---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 03/07/08: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:27 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (mike humphrey) 2. 12:31 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (mike humphrey) 3. 03:49 AM - Re: Subaru down (Tracy Crook) 4. 04:47 AM - Re: Subaru down (Ed Anderson) 5. 07:29 AM - Alternative engines () 6. 08:06 AM - Re: RV-4 Question (rsipp@earthlink.net) 7. 08:56 AM - Re: Alternative engines (John W. Cox) 8. 09:20 AM - Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? (DCS317@aol.com) 9. 09:24 AM - Re: Alternative engines (Greg Young) 10. 09:28 AM - Re: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? (Konrad L. Werner) 11. 09:28 AM - Alternative engines () 12. 09:43 AM - Re: Alternative engines (Ron Lee) 13. 10:20 AM - Re: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? (Acepilot) 14. 04:38 PM - Death of the RV-12] () 15. 06:44 PM - Re: Alternative engines (Kelly McMullen) 16. 07:17 PM - Re: Death of the RV-12] (Sam Buchanan) 17. 11:30 PM - Death of the RV-12] () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:27:36 AM PST US From: "mike humphrey" Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine Then why did Honda buy 53% of Continental stock? I believe that is the last % that I saw. According to Honda's own press release they were going to use the Continental as their springboard. The release of the 'Honda engine' was going to be in three phases: 1. conventional engine based on the Continental but with Honda manufacturing techniques, ie improved metals, air cooling, etc. 2. was to be still Continental based but with EFI, EI, better pistons, higher TBO, 3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4 and 6, all the above improvements, even better manufacturing techniques-more like auto engines, and the biggie, water cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more air cooled engines, improved cabin heating ability, no CO threat at all, noise reduction, interchangeable auto parts right off of the shelf. Doesn't that sound like exactly what all of us want and have complained about Lyco's forever? They anticipated the TBO to be in excess of 10k hrs. Instead they go after an even smaller market - The Honda Jet. Mike H 9A/8A do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:14 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine > > On 9:23 2008-03-06 Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote: >> Great question. I suspect with the best engineering team in the >> world, they couldn't get the weight with all the cooling apparatus >> down enough. Or, they'd have to get $50K for it. Would be good to >> know, for sure. After all, Honda is now manufacturing complete jet >> aircraft, race engines, all kinds of auto engines, motorcycles, >> scooters, lawn mowers, etc... Any Honda engineers out there? Pls >> tell us!!! > > I suspect it's even simpler than that. I recall that the engine was > built, > and flying, on a test aircraft, wasn't it? So they were clearly able to > surpass any technical hurdles. > > No, I suspect the real problem was the business side of the equation. The > sales volume just isn't there to support Honda building aircraft engines. > The market is too fragmented, and us down at the 200HP and lower range are > probably not the market to target if you're looking for high volume and > profitable returns. Homebuilders are a notoriously thrifty group. > > And really, a new Honda powerplant would also be "unproven", and carry > with > it many, if not all, of the same risks as a current popular automotive > conversion. How do you justify choosing a Honda engine over a Rotary > conversion? > > -Rob > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:31:55 AM PST US From: "mike humphrey" Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine Forgot to add that they were planning on releasing both certified and experimental versions of the 'Honda engine'. Wonder if that's what made Lycoming FINALLY realize that it was missing the boat with only producing certified engines? Mike H do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:14 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine > > On 9:23 2008-03-06 Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote: >> Great question. I suspect with the best engineering team in the >> world, they couldn't get the weight with all the cooling apparatus >> down enough. Or, they'd have to get $50K for it. Would be good to >> know, for sure. After all, Honda is now manufacturing complete jet >> aircraft, race engines, all kinds of auto engines, motorcycles, >> scooters, lawn mowers, etc... Any Honda engineers out there? Pls >> tell us!!! > > I suspect it's even simpler than that. I recall that the engine was > built, > and flying, on a test aircraft, wasn't it? So they were clearly able to > surpass any technical hurdles. > > No, I suspect the real problem was the business side of the equation. The > sales volume just isn't there to support Honda building aircraft engines. > The market is too fragmented, and us down at the 200HP and lower range are > probably not the market to target if you're looking for high volume and > profitable returns. Homebuilders are a notoriously thrifty group. > > And really, a new Honda powerplant would also be "unproven", and carry > with > it many, if not all, of the same risks as a current popular automotive > conversion. How do you justify choosing a Honda engine over a Rotary > conversion? > > -Rob > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:49:45 AM PST US From: "Tracy Crook" Subject: Re: RV-List: Subaru down Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it wasn't a factor Tracy On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, wrote: > I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it > comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience > with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I > owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive > dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could > not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to > find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't > "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed > more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then > didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3; > When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base > because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by > using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and > eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something > "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what > you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3. > > Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer > to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an > age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last. > > > Jim > > > ------------------------------ > It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. > > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:47:39 AM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Subaru down Your right, Jim. No question (in my mind) that an RV powered by a alternative engine would have less resale value. However, keep in mind that there could be a $10,000- $20,000 cost difference in the engine cost alone - so, I would not expect to get as high a resale value (even if the alternative engine installation is perfect) as I simply do not have as much engine money in it. I think more to the point might be the difficulty of selling it due to perception of risks, difficulty of acquiring insurance (I've had none, but others have), and perhaps not being able to find an A&E to sign off on the conditional inspections if you are not the original builder. I think most if not all alternative engine enthusiasts are aware of these factors - resale value is simply not a major factor - the challenge of the project is probably what appeals to most. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: JFLEISC@aol.com To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:51 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Subaru down I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of =9Crisk=9D when it comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could not get a repairman=99s certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren=99t =9Cfamiliar=9D with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then didn=99t want to hear about airplanes without =9Cairplane=9D engines. Issue 3; When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by using alternative power plants however =9Cbuilding=9D can be addictive and eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something =9Cnewer=9D, =9Cfaster=9D, etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3. Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:29:02 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Alternative engines I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru. I am completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my RV-6A this year. I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have been any problems with these engines are generally self inflicted because of a serious deviation from the installation manual. Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package he sells and the crafted workmanship and design he offers. The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly more hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable alternative engines like Jan offers. Do Not Archieve. Ron Burnett St. Charles, MO ---- Tracy Crook wrote: ============ Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it wasn't a factor Tracy On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, wrote: > I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it > comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience > with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I > owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive > dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could > not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to > find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't > "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed > more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then > didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3; > When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base > because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by > using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and > eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something > "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what > you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3. > > Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer > to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an > age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last. > Jim ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:06:18 AM PST US From: rsipp@earthlink.net Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-4 Question 1025LB IO-320 CS two radios full instrumentation Dick Sipp ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:56:09 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines From: "John W. Cox" Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft? That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight. John Cox -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ronburnett@charter.net Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 7:23 AM Subject: RV-List: Alternative engines I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru. I am completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my RV-6A this year. I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have been any problems with these engines are generally self inflicted because of a serious deviation from the installation manual. Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package he sells and the crafted workmanship and design he offers. The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly more hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable alternative engines like Jan offers. Do Not Archieve. Ron Burnett St. Charles, MO ---- Tracy Crook wrote: ============ Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it wasn't a factor Tracy On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, wrote: > I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it > comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience > with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I > owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive > dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could > not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to > find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't > "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed > more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then > didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3; > When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base > because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by > using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and > eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something > "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what > you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3. > > Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer > to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an > age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last. > Jim ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:20:05 AM PST US From: DCS317@aol.com Subject: RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges against rain? It rains in Seattle! Don Schmiesing **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:24:01 AM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC. You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want. Whether you can or should is up to you. Regards, Greg Young > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:52 AM > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines > > > Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the > FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into > aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes > the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft? > > That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will > be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. > Set me straight. > > John Cox > > -----Original Message----- ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:36 AM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? Get out of Seattle... ;-) do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: DCS317@aol.com To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges against rain? It rains in Seattle! Don Schmiesing ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:40 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Alternative engines John, Do not claim to be an expert in this subject but I cannot burn ethanol fuel in our Luscombe as the FAA approved STC prohibits it. I do know most of the Subaru drivers burn autogas which contains ethanol. Our seals are nitron instead of rubber. As to ethanols effect on alum. tanks, fittings, there seems to be no adverse effects so far. Ron Burnett Do not archieve ---- "John W. Cox" wrote: ============ Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft? That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight. John Cox ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:43:33 AM PST US From: "Ron Lee" Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative engines > Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does > not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for > flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for > fuel in aircraft? > > That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up > to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight. I heard a radio report that some folks (corn growers?) may lobby for up to 20% ethanol in auro fuel. Ron Lee ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:53 AM PST US From: Acepilot Subject: Re: RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? Ya, but don't come to Wisconsin. We now have a pile of FROZEN rain that's been in the yard since last November and the temps are in the single digits again. I thought it was March...hope it's gone by Oshkosh ;) do not archive this one either. Could one use a thin self-stick rubber weatherstrip material that can be "crushed" by the canopy when it is closed? Scott Konrad L. Werner wrote: > Get out of Seattle... ;-) > > do not archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* DCS317@aol.com > *To:* rv-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2008 10:16 AM > *Subject:* RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? > > Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges > against rain? It rains in Seattle! > > Don Schmiesing > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. > > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c > * > > * > > > * -- Scott http://corbenflyer.tripod.com Building RV-4 Gotta Fly or Gonna Die! ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:00 PM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Death of the RV-12] Subject: Death of the RV-12 If you have not yet read the the RVator on line you should. The 51% rule, quickbuild kits and the REAL fate of the RV-12 are in the balance. Van attempts to put on a "happy face" about the FAA latest train wreck but if you read pages 3 thru 7 you get a clearer picture. To me it reads as step number one in getting rid of the 51% violators by eliminating everyone involved, including those who play by the rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a "clone". No choice of engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no repairmans certificate either. You get one ONLY by attending the classes. I guess I'll take the class so I can qualify IF & WHEN I build another airplane. Where did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and 601XL ? KABONG ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:47 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative engines IMHO you NEED to do some long term testing of your PRC covered with your favorite varieties of mogas, with and without ethanol. I don't know with the current PRC, but what was used back 30 years is turned to goooo by mogas. Greg Young wrote: > > The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC. > You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want. > Whether you can or should is up to you. > > Regards, > Greg Young > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox >> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:52 AM >> To: rv-list@matronics.com >> Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines >> >> >> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the >> FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into >> aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes >> the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft? >> >> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will >> be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. >> Set me straight. >> >> John Cox >> >> -----Original Message----- >> > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:04 PM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12] jhstarn@verizon.net wrote: > > Subject: Death of the RV-12 > > If you have not yet read the the RVator on line you should. The 51% > rule, quickbuild kits and the REAL fate of the RV-12 are in the > balance. Van attempts to put on a "happy face" about the FAA latest > train wreck but if you read pages 3 thru 7 you get a clearer picture. > To me it reads as step number one in getting rid of the 51% violators > by eliminating everyone involved, including those who play by the > rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a "clone". No choice of > engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no repairmans certificate > either. You get one ONLY by attending the classes. I guess I'll take > the class so I can qualify IF & WHEN I build another airplane. Where > did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and 601XL ? KABONG Let's not be too hasty to sign the death warrant of the amateur-built RV-12. ;-) Vans is in a holding pattern until the FAA gets their act together and releases the new evaluation process of the 51% rule. Until that new process is released, Vans has no choice other than to offer the RV-12 as a S-LSA since at this point in time......there is no way for ANYONE to get a new kit classified as experimental amateur built. As soon as the FAA releases the new process, you can rest assured Vans will make a serious effort to offer an E-AB RV-12. The concern is the FAA may make the new evaluation process so restrictive that it will be difficult to classify a kit that is as advanced as the RV-12 as experimental amateur built. Nobody knows at this point how this will play out. But even if Vans can't achieve this goal, an individual builder could register an RV-12 as E-AB provided he can demonstrate to a DAR that he built as least 51% of the plane, and provided Vans offers the RV-12 as an E-AB kit. We need to sit tight while this matter is resolved and not panic...yet. There was an interesting article in one of the Oregon newspapers about how the FAA had bungled this process by not considering the impact on some of Oregon's aircraft revenue (Lancair and Epic). http://tinyurl.com/3a85ch The article states that the FAA may be taking an expedited look at this situation with the intent of clarifying things somewhat. But......we're talking about the FAA......... Sam Buchanan ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:30:59 PM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Death of the RV-12] I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory" and produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the business of selling kits. KABONG >From: Sam Buchanan >Date: 2008/03/07 Fri PM 09:14:08 CST >To: rv-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12] > >jhstarn@verizon.net wrote: >> >> Subject: Death of the RV-12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.