Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Eggenfellner engines
- Thread starter TOAD
- Start date
- Status
GearheadsFly
I'm New Here
Reason for Crash
Hi. I am the owner of the airplane that you are speaking of. I was flying the Wheeler to EAA 774's meeting in West Houston where I was scheduled to speak, and experienced a fuel line failure which caused an engine fire. We were forced to land in in very short order and were fortunate to find a rather nice hayfield to set her down. My daughter, another pilot and I escaped without anything more than minor injuries. We were fortunate. We had no choice but to stand and watch as the airplane literally burned to the ground. The NTSB investigation has been published and is available to review. This happened on 10-18-2008, in Montgomery, Texas, and you are welcome to look it up on the NTSB website, would be happy to post the link but their website is having problems tonight and I was unable to get the link to post here.
I am proud to be able to say that my gearbox emerged from the wreck charred and full of thick baked on oily sludge from the heat of the fire, but undamaged. I benched the gearbox after the fact and the Prop shaft was within .001 of the original tolerances, and the case, bearings, gears and other components were totally unharmed. This might not mean anything to anyone until they see the photos. Contact! magazine is running the story in the next issue, I think, or the one following. This has been a terrible loss for me. I am making plans to replace the aircraft, but due to time constraints I have put that on the back burner for a bit. I must devote my time to finalizing the fwf LS1 and Geared Drives package that I will unveil at Sun n Fun this April. I will have it set up and running in the engine demo area for all to see up close and personal.
Just wanted to answer the question. Fuel line failure cost me an aircraft. Fly safe out there.
Best regards
Bud Warren
Hi. I am the owner of the airplane that you are speaking of. I was flying the Wheeler to EAA 774's meeting in West Houston where I was scheduled to speak, and experienced a fuel line failure which caused an engine fire. We were forced to land in in very short order and were fortunate to find a rather nice hayfield to set her down. My daughter, another pilot and I escaped without anything more than minor injuries. We were fortunate. We had no choice but to stand and watch as the airplane literally burned to the ground. The NTSB investigation has been published and is available to review. This happened on 10-18-2008, in Montgomery, Texas, and you are welcome to look it up on the NTSB website, would be happy to post the link but their website is having problems tonight and I was unable to get the link to post here.
I am proud to be able to say that my gearbox emerged from the wreck charred and full of thick baked on oily sludge from the heat of the fire, but undamaged. I benched the gearbox after the fact and the Prop shaft was within .001 of the original tolerances, and the case, bearings, gears and other components were totally unharmed. This might not mean anything to anyone until they see the photos. Contact! magazine is running the story in the next issue, I think, or the one following. This has been a terrible loss for me. I am making plans to replace the aircraft, but due to time constraints I have put that on the back burner for a bit. I must devote my time to finalizing the fwf LS1 and Geared Drives package that I will unveil at Sun n Fun this April. I will have it set up and running in the engine demo area for all to see up close and personal.
Just wanted to answer the question. Fuel line failure cost me an aircraft. Fly safe out there.
Best regards
Bud Warren
Bud,
Welcome to the forums! I have watched you videos over and over again. I can't imagine how hard it was to watch your plane burn. You can do a search on this forum of alternate engines and see the battles/discussions about using car engines in planes. You had one of the most successful Chevy installs out there. Why are you using the LS1 instead of the LS2? What kind of fuel burn rates were you getting in your Express? Though I have your competitors product I am very interested in your success with yours. Hope to see you at Sun-n-Fun.
Welcome to the forums! I have watched you videos over and over again. I can't imagine how hard it was to watch your plane burn. You can do a search on this forum of alternate engines and see the battles/discussions about using car engines in planes. You had one of the most successful Chevy installs out there. Why are you using the LS1 instead of the LS2? What kind of fuel burn rates were you getting in your Express? Though I have your competitors product I am very interested in your success with yours. Hope to see you at Sun-n-Fun.
janeggenfellner
Well Known Member
From Eggenfellner Aircraft.
I have read many positive and some negative remarks about our engines, how we handle our business and about me as a person, on this forum. I want to address some issues: We have about 5 people that hate us. We have several thousand that do not. The 5 can do a lot of damage to a company?s reputation. If you read their posts and web sites, you will see a general lack of ability to actually complete an aircraft project, a general dislike for all vendors and an attitude that reflect an opinion of the airplane building itself. They also have all kinds of "great ideas" that extend the building project endlessly. We have been praised for the wonderful 2.5L simple 4 cylinder engines we built for many years and now, the 3.0 and lately 3.6 six cylinder engines. A few years back, however, we produced 25 Subaru STI engines. These were highly experimental and this was not hidden from anyone. The engine development was an ongoing process with Robert Paisley as the first and VERY successful owner. He set speed records and flew the airplane all over the US. A full-blown STI upgrade program was initiated for all 25 customers, based on the findings from the lead airplane. A few builders did not want to participate because we had to charge for the cost of the upgrade parts. We have also been offering a factory support program; where the engine could be returned and run through a full upgrade procedure, as well as onsite factory support. The STI was a lure to many, that did not have much knowledge about engines, due to the impressive HP numbers posted for the Subaru Rally car. This was the main problem. Some, that should have chosen the simple 2.5L engine, ended up going for the experimental, high output STI. Anyone familiar with engines knows that power does not come without complexity and expense. Bottom line is that the customers should have been carefully chosen for the STI engines. We are now way passed this, other than continuing the STI support program, (See Bill Ferries? engine just completely upgraded on our web site) and are building truly spectacular engine packages. There is no hiding that we have learned many things through the 20 years we have been doing this, it is also true that we are now producing the most complete and beautifully running 170-230HP engines in the world. We are not ashamed of offering a new and stronger reduction drive on all new engines and as a retrofit to all passed engines. Safety is always first on the list. Never has there been any excess money and this would be a crazy business for someone not loving aviation and the joy of constantly making something better. Competent builders have no problem installing any of the latest engines in a few days. Installation time is now further reduced with 2008 engines, due to the pre-wired wire loom for the engine, as well as the engine instrumentation, cowl flap and propeller wiring. I invite anyone to stop by Eggenfellner Aircraft in Edgewater FL at any time to visit with us. Also, take a look at the 2007 /8 installation manual on our web site (eggenfellneraircraft.com) and see for yourself how every step of the installation is documented. We have 100% and 24-hour customer support through our subaruaircraft yahoo forum, e-mail ([email protected]) and phones 386 566 2616.
Jan Eggenfellner
I have read many positive and some negative remarks about our engines, how we handle our business and about me as a person, on this forum. I want to address some issues: We have about 5 people that hate us. We have several thousand that do not. The 5 can do a lot of damage to a company?s reputation. If you read their posts and web sites, you will see a general lack of ability to actually complete an aircraft project, a general dislike for all vendors and an attitude that reflect an opinion of the airplane building itself. They also have all kinds of "great ideas" that extend the building project endlessly. We have been praised for the wonderful 2.5L simple 4 cylinder engines we built for many years and now, the 3.0 and lately 3.6 six cylinder engines. A few years back, however, we produced 25 Subaru STI engines. These were highly experimental and this was not hidden from anyone. The engine development was an ongoing process with Robert Paisley as the first and VERY successful owner. He set speed records and flew the airplane all over the US. A full-blown STI upgrade program was initiated for all 25 customers, based on the findings from the lead airplane. A few builders did not want to participate because we had to charge for the cost of the upgrade parts. We have also been offering a factory support program; where the engine could be returned and run through a full upgrade procedure, as well as onsite factory support. The STI was a lure to many, that did not have much knowledge about engines, due to the impressive HP numbers posted for the Subaru Rally car. This was the main problem. Some, that should have chosen the simple 2.5L engine, ended up going for the experimental, high output STI. Anyone familiar with engines knows that power does not come without complexity and expense. Bottom line is that the customers should have been carefully chosen for the STI engines. We are now way passed this, other than continuing the STI support program, (See Bill Ferries? engine just completely upgraded on our web site) and are building truly spectacular engine packages. There is no hiding that we have learned many things through the 20 years we have been doing this, it is also true that we are now producing the most complete and beautifully running 170-230HP engines in the world. We are not ashamed of offering a new and stronger reduction drive on all new engines and as a retrofit to all passed engines. Safety is always first on the list. Never has there been any excess money and this would be a crazy business for someone not loving aviation and the joy of constantly making something better. Competent builders have no problem installing any of the latest engines in a few days. Installation time is now further reduced with 2008 engines, due to the pre-wired wire loom for the engine, as well as the engine instrumentation, cowl flap and propeller wiring. I invite anyone to stop by Eggenfellner Aircraft in Edgewater FL at any time to visit with us. Also, take a look at the 2007 /8 installation manual on our web site (eggenfellneraircraft.com) and see for yourself how every step of the installation is documented. We have 100% and 24-hour customer support through our subaruaircraft yahoo forum, e-mail ([email protected]) and phones 386 566 2616.
Jan Eggenfellner
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
I hope that is not true
Jan I read a lot of these post and hope no one has attacked you personally. From what I read there is respect and appreciation for your efforts. Of course like "elbows" everyone has opinions about your business. Folks that are mechanically knowledgeable, know there will always be challenges and set backs. I'm all for a lively technical Pro/Con debate, good data and fact, but sadly technical discussions sometime turn personal, with rhetoric that's not acceptable. Be assured, most filter that out. I wish you the best of luck & hope you and your products are around for a long time to come. Even people that prefer a Lycoming want your enterprise and others like it to succeed. Cheers.
Last edited:
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Thanks, Jan...
......for your presence here. Come back more often,
Regards,
......for your presence here. Come back more often,
Regards,
Jan ,
I really don't think any of your detractors dislike you personally, as most realize the difficult task you face designing an aircraft gearbox. As a matter of fact, you are generally recognized as a gifted experimenter and an asset to the homebuilding community.
However, with all your legacy products in a recalled and grounded status, you've got to understand that people are going to become somewhat sceptical of the unrealized promise of cheap automotive power, when their
powerplant is now costing considerably more than a Lycoming, and not yet in the air.
It's a very good thing that you have decided to participate in the forum, and as your latest offering gains testing hours, you will be able to once again build the confidence of your customer base.
I really don't think any of your detractors dislike you personally, as most realize the difficult task you face designing an aircraft gearbox. As a matter of fact, you are generally recognized as a gifted experimenter and an asset to the homebuilding community.
However, with all your legacy products in a recalled and grounded status, you've got to understand that people are going to become somewhat sceptical of the unrealized promise of cheap automotive power, when their
powerplant is now costing considerably more than a Lycoming, and not yet in the air.
It's a very good thing that you have decided to participate in the forum, and as your latest offering gains testing hours, you will be able to once again build the confidence of your customer base.
Steve Mills
Well Known Member
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.
"with all your legacy products in a recalled and grounded status"
To the best of my knowledge, and Jan can jump in here, the only legacy product grounded are the Gen 1 and Gen 2 PSRU's, and that being because a superior product has been developed, not because it is raining EGG equipted airplanes. In fact 100's of Eggs have been flying for years.
This portion of Jan's customer base does not need to have his confidence built, and the people bashing the Eggs, will never be converted, so why not allow us to build "experimental" aircraft without the abuse.
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.
"with all your legacy products in a recalled and grounded status"
To the best of my knowledge, and Jan can jump in here, the only legacy product grounded are the Gen 1 and Gen 2 PSRU's, and that being because a superior product has been developed, not because it is raining EGG equipted airplanes. In fact 100's of Eggs have been flying for years.
This portion of Jan's customer base does not need to have his confidence built, and the people bashing the Eggs, will never be converted, so why not allow us to build "experimental" aircraft without the abuse.
grounded?
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
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
Well Known Member
Emotional tonic
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Moderatoring
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,
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,
Last edited:
N395V
Well Known Member
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
Well Known Member
It would be interesting to talk about our engines
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
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
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Dan, your idea seems to be taking off, so in the future, everyone please use this thread http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=26477
for the EGG comments.
This thread has run its course.
- Status
