Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Eggenfellner
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Hi

While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new to report?

Cheers

Les

#40643
Do not archive

[quote][b]


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
millstees(at)ameritech.ne
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:27 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

-Les:

I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.


Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive

[quote] --


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
billderou(at)yahoo.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:22 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

What is it the nay-sayers should be surprised about?

Sticking to the hard facts:

I am flying an RV-10 with the Lyc IO-540 260HP as Van recommends.

The power is wonderful. The reliability unquestionable. The engine is extremely smooth. The engine drops into place with a proven installation.

If the issue is economy, and you consider the Lycoming thirsty, pull the throttle out to 8.5 gph and the TAS will settle at 150mph true. When its time to fast and far then climb up to 10-11K with full throttle and fuel flow will settle to 12gph at 195mph true.

If the issue is power then consider I can takeoff with a very light load and without crossing the end of a 4000' runway perform a hard, climbing turn (poor mans Immelman) to downwind and settle at pattern altitude at mid-field. Or, during my last cross-country we climbed with full tanks, 2 souls, and some baggage from 7500 to 11500 in 4 minutes. Class B airspace? No worries.

Perhaps the issue is initial expense. If you are able to save money on the initial engine installation then you will have an RV-10 that is worth that much less when its time to sell. The number of RV-10 buyers for used aircraft with an Egg engine could dance on the head of a pin. Buy Lycoming and the money is only parked for a while and can be redeemed later upon sale.

Maybe the real issue is the Egg folks are rebels at heart. This is good as I am a rebel myself. However, I don't mess with the airframe nor engine. You can be a great rebel by painting the airframe in LSD rainbows or Playboy nudes. Tile the inside. Pull out the back seats and install a shallow spa. Glass in a row of upside down surfboard fins along the fuselage spine and paint sharks teeth under the cowl. Go for it - I love creativity.

Maybe the issue is you hate Lycoming. Everybody has bad experiences. I can't help you with this one.

So ... help me get it, but stick to facts.

Bill DeRouchey
billderou(at)yahoo.com (billderou(at)yahoo.com)
Flying with a few pit stops

millstees(at)ameritech.net wrote:
[quote] (at)page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.EmailStyle17 { COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } -Les:

I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.

Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
[quote] --


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Steve

I am intrigued by your decision to go with the Egg engine. Let me first say that my only a/c engine experience is behind a Lyc O-360 engine. I have had to deal with cylinder replacements, oil pump impellor ad’s and hollow crank AD. Over the years I have seen many crankshaft ADs published for may similar engines. I am a bit worried that a shiny new IO-540 may be prone to “manufacturing” problems as well. Aviation seems to be the only place where significant engine QC issues can become the owners problem. In my view Ads are no different from an auto manufacturers recall and the manufacturer should be liable (but that is an entirely different rant).

The idea of a modern water cooled engine is appealing except that I would be concerned about post purchase support and maintenance. When I open the hood of my Honda Accord I just shake my head and hope I don’t mix the windshield fluid and oil filler caps. I expect that this would be the same for a Subaru engine. Are the Egg engines materially different from what you would find in a Subaru and how do you plan to deal with maintenance issues? Parenthetically, I did have a 1994 Subaru Legend that had engine issues when an O2 sensor (*I think*) malfunctioned. I wouldn’t want the same problem in the air. Then again I have had mag problems in the air so maybe the risks are level overall…..

Your insights would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Les Kearney
#40643

PS: For the other flavours of Egg engines already in the air, have predicted performance stats been achieved?


--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:31 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Hey Bill, I'm not going to join a pile-on about Subies. For the record
I basically agree, but still encourage anyone willing to step forth.
I personally wouldn't buy the finished plane because it isn't what
I'd want, but I meet others who would now and then. If the promises
deliver, I'd think it would be a viable "alternate" engine, but I would
doubt that in the end any of the benefits or deficits would be all
that big one way or another.

What I did want to do though was point out a couple more numbers. Just
today I took a prospective RV-10 buying family up for a demo flight...
that's 3 weekends in a row now. Dad's a retired TWA 767 captain, and
son flies little corporate jets. We stuck mom and son in the back
and climbed out at about 1900fpm thru somewhere in the 4000-5000'
range, and leveled out above a broken layer for some stick time. They
wanted flow numbers and I said to expect 13-14gph running ROP at
that altitude, but more like 10 by running LOP. I pulled it LOP
at reduced power at 6500' (don't usually do it below 8K), and we
quickly had our flow down and were truing at 166Kts True (I added
2 to my number since after testing I'm 2kts low in indication).
8.5gph is easy if you're willing to fly over 10K, and from Jesse's
experiences (they've flown higher on long trips than most of mine),
flows in the 7's aren't hard for them to get either.....If I were
seeing 12gph as you are, I know it would be rich-of-peak....so I
assume that must be how you cruise.

So it was a good little demo flight and the performance shows real
well....'specially this time of year up here. The part that gave
me the biggest kick was having both of the other non-flying pilots
tell me that the power in my panel was far better than in the
jets that either of them fly. It's truly amazing what the
21st century brought, and it's great to have it more available
to us builders than it even is to those who just want to plunk
down a wad of cash on a new certified plane.

I know that wasn't much subie/lyc stuff, and as I said, I don't
really care to pile on. But I do agree with you that the performance,
and reliability, and everything else in an engine is there for me,
so I'm very happy with that. What would be really cool though
is to see Dan's Subie come in as a good performer and light a fire
under the lyc clone companies to keep the competition level high
and bring everyone's price down.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bill DeRouchey wrote:
[quote] What is it the nay-sayers should be surprised about?

Sticking to the hard facts:

I am flying an RV-10 with the Lyc IO-540 260HP as Van recommends.

The power is wonderful. The reliability unquestionable. The engine is
extremely smooth. The engine drops into place with a proven installation.

If the issue is economy, and you consider the Lycoming thirsty, pull the
throttle out to 8.5 gph and the TAS will settle at 150mph true. When its
time to fast and far then climb up to 10-11K with full throttle and fuel
flow will settle to 12gph at 195mph true.

If the issue is power then consider I can takeoff with a very light load
and without crossing the end of a 4000' runway perform a hard, climbing
turn (poor mans Immelman) to downwind and settle at pattern altitude at
mid-field. Or, during my last cross-country we climbed with full tanks,
2 souls, and some baggage from 7500 to 11500 in 4 minutes. Class B
airspace? No worries.

Perhaps the issue is initial expense. If you are able to save money on
the initial engine installation then you will have an RV-10 that is
worth that much less when its time to sell. The number of RV-10 buyers
for used aircraft with an Egg engine could dance on the head of a pin.
Buy Lycoming and the money is only parked for a while and can
be redeemed later upon sale.

Maybe the real issue is the Egg folks are rebels at heart. This is good
as I am a rebel myself. However, I don't mess with the airframe nor
engine. You can be a great rebel by painting the airframe in LSD
rainbows or Playboy nudes. Tile the inside. Pull out the back seats and
install a shallow spa. Glass in a row of upside down surfboard fins
along the fuselage spine and paint sharks teeth under the cowl. Go for
it - I love creativity.

Maybe the issue is you hate Lycoming. Everybody has bad experiences. I
can't help you with this one.

So ... help me get it, but stick to facts.

Bill DeRouchey
billderou(at)yahoo.com <mailto:billderou(at)yahoo.com>
Flying with a few pit stops

*/millstees(at)ameritech.net/* wrote:

-Les:

I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He
has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the
December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other
engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year
or better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much
closer, and will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine
to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to
fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.

Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive

--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
n8vim(at)arrl.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Perhaps I can explain my reasons for considering an Eggenfellner
powerplant for my RV-10

First of all, these are my opinions only, so DO NOT FLAME! It seems that
every time someone mentions a non-Lycoming powerplant, they get hammered
with responses that can be summed up as "If you don't use Lycoming,
there's something wrong with you".

I have my reasons, you have yours.

Here are my reasons:
1. $50,000 (approx) for a new Lycoming? I can't afford it. Used? I'd
rather not have to go researching about the life history and what's
needed (like a crank) to get the engine reliable. $27,000 or so for a
complete Eggenfellner FWF package is very competitive.
2. 230HP is more than enough for myself; I'm used to flying 152's for
heavens sake! Anything over 800FPM climb rate will please me.
3. Liquid cooling does have its advantages, including tighter
tolerances, almost no oil burning, no shock cooling, no complex baffling
because "#4 cylinder runs hot", etc.
4. Weight is almost the same as a Lycoming.
5. I do *all* the work on all my equipment, cars, engines, etc. I do not
want an A&P to touch it - They break enough things already Smile
6. Mixture and prop control are pretty much all automatic; Less pilot
workload.
7. Rebuild cost is much less. What's a Lycoming rebuild cost - $20,000
? With the Eggenfellner, just replace the entire engine block, crank,
pistons, rings and all for around $3,000
8. I do not care about resale value. I am building this plane only for
myself to enjoy - NOT TO RESELL.
9. I can always remove an Eggenfellner and put a Lycoming in its place
(with a new engine mount) later. Nothing prevents you from switching
powerplants later.
10. The Eggenfellner engines are *extremely* smooth; Much less vibration.
11. Insurance costs are pretty much the same with the Eggenfellner
engine package as with Lycoming (due to Eggenfellner's reliable track
record)

Please don't bash those of us who are looking at alternatives; You
Lycoming people have your reasons for going with Lycoming, and we have
no problem with that.

-Jim 40384, Riveting bottom wing skins (slowly)


Tim Olson wrote:

Quote:


Hey Bill, I'm not going to join a pile-on about Subies. For the record
I basically agree, but still encourage anyone willing to step forth.
I personally wouldn't buy the finished plane because it isn't what
I'd want, but I meet others who would now and then. If the promises
deliver, I'd think it would be a viable "alternate" engine, but I would
doubt that in the end any of the benefits or deficits would be all
that big one way or another.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
millstees(at)ameritech.ne
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:10 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple of
items to the discussion.

1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all aircraft
engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced.

2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to go
fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a Subaru,
you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would.

3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so I
am ready for a change to something reliable.

4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a
problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost.

5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty compared
to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be
developing 220HP at 16,000 ft.

Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:25 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

On 12/2/06, millstees(at)ameritech.net <millstees(at)ameritech.net> wrote:

Quote:
I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple of
items to the discussion.

1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all aircraft
engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced.
So advanced that NO ONE is making an engine that works in and

aircraft, runs on any form of gasoline that makes more power per pound
with better bfsc than Continental and Lycoming.
Quote:
2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to go

Quote:
fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a Subaru,
you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would.
So use multi-grade oil and install a Tanis or Reiff system.


Quote:
3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so I
am ready for a change to something reliable.
Hmm, thousands others haven't had same problems...perhaps your sample

isn't statistically significant.
Quote:
4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a
problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost.
And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike

aircraft engine parts.
I don't see very many 20 year old Subies running around, but there
sure are a lot of 20 year old aircraft engines flying around.
Quote:
5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty compared
to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be
developing 220HP at 16,000 ft.
Turbos aren't known for reliability either, especially when run much

over 75% for any length of time.

But it is all about choice.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
jjessen



Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:32 am    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Les:

I would love to go an alternate route. I would love for Subies to make it big so we have some competition. But for me, there are three reasons why I'll pass on this one.

First and foremost, Jan. He has responded to posts from myself and others in a non-rational way, eschewing facts, and denigrating my and other's legitimate questions. This was a few years ago and maybe things have changed, but it was such a bad personal experience that I have been turned off ever since.

Second, I've rebuilt car engines, and consider myself handy with a wrench, but not nearly knowledgeable enough to trouble shoot something that would be truly experimental. Maybe his FWF packages will be up to snuff, but at least for me the Lycoming route would be less an unknown to the experts around me, of which there are plenty.

Third, every time I hear the flying stories from Tim or others, their performance envelopes, I'm fine with what they are getting. More than fine. I don't have numbers for the Subie, and because of #1 reason, don't trust what information I would get.

I sincerely hope that those who go the Subie route will be able to puff out their feathers and strut around in unmitigated glee with their accomplishments, because we need an alternative, and for leading the way, they deserve that success. I might have been one of their group if not for the 1st reason above. I just don't trust the organization, and trust in this case is huge. I want to be proven wrong. So, in an odd manner, I'm rooting for the success of all those who are trying the Subie route.

One thing's for sure, no one should be flaming anyone on this topic. We should all be finding ways to improve what we fly behind, whether in terms of performance, reliability, cost, etc. There have been some exceptional attempts to show the rotary engine as an alternative in RV-8's, but that has come out a wash to the Lycomings. But, at least it was tried and tested. I would love to see a diesel. I would love to see Honda come up with something. I don't really care if there's a turbine, but, hey, that has appeal to some. Let's keep trying new things and supporting those who try. But facts, nothing but the facts, for all of our sakes. The less obfuscation, the better.

John Jessen
#40328 (9 days more of buildus interruptus purgatory)

do not archive

Quote:
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:54 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner


Steve

I am intrigued by your decision to go with the Egg engine. Let me first say that my only a/c engine experience is behind a Lyc O-360 engine. I have had to deal with cylinder replacements, oil pump impellor ad’s and hollow crank AD. Over the years I have seen many crankshaft ADs published for may similar engines. I am a bit worried that a shiny new IO-540 may be prone to “manufacturing” problems as well. Aviation seems to be the only place where significant engine QC issues can become the owners problem. In my view Ads are no different from an auto manufacturers recall and the manufacturer should be liable (but that is an entirely different rant).

The idea of a modern water cooled engine is appealing except that I would be concerned about post purchase support and maintenance. When I open the hood of my Honda Accord I just shake my head and hope I don’t mix the windshield fluid and oil filler caps. I expect that this would be the same for a Subaru engine. Are the Egg engines materially different from what you would find in a Subaru and how do you plan to deal with maintenance issues? Parenthetically, I did have a 1994 Subaru Legend that had engine issues when an O2 sensor (*I think*) malfunctioned. I wouldn’t want the same problem in the air. Then again I have had mag problems in the air so maybe the risks are level overall…..

Your insights would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Les Kearney
#40643

PS: For the other flavours of Egg engines already in the air, have predicted performance stats been achieved?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of millstees(at)ameritech.net
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:29 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner

-Les:



I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.



Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
Quote:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:30 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi

While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new to report?

Cheers

Les

#40643
Do not archive
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
Quote:
8
Quote:
9
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
0
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
1
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
2
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
3
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
4
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
5
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
6
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
7
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
8
Quote:
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
9
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
0
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
1
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
2
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
3
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
4
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
5
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
6
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
7
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
8
Quote:
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
9
Quote:
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
0-- No virus found in this Edition. Release Date: 12/2/2006 9:39 PM


--
12/2/2006 9:39 PM
[quote][b]


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Only one comment I had from your reply, most of which I agree with. You
say, " And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
aircraft engine parts." I agree with your point, but I doubt very much that
there are many aircraft engines that get close to TBO at full power. They
are made to go 2000 hours at relatively high power settings compared to
cars, but if you are consistently running the at full power (ie, air
racing), I very highly doubt that it will truly reach TBO. I could be
wrong, but I think the average plane that is used for Cross Country flying
probably gets the majority of its hours at 65% power, if that, and most
planes probably get the majority of their hours at or below 75%. In
agreement with your point, however, most car engines get the majority of
their hours probably around 20% power (if that high). Take a car to the
racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
engine.

Again, I agree with your overall point on that one, but not with the actual
statement.

Do not archive.

Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285

--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Well said.

Do not archive.

Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org)
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285


From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 10:32 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner


Les:

I would love to go an alternate route. I would love for Subies to make it big so we have some competition. But for me, there are three reasons why I'll pass on this one.

First and foremost, Jan. He has responded to posts from myself and others in a non-rational way, eschewing facts, and denigrating my and other's legitimate questions. This was a few years ago and maybe things have changed, but it was such a bad personal experience that I have been turned off ever since.

Second, I've rebuilt car engines, and consider myself handy with a wrench, but not nearly knowledgeable enough to trouble shoot something that would be truly experimental. Maybe his FWF packages will be up to snuff, but at least for me the Lycoming route would be less an unknown to the experts around me, of which there are plenty.

Third, every time I hear the flying stories from Tim or others, their performance envelopes, I'm fine with what they are getting. More than fine. I don't have numbers for the Subie, and because of #1 reason, don't trust what information I would get.

I sincerely hope that those who go the Subie route will be able to puff out their feathers and strut around in unmitigated glee with their accomplishments, because we need an alternative, and for leading the way, they deserve that success. I might have been one of their group if not for the 1st reason above. I just don't trust the organization, and trust in this case is huge. I want to be proven wrong. So, in an odd manner, I'm rooting for the success of all those who are trying the Subie route.

One thing's for sure, no one should be flaming anyone on this topic. We should all be finding ways to improve what we fly behind, whether in terms of performance, reliability, cost, etc. There have been some exceptional attempts to show the rotary engine as an alternative in RV-8's, but that has come out a wash to the Lycomings. But, at least it was tried and tested. I would love to see a diesel. I would love to see Honda come up with something. I don't really care if there's a turbine, but, hey, that has appeal to some. Let's keep trying new things and supporting those who try. But facts, nothing but the facts, for all of our sakes. The less obfuscation, the better.

John Jessen
#40328 (9 days more of buildus interruptus purgatory)

do not archive [quote]


From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:54 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Steve

I am intrigued by your decision to go with the Egg engine. Let me first say that my only a/c engine experience is behind a Lyc O-360 engine. I have had to deal with cylinder replacements, oil pump impellor ad’s and hollow crank AD. Over the years I have seen many crankshaft ADs published for may similar engines. I am a bit worried that a shiny new IO-540 may be prone to “manufacturing” problems as well. Aviation seems to be the only place where significant engine QC issues can become the owners problem. In my view Ads are no different from an auto manufacturers recall and the manufacturer should be liable (but that is an entirely different rant).

The idea of a modern water cooled engine is appealing except that I would be concerned about post purchase support and maintenance. When I open the hood of my Honda Accord I just shake my head and hope I don’t mix the windshield fluid and oil filler caps. I expect that this would be the same for a Subaru engine. Are the Egg engines materially different from what you would find in a Subaru and how do you plan to deal with maintenance issues? Parenthetically, I did have a 1994 Subaru Legend that had engine issues when an O2 sensor (*I think*) malfunctioned. I wouldn’t want the same problem in the air. Then again I have had mag problems in the air so maybe the risks are level overall…..

Your insights would be most appreciated.

Cheers

Les Kearney
#40643

PS: For the other flavours of Egg engines already in the air, have predicted performance stats been achieved?


--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
ainut(at)hiwaay.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:05 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

I don't know where y'all get the opinion that car engines "aren't made to run at full power."  Ford and Chevy both say theirs are.  If you maintain adequate cooling, they will run forever at high power settings.  Longest test I've heard of was a Chevy (LS-1?) that was run continuously for over 12 months, with routine cycling of power settings.  No worse treatment can be heaped upon an engine.

David M.


Jesse Saint wrote:
[quote] [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> (jesse(at)itecusa.org) Only one comment I had from your reply, most of which I agree with. You say, " And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike aircraft engine parts." I agree with your point, but I doubt very much that there are many aircraft engines that get close to TBO at full power. They are made to go 2000 hours at relatively high power settings compared to cars, but if you are consistently running the at full power (ie, air racing), I very highly doubt that it will truly reach TBO. I could be wrong, but I think the average plane that is used for Cross Country flying probably gets the majority of its hours at 65% power, if that, and most planes probably get the majority of their hours at or below 75%. In agreement with your point, however, most car engines get the majority of their hours probably around 20% power (if that high). Take a car to the racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that engine. Again, I agree with your overall point on that one, but not with the actual statement. Do not archive. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org (jesse(at)itecusa.org) www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 --


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Now that's what I want....en engine that will actually run "forever". Wink
Wouldn't that make the rebuild issue non-existant?

<LOL> I wish my old suburban had heard it wasn't ever supposed to have
thrown that rod. Wink

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
David M. wrote:
[quote] I don't know where y'all get the opinion that car engines "aren't made
to run at full power." Ford and Chevy both say theirs are. If you
maintain adequate cooling, they will run forever at high power
settings. Longest test I've heard of was a Chevy (LS-1?) that was run
continuously for over 12 months, with routine cycling of power
settings. No worse treatment can be heaped upon an engine.

David M.


Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>
> Only one comment I had from your reply, most of which I agree with. You
> say, " And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
> aircraft engine parts." I agree with your point, but I doubt very much that
> there are many aircraft engines that get close to TBO at full power. They
> are made to go 2000 hours at relatively high power settings compared to
> cars, but if you are consistently running the at full power (ie, air
> racing), I very highly doubt that it will truly reach TBO. I could be
> wrong, but I think the average plane that is used for Cross Country flying
> probably gets the majority of its hours at 65% power, if that, and most
> planes probably get the majority of their hours at or below 75%. In
> agreement with your point, however, most car engines get the majority of
> their hours probably around 20% power (if that high). Take a car to the
> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
> engine.
>
> Again, I agree with your overall point on that one, but not with the actual
> statement.
>
> Do not archive.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse(at)itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> W: 352-465-4545
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> --


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
deej(at)deej.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:59 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Jesse Saint wrote:
Quote:
Take a car to the
racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
engine.


Hi Jesse,
That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
show that there is any truth to it.

Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for
those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.

I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told
me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.

So, any real data that I can base my decision on?

Thanks,

-Dj


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:29 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Not delivered just sold, they are supposed to be shipped late 06/early 07.
No final data, or flying stat's as of yet from the 10, but I should have mine done ASAP and be able to give everyone reports as it goes along.
Dan
N289DT

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:30 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner


Hi

While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new to report?

Cheers

Les

#40643
Do not archive

[quote]

href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

[b]


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:37 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit.
Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+ individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology.
Dan
Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate.


From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill DeRouchey
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:22 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner

What is it the nay-sayers should be surprised about?

Sticking to the hard facts:

I am flying an RV-10 with the Lyc IO-540 260HP as Van recommends.

The power is wonderful. The reliability unquestionable. The engine is extremely smooth. The engine drops into place with a proven installation.

If the issue is economy, and you consider the Lycoming thirsty, pull the throttle out to 8.5 gph and the TAS will settle at 150mph true. When its time to fast and far then climb up to 10-11K with full throttle and fuel flow will settle to 12gph at 195mph true.

If the issue is power then consider I can takeoff with a very light load and without crossing the end of a 4000' runway perform a hard, climbing turn (poor mans Immelman) to downwind and settle at pattern altitude at mid-field. Or, during my last cross-country we climbed with full tanks, 2 souls, and some baggage from 7500 to 11500 in 4 minutes. Class B airspace? No worries.

Perhaps the issue is initial expense. If you are able to save money on the initial engine installation then you will have an RV-10 that is worth that much less when its time to sell. The number of RV-10 buyers for used aircraft with an Egg engine could dance on the head of a pin. Buy Lycoming and the money is only parked for a while and can be redeemed later upon sale.

Maybe the real issue is the Egg folks are rebels at heart. This is good as I am a rebel myself. However, I don't mess with the airframe nor engine. You can be a great rebel by painting the airframe in LSD rainbows or Playboy nudes. Tile the inside. Pull out the back seats and install a shallow spa. Glass in a row of upside down surfboard fins along the fuselage spine and paint sharks teeth under the cowl. Go for it - I love creativity.

Maybe the issue is you hate Lycoming. Everybody has bad experiences. I can't help you with this one.

So ... help me get it, but stick to facts.

Bill DeRouchey
billderou(at)yahoo.com (billderou(at)yahoo.com)
Flying with a few pit stops

millstees(at)ameritech.net wrote:
[quote] (at)page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.EmailStyle17 { COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } -Les:

I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.

Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
[quote] --


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
millstees(at)ameritech.ne
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:41 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

I was accused earlier of not talking facts, so lets talk some facts. If you
drive a Subaru, or any other car (at) 55MPH in 1 to 5 hour segments, for
100,000 miles, that equals out to 1818 hours on the engine. The people
currently flying the Subaru, say they cruise (at) 1900 RPM, with full throtle,
using the 2.02/1 PSRU, that means you are running the engine 3900 RPM. 100%
power is 6900 RPM, this means that you are running (at) 57% power. Yes, during
takeoff, you are running higher RPM, similar to passing in a car. All, well
within the manufacturer guidelines. So where are the running the engine into
the ground ideas coming from? I have a Chrysler, that has 125000 miles on
it, and other than oil changes, and regular maintainance, I have done
nothing out of the ordinary to the engine. I don't think that is all that
exceptional, to a well maintained car or airplane running a car engine.
When is the last time you heard of anyone running an aircraft engine to 1900
hours, without atleast some cylinder work or a top overhaul. yes , I know
some have done it, but I bet it is the exception, and in a car, it is more a
rule in the newer high compression engines everyone is running. Modern car
engines have progressed to the point where they are more or less problem
free in the first 100K to 125K miles, because of all the R&D, where the air
cooled engines have hardly changed in the last 50 years.

Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:49 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

This list of items also goes into my thinking and the number one reason
is that I flew behind one and loved it. Once mine is up and flying I
welcome all to come and fly with me, and you will be converted. Flying
behind and Eggenfellner is indescribable and an experience that must be
felt. I intend to offer a ride to as many as possible, and get more
people to convert, what I feel the fear is not that Lycoming is better
than Subaru, rather Lycoming is the big boy on the block, and something
new is always scary. But glass was scary when it first came out, no it
is second nature, so soon Subaru will be second nature and we will
finally have competition in a space that traditionally has not had any
competition.
Lets just keep it open for thought and see how it turns out, I do not
bash anyone for the way they do things, because they might just be
better, non traditional sure, but better just the same. Only time will
tell, and that time slot is getting smaller and smaller.
Dan
N289DT (RV10E)

--


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:52 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in
straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's.
If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear
view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em
hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check
any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled"
themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken
the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not
Archive

BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR
money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like
"reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong.

---


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:13 pm    Post subject: Eggenfellner Reply with quote

We go through this alternative engine thing every few months. I think the real question is whether you like to fly or build(experiment). The one certainty in all this is that the average builder will add at least a calendar year to the project minimum. Having built a Glastar using a Lycosaurus, I looked at Crossflow (aka FBN), Innodyne, Deltahawk, Zoche , and Mistral (partner even visited the factory). I decided to use another Lycosaurus rather than develop a motor mount, exhaust system, cooling system, cowling etc. I want to fly rather than build.



---


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group