[pierre smith]

Egg packages for sale. Moved from another Thread

Hey, if you know of some STI engines someone wants to give away, let me know.

I'm serious.

....for less than half price with approximately 250TT on it and a three bladed electric composite prop. It's an Eggenfellner FF system with motor mount for a -7.

PM me for contact info.

Regards,

 

[Steve A]

Sell an H-6 Subaru

I know of a H-6 Subaru with MT-7 Prop, spinner, heater, Gen III drive
mufflers for sale for 14,000. Less than half original. Has 1 hour in the air and 10 hours of testing.

Send a PM.

S Anderson

 

[gipsowh]

E-6T Package for sale

I've got a E-6T Rv-10 package for sale. 2007 engine with 1hr factory test only. Includes 4-blade Quinti prop, RV-10 E-cowl, Will let go for 50% what I paid. Send me a PM if interested. Thanks

 

[rv8ch]

STI engine for sale

I've got an STI I will be happy to sell.

 

[gipsowh]

Egg E-6T FWF Package, Prop, Extras

Refresh

I still have a new E-6T RV-10 package for sale. 2007 engine with 1hr factory test only. Includes beautiful 4-blade Sensenich/Quinti composite prop, RV-10 E-cowl. Steal it from me for 50% what I paid. Send me a PM if interested. Thanks

 

[pierre smith]

How 'bout 1/4th of new??

My buddy removed the Eggenfelner 4 cyl Sube with electric MT prop ($9,100 and it'll fit a solid crank Lyc). Has around 250 TT since new.

Original FWF cost $23,000
prop $9,100
New genIII gearbox 4,500
New exhaust system1,500
-------
$38,100 Buy it all for $9,000 or just the prop. It's located in Sandersville, Ga (OKZ).

Speak with Ray Lawrence 478 232 9560

Regards,

 

[rv8ch]

MT Prop

My buddy removed the Eggenfelner 4 cyl Sube with electric MT prop ($9,100 and it'll fit a solid crank Lyc).

Just one note, I believe this prop has some pretty big limitations on which lyco it will work on.

 

[mquam99]

egg engine

I see this was originally on a 7. could it be placed on a 9A?

 

[Jumbo]

RV-9 with Egg H-4

yes, it will. There are several RV-9 flying with and it looks like it is a good match.

Heinz

 

[David-aviator]

yes, it will. There are several RV-9 flying with and it looks like it is a good match.

Heinz

Heinz,

The MT propeller sold by EGG and used with EGG engines is the MT-7-C/183-51 version.

MT factory advised me it is NOT suitable for a Lycoming engine as I wanted to use it with the 0360 - if the question was about using it with a Lycoming engine.

 

[Jumbo]

sorry!!

Upps, I got that wrong than. What I meant is that the Subie 2.5 ltr. with the MTV-7 is a good match for a conservative powered RV9.

OF COURSE you can?t use the MTV-7 on a Lyco.

Sorry for any inconveniance caused.

Heinz

 

[N62XS]

"Do not put any alternative engine on unless you are willing to be a test pilot every time you fly, you have vast knowledge of airplane structures and engine systems, you are surrounded by many knowledgeable people and you have deep pockets. For me it has been a great experience but I have a lot of persistance and the quest for knowledge. I trust my airplane as much as I trust any airplane, not very much. Currently there is NO FWF package out there for alternative engines that you can bolt on and go. You will be a test pilot. Again you will be a test pilot. Don't believe what ANY alternative engine builder says about proven systems because there are no completely proven systems yet for the RV. Would I put a Lyco on my RV-10? Not in a million years! But remember if you don't put a lyco on you are much more of a test pilot than if you do put a Lyco on.

Cooling for some reason seems to be an area that some alternative engine builders just don't get. I think many of the problems are cooling related even some of the PSRU problems. If your oil is at 240-250 degrees what do you think your PSRU is at?
Just my $.02." Todd Sweezy

Todd:

The other thread was closed before I could offer my well said thanks to you excellent and accurate post. Kudos, my friend.

 

[C-GRVT]

sorry, test pilot? How can that be?

This from the Eggenfellner website:

"An engine aircraft conversion done by Eggenfellner Aircraft INC. will provide all the power and dependability your home-built baby deserves. It will also give you low initial cost, ease of installation and economy of operation in one complete, modern package. Glastar, RV, or your own design, an Eggenfellner engine ? 175 to 200 hp of smooth, reliable power - is the right choice for you."

Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit

 

[C-GRVT]

my point

not really expressed in the last post, is that if a builder wants to be a test pilot, that is one thing, and with appropriate skills, managing risk to the extent reasonable, eyes wide open, that is one thing. My hat is off to such people, and homebuilding (and aviation) is the richer for it.
It is another thing if builders find themselves in the position of test pilot with no intention of being there.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit

 

[TSwezey]

not really expressed in the last post, is that if a builder wants to be a test pilot, that is one thing, and with appropriate skills, managing risk to the extent reasonable, eyes wide open, that is one thing. My hat is off to such people, and homebuilding (and aviation) is the richer for it.
It is another thing if builders find themselves in the position of test pilot with no intention of being there.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit

That is what Robby is trying to point out I think along with fact that all of these are not tried and true complete FWF systems. Thousands upon thousands of hours of testing in a controlled environment have not been completed on these packages.

 

[Ironflight]

I rarely if ever post on these Alternative Engine issues, but I will make an exception to applaud your very succinct and accurate post Todd. I will be the first to tell people that I am not prejudiced against people who want to experiment with alternative powerplants - this is experimental, homebuilt aviation, and it is your right to do so! For many, the love of tinkering is the most important thing about aviation, and this is a great area in which you can do just that - tinker. I honestly have a tremendous amount of respect for the folks that do this with their eyes open and the ability and patience to carry through. I do, however, have a problem with folks that sell the concept as "complete, trouble-free, ready to fly thousands and thousands of hours without a care". It's just not there yet.

Here's my personal acid test. If I were considering an advertised FWF package, I'd ask to see the engine supplier's test airframe. Not one they are borrowing, not a customer's airframe on which they are doing development - their airplane. If they don't have one, then I'd pass. Why? Because if you have the resources necessary to develop, manufacture, and test a reliable aircraft powerplant, the cost of an airframe on which to test it is pretty negligible. If you don't have the resources to own one, then you probably don't have the resources to do the job right. A very broad, sweeping, and generalized statement, I know....but for the most part, I believe it to be true.

Paul

 

[David-aviator]

Todd has spelled it out perfectly. He speaks the truth hands down.

Having been down the trail with an alternate engine may I simply add that flying behind the Subby was most exhilarating and rewarding somedays, especially in cool weather. It really hauled butt getting off the ground behind that shimmering MT prop in an evening setting sun. Smooth as a PT-6 and purring like an unleashed animal. Everyone local knew when Subby was doing its thing. Nothing sounded like it - six cylinders running at 5000 rpm is slightly awesome in any airplane.

But there was never a flight without some amazement at getting back without an incident. It's the nature of the beast. Some of us may not be a test pilot in a formal sense, but you are a pilot being tested on every flight, that is for sure, like it or not.

Do I regret doing it - nope. (except for the lost money)

Would I do it again - nope. (but in fact, had the engine developed sufficient power to fly along side an 0360 and been a bit less of a challenge to cool, I might still be with it)

About 325 hours behind 2 Subbies and not all of it bad....it feels better remembering the good times.

 

[Ron Lee]

David, how much slower was the Subaru compared to an O-360?

 

[L.Adamson]

Everyone local knew when Subby was doing its thing. Nothing sounded like it - six cylinders running at 5000 rpm is slightly awesome in any airplane.

Apparently it sounds better from within the cockpit.

On the ground, we make jokes that the airport tenants are going to have the Subie banned. It's kind of a loud high rpm sound, that makes you look to the sky. But then you expect the airplane to be going a lot faster to match the sound.... which it doesn't..

But yes, every local definitly knows the Subie is doing it's thing...

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[David-aviator]

David, how much slower was the Subaru compared to an O-360?

H6 speed runs on 9/29/04, MT7 CS PROP
No intersection farings
8500'
WOT
RPM2500
FF 11.2
KTAS 152 (175mph)

12,500'
WOT
RPM2600
FF 10.1
KTAS 148 (170mph)

IO360 (180HP) speed runs recently, CATTO FP 3BLADE PROP

8500'
WOT
RPM2820
FF 11.8
KTAS 175 (201mph)

12,500'
WOT
RPM2710
FF 10.4
KTAS 166 (191mph)

Note: these numbers are not flight test scientific. Just an average pilot writing down what he sees and verifying TAS with GPS.

Typical flight planning for me is 8 gph. The H6 settled down at 143 KTAS, the Lycoming runs at 151 KTAS or better. In fact with LOP ops, the Lycoming was running 148 KTAS at 7.4 gph to and from OSH this year. No LOP with Subby.

 

[BillSchlatterer]

Who makes the choice for your passenger ?

Maybe it's just me but even if I wanted to be the test pilot,.. which I don't,... who makes the decision for your passenger, friend, and/or family member? As builder/owner, you certainly should know the risks and can make that informed decision for yourself. After all, you probably built it but how qualified are they to make the choice? We have seen accidents in the last year where the flight was minutes away from hauling uninformed passengers.

Most of the alternative packages look pretty good, sound cool, and the kool aid that says it's all new technology is easy to drink. Now once I've sampled and made the decision, how do I convey the real differnce in risk to my passenger who may not even be a pilot much less a builder. They don't know the difference between a dinosaur but proven Lyc which statistically doesn't fall out of the sky with a well maintained airplane and a cool sounding car conversion which will never be more than about 100 produced before the model changes.

The answer is that they will trust you/me to make that decision for them and I often wonder if the average builder putting one of the "complete FWF packages" in really has the expertise to make that decision for someone else?

After visting the "factories" and watching the lists for the last 5 years, I am confident that I would be willing to accept the risk personally but just won't make that decision for anyone else. Once I got to that point, all the kool-aid in the world couldn't move me from a time-tested engine (LYC) for my two place go fast family and friend hauler!

When I see these "proven complete FWF" kits being listed for about 50% of the price the orginal owner paid, I feel like the responsiblity for passengers and the economics make it pretty logical to let someone else experiment until the package is not really experimental any more.

Just an opinion, no real heat.

Bill S
7a finishing (Lyc/HBA)

 

[frankh]

The chain is as strong as it's weakest link

This was the title of an article I wrote for kitplanes magazine about my experiences with a 1.8l soob. Same as ever, fabulous claims of a completely engineered package...the thing was great till the valve guides fell out on mine and others engines. Then the finger pointing started and I eventually engineered the thing properly and the company concerned no longer sells complete packages....that was enough for me but the engine is now very relible in the hands of it's new owners.

Frank

 

[RScott]

I searched the NTSB data base for RV-9 accidents. Of the 13 accidents listed, 4 involved a Subaru engine. That's 31% of the accidents. I seriously doubt that 31% of the RV-9's have a Subaru. Sure it's a small sample size and the frequency could be just a sampling blip. If you want a bigger sample size, do your own search for RV-6's and others:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

BTW, so far, no fatal RV-9 accidents are on the data base.

 

[CraigC]

Todd has spelled it out perfectly. He speaks the truth hands down.

Having been down the trail with an alternate engine may I simply add that flying behind the Subby was most exhilarating and rewarding somedays, especially in cool weather. It really hauled butt getting off the ground behind that shimmering MT prop in an evening setting sun. Smooth as a PT-6 and purring like an unleashed animal. Everyone local knew when Subby was doing its thing. Nothing sounded like it - six cylinders running at 5000 rpm is slightly awesome in any airplane.

But there was never a flight without some amazement at getting back without an incident. It's the nature of the beast. Some of us may not be a test pilot in a formal sense, but you are a pilot being tested on every flight, that is for sure, like it or not.

Do I regret doing it - nope. (except for the lost money)

Would I do it again - nope. (but in fact, had the engine developed sufficient power to fly along side an 0360 and been a bit less of a challenge to cool, I might still be with it)

About 325 hours behind 2 Subbies and not all of it bad....it feels better remembering the good times.

David,

You did not have 325 "good" hours. The one accident was the engine right?

 

[ken westlund]

Alternative engines

When I was a young man I thought nothing could be more economical and prodcuce more power than an automotive engine in an airplane. I mean hokie smoke! I could hop up a small block Chevie engine to well over 400hp no problem and with cheap parts too, easy. However, that was before I learned to fly. Thats when I found out what we demand of aircraft engines. We run them at wide open throttle at altitude for hours on end. They develope peak power at 2700rpm and are built to last in cruise at 2300rpm to 2500rpm for quite a long time. Now consider an automotive engine. We rarely ask it to operate at wot, maybe a short burst on a freeway on ramp or the open road. But never for any extended period of time. Think about how much you have your foot in it at 70 mph. Maybe you've got 20% of the throttle to maintain that speed. I've been involved as an autombile tech for forty years now. Me, I'll go with the Lyc any day. You want to fly with a car engine, fine. My advise to you is to stay close to the airfield. especially if you are going to ask that engine to preform like a purpose built aircraft engine. K

 

[lufthans.nl]

Ken,

If one takes the right engine to start with, then the power that we ask the thing to deliver is not the problem. After all, the rest of the world drives a lot faster than you guys do in the US (Germany is just around the corner from me, and doing 120 mph+ for extended periods of time is certainly no exception there, provided you avoid the busy hours). My car has 200,000 miles on it without exploding or anything.

It's the systems surrounding the engine that pose the problems.

Gearboxes are often not fully developed and can fail from torsional vibration or simply wear out. Fuel and spark delivery systems are pretty well developed, but can still pose challenges (especially in getting the thing to start properly, but any Lycoming driver could say the same). Fuel systems pose their own challenges, as do electrical systems. The big killer seems to be cooling though. Funny, as we've known for 65+ years how to cool a liquid cooled aircraft engine. Somehow most builders and vendors chose to ignore this knowledge and follow the beaten path to failure instead.

The secret to good and efficient cooling of a liquid cooled engine is in the placement of the radiator(s). These should NOT be FWF, period.

Just compare a P40 Kitty Hawk to a P51 or Spitfire. That big, ugly chin radiator on the P40 was draggy as sin, and the Spit and P51 cooled better despite having more horsepower. Go figure.

And yet we see everybody horse around with ever larger radiators under the cowling. Sure, given enough overkill you'll get these to cool the engine, but at what cost in terms of drag (and frustration)?

Putting my money where my mouth is, I installed two radiators in the wings of my Jodel and - after admittedly lots of experimenting - get superb cooling. In any kind of weather I can idle it on the ground all day without overheating, then take off and climb to whatever altitude at full power, even at Vx if I want, without the needle ever moving one bit.

My personal bottom line: Indeed, installing these engines is not for everybody. They are definately NOT the plug-and-play that the vendors want us to believe. But if you do it right, these engines CAN be the best thing since sliced bread. Silent, smooth, powerful, economical, fast. I wouldn't fly anyting else...

My 2 cents...

Hans

 

[mquam99]

subie engines

Where would one go about researching the 2.5 liter subie??

I dont see it on jan's site

thanks

 

[mdredmond]

Please no flames - just tell me to shut up if I'm out of line...

But why do so many people seek out alternative engines? From what I've seen they cost as much or more than a Lycoming and are more complicated (more moving parts anyway).

What is it the alternative engines offer that has so many people attracted to them?

I would dearly love a diesel for a number of financial and safety reasons, but I fail to see what a gasoline powered auto engine offers. They seem to be a loser on price, complexity, reliability and operating costs. And there seem to be a lot of guys selling low-time used conversions - why is that?


I'm seriously curious because I'm nowhere near an engine decision but I will be sooner or later.

 

[ken westlund]

Hans, As you said and as I said, also. A PURPOSE BUILT ENGINE. You may run your vehicle at 120mph for a period of time. I have run my own like that too. However, basically what I'm saying is this. The manifold pressures that you see in "automotive" engines are not as high for extened periods of time. You may have 200k on you car but, I'll bet you a euro to a hole in a doughnut that most of it's life was spent well below say 20in of map. What I'm also saying, and as you said plug and play aint gunna work. The most common alternative that we seem to see are Subaru auto engines. I say people are asking way to much of these engines to expect reliability. There is a local company here offering fwf packages of these, complete. But, for $35k US. Whoa, I can have a Lycoming for that! A Subaru motor putting out 200hp + for extended periods of time to me is nothing short of crazy. Somewhere in Van's literature I know I that I've seen the quote, "If I knew you were going to use it for that, I would have deisgned it like this." My machine is being built for cross country. I aint into experimenting with an auto motor in the mountains. K

 

[N941WR]

...They develope peak power at 2700rpm and are built to last in cruise at 2300rpm to 2500rpm for quite a long time...

More like 2700 RPM for the life of the engine. Remember at 8K that RPM will get 75% power.

My business partner has just under 500 hours on his rotary, a package he designed and built himself.

He is fond of saying that you can tell a successful alternative engine installation if they show up at the same fly-in with that engine installed two years in a row.

 

[frankh]

Maybe

Ken,

If one takes the right engine to start with, then the power that we ask the thing to deliver is not the problem. After all, the rest of the world drives a lot faster than you guys do in the US (Germany is just around the corner from me, and doing 120 mph+ for extended periods of time is certainly no exception there, provided you avoid the busy hours). My car has 200,000 miles on it without exploding or anything.

It's the systems surrounding the engine that pose the problems.

Gearboxes are often not fully developed and can fail from torsional vibration or simply wear out. Fuel and spark delivery systems are pretty well developed, but can still pose challenges (especially in getting the thing to start properly, but any Lycoming driver could say the same). Fuel systems pose their own challenges, as do electrical systems. The big killer seems to be cooling though. Funny, as we've known for 65+ years how to cool a liquid cooled aircraft engine. Somehow most builders and vendors chose to ignore this knowledge and follow the beaten path to failure instead.

The secret to good and efficient cooling of a liquid cooled engine is in the placement of the radiator(s). These should NOT be FWF, period.

Just compare a P40 Kitty Hawk to a P51 or Spitfire. That big, ugly chin radiator on the P40 was draggy as sin, and the Spit and P51 cooled better despite having more horsepower. Go figure.

And yet we see everybody horse around with ever larger radiators under the cowling. Sure, given enough overkill you'll get these to cool the engine, but at what cost in terms of drag (and frustration)?

Putting my money where my mouth is, I installed two radiators in the wings of my Jodel and - after admittedly lots of experimenting - get superb cooling. In any kind of weather I can idle it on the ground all day without overheating, then take off and climb to whatever altitude at full power, even at Vx if I want, without the needle ever moving one bit.

My personal bottom line: Indeed, installing these engines is not for everybody. They are definately NOT the plug-and-play that the vendors want us to believe. But if you do it right, these engines CAN be the best thing since sliced bread. Silent, smooth, powerful, economical, fast. I wouldn't fly anyting else...

My 2 cents...

Hans

I would agree automotive engines (provided they have not been messed with..see my note about valve guides above) are superbly reliable..But of course they are, they have had tens of thousands of hours development work thrown at them..The trouble is, that sooby engine is bulletproof, but the gearbox is a developmental unit at best..How many versions of the gearbox is the EGG package now on? The ECU package is HOPEFULLY going to produce enough power in limp home mode?..Oops I guess not? The fuel system is fully developed..Hang on didn't the Egg package have a vapour lock incident causing at least one crash?

Eonomy also comes in many forms...A Lyc will always cost a fortune to rebuild but a few replacement gearboxes ain't cheap either.

if your talking about fuel..i would argue a LYC with modern electronic ignitions running Lean of peak will rival anything from the automotive world..And thats assuming the radiators are put in the right place with carefully designed.cooling packages.

I was an unwilling experimenter too...and I hated the engine, finally re-engineered it in my Zodiac..I even sent jan a deposit, but it was clear he was doing his best with very limited development resources...so I pulled out, and I'm very glad I did.

Frank

 

[N941WR]

...BTW, so far, no fatal RV-9 accidents are on the data base.

I just found this:
(Update: Kevin Horton sends the following: You'll probably get this from a bunch of people, but there has been one fatal RV-9A accident. N96VA, the prototype RV-9A (called the RV-9, as at that time they didn't plan to do a TW version) was lost in a fatal accident. Bill Benedict (Van's employee) and his son Jeremy were killed on the way to Sun n Fun in April 2000. For some reason the FAA registration has the aircraft as an RV-6T, but it was in fact the prototype RV-9.)

On this web site.

 

[twsurveyor]

Confucius say: "Expermintal engine on Expermintal Airplane No Good"!!!!!

Tommy Walker
RV-6A, N 350 TW
O-360 Lycoming (and proud of it!)

 

[RickWoodall]

Well

Hey Matt
When i first got interested in building I was still in pilot training. I heard all sorts of stories of leaky lyco's. Even new ones seemed to need oil added all the time. Then everything we flew at the clubs iwas old and all lyco. Being younger and dumber...I thought I was way smarter. Those subie engines are sweet. Amazing, we have all seem them get pounded in the day long races..high tech, high performance. Compared to a lycosaurus..seemed like a no brainer. I went so far as to bid and almost win an egg that a builder had on ebay during his divorce. It was an sti. Thank the good lord, I didnt get it. I waited...i learned and talked to lots of people (including jan) and some subie owners, that i finally admitted were smarter than me. Lyco with some bells and whistles it is. Good price and great engine. Now eggs are half of what they cost a couple years ago. At osh his tent was barren and the kits where super cheap...must not be selling well. People are always looking for a better mouse trap, but with my wife or kids with me...reliability comes first. Seems most subie buyers are low time pilots or engineer types who like the technology, but dont have a lot of in air time. Just my free opinion.

 

[ken westlund]

Alternative engines

twsurveyor......... YOU DA MAN !!!!!

 

[L.Adamson]

For some reason the FAA registration has the aircraft as an RV-6T, but it was in fact the prototype RV-9.)

It's first life was as a "6". I once knew what the T meant, but it's been too long to remember.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[roadrunner20]

Five years ago, I placed my $250 deposit on the Egg also thinking it was plug-n-play because I was weak on fwf skills. I even went for a test ride.

I then opted out and went with the Superior XIO-360 because I felt it was too experimental for me.

Very happy I went that route.

 

[David-aviator]

Please no flames - just tell me to shut up if I'm out of line...

But why do so many people seek out alternative engines? From what I've seen they cost as much or more than a Lycoming and are more complicated (more moving parts anyway).

What is it the alternative engines offer that has so many people attracted to them?

I would dearly love a diesel for a number of financial and safety reasons, but I fail to see what a gasoline powered auto engine offers. They seem to be a loser on price, complexity, reliability and operating costs. And there seem to be a lot of guys selling low-time used conversions - why is that?


I'm seriously curious because I'm nowhere near an engine decision but I will be sooner or later.

You're not out of line and here's a short answer.

Some go with new stuff because the old stuff is somewhat boring.

This is experimental aviation, why not try something new?

But that too gets old if things don't work out - so it's back to what does work.

End of short answer....

 

[mdredmond]

Some go with new stuff because the old stuff is somewhat boring.

I've got an uncle who is an M.E. and former V.W./Porsche engineer. He thinks the horizontally-opposed V.W. engine used in their Vanagons is the cat's meow.

He's building a Pietenpol and can't go with the standard Piet wing - gotta have a new and better airfoil. Gotta get an extra 5 knots out of a 70 knot Sunday morning airplane... I just don't get it.

I guess I can understand tinkering for tinkering's sake, but I'll do that with my car, not the vehicle carrying me over the Rockies. Nope, it's going to be a shiny new O-320 from Van's for me.

 

[bhassel]

I became excited by the egg package for what it offered (or at least was trying to offer). The idea of a real heater, new technology and a plug and play engine package was very appealing. In the beginning the STI was even cheaper...

That was then and as my cats constantly tell me - this is 'NOWWWWWW'.

Lyco's look pretty good!

Bob

 

[mdredmond]

There's no denying that the Lycoming is 40 or 50 year old technology and it's tempting to blow Lycoming off as a bunch of fuddie-duddies stuck in the past. Sure, they burn oil, But how often do maintained engines fail in certified planes? I'd guess it's very rare.

Then you see in another thread that of the recent RV-9 wrecks, 30% were auto conversions. I didn't notice if they were all because of engine failures.

Gotta say, though, that Eggenfellner's current prices (!7k FWF) look pretty darn good.

 

[Danny7]

The other thread was closed before I could offer my well said thanks to you excellent and accurate post. Kudos, my friend.

Robby, the thread ended also before i could say it was a simple mistake with you name. sorry i got it wrong.

 

[az_gila]

RV-6T

It's first life was as a "6". I once knew what the T meant, but it's been too long to remember.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

...wasn't the "T" model the prototype for the Trainer version used by the Nigerians?

 

[pierre smith]

Hi Matt..

But why do so many people seek out alternative engines? From what I've seen they cost as much or more than a Lycoming and are more complicated (more moving parts anyway).


I'm seriously curious because I'm nowhere near an engine decision but I will be sooner or later.

A friend of mine wanted to fly off his own private strip using car gas. So he went down to Florida and took a ride in an RV with the 4 cylinder sube with Jan. The smoothness and easy starting impressed him, as did the ability to run car gas since he farms and has bulk diesel and auto fuel.

There were problems from day one, namely very high coolant temps around 240* which were never really lowered. Then he spent $4,500 on the Gen III gearbox and still only went 162 MPH at 34" and 4800 engine revs with the prop at 2700, while we were doing 201 MPH with the Lyc.

He's now flying a 180 Lyc and also doing 202 MPH in his -7. The $36,000 is history now...the cost of the original package, the prop and the gen 3 gearbox. Oh, the gearbox that came off had metal in the oil!! The whole package is for sale for less than a third of what he has in it.

Regards,

 

[N941WR]

...wasn't the "T" model the prototype for the Trainer version used by the Nigerians?

I don't know about that but I do know the first "9" was a heavily modified -6.

IIRC, it started life as a -6 but Van's changed the VS, HS, and wing, which made it a -9. Heck, it even had a O-235 upr front.

Maybe Scott will jump in here and set us straight.

 

[C-GRVT]

informed decision

This thread seems to be merging somewhat with "Alternative Engine Discussion".
Matt asked what do alternative engines have that has so many people attracted to them.
There are two types of people attracted - those who like the "experimental" in "experimental aviation", and in the best tradition of our hobby/passion embrace the regulatory freedom that we have to happily tinker and test, recognizing that they are test pilots and accepting the risk that entails.
Then there are those who want the latest and best technology available to build a safe, reliable aircraft with good performance. This group has no desire to be test pilots. They will pay Lycoming prices for what they believe is a newer and better technology engine.
No problem if people make an informed decision. The problem is when they don't, and particularly when people expose themselves (and possibly friends and family) to risks that they never agreed or understood that they were taking on, and likely are not prepared to take on.
One vendor describes his product as offering the following:

"... will provide all the power and dependability your home-built baby deserves. It will also give you low initial cost, ease of installation and economy of operation in one complete, modern package. Glastar, RV, or your own design, ..... 175 to 200 hp of smooth, reliable power - is the right choice for you."

I am in the second category of builder, a low time, week-end flyer, looking to build a great aircraft for myself and to share and impart my joy of flying to my young son. I am no test pilot, and would never intentionally expose my son or other family members or (unwitting) friends to the risks of testing and developing an unproven engine.

Yet based on the above type of vendor description, I seriously considered an alternative engine, although in the end I did not go that route.

Our hobby/sport gives us the freedom to make a wide variety of choices with limited regulatory oversight. That freedom is put at risk if builders, kit manufacturers and vendors do not act responsibly. This is not to suggest at all that developing, selling or using alternative engine technology is irresponsible, in fact, quite the opposite, the freedom to do so is a great advantage of experimental aviation, and sure to contribute great benefits to aviation in general. But we must all act responsibly, and that requires the ability to make informed decisions.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A in progress

I

 

[lufthans.nl]

I would agree automotive engines (provided they have not been messed with..see my note about valve guides above) are superbly reliable..But of course they are, they have had tens of thousands of hours development work thrown at them..The trouble is, that sooby engine is bulletproof, but the gearbox is a developmental unit at best..How many versions of the gearbox is the EGG package now on? The ECU package is HOPEFULLY going to produce enough power in limp home mode?..Oops I guess not? The fuel system is fully developed..Hang on didn't the Egg package have a vapour lock incident causing at least one crash?

We are in full agreement here.

In fact the ECU doesn't even have a limp home mode. It's an aftermarket ECU (of excellent track record). Not having limp home is a godsent, I'd say. I'd rather not have a tweaked ECU that is fooled into thinking it's still in a car... Since the swap to these ECU's, I'm not aware of any more downed aircraft due to ECU issues.

The Egg gearbox is... well... Let's say that when I saw the latest model taken apart this spring, I was less tham impressed with what's inside. It's relying on oversized parts more than it is on finesse, but the current versions seems to be holding up in everyday life. Again, I agree that Eggenfeller is using his customers as his test-team. Not good, if you ask me.

I've been banned from Eggenfellners mailing list for speaking up my mind on the fuel system. Hope I won't get banned here. Sucking on fuel is never a good idea if you want to avoid vapour lock. Mind you, this is exactly what a Lycoming is also doing, but at least a Lyc doesn't have to pump 80% back to the fuel tank through a return line. Sucking on 60 GHP of fuel is a sure way of getting in trouble at altitude and in hot weather. Luckily, automotive engineers have spent cubic yen / dollar / Euro on this issue and doing it right is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it requires a bit more the builder (constructing and placing a header tank and placing the fuel pumps in or right under there, or place the fuel pumps inside the wing tanks), which is what Eggenfellner wants to avoid, as it gets in the way of the "easy plug an play" idea. (Same reason why he's putting the radiators at the worst possible spot in the plane)

Eonomy also comes in many forms...A Lyc will always cost a fortune to rebuild but a few replacement gearboxes ain't cheap either.

if your talking about fuel..i would argue a LYC with modern electronic ignitions running Lean of peak will rival anything from the automotive world..And thats assuming the radiators are put in the right place with carefully designed.cooling packages.

I was an unwilling experimenter too...and I hated the engine, finally re-engineered it in my Zodiac..I even sent jan a deposit, but it was clear he was doing his best with very limited development resources...so I pulled out, and I'm very glad I did.

Frank

There's no magic in engine technology. Running a Lyc LOP will indeed make it just as economical as an automotive engine. Probably more so even, as most automotive conversions have a more conservative approach to mixtures and will not run LOP.

They CAN run turbine smooth. They will NOT shock cool even if you dive down at 4000 fpm. They will NOT use a drop of oil. They WILL run on mogas.

I like that. Plus I like the challenge of getting these suckers right. I also fully agree that there is a lot to dislike if what you expect to find is a bolt-on replacement of the Lycoming. They aren't and they will never be, simply because to do things right, one must make significant changes to the airframe. Do it right and you'll love the engine. Try to skip steps in cooling, electrical and fuel system, and you'll end up making tweaks till the cows come home.

Just my opinion, of course...

Hans

 

[Mike S]

Expiremental aviation it is.

-----
I like the challenge of getting these suckers right.

Just my opinion, of course...

Hans

Well said Hans, too many folks dont seem to understand that this is a big part of it for some.

Spirit of adventure

 

[deej]

In my opinion only, here are some items that I perceive to be features that I wanted in an engine for my Sportsman:
- Electronic ignition, computer controlled timing
- Fuel injection
- Water cooled (no shock cooling)
- Significantly reduced vibration (smoother feeling engine)
- Single lever engine control (versus separate mixture and throttle)
* Note there is still a separate control for prop pitch for both engines
* No primer required for the Subaru
* No carb heat required for the Subaru
- Reduced chance of fuel vapor lock due to the full flow return fuel system
- Little to no oil consumption (also, no "dirty belly" after flight)
- Quieter
- Ability to burn autofuel (and potentially autofuel containing ethanol if the airframe fuel system is designed and implemented properly)
- Reduced chance of CO in cockpit (heater works from the water cooling, not associated with the exhaust system, which also makes it safer and more effective in my opinion)
- In theory, significantly cheaper overhaul (as far as I know none have had to be overhauled yet that I have read about anyways, and I am unsure of the cost or frequency of overhauling the prop gear reduction unit)
- From talking to my insurance company, no difference in the cost of the policy whether I install a Lyc or Eggenfellner Subaru (however, there is an increased cost if I "roll my own" engine package)

I went to the Glasair Aviation web site and priced out as close as I could get to an equivalent Lycoming engine and FWF accessories to match the Subaru installation.

My price for the Subaru FWF when I bought it, not including any shipping or crating:
Eggenfellner 3.0 E6 $21,300
This includes electronic ignition, engine mount, cabin heater (an optional add-on), 75Amp alternator (an optional upgrade), exhaust system, fuel pumps, starter, cable brackets, oil cooler, and an Andair fuel filter (an add-on).
I'll be using an IVOProp 3 blade variable pitch prop at a cost of $3,120.
My total cost is $24,420 not including any crating or shipping.

From the Glasair Aviation website at the time:
Lycoming Y0-360-A1F6 180hp with Lasar ignition Part No: 501-04000-05X $27,800.00
Lycoming Type I Dynafocal Mount Installation $1,295.00
Shock Bushing For Lycoming Engines $389.00
Engine Baffling Kit $495.00
Lycoming Oil Cooler Installation $908.00
Sportsman IO-360 & IO-390 Injected Induction Installation $199.00
Sportsman and Glastar Muffled Exhaust Systems $1,295.00
Fuel Pump Cooling Shroud $115.00
Cabin Heat System $279.00
Eng. Control Bracket Installation $175.00
Hartzell 74" Constant Speed Propeller $6,183.00
Prop Governor $1,300.00
Total for the Lycoming installation is $40,433, not including any shipping or crating.

 

[frankh]

Incidently

We are in full agreement here.

I've been banned from Eggenfellners mailing list for speaking up my mind on the fuel system.

. They WILL run on mogas.


Just my opinion, of course...

Hans

So have I in fact I sqwarked quite loudly and offered several design revisions and was summarily banned..Then an RV crashed and I believe it was determined to be Vapour lock..

The LYC WILL run on Mogas as well.even mogas with ethanol.

The big proviso was that my Lyc does not have a mechanical fuel pump and has the same wingroot mounted fuel pumps I was suggesting to Jan before the VL incident.


Live and learn..Hopefully!

Frank