Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - -reply from downunder

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

-reply from downunder

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV7-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

terry.paradise(at)bigpond
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:30 am Post subject: -reply from downunder

Hi Larry,

 I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been  interested in your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.  

 I suspect you may be the type of person who may  consider the likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a  couple of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian  aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the  'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so  much over here. 

 I know the cars we drive now have motors that are  dramatically more reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our  cars from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept  more up-to-date engines as well. 

 Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings,  but I'm considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru  (read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose  a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their  technology is supported, as in racing circles.

 The other thing is that Subaru can run with any  juice, has lots of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and  last a long time.

 I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you  have on these things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except  every time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use  oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and  seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large  stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the  air, I guess Ill just have to do it.

 Terry Wilson

 Burra, South Australia.

 [quote]   ---

aurbo(at)ak.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: -reply from downunder

Terry,

  

 Subaru motors work great, as do Mazda  rotary, and some others. Try the archives on this web site for more information  than you can read in a day. Also try the Vans Air Force web site at www.vansairforce.net/. I suspect most  folks go Lycoming due to the vast knowledge pool and know  reliability.

  

 Good Luck with what ever route you choose  and have fun. 

  

 Mike Ice

 Anchorage, Alaska

 RV-9, canopy done (finally) motor mount  next then on the engine (Lycoming O-320 E3D)

 ---

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: -reply from downunder

Terry,

 

I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,

somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top

notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster

to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation

use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many

years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time

you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner

has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but

have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable

decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly

because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses

and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in

cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!

 

I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is

pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of

say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags

that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor

itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.

 

If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard

pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and

weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy

compared to their old clunker comrades.

 

Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to

that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As

to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone

doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big

deal?...don't think so.

 

The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low

compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.

You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.

 

If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are

remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a

FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.

 

You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number

of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one

thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much

simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less

things to go wrong.

 

Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is

there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it

slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on

that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a

slow one.

 

Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts

(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot

of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many

of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.

 

Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for

a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do

very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than

woefully inadequate and outdated.

 

Cheers

 

Frank



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: -reply from downunder

Hi Larry,

I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your

arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear. 

I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a

modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders

in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation

people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the

'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not

seen so much over here. 

I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more

reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from

the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept

more up-to-date engines as well. 

Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering

engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is

back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a

benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their

technology is supported, as in racing circles.

The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of

engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long

time.

I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.

I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see

them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the

bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem

to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large

stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my

plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.

Terry Wilson

Burra, South Australia.



	---

mtaylo17(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A & P.

  

 Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?

  

 Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of time to his build.

  

 I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.

  

 In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your decision.

  

 Good luck!

  

 Mark

 www.4sierratango.com





 [quote]  Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000

From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com



     Terry,

  

 I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!

  

 I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.

  

 If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.

  

 Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.

  

 The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.

 You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.

  

 If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.

  

 You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.

  

 Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.

  

 Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.

  

 Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequate and outdated.

  

 Cheers

  

 Frank



   From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: -reply from downunder

 

 Hi Larry,

 I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear. 

 I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here. 

 I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines as well. 

 Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.

 The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.

 I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.

 Terry Wilson

 Burra, South Australia.

 [quote] ---

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

Indeed Mark,

 

but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at

2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that

turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting

engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this

regard.

 

Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance

compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water

cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more

fuel..

 

A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent

failure points.

 

seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at

hand.

 

And so the argument goes on.

 

Cheers

 

Frank



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the

value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later

on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion

engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true

if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the

annual doing by an A & P.

 

Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away

from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are

you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?

 

Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For

those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto

conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I

guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.

http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian

Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to

be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by

pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of

time to his build.

 

I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but

like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or

some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's

quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.

 

In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do

and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to

live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your

decision.

 

Good luck!

 

Mark

www.4sierratango.com

________________________________



	Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

	Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000

	From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

	To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

	

	

	Terry,

	 

	I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are

outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a

supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit

of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine

for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it

takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember

every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan

Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car

engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and

reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't

know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on

Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots

of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!

	 

	I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old

clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern

experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have

some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But

the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it

might be.

	 

	If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will

be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel

and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively

heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.

	 

	Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that

answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right

there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my

clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big

deal?...don't think so.

	 

	The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a

low compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.

	You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.

	 

	If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these

motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you

then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture

right.

	 

	You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a

number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do

one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much

simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less

things to go wrong.

	 

	Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong

suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus

making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is

still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast

airplane than a slow one.

	 

	Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of

the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has

put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to

me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.

	 

	Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that

way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what

they do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than

woefully inadequate and outdated.

	 

	Cheers

	 

	Frank



________________________________



	From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson

	Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM

	To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

	Subject: -reply from downunder

	

	

	Hi Larry,

	I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in

your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear. 

	I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the

likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple

of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian

aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering

the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is

not seen so much over here. 

	I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically

more reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars

from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and

accept more up-to-date engines as well. 

	Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm

considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru

(read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I

suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world

and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.

	The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots

of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long

time.

	I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these

things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every

time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use

oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled

donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due

to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one

to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.

	Terry Wilson

	Burra, South Australia.



		---

mtaylo17(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.

 

There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and tested.

 

It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!!

 

Mark

www.4sierratango.com

RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!

Subject: RE: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com



Indeed Mark,

 

but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.

 

Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..

 

A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure points.

 

seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand

sshook(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought it was too heated on one side or the other.  It’s nice to see a discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.  

   

There are arguments for both.  To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it works (if its not broke don’t fix it).  Also, the technology is catching up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc, etc.    

   

I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years.  I also have spent the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T.  I am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.  Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no intention of building this plane only to sell it.  I have faith in Jan and his commitment to the success of his company.  If I read correctly, Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.  

   

Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the “Wiz-Bang 3000 – nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor’ because of a proven track record by the Subaru.  

   

My point is – technology changes.  We can move forward and even contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are comfortable with what we know is working at the time.  It’s a personal decision as personal as what clothes you wear.  

     

                                

 Scott R. Shook 

 RV-7A (Building) 

 N696JS (Reserved)   

        

  

From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

 Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40

 To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: -reply from downunder  

  

   

Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.

  

 There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and tested.

  

 It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!!

  

 Mark

 www.4sierratango.com

 RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!

 

 

 

       

  

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000

 From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

 To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com  

Indeed Mark,  

   

but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.  

   

Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..  

   

A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure points.  

   

seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand.  

   

And so the argument goes on.  

   

Cheers  

   

Frank  

       

  

From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

 Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM

 To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: -reply from downunder  

Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A & P.

  

 Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?

  

 Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of time to his build.

  

 I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.

  

 In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your decision.

  

 Good luck!

  

 Mark

 www.4sierratango.com

 

 

 

       

  

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000

 From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

 To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com  

Terry,  

   

I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!  

   

I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.  

   

If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.  

   

Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.  

   

The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.  

You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.  

   

If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.  

   

You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.  

   

Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.  

   

Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.  

   

Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequate and outdated.  

   

Cheers  

   

Frank  

       

  

From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson

 Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM

 To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: -reply from downunder    

Hi Larry,  

    

I'm a ' 7 builder in South   Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.   

    

I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.   

    

I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines as well.   

    

Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.  

    

The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.  

    

I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.  

    

Terry Wilson  

    

Burra, South Australia.  

  [quote]    

---

mtaylo17(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

I can remember when Jan was starting up his engine business, he had a well worked out package, and seems like he's evolving with the demands of his customers too. He's certainly done a better job than the Crossbow Subaru people. Are they even still around?

 

I do embrace new technology for aircraft, despite me going for the 'Lycosaur' clone, I went with a Blue Mountain EFIS 1, for similar reasons Scott went for the Eggenfellner. I like the EFIS a lot, but I'm still not quite trusting it enough to go out and fly IFR. It does have the occasional glitch which does eventually get worked out by the BMA gang. I guess we all decide how we want to allocate our risks.

 

Here I am, hating Microsoft and just getting myself up to speed with the latest copy of Window's Vista on my computer!

 

Here's to a discussion rather than a debate! Much more civilised don't ya think?!

 

Regards,

 

Mark

www.4sierratango.com

 

From: sshook(at)cox.netTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:13:10 -0700

I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought it was too heated on one side or the other.  It’s nice to see a discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.

 

There are arguments for both.  To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it works (if its not broke don’t fix it).  Also, the technology is catching up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc, etc.  

 

I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years.  I also have spent the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T.  I am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.  Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no intention of building this plane only to sell it.  I have faith in Jan and his commitment to the success of his company.  If I read correctly, Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.

 

Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the “Wiz-Bang 3000 – nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor’ because of a proven track record by the Subaru.

 

My point is – technology changes.  We can move forward and even contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are comfortable with what we know is working at the time.  It’s a personal decision as personal as what clothes you wear.

 



                                Scott R. Shook RV-7A (Building) N696JS (Reserved) 





From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40To: rv7-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: -reply from downunder

 

Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear. There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and tested. It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!! Markwww.4sierratango.comRV-7 IOF-360 Flying!



Subject: RE: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000From: frank.hinde(at)hp.comTo: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Indeed Mark,

 

but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.

 

Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..

 

A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure points.

 

seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

Amen!...

 

Frank



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:40 PM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean

that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the

automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.

 

There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are

'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much

of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those

places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute

for tried and tested.

 

It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as

people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the

fire!!

 

Mark

www.4sierratango.com

RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!

________________________________



	Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

	Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000

	From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

	To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

	

	

	Indeed Mark,

	 

	but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop

turns at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a

shaft that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by

limiting engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the

same in this regard.

	 

	Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance

compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water

cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more

fuel..

	 

	A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all

represent failure points.

	 

	seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the

job at hand.

	 

	And so the argument goes on.

	 

	Cheers

	 

	Frank



________________________________



	From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

	Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM

	To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

	Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

	

	

	Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop

up the value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale

later on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto

conversion engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is

especially true if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and

will need the annual doing by an A & P.

	 

	Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when

you're away from home, all your tools and spares are in your

workshop/hangar? Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or

the Subaru dealership?

	 

	Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too.

For those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an

auto conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with

subaru's? I guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.

http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian

Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to

be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by

pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of

time to his build.

	 

	I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old

tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with

FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and

it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.

	 

	In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want

to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else

has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your

decision.

	 

	Good luck!

	 

	Mark

	www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/> 

	

	

	

	

	



________________________________



		Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

		Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000

		From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

		To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

		

		

		Terry,

		 

		I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are

outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a

supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit

of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine

for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it

takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember

every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan

Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car

engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and

reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't

know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on

Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots

of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!

		 

		I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the

old clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern

experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have

some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But

the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it

might be.

		 

		If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone

you will be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so

little fuel and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out

relatively heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.

		 

		Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know

that answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving

right there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak

but my clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a

big deal?...don't think so.

		 

		The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to

order a low compression version if you want to run regular) quite

happily.

		You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.

		 

		If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that

these motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough

for you then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the

mixture right.

		 

		You have to remember that car engines have to be

efficient at a number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines

really only do one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em

there. A much simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine

with less things to go wrong.

		 

		Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the

strong suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled

motor, thus making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the

jury is still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a

fast airplane than a slow one.

		 

		Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the

cost of the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no

one has put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not

clear to me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000

hours.

		 

		Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors

are that way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do

exactly what they do very well, more highly adapted for their

environment rather than woefully inadequate and outdated.

		 

		Cheers

		 

		Frank



________________________________



		From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson

		Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM

		To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

		Subject: -reply from downunder

		

		

		Hi Larry,

		I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been

interested in your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of

yesteryear. 

		I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider

the likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a

couple of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors.

Australian aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only

considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size

planes is not seen so much over here. 

		I know the cars we drive now have motors that are

dramatically more reliable and last more than twice as long as the

motors in our cars from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft

gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines as well. 

		Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but

I'm considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with

Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the

source. I suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over

the world and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.

		The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice,

has lots of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and

last a long time.

		I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have

on these things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except

every time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old

tech, use oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big

air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines

often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to

use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.

		Terry Wilson

		Burra, South Australia.



			---

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

Indeed Scott,

 

And if it wasn't for early adopters such as yourself then there would

never be a market for anything new in aviation...Just look at what has

come about in the last few years in the experimental EFIS, engine

management and autopilot systems.

 

You bet I jumped all over those!!!

 

Cheers

 

Frank



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott R. Shook

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:13 PM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder



I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought

it was too heated on one side or the other.  It's nice to see a

discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.



 



There are arguments for both.  To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming

clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it

works (if its not broke don't fix it).  Also, the technology is catching

up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc,

etc.  



 



I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have

seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years.  I also have spent

the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those

pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T.  I

am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer

engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more

people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.

Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no

intention of building this plane only to sell it.  I have faith in Jan

and his commitment to the success of his company.  If I read correctly,

Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.



 



Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and

telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the

"Wiz-Bang 3000 - nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a

proven track record by the Subaru.



 



My point is - technology changes.  We can move forward and even

contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are

comfortable with what we know is working at the time.  It's a personal

decision as personal as what clothes you wear.



 



                                

Scott R. Shook 

RV-7A (Building) 

N696JS (Reserved) 



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder



 



Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean

that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the

automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.

 

There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are

'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much

of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those

places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute

for tried and tested.

 

It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as

people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the

fire!!

 

Mark

www.4sierratango.com

RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!



________________________________



Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000

From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com



Indeed Mark,



 



but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at

2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that

turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting

engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this

regard.



 



Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance

compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water

cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more

fuel..



 



A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent

failure points.



 



seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at

hand.



 



And so the argument goes on.



 



Cheers



 



Frank



 



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: -reply from downunder



Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the

value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later

on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion

engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true

if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the

annual doing by an A & P.

 

Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away

from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are

you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?

 

Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For

those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto

conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I

guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.

http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian

Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to

be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by

pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of

time to his build.

 

I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but

like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or

some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's

quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.

 

In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do

and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to

live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your

decision.

 

Good luck!

 

Mark

www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/> 



________________________________



Subject: RE: -reply from downunder

Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000

From: frank.hinde(at)hp.com

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com



Terry,



 



I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,

somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top

notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster

to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation

use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many

years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time

you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner

has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but

have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable

decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly

because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses

and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in

cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!



 



I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is

pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of

say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags

that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor

itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.



 



If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard

pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and

weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy

compared to their old clunker comrades.



 



Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to

that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As

to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone

doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big

deal?...don't think so.



 



The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low

compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.



You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.



 



If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are

remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a

FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.



 



You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number

of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one

thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much

simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less

things to go wrong.



 



Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is

there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it

slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on

that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a

slow one.



 



Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts

(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot

of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many

of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.



 



Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for

a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do

very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than

woefully inadequate and outdated.



 



Cheers



 



Frank



 



________________________________



From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM

To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: -reply from downunder



Hi Larry,



I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your

arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear. 



I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a

modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders

in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation

people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the

'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not

seen so much over here. 



I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more

reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from

the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept

more up-to-date engines as well. 



Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering

engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is

back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a

benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their

technology is supported, as in racing circles.



The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of

engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long

time.



I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.

I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see

them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the

bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem

to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large

stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my

plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.



Terry Wilson



Burra, South Australia.



	---

flybill2usa(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: -reply from downunder

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  This is an ancient, but worthwhile discussion. It does boil down to being a  personal  decision and how we each arrive at our own decision is  perhaps as instructive as the knowledge of the differences, to one still in  the process of making that decision so I will chime in with my own road to  this decision for whatever it's worth.

  

 I can tell you that I truly agonized over it for about 2 years! 

  

     I had a Cessna 180 for 22 years and loved the  smooth power of the 6 cylinder O-470 Continental engine.  Every time I flew  an airplane with a 4 cylinder Lycoming engine, I admired the light weight  efficient power they produced but was not impressed by the vibration and seeming  difficulty with starting compared with the O-470.  Perhaps one of the  strongest pulls for me was a desire for 6 cylinders.  Another was the shock  cooling issue which of course resides in all air cooled aircraft engines. I  towed gliders with Pawnee's powered by Lycoming O-540s which were smoother and  had great power, but shock cooling of the cylinders was a huge  concern. 

  

 While magnetos are relatively simple and very reliable over the course of a  2000 hour TBO they often are at the center of traditional engine problems.

  

 It is absolutely true that traditional engines are relatively simple with  few failure points, with very long histories of usage and reliability and that  is a very powerful argument in favor of them.

 Perhaps their strongest, which was the source of most of my agony in  deciding, but in the end, the smooth power and modern engineering advancements  and perhaps most of all, the reputation of the integrity of the Eggenfellner  organization won the day and I made the decision knowing the risks and I have  chosen the new H6T engine to go along with a modern 'all glass" cockpit, for my  RV-7.

  

 There you have it.  You pays your money and makes your choices.

  

 Bill Schoen

 RV-7 90%

 N727BN (res)

  

  

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV7-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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