I barely skim].

I hope EVERYone continues to post and reply. Cuz EVERYone benefits.

Part of a poem by Rudard Kipling [the poem is "IF"] reads: if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you... but make allowances for their doubting too... [whole poem is great]

I can honestly say I respect everyone who has posted in this thread [and I can honestly say that I can't always honestly say that of everyone who posts...lol] and I'd regret and not have as rich an experience in my learning if they stopped.

I'd request that you guys all continue to participate in discussion; 'spirited' sometimes fer sure but when it is from informed and gifted folks then over the course of time the best answer will perculate to the top.

If experienced, educated, dedicated individuals disengage then it is us neophites who lose the most.

In order of desire I'd like to see:

an auto diesel conversion
a equal to egg/certified [safety, cost, performance] diesel manufactured
an auto gasser coversion
an auto gasser manufactured [like eggie's]
a certified [or certified type]

Much progress has been made and I honestly believe that we [actually I've contributed nothing, I'm just a deadbeat, dweeb newbie] are on the cusp of making certified [cert/types] inferior - it is a 'break even' from what I've learned thus far.

I think Gassers [I wish it were diesels] like the Subie are the future and the combo of them improving and fuel supplies with converge to make it 'the choice' before a new certified hung this summer on a GA A-C needs rebuilding.

Please, don't get pissed off when someone 'expands' upon an original thought. I agree Geo. didn't stick "laser focused" to the topic but don't agree what he had to say was 'off topic' either. I believe it would have been equally appropriate to reply in this thread or start a new one to make his observations but I know a bit more because Ross started this post [I think he did?] and that Geo. replied.

I appreciate both you guys [and others] - I already know you both have reasoned positions that differ and I can accept that. Heck, if we didn't have differing opinions we'd all be flying bi-planes and laying at the center of the lower wing.

I think part of the specific conflict with this issue is Van designed the RV for a certified. The RV is inherently conformed to that power supply. If someone did the same thing w/ a Egg. then the opposite would be naturally true.

I wonder if we can't all 'play nice'.

I for one will greatly appreciate it because I want to hear what you have to say.

just one guy's opinion

John

[osxuser]

Originally Posted by cjensen

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the write up on the visit with Jan.

Can you or someone tell me where I can get a new Lyclone-Hartzell combo installed and running for $5-7k less than the Egg? My very simple math numbers indicate this-

A new 360 from ECi (pick one, they all are about the same) costs $22,000. Add the Hartzell at $5900 (from Vans). Add the firewall forward package $4725 (from Vans). And electronic ignition $1800 (to compare apples to apples to the Egg with EI). That adds up to $34,425 ($32,625 w/o EI).

A new H-6 costs $23,995 (this includes all firewall forward accesories). Add the CS prop for $8000. Add the hot water heat package $595. That adds up to $32,590.

Since this is a thread on the H-6 with the FP prop, here are those numbers-

360, $22k, FWF $3,350, Sensenich prop $2,025, and EI $1,800=$29,175

H-6, $24k, FP prop $3,200, Hot water heat $595=$27,795

Not an argument. Just curious as to where the cheaper clones are...

ECi's kit engines for one. And the FP prop has yet to prove comparable with a lycoming and the FP, certainly NOT the 360 (the 320 is closer, looking at the last thread on the H-6). And why do you got to throw an $1800 EI on the lycoming? Oh yeah, to make it more expensive... Single EI is cheaper, so I'm assumeing that was duel EI? And of course mags are even cheaper than that.

If your not looking for brand new, you can also buy a run-out O-320 for arond $3500 and rebuild it your self at a SUBSTANTUAL savings. Or have it rebuild professionally and still end up at about $15K for the engine. Our O-360A1A is getting rebuilt right now for 11K at the shop...

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by osxuser

ECi's kit engines for one. And the FP prop has yet to prove comparable with a lycoming and the FP, certainly NOT the 360 (the 320 is closer, looking at the last thread on the H-6). And why do you got to throw an $1800 EI on the lycoming? Oh yeah, to make it more expensive... Single EI is cheaper, so I'm assumeing that was duel EI? And of course mags are even cheaper than that.

I know one person who is building an ECi engine himself, and expects to save about two grand. He has the skills, I don't. I would gladly hand over the $2k to someone who is a professional builder. Also, the kit engines are still being built by authorized shops with minimal savings.

I didn't throw EI on the lyc to make it higher $$$, it's just that the Egg already has EI, and I wanted to compare apples to apples (read the original post). Mags work great, but they do require inpection, and are fixed in their timing. I don't want that. If the H-6 was fixed timing and old fashioned mag'd, I'd leave the EI off. Also, go back and reread my last post, I did include the price without EI, and the price is still comparable (still higher too on the CS).

Originally Posted by osxuser

If your not looking for brand new, you can also buy a run-out O-320 for arond $3500 and rebuild it your self at a SUBSTANTUAL savings. Or have it rebuild professionally and still end up at about $15K for the engine. Our O-360A1A is getting rebuilt right now for 11K at the shop...

I am looking for new, but if I weren't, I could find a used Subaru, or rotary, or whatever at a substantial savings and rebuild it myself. But like I said, I don't have the skill set, nor do I want to do that. A good friend of mine is building his own rotary, and there is a TON of work in doing it yourself. Also, ask Ross, he did it, and saved himself a ton of money.

I am in NO WAY denying that the Egg is expensive. It is. But so is a new clone (or even worse a brand new brand name Lycoming!! )

[Jconard]

to make it apples to apples, you have to factor the cost of dual computer boxes and necessary engineering for the sube, as well as an infinite ability to run without any electricity.

Once you do that, it will be capable of running as reliably in an airplane as a mag equipped lycoming.

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by Jconard

to make it apples to apples, you have to factor the cost of dual computer boxes and necessary engineering for the sube, as well as an infinite ability to run without any electricity.

Once you do that, it will be capable of running as reliably in an airplane as a mag equipped lycoming.

The Eggenfellner runs with one ECU or engine computer, not two. It's included with the package.

You are right about the electricity requirement. You've got to make sure there is reliable electricity, or you're a glider. Thankfully, today there are many good, clearly documented techniques to create a hyper-reliable electrical system. With only one alternator, if it quits, you need to get on the ground within a couple of hours or so. If it happens to me, I'll land at the next airport.

[Jconard]

You will not have hours, the twin fuel pumps alone will draw close to 20 amps. The issue is apples to apples comparison, of configuration. I am pointing out that for the same functional capability the sube would need two independant, redundant ignition sources, and fuel and ignition systems capable of indefinite endurance without power.

I won't open up the fuel burn issue again, but EI for the lyc is not necessary to achieve fuel and performance parity between the engines.

A more reasonable comparison would be a mag ignited, carbureted engine with a CS prop, and a sube with dual independant computers, and a c/s prop.

Still give up 150 lbs of weight and fuel burn/performance, as well as untold increase in complexity by going with the sube, but at least the cost comparison would be more meaningful.

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by Jconard

A more reasonable comparison would be a mag ignited, carbureted engine with a CS prop, and a sube with dual independant computers, and a c/s prop.

What???

Originally Posted by Jconard

Still give up 150 lbs of weight and fuel burn/performance, as well as untold increase in complexity by going with the sube, but at least the cost comparison would be more meaningful.

Wow! Now it's 150 pounds...

[rodrv6]

Originally Posted by Jconard

You will not have hours, the twin fuel pumps alone will draw close to 20 amps. The issue is apples to apples comparison, of configuration. I am pointing out that for the same functional capability the sube would need two independant, redundant ignition sources, and fuel and ignition systems capable of indefinite endurance without power.
............

First of all, in the Eggenfellner installation you don't run both pumps at the same time. One is the primary and the other is a backup, either one will supply more than enough fuel by itself. The capacity of a single battery, not being charged by an alternator, to run the engine has been tested. The time until the voltage fell to the point that the engine finally quit running (around 7 volts) was 84 minutes. That test didn't use the main battery at all. It was still sitting there with the ability to have been used if needed for another 80 minutes or so. This test was done on the ground, but with all the normal inflight electrical loads and with the engine running at power, not at idle. The system as developed by Eggenfellner has, to this point, proven to be extremely reliable when installed per the install manual. Is it more complex than a Lycoming installation? Yes, in some respects, but not overly so. As far as redundant ignition systems and such, there are several layers of redundancy built in to the control system and there are no moving parts in the distributerless ignition system that uses individual coil packs for each cylinder. Yes, there is a potential for a single component failure to stop the engine (crank position sensor is one), but again, that is a solid state sensor with no moving parts that has seen use in hundreds of thousands of engines. Magnetoes are very reliable, but they are not 100% reliable either, and having both go at or near the same time has happened. I had a friend who was killed in a crash about 20 years ago due to both mags failing within moments of each other.
I guess my point is that there are no engine installations that are 100% reliable or foolproof. With all the emphasis on redundancy and backups, there are still several areas in any engine that will cause a single failure total shutdown. The idea is to design in such a way as to minimize those chances. I wouldn't have purchased a Subaru for my RV6 if I didn't feel like it was at least as reliable as anything else out there.
OK, I'll get down off of my soapbox now.

Edit: I was curious about how long it took me to install my engine with its "untold increase in complexity" and get it running. From the time I recieved the engine until I did my first engine run with all the systems hooked up and operating, was 39 hours. This does not include time on the cowl installation (haven't started that yet), but does include the time for all of the electrical, instrumentation, cooling, exhaust, and fuselage mounted fuel components (wings are not on yet). I have no idea how this compares to a Lycoming installation, but would be curious to see.