What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Subaru for RV-7 > Is It Real ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
orkaan

orkaan

Member
Hi!
At this moment me and my friends are constracting RV-7. It is supposed to be equipped with Licoming engine. But I wonder if there anybody who use Subaru instead of Licoming. And if so - I'd like to hear your opinion about Subaru's reliability. And, in particular, I'm interested (grounding on your experience) which type of gear-box should I mount? Should I build gear-box myself or should I buy it?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. Now, before all kits are to be delivered I'm flying in my dreams :)))

p2190310.jpg
 
Last edited:
There are many successful installations

Yuri several builders on this site have Subies installed and flying. Ross Farnham from Canada, Ron Sneider and others. Also Dave Domeier recently switched (from) and has no regrets flying behind auto conversion. I am sure they will give you some feedback.
 
Last edited:
This question is sort of like asking someone their opinion on which religion you should choose. ;)

There is a lot of reading to do on this subject, both on this forum and on the Internet in general.

It basically boils down to this:

1) The Suburu will cost you more in the end.
2) It will be heavier.
3) The plane will likely be slower.

In short, don't believe all of the hype about auto conversions being some sort of panacea. They're a lot of work.

If you want to build the airplane to just go out and fly...go with a Lycoming or clone. If you want to tinker ad infinitum, go with the Subaru.
 
Thank you guys for quick reply ;)

To Jamie:
I'm not afraid of Subaru's drawbacks. I used to "mess about" aircrafts since I have a big experience in engines' building/maintenance. I'm more interested in gear-box since I'm supposed to use local/cheap engine.
If possible - give me a link where I can buy a gear-box for Subaru.

Thanks in advance !
 
My friend has one for sale...

.....that just came off his RV-7. It's a 4 cylinder Eggenfellner engine with only 200 hours. It needs better cooling since it usually runs 220 degrees F or higher. Half price...around $10,000 firewall forward with the new Gen 3 gearbox, a $4,500 value itself,

Regards,
 
I've been flying a turbocharged EJ22 Subaru powered RV6A now for 5 years and have been pretty happy with it.

I built it all myself and use the Marcotte gearbox already mentioned.

Performance is about the same as an O-320 Lycoming below 10,000 feet and comparable to an O-360 above 10,000 feet. Fuel burn is slightly higher. Weight is about the same as an IO-360.

The cooling system was a challenge but I think we understand better how to do it right the first time now.

It seems as though a steady diet of leaded fuel is not the best idea for these engines. Not sure what kinds of fuel you have over there but I think unleaded would be the best.

Generally speaking, the 4 cylinder engines will not perform as well as an O-320 unless turbocharged and the 6 cylinder engines will not perform as well as an O-360 unless you do everything right and are able to turn the engine up over 5500 rpm for takeoff. The 4 cylinders should be slightly lighter than a Lycoming, the sixes a bit heavier.

The Marcotte and Autoflight gearboxes appear to be the best choices out there IMO.

The EJ22 turbo and EJ255/EJ257 are the two strongest 4 cylinders available and are the most suitable for turbocharging.

The EZ30 and EZ36 are the most modern 6 cylinders with the EZ36 being the most suitable if you are not turbocharging. The older EG33 is relatively rare but has the advantage of lower power peak and torque peak rpms than the newer engines (5400 and 4400 rpm respectively).

The Subaru will be more work, should be a lot cheaper if you do things yourself (mine was around $9500US with engine, turbo, gearbox, ECU and propeller).

It will be a good learning experience and might be a good idea if you are experienced in engines and things mechanical and you enjoy true experimenting. If you are not experienced in this field or just want to go flying, the Lycoming is a better choice for most. It does not sound like you want to buy a complete package from a vendor like Eggenfellner or Maxwell Propulsion. Both of these will usually end up costing more than the Lycoming.

For other info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlySoob/

http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html
 
Last edited:
Hey fellas, thank you for your thorough answers ;)
The first plane will be definitely equipped with Lycoming! I understand that Subaru would take all of my free time to convert it into avia-engine. That's a real issue for me since I wish that I had more time for flights rather than messing with engine convertion.
 
My RV7 has an IO-360 Lyc on it. I am also involved with a NSI/Maxwell Subie powered Glasstar. So far I have over 100hrs on my Lyc and have only changed the oil. The Glasstar has about 45 hrs on it and has been through four sets of plugs, two computer changes, two propellers (bad set of Whirlwind blades) and a gearbox change and I still won't fly it anywhere without an airport or road under me. Also it doesn't put out near the power as advertised. He also has a lot more money in his Subie conversion. There are a very few of you guys that can get a Subie to work reliably and my hat is off to you. But for the average builder go with a proven powerplant. I won't even get in to resale value. Don
 
Wow, that is pretty disappointing for an expensive vendor product. I'd hoped that Maxwell was going to get more of it right the first time. Problems like this again show an apparent lack of long term flight testing and I wondered why Maxwell's development airplane was up for sale. Seems to me they should be building hours on it to uncover any problems which might crop up over time before customers do.

Interesting comment on the lack of power. I mentioned some time ago that I did not buy their published hp figures, despite being on a dyno. I feared it was the same dyno NSI used to come up with nonsense data a few years back.

I'll say it again to vendors- test your products lots before releasing them for sale. Your business and reputation will be a lot better for it.
 
yakdriver said:
My RV7 has an IO-360 Lyc on it. I am also involved with a NSI/Maxwell Subie powered Glasstar. So far I have over 100hrs on my Lyc and have only changed the oil. The Glasstar has about 45 hrs on it and has been through four sets of plugs, two computer changes, two propellers (bad set of Whirlwind blades) and a gearbox change and I still won't fly it anywhere without an airport or road under me. Also it doesn't put out near the power as advertised. He also has a lot more money in his Subie conversion. There are a very few of you guys that can get a Subie to work reliably and my hat is off to you. But for the average builder go with a proven powerplant. I won't even get in to resale value. Don
Click to expand...

Except for the cooling issue, a poorly designed PSRU, too much weight, performance not up factory numbers, and a constantly changing package from EGG, I got along OK with the 2.5 and H6 engines. Total time over 4+ years was about 320 hours with 2 trips to SNF and OSH.

There are some very likable things about operating the Subaru engine. I liked the ECU deciding everything from timing to mixture, although the stock unit is not designed for an aviation application. Fuel burn at high power is off the charts because in the auto world its all about protecting the engine during those short bursts. The ECU does its thing at normal driving speeds in terms of pollution control and efficiency. But that power level does not sustain flight well at all. Closed loop operation is possible only at about 30% power or less.

The engine core is solid as a rock and gave me great confidence overall. But it is unknown how long it will last running outside the typical auto envelope in terms of power output. The H6 is rated at 6000 rpm but it never sees that level of power in an auto. When I watch the rpm range of me Honda Pilot engine, it seldom gets over 3500 and cruises down the highway at 2200. No wonder these engines last forever in an auto, they don't ever work. But put one in an airplane where max power is called for on every take off, it is a much different story. I do not believe there is a chance in the world any auto engine will last 2000 hours as regularly as does the Lycoming. No auto engine has been designed to run at high power for extended periods of time. They do provide great power output if called for, but most of its life is simply loafing along at 2200 rpm.

I like the turbine smoothness of a well balanced, high rpm engine. I couldn't help but think about that last Friday when I flew with the Lycoming for the second time. I could almost count the engine power pulses compared to the Subaru. It was not an unpleasant feeling, just very different that the Subaru. The Lycoming does remind one of a Farmall tractor but I've never had one quit in flight on 3 airplanes. The engine gets the job done, very well, mags and all.

The choice is like drinking tea or coffee or anything else. It isn't for everyone but it can be fun trying to get something to work but sometimes it isn't. That's how it is.
 
David, I agree the Subaru engine itself is bullet proof and really smooth. Add a composite C/S prop and it is almost vibration free. It starts right up hot or cold and with the computer a no brainer to run. BUT it uses more fuel, is nowhere near the 215hp they claimed on the dyno, probably closer to 160hp and again I don't trust the PRU, the prop blades and the ignition system.
My Lycoming was meticulously balanced, all cylinders are flow ported and matched volume and I had the prop dynamically balanced. Makes for a very smooth engine. I highly recomend the prop balance, it made a big difference. Don
 
Yakdriver, was it an NSI Subaru (the old company), or a Maxwell Subaru (the new company)? Two VERY different beasts...

FWIW, There is one Glastar driver with over 1000 hours on his 4 cyl Egg package, and he says that he has not had any problems in all that time. There are several others with over 500 hours.

I think there are going to be good results and bad results with ANY product, but the people that have bad results are always a LOT more vocal about it. From being involved in several mailing lists over the past 5+ years, I have read many good reports about the Egg package as well as reports from people that have had issues.

I recommend that whatever package you decide to buy, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it, or anyone else on the list for that matter.

After 5 years of research, I decided that the Egg H6 package was the choice for my Sportsman 2+2, and it will be arriving next month. I personally know three other Sportsman aircraft being built in the mid-East coast area have also installed either the 3.0 or the 3.6 Egg H6, along with at least one 3.0 in Alaska currently flying on amphib floats.

-Dj
 
Don't do it!!!

If you want to fly and fly safely and dependably, go with Lycoming or clone. If you want to work on engines, have less performance, a heavier plane, less performance and a likely disappointing performance, go with the Subaru.

Of the 10 plus people that I know personally that have used a Subaru engine, (all most all Eggy's), all have had significant and on going problems. This includes a friend who had an off field landing and flipped. Could have been fatal but he was very lucky. He's now building a new 7 with an ECI engine.

This is not intended to be a slam on Eggy or Subaru but these are hard, cold facts. Very few people have the knowledge, skills and ability to keep one of these in flyable condition. Ross is one of them.

If it quits in a car, no big deal, pull over to the side. If it quits in the air..... well, you know the potential issues.

So, my recommendation, don't do it.
 
The Glasstar that I am involved with has an NSI engine that was redone by Maxwell and has their new PRU and all of their electronics. Again as far as smoothness and ease of operation I like it. But the cold hard facts for it and the Egg conversions is they are heavier, more complicated, do not put out the HP claimed and are actually more expensive when you factor in all the extra systems and specialized engine mounts, cowls etc. I am glad there are guys out there willing to experiment and they are getting closer to developing alternative powerplants. If you can afford to experiment go for it but the average guy who is building a personal transportation machine can't afford to make a mistake on engine choice. Heck I also fly another friend's Kitfox with the Rotex radial in it. I really like that engine but it too has a few quirks and is not quite perfect. I am not trying to flame Eggenfelner or Maxwell but just stating the facts so people can make an informed choice. Don
 
RV7Guy said:
Of the 10 plus people that I know personally that have used a Subaru engine, (all most all Eggy's), all have had significant and on going problems. This includes a friend who had an off field landing and flipped. Could have been fatal but he was very lucky. He's now building a new 7 with an ECI engine.
Click to expand...

The "one" guy I know with an Egg, is having problems too. It's on an "8", and has sever cooling problems. He's now got cowl vents all over the place. All the RV's with Lyc, that I know..............just keep flying.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
 
yakdriver said:
the Egg conversions is they are heavier, more complicated, do not put out the HP claimed and are actually more expensive when you factor in all the extra systems and specialized engine mounts, cowls etc. ... just stating the facts so people can make an informed choice. Don
Click to expand...

Hi Don,
I accept your offer of stating facts. Can you tell us:

- What is the exact weight, and what is the weight being compared to?

- What is the exact HP produced?

- What is the total cost, and what is it being compared to?


I'll have $25,820 in my Egg FWF H6 package including the constant speed prop. This includes all the necessary hardware in order to fly the plane using all new parts (nothing used).

-Dj
 
I started this thread at the request of my friends loving and wishing to buy RV but, at the same time, willing to save money by changing Lyc with Subaru. There's a serious problem in our country (Ukraine) connected with lack of 100LL fuel. That's one big argument in favor of Subaru.

However, having read all your advices, now I want to persuade all those "willing" that such economy of money may result in different negative consequences including health problems :eek:.

And now one more question. Do you know people who fly RV using diesel engines? My friend Vlad (Vladyspassky) has told me that such RVs are currently flying in the UK. I wonder if someone had such an opportunity to witness or maybe even fly on such RVs?
 
RV7Guy said:
If you want to fly and fly safely and dependably, go with Lycoming or clone. If you want to work on engines, have less performance, a heavier plane, less performance and a likely disappointing performance, go with the Subaru.
Click to expand...

Hi Darwin,
All I can say is that I've spent a HUGE amount of money and time working on Lycomings in previous airplanes that I've owned. After experiencing two serious issues with a Lycoming engine while in flight, "safely and dependably" did not apply to the Lycoming in my case. Fortunately I was near an airport both times and landed without incident, albeit with a bit of extra adrenaline. In addition to these two incidences, I've had to mess with carbs, exhaust systems, alternators, baffling, starter, magnetos, air intake box, carb heat system, and oil leaks, all of which took a lot of time and often a lot of money to fix.

In my personal opinion, you are going to have to work on any powerplant that you put in your airplane, be it Lycoming, Subaru, Mazda, etc. Don't kid yourself that you can bolt on any engine and just go flying - they ALL need maintenance.

-Dj
 
Last edited:
100LL

Check the threads about running Lycomings on alternate fuel(auto fuel) vs 100LL. Would this be helpful in your situation?
Mike H 9A/8A
 
Jamie said:
This question is sort of like asking someone their opinion on which religion you should choose. ;)

There is a lot of reading to do on this subject, both on this forum and on the Internet in general.

It basically boils down to this:

1) The Suburu will cost you more in the end.

NOT TRUE

2) It will be heavier.

TRUE, THE LIQUID COOLED ENGINE IS SLIGHTLY HEAVER

3) The plane will likely be slower.

ONE OF THE FASTEST RV-7'S WERE ROBERT PAISLY'S SUBARU POWERED AIRPLANES. HOWEVER, YOUR SUBARU POWERED AIRPLANE IS NOT ABOUT MAX SPEED, AS IS THE REALITY OF MOST AIRPLANES.

In short, don't believe all of the hype about auto conversions being some sort of panacea. They're a lot of work.

NOT SO, I THINK YOUR INFORMATION IS OUTDATED. EVERY YEAR THE INSTALLATION OF THESE ENGINES HAS IMPROOVED.



If you want to build the airplane to just go out and fly...go with a Lycoming or clone. If you want to tinker ad infinitum, go with the Subaru.
Click to expand...

THE FACTS ARE THAT THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES LEAVING OUR HANGAR ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO EARLIER PRODUCTS. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME, NOT FAMILIAR WITH AUTO ENGINES, HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. ENGINES HAVE MATURED TO THE POINT OF PERFECTION, USING A PROGRAMMED ECU, CUSTOM AND VERY COMPACT TEFLON WIRE LOOMS, A SUPERIOR REDUCTION DRIVE UNIT AND MORE COOLING CAPACITY THAN NEEDED FOR ANY APLICATION. THIS BEING SAID, ENGINES SOLD OVER 14 YEARS AGO ARE STILL FLYING STRONG AND 2 HAVE PASSED THE 1000 HR MARK.

JAN EGGENFELLNER
 
interesting

I'm not opposed to alternative engines at all. Been there and tried that. Jan: your quote is exactly what I was told in 2003. It was slow, hot and I was messing around with everything for the entire time I owned the airplane. These engines are fine if you don't care about speed, are ready to be a gear head, and stay below 6000 ASL.

What ever happened to Robert and the turbo RV7 (blue & yellow with Subie insignia)? There were several engines failures (??) that were never talked about and this was the "new great engine".

My new RV7A has a take-off performance that doesn't even compare to the Subaru. Cruise speed is 25 kts faster. Basic mainteance, all temps perfect.
And yes the Lycoming was more expensive in the end but I didn't care. Piece of mind with my engine is priceless.

Steve
7A
 
Last edited:
janeggenfellner said:
THE FACTS ARE THAT THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES LEAVING OUR HANGAR ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO EARLIER PRODUCTS. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME, NOT FAMILIAR WITH AUTO ENGINES, HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. ENGINES HAVE MATURED TO THE POINT OF PERFECTION, USING A PROGRAMMED ECU, CUSTOM AND VERY COMPACT TEFLON WIRE LOOMS, A SUPERIOR REDUCTION DRIVE UNIT AND MORE COOLING CAPACITY THAN NEEDED FOR ANY APLICATION. THIS BEING SAID, ENGINES SOLD OVER 14 YEARS AGO ARE STILL FLYING STRONG AND 2 HAVE PASSED THE 1000 HR MARK.

JAN EGGENFELLNER
Click to expand...

WOW. Matured to the point of perfection. Thats very exciting. Jan can you comment on what you expect your field failure rate to be with your systems now that you have reached this very exciting and significant milestone. I had no idea this had been achieved. This will make some great market literature.
Please advise.
Thanks
 
deej said:
Hi Darwin,
All I can say is that I've spent a HUGE amount of money and time working on Lycomings in previous airplanes that I've owned. After experiencing two serious issues with a Lycoming engine while in flight, "safely and dependably" did not apply to the Lycoming in my case. Fortunately I was near an airport both times and landed without incident, albeit with a bit of extra adrenaline. In addition to these two incidences, I've had to mess with carbs, exhaust systems, alternators, baffling, starter, magnetos, air intake box, carb heat system, and oil leaks, all of which took a lot of time and often a lot of money to fix.

In my personal opinion, you are going to have to work on any powerplant that you put in your airplane, be it Lycoming, Subaru, Mazda, etc. Don't kid yourself that you can bolt on any engine and just go flying - they ALL need maintenance.

-Dj
Click to expand...

This is true. Someone are quick to post web sites of "Eggenfellner" horror stories. Well, the truth is simply that not everyone is skilled enough to build an airplane from start to finish. They can argue this all day long but it is the truth. Their history of bashing every supplier they deal with and the personality trait of having to change everything about everything, so the airplane is never complete, are common. The advice you need is from someone local to you, that has an up to date version of the engine package. Something that represents what you would be using if you went with an auto engine in today's world. Every company can make the product better. In fact, up until 2 years ago, when we halted changes and have been building every engine the same, I was blamed for the continued updates that had been part of the company procedures. The destruction going on right now, by those eager to see themselves being right about that the old and tested, is the only way, is damaging to the industry and does nothing to promote alternatives for future airplanes. I feel that after 16 years in this business, I now have an engine package that has matured and is the best alternative engine choice. My RV-6A still has a 3.0L 2003 engine with the older Subaru computer and small radiators. I love flying it and never have any issues of any kind. That engine however, is a far cry from the latest 3.6 with the latest reduction drive, torsion damping flywheel, SDS computer, Teflon wire loom, onboard muffler, no O2 sensors, etc. engines of even grater power.

The negative spirit of some is not fun.

Jan Eggenfellner
 
Subaru for sale

orkaan said:
I'm not afraid of Subaru's drawbacks. I used to "mess about" aircrafts since I have a big experience in engines' building/maintenance. I'm more interested in gear-box since I'm supposed to use local/cheap engine.
If possible - give me a link where I can buy a gear-box for Subaru.

Thanks in advance !
Click to expand...
I've got an Eggenfellner Subaru STI engine for sale that should put out about 200+ horsepower according to the supplier. http://www.rv8.ch/article.php/20080529210403339

I've sold the MT Prop, and I'll let the rest go very cheap. Unfortunately this is one of the engines that, according to the supplier, falls into the category of
"IT IS TRUE THAT SOME, NOT FAMILIAR WITH AUTO ENGINES, HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST."
Click to expand...
I can confirm that I was not familiar with auto engines, and I have had problems in the past.

I would recommend that anyone interested in purchasing this engine from me contact the supplier to ensure that you will get the support that you will need to upgrade the PSRU, the engine computer, the supercharger, the variable valve timing system, the exhaust system, the cooling system, and possibly other things I've overlooked.

There are also several other people that have purchased this STI package, and they are working hard to try to finish the development of package. I recommend getting in touch with these other builders to take advantage of their efforts. I'm confident that these guys will be successful.

In the mean time, I'm keeping my eyes open for a good deal on a lyco.
 
sjhurlbut said:
I'm not opposed to alternative engines at all. Been there and tried that. Jan: your quote is exactly what I was told in 2003. It was slow, hot and I was messing around with everything for the entire time I owned the airplane. These engines are fine if you don't care about speed, are ready to be a gear head, and stay below 6000 ASL.

What ever happened to Robert and the turbo RV7 (blue & yellow with Subie insignia)? There were several engines failures (??) that were never talked about and this was the "new great engine".

My new RV7A has a take-off performance that doesn't even compare to the Subaru. Cruise speed is 25 kts faster. Basic mainteance, all temps perfect.
And yes the Lycoming was more expensive in the end but I didn't care. Piece of mind with my engine is priceless.

Steve
7A
Click to expand...

Robert did not have any engine failures. Hi did have a induction tube come off one time. Also, Robert was very skilled and always wanted the latest engine. Once the STI engine project was complete, he did a lot of flight testing, he wanted to move to the 6 cylinder engines. Also, there is no hiding that the STI engines were complex and something we moved into with the best intentions, then moved away from after only 25 engines.

If your airplane has better performance now, then I think that is great. I would suspect so because your engine was a 4 cylinder engine of only 2.5L. and does not represent today's engines, or the Lycoming you are now using. That you had cooling issues are entirely your own fault since others, living far further south than yourself, would install the mandatory cowl flap and see increased speeds and better cooling.

Your testimony is out of date, does not reflect the latest engines, your engine cost was significantly lower (by over $10,000), you did not follow recommended cooling procedures, etc. My RV-6A, at one time, had the supercharged 4 cylinder engine, using the same smaller radiators as in your airplane, and I recall doing very close to 200 mph at Oshkosh with David Domeier as copilot. This also held true for Florida in the summer. I cannot have the sympathy for anyone that cannot make the engines work right, because many others can. Gary Newsted for instance, has a beautiful RV-9A, with the same engine and loves it to death.

Jan
 
Jamie said:
This question is sort of like asking someone their opinion on which religion you should choose. ;)

There is a lot of reading to do on this subject, both on this forum and on the Internet in general.

It basically boils down to this:

1) The Suburu will cost you more in the end.
2) It will be heavier.
3) The plane will likely be slower.

In short, don't believe all of the hype about auto conversions being some sort of panacea. They're a lot of work.

If you want to build the airplane to just go out and fly...go with a Lycoming or clone. If you want to tinker ad infinitum, go with the Subaru.
Click to expand...

I agree 150%. Why would you want to spend more on a heavier, slower, less reliable airplane?


janeggenfellner said:
THE FACTS ARE THAT THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES LEAVING OUR HANGAR ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO EARLIER PRODUCTS. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME, NOT FAMILIAR WITH AUTO ENGINES, HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. ENGINES HAVE MATURED TO THE POINT OF PERFECTION, USING A PROGRAMMED ECU, CUSTOM AND VERY COMPACT TEFLON WIRE LOOMS, A SUPERIOR REDUCTION DRIVE UNIT AND MORE COOLING CAPACITY THAN NEEDED FOR ANY APLICATION. THIS BEING SAID, ENGINES SOLD OVER 14 YEARS AGO ARE STILL FLYING STRONG AND 2 HAVE PASSED THE 1000 HR MARK.

JAN EGGENFELLNER
Click to expand...

Nice yelling post listed above. TURN OFF THE CAPS KEY!!! Pierre and I have a friend that will dispute every statement from the Florida post above and agrees with Jamie. He now has a new faster, lighter Lyclone in his RV-7 without cooling or gear box issues. The Subaru engine is not the point of the dispute, it is the "THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES" that are at issue under a constant state of "development" and questionable reliability.

BTW: Why are all older Egg customers required to purchase the corrected gearbox. Is the statement "THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES LEAVING OUR HANGAR ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO EARLIER PRODUCTS" an admission that defective and inferior products were sold with the same "POINT OF PERFECTION" sales pitch in the past?
 
janeggenfellner said:
THE FACTS ARE THAT THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES LEAVING OUR HANGAR ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO EARLIER PRODUCTS. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME, NOT FAMILIAR WITH AUTO ENGINES, HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. ENGINES HAVE MATURED TO THE POINT OF PERFECTION, USING A PROGRAMMED ECU, CUSTOM AND VERY COMPACT TEFLON WIRE LOOMS, A SUPERIOR REDUCTION DRIVE UNIT AND MORE COOLING CAPACITY THAN NEEDED FOR ANY APLICATION. THIS BEING SAID, ENGINES SOLD OVER 14 YEARS AGO ARE STILL FLYING STRONG AND 2 HAVE PASSED THE 1000 HR MARK.

JAN EGGENFELLNER
Click to expand...

Jan:

I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you because honestly I don't think you deserve it. I'm not a customer of yours, but I am very familiar with two projects with your engine on the nose.

Also, I wasn't speaking of your package, but Subies in general.

Having said that, I would like to note that none of my arguments were disputed in your post.
 
janeggenfellner said:
Robert did not have any engine failures. Hi did have a induction tube come off one time. Also, Robert was very skilled and always wanted the latest engine. Once the STI engine project was complete, he did a lot of flight testing, he wanted to move to the 6 cylinder engines. Also, there is no hiding that the STI engines were complex and something we moved into with the best intentions, then moved away from after only 25 engines.

If your airplane has better performance now, then I think that is great. I would suspect so because your engine was a 4 cylinder engine of only 2.5L. and does not represent today's engines, or the Lycoming you are now using. That you had cooling issues are entirely your own fault since others, living far further south than yourself, would install the mandatory cowl flap and see increased speeds and better cooling.

Your testimony is out of date, does not reflect the latest engines, your engine cost was significantly lower (by over $10,000), you did not follow recommended cooling procedures, etc. My RV-6A, at one time, had the supercharged 4 cylinder engine, using the same smaller radiators as in your airplane, and I recall doing very close to 200 mph at Oshkosh with David Domeier as copilot. This also held true for Florida in the summer. I cannot have the sympathy for anyone that cannot make the engines work right, because many others can. Gary Newsted for instance, has a beautiful RV-9A, with the same engine and loves it to death.

Jan
Click to expand...

I understand Gary avoids higher altitudes because of this engine and 100L/ vapour lock issues. I have sympathy for people who claim "the engine is perfected" and never take responsibility for the end product once its out the door.

I thought the 2.5L was perfected in 2003.

My only satisfaction is I'll never deal with Eggenfellner engines again because these are the typical replies you'll get from Jan.

I suspect from this point on we'll hear nothing but glory story with these perfect engines until some "builder doesn't install it correctly".


Steve
Rv7A
 
Last edited:
Hard Knox said:
I agree 150%. Why would you want to spend more on a heavier, slower, less reliable airplane?
Click to expand...

Hi Robby,
I can say that when making my personal choice, weight and top speed were not at the top of my list of selection criteria. My total cost is a lot lower than a "standard" Lycoming w/ constant speed prop, and significantly lower if you added as many of the below list as can be added to the Lycoming to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

In my opinion only, here are some items that I perceive to be advantages
(others may believe some of these are disadvantages or may not agree
with me at all) for installing an Eggenfellner Subaru in 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)

Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

-Dj
 
Just on a whim I went to the Glasair Aviation web site and priced out as close as I could get an equivalent Lycoming engine and FWF accessories to match the Subaru installation going into my Sportsman 2+2.

My price for the Subaru FWF, not including any shipping or crating:
Eggenfellner E6 $21,300 (purchased during a sale) - Current price on the Eggenfellner website is $25,300 <http://eggenfellneraircraft.com/Products.htm>.
(includes electronic ignition, engine mount, cabin heater, 75Amp alternator, exhaust system, fuel pumps, starter, cable brackets, oil cooler, Andair fuel filter, etc.)
I'm using an IVOProp 3 blade constant speed at a cost of $3,120.

My total cost is $24,420 not including any crating or shipping.

From the Glasair Aviation website: <http://www.glasairaviation.com/options/glastaropteng.html>

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. I have no doubt you could shop around and shave a bit off the Lycoming costs.

Based on the choices I would have made when selecting the Lycoming, I'm seeing a total cost reduction of $16,013 in favor of the Subaru installation.

fyi

-Dj
 
True

I certainly don't disagree that all engines need maintenance. The ratio is not even close in comparison to an auto conversion. I can only speak as to the facts from friends with Subarus vs friends with Lycomings. I have 400 hours on my ECI in the past 3 years. The only issues I've had were related to the baffling near the oil cooler and some early Pmag problems. No issues directly related to the engine core. All has been good. Same with several friends with Lycs or clones. We fly safely and dependably.


deej said:
Hi Darwin,
After experiencing two serious issues with a Lycoming engine while in flight, "safely and dependably" did not apply to the Lycoming in my case. Fortunately I was near an airport both times and landed without incident, albeit with a bit of extra adrenaline.

In my personal opinion, you are going to have to work on any powerplant that you put in your airplane, be it Lycoming, Subaru, Mazda, etc. Don't kid yourself that you can bolt on any engine and just go flying - they ALL need maintenance.

-Dj
Click to expand...
 
deej said:
Just on a whim I went to the Glasair Aviation web site and priced out as close as I could get an equivalent Lycoming engine and FWF accessories to match the Subaru installation going into my Sportsman 2+2.
<snip>

Based on the choices I would have made when selecting the Lycoming, I'm seeing a total cost reduction of $16,013 in favor of the Subaru installation.

Dj
Click to expand...

Sounds like your mind is firmly set and no amount of discussion will change your opinion.

We wish you the best with your project. Please report back after you have racked up a few hundred hours of Subie flight.
 
Hi Sam!
I didn't realize anyone was trying to change my opinion, although I freely admit that at this point I have already made my decision.

I saw a lot of postings saying that the Subaru installation was a lot more expensive, but that just didn't seem to be the case in reality, or at least it wasn't for me when I did a price comparison.

Rather than simply saying "this is more expensive" or "this is heavier", I like to see actual numbers, so I was merely offering some with regards to the monetary aspect.

I'd be glad to share more data with you once I have the airplane flying. Based on my build rate, I wouldn't hold my breath... *grin*

Thanks,

-Dj
 
Deej,

The problem is, you are not comparing comparably performing packages....you may want an injected, and electronic fired lycoming as a comparison point, and you quoted a counterweighted angle valve engine.

But, to get similar performance in terms of speed, and speed for fuel, even a carbed, mag fired lycoming will perform better than the Egg package...so you are comparing a subaru that performs at X to a lycoming with performs at X+...not a fair comparison.

You can knock almost all the difference off by pricing a 1/2 time used 320 with a carb and mags....it will outperform the egg sube. In addition, even though it is already half way to TBO...if history is any indication, it will still outlast the egg package.

The reason nobody knows what the TBO cost will be is that not a single one has reached TBO in 16 years....tell you something. Actually, according to Jan, after 16 years of promising one "perfect, extensively tested plug and play" package after another, one or two are about to cross the 1,000 hour mark...on their third or second redesign of the PSRU...all at customer expense.

Even the new drive is having problems. Whe asked for any specifics on vibration testing by experts, Jan simply obfuscated...first claiming to have done strain guage TVA, and then demuring when he was unable to answer a simple question about the locus of the strain guages...no educated reader of his statements believed it was anything other than being caught in yet another overblown, unsubstantiated, and counter factual claim.

When you have problems, it will be your fault, you will not get your money back, and you will not get support. When the prime time ready components turn out not to be (like the three belt drive, or the prop controller which totalled an aircraft on go-around) Jan will simply claim that it was some sort of beta test all along.

Be careful.
 
Jconard said:
Deej,

The problem is, you are not comparing comparably performing packages....you may want an injected, and electronic fired lycoming as a comparison point, and you quoted a counterweighted angle valve engine.

But, to get similar performance in terms of speed, and speed for fuel, even a carbed, mag fired lycoming will perform better than the Egg package...so you are comparing a subaru that performs at X to a lycoming with performs at X+...not a fair comparison.

You can knock almost all the difference off by pricing a 1/2 time used 320 with a carb and mags....it will outperform the egg sube. In addition, even though it is already half way to TBO...if history is any indication, it will still outlast the egg package.
Click to expand...

Hi John,
You are right. To bring the Lycoming up to a more equivalent system that the Subaru uses, I'd have to install a FADEC in the Lycoming, which would increase the cost of the Lycoming installation even more.

To clarify, as I mentioned in my post, I compared what I would have chosen for a Lycoming installation to what I chose for the Subaru installation. Your choices for which Lycoming to install, and what options to use are likely to be different from mine.

In the interests of providing hard data, can you show us the exact performance difference between a 1/2 time used 320 as compared to the current E6 package being shipped by Eggenfellner? You mention that they are of similar performance, so I am presuming that you have some test data that you are referencing?

-Dj
 
deej said:
Just on a whim I went to the Glasair Aviation web site and priced out as close as I could get an equivalent Lycoming engine and FWF accessories to match the Subaru installation going into my Sportsman 2+2.

My price for the Subaru FWF, not including any shipping or crating:
Eggenfellner E6 $21,300 (purchased during a sale) - Current price on the Eggenfellner website is $25,300 <http://eggenfellneraircraft.com/Products.htm>.
(includes electronic ignition, engine mount, cabin heater, 75Amp alternator, exhaust system, fuel pumps, starter, cable brackets, oil cooler, Andair fuel filter, etc.)
I'm using an IVOProp 3 blade constant speed at a cost of $3,120.

My total cost is $24,420 not including any crating or shipping.

From the Glasair Aviation website: <http://www.glasairaviation.com/options/glastaropteng.html>

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. I have no doubt you could shop around and shave a bit off the Lycoming costs.

Based on the choices I would have made when selecting the Lycoming, I'm seeing a total cost reduction of $16,013 in favor of the Subaru installation.

fyi

-Dj
Click to expand...

Keep cost in your decision making but please, please I beg you don't make it about money. I've done this. I have the excel sheet to prove it.

If you consider other factors and the cheaper engine is still at the top, then go for it.

I beg you,
Steve
RV7A
 
Deej,

I am not saying to make equivalent "feeling" packages...make equivalent performing packages. The drag and weight of the Egg package is such that a carbureted lycoming with magnetos will perform on par with the Egg, when installed in an aircraft.

Look for numbers in these forums...plenty of realistic numbers for the EGG installs,

my O-320 carbed, mag fired will run along at 165 KTAS at 8.5 gph all day long, or 158KTAS at 7.5 gph and cost me $12, 500 to build. Not too may 200 hp eggs match that speed and flow....the solution is designed to be an easy install. I still have the upper intersection fairings to install.

Talk to Domeir...matter of fact get into the Yahoo group and other groups which Jan does not censor (he controls many of the forums and deletes negative posts), see what the results are.

This has the result of horrible cooling drag inefficiency.

As for longevity...with proper care you can get 2500 hours from an O-320, so a half time (1000) hour engine has 30% more hours than the highest time Egg EVER. Actually as soon as you crossed the 300 or 400 hour mark you would be doing better than the vast majority of Egg customers.

David Domeir had the last version of a claimed 200 hp egg package and I think had a top speed of 150 Knots at extraordinary fuel flow...picked up ten knots right away with a lyc exchange..he will get faster as he un-does the crazy egg cowl mods which are unnecesary in a lycoming installation.

NO ONE knows what a "delivered" "new" egg package will be until they are delivery and flying....but at the same claimed horsepower...you expect the same performance.

Finally, you need to price an MT...the IvoProp is NOT a constant speed propeller fit for comparison with the Hartzell and others.
 
Last edited:
sjhurlbut said:
Keep cost in your decision making but please, please I beg you don't make it about money. I've done this. I have the excel sheet to prove it. If you consider other factors and the cheaper engine is still at the top, then go for it.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,
I appreciate the concern. The decision was not based on money. In my post just prior to that one, I listed the attributes that I wanted in an engine. Prior to that, I also listed all of the endless series of problems that I've personally had with Lycomings. I've also directly communicated with dozens of people in the Subaru community. Some have problems, some have none.

My decision was based on this direct, personal communication with people running Subarus (not "I heard", or "my friend", or "so and so said"...). What I have found is that people that have had problems are very vocal. People not having problems are apparently out flying and tend not to post as much, and when they do, it is just a short blurb like "Over XXX hours, no problems so far", which tends to get lost in the several page missives that the vocal people like to write. I've also found a rather large amount of people that have never flown behind a Subaru making lots of claims, but when asked for actual data, they cant seem to locate it.


Jconard said:
I am not saying to make equivalent "feeling" packages...make equivalent performing packages. The drag and weight of the Egg package is such that a carbureted lycoming with magnetos will perform on par with the Egg, when installed in an aircraft.
Click to expand...

Hi John,
As I stated a few posts ago, weight and top speed were not at the top of my list of considerations, and then I listed what I wanted in an engine package. Equivalent "features" might be a good way to look at it. I've had carburated, magneto driven engines. You couldn't pay me to go back to that.

What I don't understand is how you can say "The drag and weight of the Egg package is such that a carbureted lycoming with magnetos will perform on par with the Egg", and then later on "NO ONE knows what a "delivered" "new" egg package will be until they are delivery and flying". If you don't have actual data from both platforms, you can't make a valid comparison. I like to see actual numbers if we are to talk about performance.

I live in Maine. I'd give up 10 kts of airspeed for a good, liquid driven heater system any day. I'll be nice and toasty warm for that extra 10 minutes it will take me to get to that $100 hamburger... :)

-Dj
 
Hi DJ
First off welcome to VAF:) this is a great community to be a part of. Second please be careful..... and fly safe. When you get flying we would love to hear how its going
 
what I meant was that many egg packages have claimed 200 hp....the jury is still out as to whether any have given that....

okay...the symbolism means more to you than the actual measurable performance...okay...good luck.

But, the reason I said NOBODY knows what the next promised package from jan will be is that no other package has matched its promise...if you can get 200 low drag reliable horse power from that package.. well then good luck.

for a decade those promises have been, charitably speaking, totally and completely bold faced untrue.

Are you building an RV?
 
Jconard said:
okay...the symbolism means more to you than the actual measurable performance...okay...good luck.
Click to expand...

Hi John,
I have no idea what you mean by "symbolism". I thought I clearly stated in a previous post what criteria I used for selecting an engine package for my Sportsman 2+2. Symbolism, in any context, didn't factor into it, and yes, as I've mentioned already, top speed is not one of the highest priorities. I really don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

-Dj
 
Jconard said:
what I meant was that many egg packages have claimed 200 hp....the jury is still out as to whether any have given that....

okay...the symbolism means more to you than the actual measurable performance...okay...good luck.

But, the reason I said NOBODY knows what the next promised package from jan will be is that no other package has matched its promise...if you can get 200 low drag reliable horse power from that package.. well then good luck.

....for a decade those promises have been, charitably speaking, totally and completely bold faced untrue.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite John.

Jan mentioned a flight I made with him at OSH, it sure did happen. The 2.5 engine with a normalizer super charger did move that RV-6A to nearly 200 mph at 1500 MSL. It was confirmed with GPS and IAS. That sold me on the EGG engine and it was with no where near 200 hp.

But the bloody truth is, I could not get my RV-7A to go that fast with the H6. The best I ever did was 187 when the thing was new and really humping down low. Jan Eggenfellner is very good at tweaking an airplane and making it perform, the problem is not all of us have the patience or skill to do likewise. Robert Paisley is better at it than he. That's how he beat Dan Checkoway in the side by side fly off a few years ago with the STI. Those flights did happen and are true.

I am out of the EGGventure, mostly because I am running out of steam on experimenting. I do hope the factory continues to do business because there are many guys our there with an engine in their garage waiting for a prop or PSRU upgrade. The proof of the pudding will be the current batch of engines. I hope they are darn near perfect. For sure the engine itself is solid and perhaps the stuff supporting it has caught up.
 
Hard Knox said:
I agree 150%. Why would you want to spend more on a heavier, slower, less reliable airplane?




Nice yelling post listed above. TURN OFF THE CAPS KEY!!! Pierre and I have a friend that will dispute every statement from the Florida post above and agrees with Jamie. He now has a new faster, lighter Lyclone in his RV-7 without cooling or gear box issues. The Subaru engine is not the point of the dispute, it is the "THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES" that are at issue under a constant state of "development" and questionable reliability.

BTW: Why are all older Egg customers required to purchase the corrected gearbox. Is the statement "THE LATEST SUBARU ENGINE PACKAGES LEAVING OUR HANGAR ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO EARLIER PRODUCTS" an admission that defective and inferior products were sold with the same "POINT OF PERFECTION" sales pitch in the past?
Click to expand...

There were never any cooling issues. Just a reluctance of some builders to listen to factory testing, showing that one difference, using a liquid cooled engine, was the requirement of a movable cowl flap. Not a bad thing, just a requirement due to the large difference of airflow requirement between climb and cruising flight.

Yes, the statement above is exactly that. It is a realistic statement from a small manufacturer, having gradually developed a product over a 16 year time frame. Earlier engines are lucky to benefit from continued development and availability of the latest and safest gearbox. Anything else is irresponsible. Earlier engines also were sold at much lower cost and were a commitment to the development of engines at the lowest possible cost. Hundreds of airplanes have flown hundreds of hours on $12,995 and $14,995 engine packages that were sold many years ago. This has provided for economical flying for many that otherwise could never afford to build an airplane. The gearbox developed back then has been replaced with an updated design, incorporating all of what we learned from the older units.

Again, for me, this has everything to do with the realization that the past is in fact that, the past. The future is about the continued availability of alternative engines. I feel that way, you might not, but it is the only thing that matters for us, along with the support of earlier engines. Hence the new drive units. Dwelling on how the past could have been done differently, is not productive to the future. We do not need to reinvent the company, with another name etc., to pretend the past is gone. It is not gone, but it has nothing to do with our plans for this year engines.

Harping on low power and gearbox replacement is fine, if you choose to do so. You will then live in the past and refuse to see that the Subaru engine has again advanced to much higher power output and that a gearbox exist that can handle this power. The reality surrounding even the earlier drive unit is that it served many people well for thousands of accumulated hours for over a decade of flying. Only 4 drives had various issues and not a single airplane was lost due to any partial failure. That we want this record to stay good is a testimony to how serious we are about safety and is not in any way a negative, in our opinion.

Say and feel what you want, but we are proud of the engines as they leave here.

Someone mentioned that some of my sentences can be read as marketing, it is only a description of how I feel about the engines. Also, I have been in the USA for many years, but my spelling / wording is not perfect. If that bothers you, be understanding enough to realize it has nothing to do with engines.

Jan Eggenfellner
 
Jconard said:
what I meant was that many egg packages have claimed 200 hp....the jury is still out as to whether any have given that....

okay...the symbolism means more to you than the actual measurable performance...okay...good luck.

But, the reason I said NOBODY knows what the next promised package from jan will be is that no other package has matched its promise...if you can get 200 low drag reliable horse power from that package.. well then good luck.

for a decade those promises have been, charitably speaking, totally and completely bold faced untrue.

Are you building an RV?
Click to expand...



There are in fact 3 examples of the Subaru, even though never intended as the most powerful, or fastest alternative, showed world class performance.

- I mentioned my RV-6A flight with David, using a 4 cylinder engine.
- David mentioned the Robert Paisley flight, faster than an IO-360
- I flew a turbo H-6 engine airplane faster than an equivalent IO-540 powered airplane above 12000 feet
- Robert paisley hosting a static pull test "competition" at his hangar where the geared Subaru was far superior to any other direct drive engine. Showing the superiority of the H-6 engine as a bush plane, with 100-200lb more pull than the closest competitor.

Not important, but it did happen.

Jan Eggenfellner
 
<<factory testing, showing that one difference, using a liquid cooled engine, was the requirement of a movable cowl flap. Not a bad thing, just a requirement due to the large difference of airflow requirement between climb and cruising flight.>>

Jan, you're right; let's not dwell on history. Perhaps here we have a productive opportunity to explain a technical point. Could you expand on the above? When we design a Lycoming installation we have the benefit of a cooling chart; lbs per second mass flow required for an expected CHT, baffle pressure drop, etc. What do the numbers look like for your liquid cooled installation? Where and why is the liquid cooled installation different?
 
DanH said:
<<factory testing, showing that one difference, using a liquid cooled engine, was the requirement of a movable cowl flap. Not a bad thing, just a requirement due to the large difference of airflow requirement between climb and cruising flight.>>

Jan, you're right; let's not dwell on history. Perhaps here we have a productive opportunity to explain a technical point. Could you expand on the above? When we design a Lycoming installation we have the benefit of a cooling chart; lbs per second mass flow required for an expected CHT, baffle pressure drop, etc. What do the numbers look like for your liquid cooled installation? Where and why is the liquid cooled installation different?
Click to expand...


It does come down to the fin design of the radiators. It is clear that the more open fin design on an air-cooled engine can provide faster airflow. A radiator system, using a larger cooler, more open fin spacing, etc. might be more efficient but would require more coolant and ducting to relocate the radiator. The front mounted smaller coolers are a compromise, but an acceptable one to provide a compact, lightweight installation that will work in different airframes. More suction is required at lower speeds to pull air through the coolers, less is required as airspeed build and pressure increase at the front. Hence the need for a cowl flap. The cowl flap, pulled up to almost closed during cruise, will regain the 5 kts of speed lost over an air-cooled engine. The latest ECU will reduce the fuel flows and the benefit of modern engines again become evident. Just gave a ride to an instructor this morning and he could not believe the nice feeling of flying behind this engine. Just like Van himself now chose the Rotax for the 12 and like the smooth operation of it, we have the same technology engine for the larger airplanes. And the efficiency does not have to be any worse than any other engine. In fact, at cruising speeds the auto engine is more efficient. The latest reports from Europe, by Hans that fly the engine in a classic French Jodel, have better speeds and efficiency than the original certificated Lycoming airplane. This is a testimony to the latest ECU and higher reduction drive gearing.

Jan Eggenfellner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top